RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00677 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to establish spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for his current spouse. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He did not trust his former spouse, at the time of his retirement, to financially take care of his daughter and therefore elected his daughter as the SBP beneficiary for her protection until she reached the age of 22. He does not remember being advised at retirement that his choice would affect any future decisions if he remarries. He does not have any other insurance or income that could support his current spouse and would like to be assured that he can leave her with some financial stability in the event of his death. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired on 1 July 1994 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). On 1 June 1994, the applicant initiated a DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, indicating he was married and electing children only SBP coverage based on full gross retired pay. His spouse concurred with his election. 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 Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect the applicant and his former spouse were married on 5 January 1974. There is no indication in any retired pay system reflecting spouse SBP premiums were ever deducted from the applicant’s retired pay, because he elected child only SBP. The applicant’s youngest child lost SBP eligibility coverage due to age and the SBP premiums were suspended on 1 July 2005. The DEERS records reflect the applicant and his former spouse divorced on 2 July 2014, and he remarried on 2 August 2014. In accordance with Title 10 United States Code, Section 1448A, a member, who is married at retirement and declines spouse coverage under the SBP, may not provide coverage for that spouse or any future spouse, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. In addition, the spouse of a member retiring, on or after 1 March 1986, is required to concur in SBP elections that provide less than maximum spouse coverage. Furthermore, there is no automatic enrollment provision for a spouse acquired after retirement unless spouse coverage had been previously elected, then suspended due to the death or divorce of the previous spouse. It was the applicant’s responsibility to elect the SBP coverage that best suited his family at the time of his retirement. Also, there is no indication the applicant was improperly counseled prior to his retirement and he made a valid SBP election with his former spouse’s concurrence. 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. It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, as well as, in this case provide an additional opportunity for the applicant to change his SBP election. 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 9 September 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. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely. 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 (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. 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-2015-00677 in Executive Session on 18 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00677 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 February 2015. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 10 June 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 September 2015.