RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02406 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he established Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his eligible spouse in July 2008. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During his 2008 SBP/Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) briefing, he and his spouse were given the impression that the two programs were one and the same. When they declined VGLI they had no idea that they were declining a separate program from SBP. They believed the programs were a part of one package. It was not until he attended a 2012 SBP/VGLI briefing for his spouse’s pending retirement that he clearly understood that they were two separate programs and realized he had made a mistake in 2008. He and his spouse definitely elected the 2012 SBP coverage because of the long term unquestionable benefits for family members left behind. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 17 June 1982 to 30 June 2008. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states each person attends a one-on-one SBP briefing given by an SBP counselor prior to their retirement and while SBP counselors present facts and explain the provisions of the program during pre-retirement counseling, members are ultimately responsible for making the election that best meets their particular situation. a. There is no indication the applicant was improperly counseled prior to his retirement. On 29 January 2008, the applicant elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay. However, on 6 March 2008, prior to his 1 July 2008 retirement, the SBP counselor at Langley AFB VA assisted the applicant in changing his election to decline SBP coverage and his spouse concurred with his election. b. A copy of the SBP Report of Individual Person (RIP) located in the applicant's records shows he signed the certification sheet on 29 January 2008, indicating he was properly briefed on the options and effects of the Plan. On 6 March 2008, the applicant exercised his right to change his SBP election prior to his retirement. Furthermore, his spouse's signature in section XII of the DO Form 2656, indicates her acknowledgement of the decision to decline SBP coverage and that she received information that explains the options available and effects of those options. c. 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. It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. In his response, the applicant reiterates his previous contentions and adds that because they felt the cost of the combined programs was too expensive they opted not to accept them. It was not until June 2012 during his spouse's one-on-one SBP and VGLI briefings at the Pentagon that they clearly learned that SBP and VGLI were not combined programs. 2. They initially walked into the retirement briefing with the intent to decline SBP and VGLI as they did in 2008. However, after the counselor presented them with a power point presentation that was clear and easy to follow, explained the difference between SBP and VGLI, and answered each of their questions they immediately realized their decision in 2008 to decline SBP for his spouse was a huge mistake. The briefings they had been provided were in no way the same and could not be compared. For them, it was truly eye opening and for the first time they understood the programs intent. 3. There is no doubt in his mind had he received the same briefing in 2008 that they received in June 2012 they would not have hesitated to accept his SBP coverage. He is fully prepared to pay back any and all associated premiums in order to have coverage for his spouse. He requests that the Board consider his integrity in this matter. This is the only evidence he has to submit. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 warranting corrective action. 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 neither the applicant nor his spouse submitted a valid election within the period required by law to establish spouse coverage. 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 this application in Executive Session on 13 March 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02406: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 23 May 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 19 July 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 August 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 August 2012.