2.  The applicant requests correction of his military records by reimbursing him for SBP (Survivor Benefit Plan) premiums deducted for his spouse who died on 12 July 1980.  He states, that he elected immediate SBP coverage for his spouse in 1979 when he was notified of his eligibility for retired pay at age 60; that at the time of his retirement at in 1983 he elected SBP coverage for his adult daughter; that he did not discover until 1995 that the premiums deducted from his retired pay were for his original election of SBP for his spouse.  

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 8 August 1923.  He was a Reserve soldier.  He had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel.  

4.  Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that military members on active duty could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.

5.  On Public Law 95-397, effective 1 October 1978, extended eligibility for coverage under the SBP to members and former members of the Reserve Components (RC) had 20 or more years of qualifying service, but had not reached age 60, the age at which they would be eligible for retired pay.  
 
6.  Since the applicant had reached eligibility for retired pay prior to the enactment of the law, he was sent a letter in November 1978 which outlined the different options available concerning SBP for a reservist.  He elected Option C, to provide an immediate SBP annuity starting at the date regardless of the age at his death.  The applicant’s spouse died on 12 July 1980.  At the time of his application for retired pay in 1983, he executed a DA Form 4240, indicating that he was single and electing insurable interest SBP coverage for his nondisabled 27 year old daughter.  RC-SBP and SBP premiums have been deducted from applicant’s retired pay.  When the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) transferred retirees pay accounts from Indianapolis to Cleveland, the applicant received a retiree account statement and discovered that spouse SBP was in effect.  He wrote a letter in July 1995 informing DFAS that his spouse was dead.  When no response was received, he wrote again in December 1995 requesting a refund.  In February 1996, he was advised that refunds for premiums would only be refunded for 6 years and to apply to the SBP Board. 

7.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the SBP Board which advised that the applicant failed to notify the DFAS of his spouse’s death.  However, the DFAS failed to question the applicant concerning the insurable interest SBP election for his daughter in May 1983.  Therefore, the SBP Board recommended granting the applicant’s request in the interest of justice.  
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that in 1979 he elected 
RC-SBP participation for his spouse.  Since his spouse died in July 1980, the applicant should have advised the DFAS accordingly.  

2.  Shortly before reaching age 60 in 1983, the applicant executed a DA Form 4240 indicating that he was single and elected insurable interest SBP coverage for his daughter.  Since DFAS neither questioned the applicant’s marital status, nor advised him that he was ineligible to elect SBP for a non-dependent, non-disabled daughter, and since premiums were deducted from his retired pay, he presumed that his daughter was enrolled in the Plan.  

3.  When the retirees’ pay section was transferred from the DFAS in Indianapolis to the DFAS in Cleveland, the applicant received a retiree account statement and realized that he was paying RC-SBP and SBP premiums for his deceased spouse.  
4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be just to reimburse the applicant for the premiums deducted retroactively to May 1983.  

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by reimbursing the individual concerned for the premiums deducted from his retired pay retroactive to 24 May 1983, the date he executed a DA Form 4240 stating he was single and erroneously electing insurable interest SBP coverage for his daughter.  

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON