RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02466
		INDEX CODE:  137.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His spouse be added to his Survivor’s Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He retired in 1999 as an unmarried E-8 with two children under the age of 18, which were enrolled in the SBP program.  He was not briefed at the time of his retirement of the requirement to add his spouse within the specified time limitation.

In support of his request applicant provided his marriage license and letters associated with his request to enroll his spouse in the SBP program.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPPTR states that his claim that he was not properly briefed cannot be confirmed or denied.  He failed to submit a valid request as permitted by law.  When he wrote his letter to the finance center he did not inquire or request additional information about extending SBP coverage to his spouse.  His option to provide SBP coverage within the first year of marriage remained executable until 31 Dec 00.  He could have submitted an election during the 1999 to 2000 open enrollment, but did not.  He was asked to provide a statement to show his willingness to repay back premiums if his application were approved, but he has not responded to their request.  It would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law as well as inequitable to grant this application (see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and provided a statement that he is willing to pay back premiums if his request is approved.  He asks the Board to consider the number of years since his retirement briefing and his confusion on obtaining coverage for his spouse.

In further support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  This Board’s power is limited to what is allowed by the existing law.  In this respect, the law governing the SBP provides that a member who is unmarried at the time of his retirement may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse.  However, the election must be made before the first anniversary of the marriage.  The first anniversary of his marriage was 31 December 2000.  We see no evidence which would lead us to believe that he made any attempt to provide SBP coverage for his spouse until July 2001.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 probable 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 Docket Number 01-02466 in Executive Session on 19 Feb02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 29 Oct 01.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01, w/atch.