APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of her military records by disenrolling her from SBP (Survivor Benefit Plan).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was misinformed during out processing for retirement, she though that she was signing something else.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military  records show:

The applicant was born on 9 June 1955.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1973 and through subsequent reenlistments remained on active duty until her retirement on 1 July 1994.  On 8 July 1994, the applicant elected SBP participation for “spouse and child” coverage.  Since her SBP election was not made prior to date of retirement, the law requires “automatic” coverage full base amount, which should have been implemented by Defense Finance and Accounting-Indianapolis (DFAS-IN).  On 22 May 1996, the “spouse and child” election was somehow changed to “child only” coverage.  There is no evidence of spousal concurrence.  (Suspension of the spouse portion of her election should not have occurred without Board approval).

On 19 June 1995, the applicant appealed to this Board for correction of her military record.

Military members on active duty on or after 21 September 1972 were to submit forms electing the coverage desired, or electing not to participate, prior to retirement or becoming eligible for retired pay.  If, upon becoming eligible for retired pay, a signed declination or election of reduced coverage had not been submitted, the member would be automatically enrolled in the SBP with full coverage for the spouse.  The election made was irrevocable.

In those cases where the member elected not to participate in the SBP, to participate at less than the maximum coverage, or to exclude the spouse by designating children only as beneficiaries, it was required that the spouse was to be made aware of the member's decision and of the implications of that decision as it affected the spouse's future welfare.  
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from SBP Board which recommended, that the applicant’s request be denied.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The evidence of record shows that after her retirement, the applicant elected to participate in the SBP for spouse and child.  If the applicant had not made an election “automatic” coverage would have gone into effect for her spouse.  On 22 May 1996, the “spouse and child” election was somehow changed to “child only” coverage.  However, there is no evidence of spousal concurrence.  The law requires that the spouse be made aware of the member's decision and of the implications of that decision as it affects the spouse's future welfare.  (Suspension of the spouse portion of her election should not have occurred without Board approval).

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence which would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 

4.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there exists no basis for granting the applicant’s request.  

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director