RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04940 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to elect Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his family. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he retired in 1994 he declined to participate in SBP. He was recalled to active duty from 2001-2006 and 2010-2014. While out processing for retirement the SBP counselor told him he was eligible for SBP. He elected to enroll in SBP. However, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) denied his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Sep 77. On 7 Sep 14, the applicant was released from active duty and retired on 8 Sep 14 and was credited with 26 years and 22 day of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Service members who are married at the time of first being eligible to provide SBP coverage, but declines to participate, may not later elect coverage for that spouse or any future spouse, unless an authorized enrollment period is authorized by Congress. Retirees recalled to active duty status after retirement are not eligible to make a new SBP election when they revert to retired status. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) reflects the applicant was married to N. with eligible dependent children, and declined to elect SBP coverage prior to his 1 Sep 94 retirement. The parties divorced on 25 Aug 98, and he married R. on 31 Dec 02. The applicant was recalled to active duty on 27 Aug 01 to 30 Sep 06. The applicant reverted back to retired status on 1 Oct 06 and his election to decline SBP coverage remained in effect. The applicant was again recalled to active duty on 8 Sep 10, however, during this period his wife (R.) was covered by the active duty death provision. The SBP counselor at Ramstein AB erroneously allowed the applicant to complete the necessary paperwork to elect full spouse and child SBP coverage. However, DFAS did not honor the applicant’s SBP election. The applicant retired on 8 Sep 14, and his previous SBP election made prior to retiring resumed. SBP elections are not voided by recall to active duty. Although the applicant was provided erroneous information and allowed to complete an election prior to reverting to retire status, does not negate the fact he declined to participate in SBP prior to his retirement; therefore, his election cannot be arbitrarily changed after retirement unless and open enrollment period is authorized by Congress. Congress authorized an open enrollment from 1 Oct 05 to 30 Sep 06 for retired members who were not participating at the fullest extent and non-participants to increase or elect coverage; however, the applicant was not eligible to make an election while on active duty. Had the applicant died while on active duty, an annuity would have been paid based on his SBP election or under the active duty death provision, whichever was more favorable to his survivors. To provide relief of this claim would be inequitable to those who were similarly situated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Mar 15 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 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; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) 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. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-04940 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member Although chaired the panel, in view of her unavailability, due to retirement, has signed as Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014- 04940 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 10 Feb 15, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 15. 4 5