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 wifes concurrance was not necessary since he elected full coverage. The ARS continues that the applicants 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 applicants 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 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
In fact, the item was the spouse notification letter sent by the SBP counselor to inform his wife of the options and effects of the SBP and to advise her that her concurrence was required in any election other than full spouse coverage. Basis for Request: The applicant claims he received an incorrect SBP briefing and the child SBP premiums are four times more than he was briefed. v 8 b. Unmarried children normally remain eligible beneficiaries until they reach age 18, or age 22 if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003668
Based on this decision, the election of the applicant's daughter as his beneficiary on the DD Form 1883 was invalid. n. The Board in the in paragraph 4 of the "Discussion and Conclusions" area of the cited case, states: "The evidence of the record fails to show that the U.S. Army required the applicant to provide proof that the child listed on the DD Form 1883 was eligible for the RCSBP based upon being enrolled in full -time education, as required by the applicable regulatory guidance." 5...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011960
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011960 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. He states that after his second marriage in 23 September 1995, he did not need to resume SBP because his second spouse was already receiving SBP payments after the death of her first spouse. The records show that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005016C071029
John G. Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. His wife is a Master Sergeant in the U. S. Army Reserve and will have her own retired pay. Once a member elects either Options B or C in any category of coverage, that election is irrevocable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012542
The applicant requests, in effect, that the deductions being made from his Retired Pay for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premiums be stopped. The applicant was placed on the retired list on 25 May 2008 (at age 60) and premiums are now being deducted from his retired pay for both RCSBP and SBP. Therefore, since he has failed to show that he was misinformed of his options under the SBP and since he has the option of terminating his SBP participation beginning on the second anniversary of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707036C070209
Public Law 95-397, the RCSBP, enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for those who had qualified for reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 (and participate in SBP), to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. The Retirement Services Office recommended that the applicants SBP be changed to spouse and child request be approved, retroactive to 13 September 1994, the date of the applicants divorce and that if any SBP cost refund has been paid to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02894
The laws controlling the SBP do not permit the applicant to provide coverage for his second wife now, or at any other time, unless Congress mandates an open enrollment period. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: He argues that he was not briefed on the policy concerning election of SBP spousal coverage and the suspension of that portion of the coverage after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011835
This letter notified the applicant that he had completed the required years of service and would be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60. The evidence of record shows that upon receipt of his 20-year letter, the applicant executed an SBP Election Certificate, on 26 September 1979, electing immediate coverage under Option C for "spouse and children" at a reduced amount. The evidence of record further shows that as he neared age 60, the applicant executed another form, in this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707036
Public Law 95-397, the RCSBP, enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for those who had qualified for reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 (and participate in SBP), to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. The Retirement Services Office recommended that the applicant’s SBP be changed to “spouse and child” request be approved, retroactive to 13 September 1994, the date of the applicant’s divorce and that if any SBP cost refund has been paid to...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-079
The applicant stated that his son receives monthly Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) benefits as well as Medicaid assistance to pay for group home care, day support, transportation, case management, medication, and psychiatric service, all of which amounts to a yearly benefit of approximately $105,333.21. CGPPC stated that the applicant did not elect out of SBP and instead elected child and spouse coverage, and that there is no evidence in the record that either the applicant or his...