RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00097 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) with his wife as the designated beneficiary. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was divorced when he retired in June 2003. He enrolled his wife in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) when he married on 9 June 2007 but was not informed he could enroll in the SBP. He was not made aware this was possible until after their first anniversary. His wife never had an opportunity to decline SBP. He would have elected SBP at the time she was enrolled in the DEERS had he been made aware. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 June 2003, the applicant retired in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7). He was credited with 20 years, 5 months and 24 days of active duty service. Per 10 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(5)(B) an election must be written, signed by the person making the election, and received within one year after the date which that person marries. 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. The applicant was not married and declined SBP prior to his 1 January 2003 [sic] retirement. He married his current spouse on 9 June 2007 but failed to submit a valid election to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) of the change to his marital status and to request SBP coverage be established on his wife’s behalf within the first year of the marriage. The applicant’s claim that he was not informed of the opportunity to enroll in the SBP at the time he enrolled his wife in the DEERS is without merit. It is not the responsibility of the DEERS office to inform a member of their eligibility to enroll in the SBP. The Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel routinely contained articles to advise retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement. If the applicant had submitted an election within the first year of his marriage, monthly premiums would have been approximately $109 and SBP costs of about $8,720 would have been deducted from his pay to date. SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate during the opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage. Since the applicant failed to submit a valid election within the first year of the marriage, coverage for his spouse can only be provided if Congress authorizes another open enrollment period. Providing the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations and is not justified by the facts. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 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 OPR and adopt its rationale 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 or 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-2015-00097 in Executive Session on 18 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 January 2015. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 19 March 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 June 2015.