RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03177

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

She be authorized to receive Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) benefits based upon her deceased husband’s military service. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

Her husband, the former member, applied for SBP coverage in 2006.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Jan 57.

On 31 Jan 77, the former member retired after serving 20 years and 13 days of total active service.   

According to the documentation provided by the applicant:

	a.  On 27 Nov 82, the applicant and the former member were married. 

b.  On 22 Jan 15, the former member passed away.  

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 C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  A member who is married at retirement and fails to provide coverage for an eligible spouse, may not provide coverage in the future, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period.  Survivors of military retirees may only receive a portion of the sponsor’s retired pay if the member was a participant in the SBP.  The law contains no automatic enrollment provision for a spouse acquired after retirement unless spouse coverage had been previously elected, then suspended, due to the death or divorce of the previous spouse.  The SBP is similar to a commercial insurance program in that it requires the member to enroll and pay associated premiums in order to provide an annuity to survivors.

The former member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Feb 77 retirement.  Although he declined SBP coverage for his first wife, he could have elected SBP coverage on behalf of his current spouse during three open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws 101-189 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93), 105-261 (1 Mar 99 - 29 Feb 00) and 108-375 (1 Oct 05 - 30 Sep 06), but he failed to do so.  During each enrollment period, members were advised by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election.  The enrollment packets, as well as the Afterburner, USAF News for Retired Personnel, published during those timeframes, were sent to the correspondence address members had provided the finance center and contained points of contact for retirees to use to gain additional information.  It would be inequitable to those members, who chose to participate when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, and to other widows, whose sponsors chose not to participate, to provide entitlement to the petitioner based on the facts of this case.  The applicant’s contention is without merit.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of her request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation.  The rebuttal contends at the time of her husband’s retirement, he was divorced from his first wife, and the applicant submits a copy of a divorce decree to that effect.  In addition, in the last few years of her husband’s life he was unable to follow-up due to stroke and health issues.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

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, to include her rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPFFF 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.

THE BOARD DETERMINES:

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-2015-03177 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 18 Apr 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 16. 

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.