RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03740
			INDEX CODE:		 137.01, 137.04
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to show he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He remarried on 6 Sep 96, and when he obtained a military identification card for his wife he was not counseled on the SBP program.  The personnel advising him at the time he secured a military identification for his wife should have informed him of benefits available under the SBP.

In support of the request, the applicant provides a personal statement, and a copy of his Certificate of Marriage.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was not married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Aug 88 retirement.  He remarried on 7 Sep 96, but did not notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) of the change to his marital status to request SBP coverage be established on his wife’s behalf.

A member, who is unmarried at retirement, may elect coverage for the first spouse acquired after retiring.  However, the election must be made before the first anniversary of the marriage.  If a member fails to make an election before then, SBP coverage for that person or another person of that category may be elected only if Congress authorizes an open enrollment period.

Under the SBP program, the law authorized enrollment periods 1 Mar 99 to 29 Feb 00 and 1 Oct 05 to 30 Sep 06, for retired member to elect SBP coverage.  These open enrollments required higher monthly premiums or a lump-sum buy-in and both required the member to live for two full years from the effective date of the election.  Members were advised by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election.

The enrollment packets, as well as the Afterburner, news for Air Force Retired Personnel, published during those timeframes, were sent to the correspondence address each member had provided to DFAS and contained points of contact for them to use to gain additional information.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial.  DPSIAR indicates the Afterburner routinely contained articles to advise retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement, and these newsletters were mailed to the applicant.  

Neither of the open enrollments contained provisions for waiving or extending the one-year period authorized to participate.

SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate during the opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.  Providing the applicant additional time to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations, and is not justified by the facts.

The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Dec 08, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-03740 in Executive Session on 23 Jun 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            XXXXXXXXXX, Chair
	            XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	            XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 08, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 7 Nov 08.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Dec 08.