RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03461 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The automatic Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) deductions from her retirement pay be terminated and she be refunded the premiums paid. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to lack of proper counseling, she did not realize the high cost of the SBP premium she would be required to pay. She tried to find out the cost from the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) but no one could tell her what the cost would be. She was told she had to make an election now and that the premium would not cost much. She elected coverage for spouse and children. She had the legal right to receive SBP counseling from the nearest active duty base since she was being medically retired by the Air Force. When she received her retirement summary she tried to cancel the SBP coverage because her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) compensatory benefits depleted her retirement pay because she is not eligible for Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay (CRDP). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. According to documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard on 2 October 1989. 2. The applicant was processed by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in September 2011 for extreme depression, anxiety and a history of multiple medical issues. The MEB revealed that the applicant could not perform the duties commensurate with her current assignment due to numerous duty limitations. 3. On 17 October 2011, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) evaluated the applicant’s case and found Category I unfitting conditions of Depression with Anxiety Disorder with Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder and Conversion Disorder and Chrohn’s Disorder. The applicant also had a category II disorder of obstructive sleep apnea- controlled with CPAP. The IPEB’s recommended disposition was “Unfit – Awaiting DVA Ratings. 4. On 1 March 2012, the DVA completed a Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating Decision for the applicant’s unfit conditions. The DVA proposal for her total combined rating for unfitting and claimed service connected disabilities was 100 percent. 5. On 20 March 2012, the IPEB evaluated the applicant’s case with the proposed DVA ratings and concluded that the applicant’s medical conditions prevented her from reasonably performing her military duties and were not likely to change over the next several years. In accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) guidance for applying the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines, the IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended permanent retirement with a compensable disability rating of 80 percent, for Category I conditions: Depressive Disorder NOS, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder NOS, and Category II conditions: Obstructive sleep apnea controlled with CPAP, S/P Hysterectomy, Right Foot Tibial Neuralgia, and Left Foot Tibial Neuralgia. The Category II conditions did not affect the applicant’s ability to perform her duties and were not deemed unfitting for duty. 6. On 19 April 2012 the applicant completed a DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, electing spouse and children coverage based on full gross pay. 7. Effective 28 May 2012, the applicant was permanently, disability retired in the grade of Master Sergeant with a compensable percentage for physical disability of 80 percent. She was credited with 13 years, 11 months and 29 days of active service for retirement and 22 years, 07 months and 27 days of service for basic pay. 8. According to a message from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Retirement and Annuitant office; since the applicant was still within her first year of retirement her SBP election could be treated as an administrative error. They advised that the request for correction should go through the Air Force (AF) SBP program manager for authorization that the SBP election was the result of an administrative error and should be changed. 9. The AF SBP program manager responded that the request for correction should be turned over the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for administrative correction because they could not determine the facts of the applicant’s claim that she was not provided any SBP information from her National Guard unit. 10. Through NGB/A1PS, the 151 Force Support Squadron (FSS) Superintendent submitted a memorandum, dated 4 March 2013, which outlined the unit’s retirement processing procedures. Attached to the letter were local checklist, retirement briefing pamphlet, and a copy of the applicant’s signed DD Form 2656. NGB/A1PS states through an email message that they were able to verify that the applicant attended the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) briefing at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) Utah in October 2011. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting relief. After thoroughly reviewing the circumstances of this case, the Board notes that through no fault of the applicant it appears she may not have been afforded proper counseling before electing to participate in the SBP. We also note that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) stated that since the applicant was still within her first year of retirement her SBP election could be treated as an administrative error. As such, we believe that favorable consideration of the applicant’s request is warranted. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 19 April 2012, she declined Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage, and her spouse concurred with her decision. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03461: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 10 June 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.