RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05370 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his current spouse as his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) beneficiary, instead of his former spouse. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told that when he married his current wife, she would automatically be added to his SBP election. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Mar 88, the applicant retired from active duty. According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 29 Dec 98, he married his current spouse. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect the applicant and his former spouse were married on 9 Nov 85, but his retired pay records reflect he elected “child only” SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Mar 88 retirement. Finance records also show that the spouse’s concurrence was received. There is no record of any spouse SBP premiums ever being deducted from the applicant’s retired pay. Additionally, there is no evidence the applicant submitted an open enrollment election to provide SBP coverage for his current spouse during the two opportunities authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 105-261 (1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00) or PL 108-375 (1 Oct 05 – 30 Sep 06). The applicant’s youngest child lost eligibility due to age and SBP premiums were suspended on 1 Jul 09. Absent irrefutable evidence that the applicant was not legally married on 1 Mar 88, or proof spouse SBP premiums were deducted from his retired pay until his divorce from his former spouse, the applicant’s claim is without merit. A member, who declines spouse coverage at retirement, may not provide coverage for that spouse or any future spouse, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. The law contains no automatic enrollment provision for a spouse acquired after retirement unless spouse coverage had been previously elected, then suspended due to death or divorce of the previous spouse. The complete DPFFF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2013-05370 in Executive Session on 22 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 29 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 14.