RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01759 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he elected spouse only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He needs to change his SBP beneficiary to his current spouse. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his marriage license. 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 attached at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial. A member, who is unmarried at retirement, may elect coverage for a 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. The applicant was unmarried prior to attaining age 60 and elected to decline SBP coverage. On 20 May 99, his retired pay commenced. On 29 Mar 00, the applicant and his spouse were married; however, he failed to submit a valid election within the first year of their marriage. The “Afterburner”, routinely contained articles to advise retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement and until Aug 06, when the loss of funding prevented hard copies from being produced. The newsletters were mailed to the correspondence address the applicant provided the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL). Had he submitted an election within the first year of his marriage, monthly premiums would have been approximately $65.00 and SBP costs exceeding $8,000.00 would have been deducted from his pay to date. He later had an opportunity to obtain additional information about the plan and to elect coverage for his spouse during the 2005-2006 open enrollment period, but failed to do so. Public Law 108-375, which authorized the most recent open enrollment period, contained no provision for waiving or extending the one-year period authorized to participate. If the applicant had submitted an election during the 2005- 2006 opportunity, he would have been required to pay a lump-sum buy-in of approximately $13,585.00 within 24 months, plus the normal monthly premiums to provide SBP coverage for his spouse. 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. DPFFF states that there is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice. The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the recommendation to deny his request. In 2000, he and his spouse traveled to Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas and talked to a man about requesting SBP coverage for his spouse in the event he died. The man informed him that there were certain days during the year he could sign-up; since he did not know what days they were, he stated that he would find out and let them know. They never heard back from him. His health began to fail; he had heart and gall bladder surgery; suffers with bronchitis two or three times a year; and has a defibrillator inserted in his right side. On 1 Dec 08, he blacked out and ran off the road travelling 68 miles per hour and suffered lower brain damage. He is weak most days and has used a walker for the past four and a half years. He came out of high school; joined the Air Force and proudly served his country. His spouse deserves to be able to make the house payment, pay the utility bills, buy food, and gas in the event he is no longer around. The applicant’s complete submission is at 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 an 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-2013-01759 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Vice Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01759 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 13. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 7 Jun 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated. 1 2