RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00692 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he changed his child only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election to reflect his spouse as his beneficiary. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He simultaneously submitted a change to designate his spouse as his Arrears of Pay (AOP) and SBP beneficiary after they were married on 9 November 2012. However in November 2013 he discovered the change never took place. He was told that since it was not too late afterwards it should go through. He checked again in February 2014 and there was still no change. Although, he forwarded his request around late November, he was told that it was not received until January 2014. As a result, his change of SBP beneficiary request was denied due to an untimely submission. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial. Prior to the applicant’s retirement on 1 September 2000, he was not married and he elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay. According to the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records the applicant married on 4 September 2004; however, he failed to submit a valid SBP election within the first year of their marriage. His spouse died on 17 November 2006. The applicant remarried on 9 November 2012, and on 6 January 2014, DFAS-CL received a request to add her to his child only coverage. The request was not honored since the applicant failed to submit a valid election for spouse coverage before the first anniversary of his first marriage. Coverage for his current spouse can only be provided if Congress authorized another open enrollment. Had the applicant submitted an election within the first year of his marriage to his first spouse, SBP premiums would have been deducted until her death. Premiums would have been suspended and then reinstated on the first anniversary of his marriage to his current spouse. A member must elect to participate during the opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage. There is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice in this case and providing this applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations, which is not justified by the facts. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-00692 in Executive Session on 16 March 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Vice Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 February 2014, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 15 May 2014. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 September 2014.