| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she, the former spouse of the deceased former service member (FSM) be awarded his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
APPLICANT STATES: That a part of the court order in the divorce decree required the FSM to maintain her as the SBP annuitant. She provides a copy of the final decree of divorce, the death certificate, and her current marriage license in support of her application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM military records show:
He and the applicant were married on 21 November 1964. On 28 February 1973, the applicant was retired in the pay grade of E-7 with 20 years, 10 months, and 14 days active duty service. The applicant elected full SBP coverage for spouse only.
On 3 September 1986, the FSM and the applicant were divorced. Page 7 and 8 of the divorce decree states that the FSM had provided SBP benefits for the applicant and that benefit shall not be revoked, modified, amended, withdrawn, or altered in any form by the FSM during his lifetime. There is no evidence of record that either the FSM or the applicant filed the divorce decree with Army finance officials or that either party attempted to change the SBP annuitant election from spouse to former spouse.
The FSM remarried on 5 June 1996. The FSM died on 3 August 2000. The widow, spouse of the FSM at the time of his death, is in receipt of the SBP annuity.
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. Elections are made by category. SBP coverage is suspended when there is no eligible beneficiary and automatically resumed when there is again an eligible beneficiary.
Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA), dated 8 September 1982, established SBP for former military spouses for retiring members. Public Law 98-94, dated 24 September 1983, established former spouse coverage for retired members.
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.
Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1450, authorizes a service member, who is participating in the SBP, to file a change to the designated annuitant when required by a court order to make such an election. Subsection (f)(3)(C) establishes that the election must be made within 1 year from the date of the court order and can be made by the service member or the former spouse.
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. The applicant and the FSM were divorced prior to the enactment of Public Law 99-661, which allowed the Federal Government to accept divorce court orders concerning SBP coverage without the member’s consent.
2. Additionally, neither the FSM nor the applicant provided a copy of the divorce decree, within the established time limit, to name the applicant, as former spouse, as the new SBP annuitant.
3. The FSM remarried on 5 June 1996 and his new spouse became his legal SBP annuitant under Federal law. To grant the applicant’s request at this date would constitute an unconstitutional taking without due process of law.
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 that would satisfy this requirement.
5. 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
__sp___ ___to___ __ar____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058441 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011023 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 137.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013553
There is no evidence of record which indicates the applicant submitted a written request for a deemed election for former spouse coverage, although the 1983 divorce decree did not entitle her to make a request for a deemed election. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. But neither...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018298
Counsel requests, in effect, that the FSM's records be corrected to show a "deemed election" was filed naming the applicant, their client, as the beneficiary for the FSM's SBP benefits. 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 member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an election. Applicant's counsel stated that the applicant did not submit a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103078C070208
The applicant states that it appears that SBP payments are being made to the FSM’s second wife and that, in view of her Judgment for Absolute Divorce, she should be receiving the payments. The FSM and the applicant divorced on 13 December 1984. 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 member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022113
There is no indication the FSM or the applicant notified DFAS within 1 year of his divorce to change his SBP election to former spouse coverage. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1450(f)(3)(A) permits a former spouse to make a written request that an SBP election of former spouse coverage be deemed to have been made when the former spouse is awarded the SBP annuity incident to a proceeding of divorce. The available evidence shows that at the time of the FSM's retirement in 1991, the FSM...
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 | CY2014 | 20140020113
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the records of her deceased former husband, a former service member (FSM), to show he changed his survivor benefit plan (SBP) coverage from "spouse" to "former spouse" (FS) within 1 year of their divorce and payment of the SBP annuity based on his death. The applicant's applied to DFAS for an SBP annuity; however, on 22 February 2014, DFAS responded to her request denying an SBP annuity due to the FSM never making a valid request to change...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011510C070208
The FSM divorced on 11 May 1995. 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 member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. In accordance with Federal Law, a request to change SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse coverage must have been made within one year of the date of divorce by either the FSM or the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007481
Counsel states the Board made erroneous statements and conclusions in denying the SBP to the applicant. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. Counsel provided statements from the applicant, a former associate of the FSM, and a PI, who state the FSM never remarried.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000664
Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members 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. Section 1450(f)(3)(C) provides that an election may not be deemed to have been made unless the request from the former spouse of the person is received within 1 year of the date of the court order or filing involved. As a result,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016598
Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or had not yet made an SBP election. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1450(f)(3)(A) permits a former spouse to make a written request that an SBP election of former spouse coverage be deemed to have been made when the former spouse is awarded the SBP annuity incident to a proceeding of divorce. As a result, the...