APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant is the apparent custodian of the former service member and requests, on his behalf, reconsideration of the Boards decision that, in effect, denied the former service members request for physical disability retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That the former service member had a nervous breakdown in the service and was treated by shock treatment and tranquilizers. He should have received a medical discharge.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein is a summarization of the former service members military records prepared to reflect the Boards original consideration of his case on 30 October 1996.
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 applicant has provided no new information, nor probative evidence, nor a convincing argument in support of this request.
2. 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 that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061674C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He stated that it would be an injustice to deny him the award considering the circumstances under which the recommendation was never received at headquarters. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058441C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 September 1986, the FSM and the applicant were divorced. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511097C070209
He served in southern France in August 1944, received infantry training for two weeks in Brest, France and later served with the reconnaissance platoon of Headquarters Company of the 43d Tank Battalion. In his original request, the applicant submitted copies of articles. We recon went on toward Augsburg checking out the area, and then came back. On 28 August 1996 the applicants former battalion commander responded to a letter from the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058547C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show: The record of marriage submitted by the applicant shows that she and the FSM were married on 11 March 1988. Information provided by the AR-PERSCOM indicates that there are no records that the FSM ever requested an application for retired pay or made an election for participation in RCSBP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004391
Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. However, there is no evidence to show that it was the FSMs intent to voluntarily maintain his former spouse, the applicant, as his SBP beneficiary nor is there evidence to show that the applicant was awarded former spouse SBP upon divorce. If the FSM had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066936C070402
There is no evidence of record that the FSM or the applicant ever requested that SBP coverage be changed to former spouse. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement. There is no evidence of record to show that the FSM ever elected to change his SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018472
Counsel requests correction of the FSM's records to show he changed his SBP election from spouse to former spouse coverage. However, DFAS was unable to release any detailed information pertaining to the FSM's retired pay account due to the Privacy Act of 1974. l. ABCMR Docket Number AR2003083486, dated 27 March 2003, corrected the military records of a FSM to show that the FSM requested to change his SBP coverage to former spouse and children coverage and that his request was received and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071848C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board has considered the information contained in the statements he provides with his request; however, those statements, while not inconsequential, for the most part, are based on second hand information,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076386C070215
Counsel states that her petition was in fact submitted on 12 November 2001, within a year of the 12 December 2000 decision by the Board denying her original request. Counsel stated that the law states that if a servicemember is single at the time of retirement eligibility but marries before reaching age 60, he has one year from the marriage to elect RCSBP coverage for his new spouse. He stated that the unqualified statement contained in the 20 year letter to the applicant misstated the law...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04101023C070208
A March 2000 letter to the Board, from the applicant’s former commander, which is also contained in documents available to the Board, stated that he (the former commander) wrote to the Board in December 1999 recommending that the applicant be awarded the Bronze Star Medal for “aggressive action in hand-to-hand combat and then inflicting numerous casualties while under heavy enemy fire and with complete disregard for his personal safety was a gallant act and also merits recognition.”...