RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His monthly payments under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be terminated. 2. His SBP debt in the amount of $19,055.69 be terminated. 3. His monthly SBP interest payments in the amount of $92.80 be terminated. 4. He be reimbursed for paid premiums. 5. His records be corrected to reflect he was divorced in Jan 97. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03866, dated 21 Mar 12, awarding SBP coverage to his former spouse was processed without his knowledge. In this respect, he contends the following: 1. He never received a letter of notification regarding the previous BCMR case. 2. He never submitted a former spouse election within the first year following his divorce as the law requires. If a letter was sent by his former spouse within the “first” year following their divorce, why was there no follow-up for 16 years until now? 3. He has a right to stop paying future SBP annuity payments because his former spouse’s eligibility for SBP terminated following their divorce. 4. He should not be assessed a debt of $19,055.69 for someone else’s oversight or error. He is currently unemployed, on a fixed income and not financially able to pay over $700.00 a month for retroactive SBP premiums and interest. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial. DPFFF states the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) maintains correspondence addresses after members’ retirements. Until Apr 09, the applicant’s address in DFAS-CL’s files was 5561 48th Street, Sacramento, CA. In Apr 09, the applicant notified DFAS- CL his new address was 1907 Quail Valley East Drive, Missouri City, TX, the same address his former spouse listed as her address on her 30 Sep 11, BCMR application. Therefore, the two letters SAF/MRBR sent to the applicant, first advising him of his former spouse’s request for correction and subsequently confirming DPSIAR’s advisory opinion had been forwarded to SAF/MRBC and giving him 30 days to comment on the advisory, may not have been delivered or forwarded to the applicant. The applicant’s application reflects he resides at 2841 Mills Avenue NE, Washington, DC and that is the address he provided when he updated his Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records on 19 Jun 12. However, DPFFF opines, a former spouse’s right to apply for correction of a member’s record (10 USC 1552g) does not require the Services to inform the service member of the BCMR’s action when the Board approves enforcing a court document that awarded former spouse SBP coverage. The applicant claims a financial hardship caused by the debt for retroactive SBP premiums. He may submit a request for waiver of the debt by completing and sending a DD Form 2789, Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application to DFAS-CL. This is not to imply the debt would be waived. DPFFF states that there is no evidence of an Air Force error and they consider it to be appropriate to enforce the parties’ court-ordered agreement to continue SBP coverage on the former spouse’s behalf. The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Oct 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03966 in Executive Session on 7 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atch. Exhibit B. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 2 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12.