| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
APPLICANT STATES: That regulations stated that if the FSM had wanted to exclude her from the SBP she would have had to have signed her concurrence with that decision. She signed no such form and there is no record that he requested she be excluded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM's military records show:
After having had prior service in the U. S. Navy, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1948. On 7 January 1963, he completed an Election of Options under the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act of 1953, DA Form 1041, declining to receive reduced retired pay in order to provide an annuity for his dependents. He retired on 1 August 1968. He died on 1 October 2000.
Public Law 87-381, enacted 4 October 1961, established the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP). It covered only persons dependent on the member at the time of his retirement.
Public Law 92-245, enacted 21 September 1972, repealed the RSFPP and established the SBP. The RSFPP was not automatically converted to the SBP. Upon creation of the SBP, an 18-month Open Season was conducted from 21 September 1972 - 20 March 1974, in which all pre-1972 retirees were given the option to enroll. The Department of the Army contacted all previously retired service members and explained to them the benefits and procedures provided by SBP. This was done on several occasions. First, a bulletin was sent out describing SBP. The bulletin was followed by a circular and then by a letter which included a form, which when completed and returned would extend the benefits of SBP to those already retired. A final notice provided a box to check on a postal card indicating the retiree's intention. The law did not require spousal notification for pre-1972 retirees.
Public Law 97-35, enacted 12 August 1981, established the second Open Season from 1 October 1981 – 30 September 1982. The law did not require spousal notification.
Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986, required a spouse’s written concurrence for a retiring member’s election that provides less than maximum spouse coverage.
Public Law 101-189, enacted 29 November 1989, established an Open Season to be conducted 1 October 1991 (but deferred to 1 April 1992) – 30 September 1992. The law did not require spousal concurrence or notification.
Public Law 105-261, enacted 17 October 1998, established an Open Season to be conducted 1 March 1999 – 29 February 2000. The law did not require spousal concurrence or notification.
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:
1. There is no evidence of Government error or injustice in this case.
2. When in 1963 the FSM first had an opportunity to elect to receive reduced retired pay in order to provide an annuity for his dependents, he elected not to do so. He then failed to enroll in the SBP when it was established in 1972. That decision was consistent with his earlier decision not to receive reduced retired pay in order to provide an annuity for his dependents.
3. The FSM received his full retired pay from his retirement in 1968 until his death in 2000. He had four additional Open Seasons during which he could have enrolled in the SBP. At no time were SBP premiums deducted from his retired pay so it is not credible to believe that he was not aware that the applicant would not receive an SBP annuity when he died.
4. As the FSM was a pre-1972 retiree neither spousal notification nor spousal concurrence was required in his decision not to enroll in the SBP.
5. Regrettably, in view of the foregoing there is 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
__jns___ __mvt___ __wdp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058364 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010724 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 137.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090124C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The evidence of record shows the FSM retired on 1 August 1969, prior to establishment of the SBP, and was married at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102540C070208
The applicant requests that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Extensive publicity of this Open Season was given in Army Echoes, the Army bulletin published and mailed to retirees to keep them abreast of their rights and privileges and to inform them of developments in the Army. The FSM retired on 1 May 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084831C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Although the applicant contends she remembers the FSM enrolled in the RSFPP and that she has retained every piece of paper the FSM ever received from the Army, she does not provide a copy of the DA Form 1041. As the FSM was already a retired member when the SBP was established, the applicant's concurrence with a decision not to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077690C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). An election to provide an annuity of one-half, one-quarter, or one-eighth of the member's retired pay had to be made before the end of the 18th year of service. Records at DFAS-CL show that he failed to enroll in the SBP when it was established in 1972 and there is no evidence to show he attempted to enroll during a subsequent Open...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020598
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests his military records be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) prior to retirement. There is no evidence of record which shows the FSM elected SBP prior to his retirement. Although the FSM retired in 1968, there is no evidence to show he enrolled in the SBP when it was established in 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013792
Army Echoes also warned that for a retiree with a high number of years since first being able to enroll a beneficiary in the SBP and whose retired pay was fairly high, the enrollment premium alone could exceed $50,000. The available evidence shows that the FSM was eligible to enroll in the SBP for spouse coverage when it was established in 1972 or during any one of several subsequent Open Seasons. Even if the FSM had attempted to enroll in the SBP during the 1 October 2005 through 30...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017621
There is no evidence in the FSM's military records and the applicant provides no evidence which shows the FSM participated in the SBP or the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan (RSFPP). The SBP provided that military members could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents. Since there is no evidence of record which shows the FSM made an SBP election prior to his death, and the evidence of record shows he had opportunities...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066197C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. RSFPP coverage was retained unless the member specifically enrolled in the SBP. 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 | CY2002 | 2002068619C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Extensive information, not just one letter, about the SBP was provided to retirees who retired prior to 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014581
The DA Form 1041 available indicates the FSM elected not to provide an annuity for his dependents. Although the FSM retired in 1968, there is no evidence to show he enrolled in the SBP when it was established in 1972. Since there is no evidence of record which shows the FSM made an SBP election prior to his death, and evidence of record shows he had opportunities to enroll in the SBP during Open Seasons, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.