RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02880 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased former spouse’s record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her husband never intended to have his SBP revoked, but wanted to remove his son as beneficiary and name his wife. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement and documents extracted from the service member’s military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The decedent and the applicant were married, had children and he elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 April 1974 retirement. The decedent’s first wife died on 15 December 2004. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records show the decedent married the current spouse on 20 May 2006. The decedent died on 20 December 2009. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states on 2 June 2009, the former member submitted a request to correct his records to remove his son as an SBP beneficiary because receipt of SBP payments (approximately $3,500 per month) would jeopardize his care under a State of Indiana contract. The request did not mention or imply he wished to provide SBP coverage for the applicant. On 25 August 2009, the AFBCMR authorized the former member’s records to be corrected to reflect he declined SBP coverage effective 1 April 1974. On 2 October 2009, DFAS paid the former member an SBP credit of $9,340.84 (gross) for the child only premiums deducted from his retired pay retroactive to 1 April 1974. The former member could have elected spouse and child coverage prior to his retirement, but he did not. He could have provided spouse coverage for his former deceased spouse during the three SBP open enrollments (1 October 1981 to 30 September 1982; 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993; and 1 March 1999 to 29 February 2000), but he did not. Since the member failed to elect SBP spouse coverage, he was not entitled to elect coverage on the applicant’s behalf within the first year following their marriage. However, he could have elected SBP spouse coverage for her during the open enrollment. Had he elected coverage during this opportunity he would have been required to pay a lump-sum buy-in of approximately $249,210 and lived for two full years from the date of the election. It is each member’s responsibility to ensure required actions are taken to provide family members those military benefits and privileges which are afforded to them. 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. Providing relief to the applicant based on the evidence presented is not justified and would provide an additional opportunity, after the fact, not afforded to other survivors. There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. The DPSIAR complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states her husband married his first wife and elected child only coverage because their son had to be institutionalized for medical reasons until 1998. He did not include his first wife on the SBP due to her failing health. She passed away in December 2004. She states that she and her husband were informed by personnel at Luke Air Force Base that the child only election that was previously made could not be changed – she could never be added as beneficiary. The applicant's complete response 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2010-02880 in Executive Session on 10 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02880 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 August 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 17 September 2010. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 November 2010. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 November 2010.