RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02320
		INDEX CODE:137.00

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s records be corrected to reflect that he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her late husband told her not to worry about monetary funds, as his retirement would take care of her when he was no longer able to or if he passed away.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to his 1 June 1974 retirement, the servicemember elected child only SBP coverage.  The servicemember’s marital status at the time of his retirement could not be verified.  The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect his was previously married to C.  His youngest child lost eligibility in June 1984.  The servicemember married D. on 4 September 1992.  There is no indication in his records that he notified the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) of the change in his marital status, nor did he request SBP coverage be established on his new spouse.  The servicemember died on 7 October 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR states had the servicemember elected to add C. to his coverage at the time of his retirement or within the first year of their marriage, spouse coverage would have been suspended following the loss of C.’s eligibility and the spouse coverage could have been reestablished after being married for one year to D.  Furthermore, the servicemember had two opportunities to elect coverage on the applicant’s behalf during the 1992-1993 and 1999-2000 open enrollment periods.  Notwithstanding the servicemember’s 19 May 2003 letter to DFAS requesting his address be updated to reflect a ten-year old new mailing address, he failed to properly advise DFAS of the change and his records reflected the Sycamore Road address as early as November 1993, as well as at the time of his death.  SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the required premiums in order to be covered.  DPPTR further states to approve this request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded to other retired servicemembers similarly situated.

AFPC/DPPTR finds no evidence of error or injustice and therefore, recommends the requested relief be denied (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 September 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  If the servicemember had elected SBP spouse coverage at the time of his retirement, or within the first year of his marriage to C., the spouse coverage would have been suspended at the termination of that marriage, thus allowing him to reestablish spouse coverage for the applicant at the end of their first year of marriage.  Further, the Board notes the servicemember was afforded the opportunity to enroll in SBP during two authorized open enrollments, but failed to do so.  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 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-2004-02320 in Executive Session on 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 27 Aug 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.