APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) election be changed from “child only” to “spouse and child”.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that in 1970, he completed RSFPP election form; that he did not list his wife as the beneficiary instead he elected “child only” coverage and that he did not discover the mistake until April 1995.

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

The applicant was a member of the Army Reserve.  The applicant was married with children.  On 7 October 1966, the applicant elected to participate in the RSFPP for “children only”.  On 1 September 1970, the applicant retired.  On 
18 September 1970, the applicant again indicated that his three beneficiaries were his children.

The applicant claims that he did not discover that his spouse was not covered under the RSFPP until sometime in April 1995.

On 27 December 1995, the applicant filed an appeal to this Board for correction of his military records.

Beginning October 1972, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service mailed each retiree elections forms and a letter of instruction.  The Army Echoes, issued bi-monthly thereafter, continued with special items on the RSFPP and SBP.  In July 1973 and, again, in November 1973, the Retired Pay Division sent each retiree, who had not elected to participate in the Plan, a card with notice of the deadline for election and instructions on how forms could be obtained for submission.

Open Enrollment Periods allowed retirees who had not previously elected to participate in the SBP an opportunity to do so.  Literature and election certificates were provided to all retirees who had not previously elected SBP participation.  The amount of information on survivor plans intensified during each of the three Open Enrollment Periods, 1972, 1981, and 1992. 

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the 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.  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.  
2.  The applicant alleges that he was not aware that his spouse was not listed as his beneficiary until April 1995. The available evidence of record shows that in 1966 and 1970, the applicant elected RSFPP for “children only” coverage, excluding his spouse from RSFPP coverage.  The available records also show that the applicant had numerous opportunities to correct this error even if he says he was not aware of the error.  The applicant received numerous articles in the Army Echoes on both RSFPP and SBP over the years.  The amount of information on survivor plans intensified during each of the three Open Enrollment Periods, 1972, 1981 and 1992, and it is reasonable to expect that during those time periods or as a result of any Echoes articles, the applicant would examine his participation.  Further, in 1984, RSFPP child costs were suspended for the applicant when his youngest child lost eligibility after graduating from college.  The applicant’s RSFPP participation which excluded his spouse would have definitely come to his attention and that would have been in the 1983-84 time-frame. 

3.  There is no apparent government administrative error in this case, nor has an injustice been served since the RSFPP protection paid for was appropriately received by his eligible children.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor convincing argument in support of his request.

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