RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04506 COUNSEL: NONE (FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late spouse’s records be corrected to reflect that he made a timely election for spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The SBP election form her husband completed is a legal document and should not have any erasures or other markings on the form. She believes several sections of the form appear to have been altered. Her husband told her in the event of his death she would receive his pension and Social Security. At the time of the SBP briefing her English was not great. She was told to sign the form and she signed it, never knowing she was signing a document to forfeit receiving the pension. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Under the provisions of Public Law (PL) 99-145, the spouses of married services members had to be advised of the options and effects of the SBP, and be notified if the service member declined SBP coverage, or elected less than the maximum level of coverage. The spouse of a married service member must concur in any SBP election that did not provide the maximum level of coverage for the spouse. If the married service member declined spouse coverage at retirement, they may not provide SBP coverage for that spouse, or any spouse acquired following retirement, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. The service member and the applicant were married on 14 Mar 69. He declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Aug 95 retirement and the applicant concurred with the election. There is no evidence the service member submitted an SBP election on the applicant's behalf during two open enrollment periods following his retirement. The applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the election form was tampered with prior to or after the form was signed. Nor has she provided any evidence showing that she or the SBP counselor was unable to understand one another, or that she was pressured into signing the election. Furthermore, it is each retiree's responsibility to ensure the required actions are taken to provide their dependents with any military benefits and privileges available to them and pay the costs associated with those benefits. Also, it is each spouse’s responsibility to understand the impact of documents they sign. While it is unfortunate the service member failed to elect SBP coverage on the applicant's behalf three times, it would be inappropriate to provide an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage, an opportunity not afforded to other surviving spouses similarly situated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The evidence she has provided clearly shows the errors on the election form. A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 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 an error or an injustice. The applicant contends the election form they completed declining SBP coverage appears to have been altered; and she did not fully understand she was relinquishing her entitlement to the SBP due to her difficulty with the English language. We took notice of her complete submission, to include the rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice. Other than her own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence showing the election form was altered prior to or after they signed the form; she did not understand or was coerced into concurring with her spouse’s decision to decline SBP coverage. 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 material 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-2012-04506 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 7 Nov 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 12.