RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03524 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be changed back to child only coverage instead of spouse and child coverage. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 8 Jul 14, he changed his child only SBP coverage to spouse and child coverage. Consequently, he received a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) dated 18 Jul 14, stating he had to pay $3,842.88 for undercharged SBP premiums. On 6 Aug 14, he requested his SBP be changed back to child only coverage; however, his 29 Aug 14 Retiree Account Statement (RAS) reflects spouse and child coverage and a debt for SBP. He was unable to resolve the issue with DFAS and was advised to submit an application to the AFBCMR. In support of his request, he provides copies of DD Forms 2656- 6, Survivor Benefit Plan Election Change Certificate; RAS and a letter from DFAS dated 18 Jul 14. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Nov 06, the applicant retired in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). ? The applicant provides signed, notarized affidavits from him and his spouse dated 18 Apr 15 (Exhibit F). His affidavit states he is currently married, the date of marriage is 23 Sep 10 and that his current spouse has completed a release of benefits. Her affidavit reflects she initialed Item 5, “Having been fully advised of my right to SBP benefits, I hereby relinquish any competing interest I may have in the aforesaid benefits in favor of my spouse’s former spouse, as identified in #3 above.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial as there is no evidence of an error or injustice. However, if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that on 22 Sep 11, he elected not to resume SBP spouse coverage. Approval should be contingent upon obtaining a notarized statement from his spouse concurring in the permanent revocation of the SBP coverage in effect on her behalf since 23 Sep 11. As background, SBP spouse coverage is basically irrevocable as long as there is an eligible beneficiary, but is suspended when the spouse loses eligibility. Public Law (PL) 99-145 allows a participant, with suspended spouse coverage, to elect not to resume coverage for a subsequently acquired spouse. However, the new spouse will be automatically covered at the previous level on the first anniversary of the marriage if the member takes no action before that date. Premiums for the coverage become effective the first day of the thirteenth month and DFAS- CL will compute the retroactive costs when evidence of the remarriage becomes a matter of record. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records show the applicant requested spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Nov 06 retirement. He was divorced on 7 Sep 10 and the spouse coverage was suspended. He then married his current spouse on 23 Sep 10 but failed to inform DFAS-CL that he did not want to extend SBP coverage to her before the first anniversary of their marriage. On 8 Jul 14, DFAS-CL received the DD Form 2656-6 and a copy of the marriage certificate requesting to resume spouse coverage. Upon learning of his remarriage, DFAS reinstated the spouse coverage retroactive to 23 Sep 11 (first anniversary of their marriage), monthly premiums began to be deducted from his retired pay as required by law and the retroactive SBP premium debt (approximately $3,842) began to be recovered. The implementing SBP statute ensured that qualified spouses are afforded the protection of the SBP regardless of the participant’s failure or delay in notifying DFAS of their marriage. This automatic feature of the SBP was adjusted by PL 99-145, but requires a participant to take the appropriate action to prevent coverage from being re-established. It is unfortunate that the applicant failed to notify DFAS in a timely manner of his marriage, in order to preclude a debt or to deny SBP coverage for her. Retired members are personally responsible to ensure they obtain or exempt their dependents’ eligibility for military benefits. Participants should contact DFAS-CL immediately upon gaining or losing a potential SBP beneficiary to determine their options. In the event the applicant had died, his spouse would have been entitled to receive SBP payments of approximately $1,027 per month after the retroactive SBP premium debt had been satisfied. To provide the applicant an additional opportunity to not resume SBP spouse coverage would be inequitable to other military members in similar situations and is not justified by the facts. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 5 Mar 15, he states his spouse provided a letter relinquishing the SBP benefit. The applicant’s complete 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 timely filed. 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, to include the affidavit from the applicant’s spouse agreeing to relinquish the SBP benefit; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error of injustice. 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-2014-03524 in Executive Session on 12 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Affidavits, Applicant, dated 18 Apr 15.