| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he requested enrollment in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for spouse coverage within one year of his marriage.
3. The applicant states that he was married in August 1998. In March 1999, he took his spouse to McClellan Air Force Base to get her an identification card. Later, his financial advisor asked him what portion of his retired pay his spouse would receive. He did not know and when he called the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) he was informed that his spouse was not listed as an SBP beneficiary. After he sent DFAS a copy of his marriage certificate, DFAS informed him he could not enroll in the SBP for spouse coverage as more than a year had passed since his marriage. At no time was he aware that he had to notify Army personnel of his marriage other than to obtain an identification card for her. He is willing to pay any costs due.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 December 1954. He retired on 1 May 1975. At that time he was not married, had dependent children, and declined to participate in the SBP.
5. The applicant married on 1 August 1998 and apparently did not attempt to enroll in the SBP for spouse coverage until around July 2001.
6. 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. An election, once made, is normally irrevocable.
7. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1448(a)(5) provides that a person who is not married or has no dependent child upon becoming eligible to participate in the SBP but who later marries or acquires a dependent child may elect to participate in the SBP. Such an election must be written, signed by the person making the election, and received by the Secretary concerned within one year after the date on which that person marries or acquires that dependent child.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. At the time the applicant retired in 1975, he had dependent children but was not married. He declined to participate in the SBP at that time.
2. The Board notes that the applicant had been retired for 23 years at the time of his marriage in 1998 and may not have remembered the requirements for enrolling in the SBP. It would be equitable to show that he requested, in writing, that he be enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage on 12 March 1999, within one year of the date he married his current spouse.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’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 showing that the applicant requested, in writing, that he be enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage on 12 March 1999, within one year of the date he married his current spouse.
2. That the applicant be advised that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service will be instructed to collect any SBP costs due.
BOARD VOTE:
__inw___ __hof___ __dph___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Irene N. Wheelwright
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001062405 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 137.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064791C070421
An Open Season from 1 October 1978 – 31 March 1980 was declared for those who qualified for retired pay prior to 30 September 1978. There is no spousal “entitlement” to the SBP until a member enrolls in the SBP. When the applicant married in June 1983, he had one year from the date of marriage to make a written request to enroll in the 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 | CY2001 | 2001057613C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) to spouse and children coverage in a timely manner. 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 60 th...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076782C070215
His notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) is not available but he apparently did not enroll in the Reserve Component SBP (RCSBP) at that time. Since DFAS did not receive his request until after the one-year period required by law had passed, DFAS denied his request. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that DFAS received the applicant's 25 January 1998 request to enroll in the SBP for spouse...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050006132
Rowland C. Heflin | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The FSM retired on 1 October 1979. There is no evidence of record to show it was the FSM's intent to provide the SBP to the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003898
The applicant provided a copy of a DD Form 2656-3, dated 23 November 1999, which shows an election of spouse and child beneficiary category based on the full amount of retired pay with immediate coverage. Each statement showed the current SBP coverage elected by the retiree or the fact that no SBP election is reflected. As such, the election for spouse and child only made at the time of his retired pay application would not have been valid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021011
The Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) provided a copy of a DD Form 1883 (SBP Election Certificate), dated 28 December 1994, which shows in Section II (Marital/Dependency Status) the applicant indicated he was married and had dependent children and elected SBP coverage for "children only," Option C (Immediate Coverage). DFAS also provided a copy of a DD Form 2656, dated 28 July 2011, wherein the applicant listed his status as "married" with no dependent children. In Section XI...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011952
He also provided copies of page 2 of his DD Forms 2656, dated 30 December 2011 and 26 July 2012, that show he married T____ A. H____ on 17 March 2010 and he elected spouse-only coverage based on full gross pay; b. two copies of page 2 of his DFAS-CL Form 7220/148, undated, that show: * his retired pay account was established on 26 July 2013 * his SBP spouse-only coverage was $24.20 * T____ A. M____ was the beneficiary for 100 percent of his arrears of pay and she was listed as his wife * he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076598C070215
The FSM and the applicant married on 20 September 1997. DFAS has no record of the FSM ever enrolling in the SBP. It declared a 12-month Open Season for those members who retired prior to enactment of the law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013510
In Part V (SBP Election) on this form, the FSM indicated that he was married and did not have dependent children. 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. Considering there is evidence to show it was the FSM's intent to provide SBP coverage for the applicant, it would be appropriate, as a matter of...