RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01705 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be designated as beneficiary for “former spouse” coverage under the decedent’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was awarded SBP as part of a divorce decree. She went to Fort Leavenworth to sign paperwork for SBP coverage and was never notified of a change to the beneficiary. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to a Decree of Divorce issued in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, submitted by the applicant, she and the decedent were married on 31 May 1967 and the parties divorced on 16 February 2000. Furthermore, it was determined she qualified under 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1447-1455, the Survivor Benefit Plan, and was the decedent’s elected beneficiary. According to a Decree of Divorce issued in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, submitted by the applicant, she remarried on 20 April 2000 and the parties divorced on 12 May 2004. According to a Certificate of Death issued by Olongapo City, submitted by the applicant, the decedent died on 7 April 2014. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF indicates that based upon AFBCMR guidance, dated 18 March 2004, they are forwarding this request without a recommendation because it involves two potential SBP beneficiaries. In this case, the decedent elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 May 1991 retirement. However, the parties divorced on 16 February 2000 and there is no evidence either party submitted a valid former spouse election during the first year following their divorce. Furthermore, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records show the decedent remarried on 3 May 2001 and on 8 June 2007, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) received his request to change his SBP spouse coverage to his current spouse. DFAS complied with his request and updated his records to reflect his current spouse as the eligible beneficiary. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She was married to the decedent for 32 years. She followed him around the world and it was an honor and privilege to be a military family. She was granted SBP by the court and argues that she filed the election form as instructed. She had no reason to believe the form would not be properly processed. She is currently living with her daughter; however, they are both disabled and have limited income. The applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 timely filed. 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, to include her rebuttal response; however, the applicant’s only recourse is to return to a court of law to have the issue decided. The applicant has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist as required for this Board to grant relief in cases of competing SBP beneficiaries. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case. While we note the applicant contends that the divorce decree awarded her continued coverage under SBP, neither she nor the former member made a deemed election within one year as required by law. Since it appears the former service member’s current spouse gained entitlement to the benefit by operation of law, and there has been no showing of extraordinary circumstances, we are precluded from granting the applicant the SBP benefit. Absent the current spouse relinquishing her entitlement, we find no basis to grant the applicant’s request. 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-2014-01705 in Executive Session on 6 May 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Vice Chair Member Member Due to the retirement of the Vice Chair, XXXX has agreed to sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 April 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 18 June 2014. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 September 2014. Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 October 2014, w/atchs.