RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02898 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to establish Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement in February 1988, he was told his spouse and youngest son were covered under the SBP. In May 2010, he was notified he had no SBP. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who retired effective 1 February 1988 in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). Prior to his retirement, he elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay and his spouse concurred with his election. His youngest child lost eligibility due to age, and, SBP premiums ceased effective 1 September 2003. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluation provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states there is no error or injustice in this case. The applicant’s claim that when he retired he was told his spouse and youngest son were covered under the SBP is without merit. He made a valid election for child only coverage with his wife’s concurrence prior to his retirement. There is no evidence he submitted a valid election during the 1992-1993, 1999-2000, or 2005-2006 open enrollment periods. His youngest child lost eligibility due to age and SBP premiums ceased effective 1 September 2003. The applicant offers no explanation for failing to question or take corrective action during the seven years he was not paying SBP premiums. He had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife. It is unreasonable for him to have assumed he had SBP coverage for his wife, particularly during the 2005-2006 open enrollment, after SBP premiums had ceased being deducted from his retired pay in 2003. At the time the applicant’s last child lost eligibility, SBP premiums were $17; if he had spouse coverage, the monthly costs would have been approximately $180. It is DPSIAR’s opinion that approval of this request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is not justified. The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 November 2010 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02898 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02898: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 15 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10.