APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, disenrollment from SBP (Survivor Benefit Plan) participation.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was advised at the “last moment” that he had to attend a retirement briefing.  The lack of notice on that briefing did not allow for him to have his wife attend the briefing.  He was given incorrect information concerning the SBP and made an improper election which cost him approximately $500.00.  His wife is a federal government employee and believes that the SBP will not benefit her if the applicant dies.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 1981 with no prior service.  On 20 July 1995, in conjunction with his processing for placement on the retired list, he executed a DD Form 2656 electing coverage for his spouse and children based on his full gross pay without any supplemental coverage.  He was placed on the Retired List, rated 30 percent disabled, on 24 August 1995 in pay grade E-5.  He had 14 years and 5 months of active duty.

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.  The election made by the soldier was irrevocable.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Army Retirement Services (ARS) which advised that the applicant was properly counseled on the SBP and that his wife’s concurrance was not necessary since he elected full coverage.  The ARS continues that the applicant’s later determination that commercial insurance would be more advantageous than the SBP is of no consequence, that he was advised that his election was irrevokable.  In the processing of this case the staff of the board contacted the ARS and determined that as a part of the SBP counseling, a soldier who is retiring is told exactly how much his SBP election will cost him or her.

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, it is concluded:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant elected SBP participation.  That election was irrevocable.  

2.  Their was no requirement for the applicant’s wife to be present when he made his SBP election nor was their any requirement for her to concur with his election.

3.  There is neither evidence, nor has the applicant provided documentation to show that he was improperly counseled; therefore, administrative regularity is presumed.

4.  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. 

5.  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