RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00534 COUNSEL: YES HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouse’s records be corrected to reflect the following: a.  She was listed as the beneficiary on his Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI). b.  She was maintained under term life insurance coverage. c.  She had former spouse’s coverage under his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her former spouse, pursuant to a court order, was to list and maintain her as a beneficiary on his VGLI, maintain term life insurance for her, and deem an election for SBP coverage on her behalf. However, she discovered that her former spouse did not adhere to the court order. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Data extracted from the Air Force advisory shows the member retired on 1 November 1993. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits B and C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial of the applicant’s request to deem herself as an eligible beneficiary under SBP. The applicant and the member were married on 8 June 1973. Prior to the member’s retirement, he elected spouse and child SBP coverage. The parties divorced on 2 August 1995. There is no evidence the member submitted a valid election to voluntarily change his spouse to former spouse SBP coverage within the first year following their divorce as the law requires. Premiums for the spouse’s portion of the SBP coverage continued to be deducted from the member’s retired pay until the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) retroactively suspended spouse coverage. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records show the member married on 16 May 2009, but he did not notify the DFAS-CL of the change in his marital status or request spouse coverage be established on his new wife’s behalf. Even though he failed to notify DFAS-CL of the divorce and continued to pay SBP premiums afterwards, the former spouse would not be eligible for annuity payments upon the member’s death. Nevertheless, his new wife became the eligible SBP beneficiary by operation of the law on the first anniversary of their marriage. In this case, the applicant did not submit any documentation that would deem her entitled to former spouse SBP coverage and there is no evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPFC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have her former spouse’s records reflect her as a beneficiary of his VGLI. The applicant should present this matter to the court with jurisdiction in civil matters. In this case, the applicant’s former spouse has VGLI coverage; however, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the designated beneficiary was not disclosed. The Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (OSGLI) advised that they are not bound by a state court decree, separation agreement or other state or municipal court documents. Should the BCMR accept this case and not redirect the applicant to the court with jurisdiction, OSGLI does not have the authority to change the beneficiary designation to the applicant, thereby leaving this matter unresolved. Under the VGLI program, the former member has the absolute right to maintain or drop coverage and name or change beneficiaries at any time under federal law. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFC evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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-2014-00534 in Executive Session on 16 March 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Vice Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 January 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 22 May 2014. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFC, dated 2 June 2014. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2014.