RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02452
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he elected Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In March 1987, during his retirement briefing at the Hill AFB, UT Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO), he was informed that it would be beneficial for him to designate his daughter (L--- A--- D---, his youngest dependent) as the beneficiary for the SBP.  He was not informed at that time that when L--- turned 21 or 22 years old that the SBP would completely stop and that his wife would not be eligible to receive any pay and allowances upon his death.  Had he been properly informed he would not have chosen L--- as the beneficiary and would have chosen his wife D--- at the time of the retirement processing.  He was not informed by anyone of this cutoff and this fact went unnoticed until he recently received a revised retirement pay statement indicating the SBP deduction had stopped.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and D--- were married and finance records indicate he elected child only SBP coverage based on full-retired pay prior to his 1 April 1987 retirement.  His wife concurred in his election as required by law.  His monthly premium for child coverage was approximately $10; in contrast, costs for spouse and child coverage would have been approximately $120 per month.  The youngest child lost eligibility and premiums were suspended effective 1 July 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states even though the applicant claims he was informed that his child only SBP coverage would be suspended after the youngest child lost eligibility, he had the choice to and could have elected SBP coverage for his wife when he retired, or during the 92-93 or 99-00 open enrollment periods.  It was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to make the SBP election that provided the level of protection best suited his family’s individual circumstances.  Had he elected spouse coverage when he retired, he would have paid approximately $20,600 in SBP spouse premiums to date.  SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate during the opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.  It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for his member to change his SBP election.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that based on reading AFPC/DPPTR’s letter dated 9 September 2004, he feels it is necessary to add clarification to his previous letter submitted with the original request for correction.  

Had he been aware the SBP payment and eligibility would stop after his daughter turned 21/22 he would have taken full advantage of the open enrollment periods (1992/1993 and 1999/2000) referenced in the background paragraph of the subject letter.  He was not aware of the stop in SBP until the June/July 2004 time frame.

As he previously stated, he understands that if the correction is made he will be required to pay the new monthly amount plus an amount to be determined to make up the difference since his retirement.  He fully accepts those requirements.

He agrees that it was his responsibility to make the right decision at the time of his retirement but he also believes it is the responsibility of the USAF to ensure that the retiree is provided all of the correct and pertinent information necessary to make that choice.  It is his belief that he was not provided all of the correct and pertinent information and briefings from the Hill AFB CBPO to do that.  If he had, he would not have elected to have the SBP designated to his daughter instead of his wife.  It is important to him and his family that if he should predecease his wife she has supplemental income necessary to maintain a normal standard of living.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Applicant has failed to provide evidence that he was miscounseled or not provided sufficient counseling concerning his SBP election.  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 this application in Executive Session on 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02452 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 9 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Oct 04.