Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
2. The applicant requests that she be allowed to receive the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) annuity as the designated beneficiary of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM).
3. The applicant states that after the FSM died in 1993, knowing that she had been designated as the RCSBP beneficiary, she contacted the Kentucky Army National Guard (KYARNG) about filing a claim for the annuity. The KYARNG told her that the FSM’s second spouse had already applied for it and she, the applicant, could get nothing by filing any claim. She does not feel that a statute of limitations should apply since she was advised that she was not eligible for the annuity.
4. The FSM’s military records show that he was born on 28 February 1943. He enlisted in the ARNG on 8 June 1964. He and the applicant married on 23 April 1966. He and the applicant divorced on 29 August 1984. Neither the divorce decree nor the related agreement mentioned the SBP.
5. The FSM’s notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) is dated 31 August 1984. It is date stamped 17 September 1984 and appears to have been received at the Office of the Adjutant General, Kentucky on that date.
6. The FSM and his second wife married on 7 September 1984.
7. On 3 December 1984, the FSM completed a Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate, DD Form 1883. He checked that he was not married and elected RCSBP coverage for a person with insurable interest, naming the applicant as that person, full base amount, option C.
8. The FSM was discharged from the ARNG on 13 August 1987 and transferred to the Retired Reserve. He died on 27 May 1993.
9. The FSM’s spouse, B___, had applied for the RCSBP annuity. The RCSBP Board considered her case and ruled that the FSM’s DD Form 1883 was a valid election. B___ then applied to this Board for the RCSBP annuity in 1995. After considering the RCSBP Board’s ruling, this Board determined that the FSM’s election was valid in that he had the right to elect his former spouse as the beneficiary. The only contention was whether the Government’s non-notification to B___ constituted a legal error. The decision was that it did not as the Government did not know that the FSM was married and therefore should not be held liable for not notifying B___. Further, the most the Government could have done in that case would have been to inform B___ of the FSM’s election.
10. The applicant, the former spouse, apparently was never made aware that B___’s claim for the RCSBP annuity was denied in her favor.
11. 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 to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. Three options are available: (A) elect to decline enrollment and choose at age 60 whether to start SBP participation; (B) elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity if they die before age 60 but delay payment of it until the date of the member’s 60th birthday; (C) elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity immediately upon their death if before age 60. If death occurs before age 60, the RCSBP costs for options B and C are deducted from the annuity. A person who is not married and does not have a dependent child upon becoming eligible to participate in the SBP may elect to provide an annuity to a natural person with an insurable interest in the member. Spousal conconcurrence with a failure to elect full spouse or spouse and child coverage was not required until 2001.
12. 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 (Reservists, too). Elections were made under the natural person with insurable interest cost provisions. A person who was married or had a dependent child could elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse instead of providing an annuity to a spouse or dependent child if the election was made in order to carry out the terms of a written agreement entered into voluntarily with the former spouse (without regard to whether such agreement was included in or approved by a court order). Any person making such an election would provide the Secretary concerned with a written statement, signed by such person and the former spouse setting forth whether the election was being made pursuant to a voluntary written agreement previously entered into by such person as part of or incident to a proceeding of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation, and if so, whether such voluntary written agreement had been incorporated in or ratified or approved by a court order.
13. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12738(a) states that after a person is granted retired pay or is notified in accordance with section 12731(d) of this title that the person has completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay under this chapter, the person’s eligibility for retired pay may not be denied. Section 12731(d) states that the Secretary concerned shall notify each person who has completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay. The notice shall be sent, in writing, to the person concerned within one year after the person completes that service.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It appears the RCSBP Board made an erroneous ruling in the case of B___, the FSM’s spouse at the time of his death. The FSM was eligible to participate in the RCSBP when he was notified that he had completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay. This date could have been no earlier than 17 September 1984. He married B___ on 7 September 1984. Since he was married on the date he was eligible to participate in the RCSBP, by law he could not have made a person with insurable interest election. In addition, at that time he did not have the automatic right to elect former spouse coverage. Certain requirements had to have been met. They were not met in this case. However, since it was clearly the FSM’s intent to provide for his former spouse, the applicant, and not B___, and since spousal concurrence with a failure to elect spouse coverage was not required at the time, there was no legal error or injustice in not granting B___ the RCSBP annuity.
2. The Board concludes that as a matter of equity the applicant, the FSM’s former spouse, should be granted the RCSBP annuity. It was Congress’s intent in establishing the SBP to provide for those spouses who supported the military member for the majority of his or her military career. The applicant was married to the FSM for the majority of his military career.
3. In view of the foregoing, the FSM’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. amending the FSM’s 20-year letter to show it was date stamped on 1 September 1984;
b. amending the FSM’s DD Form 1883 to show it was completed on 2 September 1984, all other items remaining the same; and
c. by showing that the applicant applied for the RCSBP annuity on 1 July 1993.
2. That the applicant be paid the RCSBP annuity retroactive to the FSM’s date of death on 27 May 1993.
BOARD VOTE:
__jh____ __kak___ __rwa___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
June Hajjar
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
CASE ID | AR2001062248 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20020205 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 137.01 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003512
BOARD DATE: 21 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120003512 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Public Law 95-397, enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for Reserve Component members who qualified for Reserve retirement, but were not yet age 60 and eligible to participate in the SBP, to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. Three options were available: * elect to decline enrollment and choose at age 60 whether to start SBP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066198C070421
The Retirement Services Noncommissioned Officer for the Tennessee Army National Guard states that she believes the FSM was not properly counseled as to how inexpensive coverage for his daughter would have been and on how to change his Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate, DD Form 1883, upon a change of dependency (such as divorce). Although as of 19 March 2002 records at DFAS still indicate that the FSM’s former spouse was his SBP beneficiary, they did not have any divorce documents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008509
Three options were available: * elect to decline enrollment and choose at age 60 whether to start SBP participation * elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity if they die before age 60, but delay payment of it until the date of the member's 60th birthday; or * elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity immediately upon their death if before age 60 Once a member elects either option B or C in any category of coverage, that election is irrevocable. The evidence of record shows the FSM...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010193
The applicant states that her former husband executed a DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate), naming her (the applicant) as the sole beneficiary to receive a full and immediate annuity upon death. 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 evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000928
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), to show he timely changed his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) coverage from "spouse" to "former spouse" coverage at the time of their divorce and payment of the SBP annuity based on his death. The evidence of record shows that the FSM executed a DD Form 1883 on 19 August 1979, electing "spouse and children" RCSBP coverage under option C, immediate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011621
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of her request that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he changed his category of participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) from child to spouse and child coverage. The applicant states, in effect, that the FSM assured her that he did not have to provide for SBP coverage for his former spouse and that his death benefits would definitely go to the applicant....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076503C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. If the member was married but elected not to participate at the maximum level or elected to provide an annuity for a dependent child but not for his spouse, that member’s spouse would be notified of that election. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060887C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he enrolled in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) for spouse coverage. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM's military records from the Army National Guard are not available. 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 | 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 | CY2014 | 20140019212
The applicant states: * Army regulations in effect at the time the FSM submitted his retired pay application required the submission of a DD Form 2656 (Data For Payment of Retired Personnel) * After an exhaustive search with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) advised her that they could not find this document * She was never counseled or provided any documentation to sign for or notarize to relinquish of the SBP * She was married to...