RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01785 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her former spouse records be changed to show that he elected 
former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) 
program. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She and her former spouse were married for over 20 years. It was 
her understanding that his attorney was to submit the paperwork 
naming her as the SBP beneficiary. Her name is not listed in the 
Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) records. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her 
Judgment of Absolute Divorce decree and certification. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 18 Apr 87, the parties were married. The former service 
member elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full 
retired pay, prior to his 1 Jun 00 retirement. On 29 Jun 06, the 
parties divorced and the divorce decree reflects the applicant 
receive one-half of the marital portion of the member’s military 
retirement and any other benefits to which she is entitled under 
the law; however, does not specifically refer to the SBP. 

 

There is no evidence a valid election to voluntarily change 
spouse to former spouse was submitted within the first year 
following the divorce as required by law. 

 

SBP premiums continue to be deducted from the former service 
member’s retired pay and the applicant’s name and date of birth 
are erroneously reflected as the eligible “spouse” beneficiary in 
DFAS-Cleveland records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIDR states there is no 
evidence of Air Force error or injustice. DPSIAR notes the 
applicant’s claim that former spouse SBP coverage should have 
been established on her behalf is not supported by the language 
of the divorce decree. DPSIAR states the applicant has not 
provided a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QDRO) with language 
that would entitle her to former spouse SBP coverage. The law 
states legal documentation that reflects the member agreed or 
that the court ordered the member to establish former spouse 
coverage must be provided. 

 

The complete DPSIDR 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 1 Jul 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 their 
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. 
However, if the applicant provides a certified copy of the 
Qualified Domestic Relation Order which contains the appropriate 
language, we would be willing to reconsider her request. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 


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 this application in 
Executive Session on 22 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 
 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-01785: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 17 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 11.