ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03646 (DECEASED COUNSEL: SERVICE MBR) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late former spouse’s records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 17 June 2013. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with Exhibits, at Exhibit D. On 15 August 2013, the applicant’s counsel requests reconsideration for former spouse coverage under the SBP. Counsel cites he submitted a request on 10 February 1988 for the applicant to receive benefits as outlined in her Separation Agreement. Counsel states in March 1988, they were notified by the Judge Advocates office that the applicant was entitled and would receive payments under the Uniformed Service Former Spouses’ Protection Act; and in fact she did receive payments until the former service member’s death in 2012. To state the applicant is not eligible for former spouse coverage because she failed to properly file for coverage is an injustice. The Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, we find the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. As the applicant has been previously advised, reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was submitted. Further, the reiteration of facts we have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of new and relevant evidence, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03646 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Jul 13, w/Exhibits. Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Aug 13, w/atchs.