| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show he declined to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and that all premiums deducted from his retired pay, plus interest, be refunded to him.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his retirement he did not sign an authorization to deduct (SBP) payments from his retired pay. He advised the Army Finance Center in 1972 and again in 1977 that he did not give an authorization for SBP premiums to be deducted from his retired pay. Since the deductions continued, he assumed that this was mandatory and that the deductions could not be discontinued. In November 2000, an attorney told him that SBP is not a mandatory deduction and has to be authorized. He provides an undated letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) advising him to apply to the Board, a September 2000 SBP/RSFPP Premium Bill from DFAS, and a 3 January 1977 record of phone conversation as supporting evidence.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no additional contention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 29 October 1932. After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 21 October 1954. He retired on 1 November 1972. His Record of Emergency Data, DA Form 41, undated, shows that he was married with one child.
The provided 3 January 1977 record of phone conversation, apparently between the applicant and someone at the Army Finance Center, states in part, “No election form was found in folder. Mbr. stated that he was told he had to elect the plan and he did not. He is sending a letter to explain what he was told and to req. a correction of records.”
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. Coverage is automatic unless the member elects not to participate before the first day for which the member is eligible for retired pay.
Public Law 105-85, enacted 18 November 1997, established the option to terminate SBP participation. Retirees have a one-year period, beginning on the second anniversary of the date on which their retired pay started, to withdraw from SBP. Members retired for more than two years as of 17 May 1998 were
authorized a one-year opportunity (17 May 1998 through 16 May 1999) to disenroll. The spouse’s concurrence is required. No premiums will be refunded to those who opt to disenroll. This law was widely publicized in the Army retiree bulletin, Army Echoes.
Public Law 105-261, enacted 17 October 1998, provides that, effective 1 October 2008, no premiums will be withheld after the later of: (1) the 360th month for which the participant’s retired pay is reduced; or (2) the month during which the participant attains age 70.
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 does not contend that he declined to participate in the SBP and he does not provide a document (normally at that time the Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, DA Form 4240) that confirms he declined to participate in the SBP. He contends in his application that he did not sign an authorization to deduct SBP premiums from his retired pay. The record of phone conversation noted “…he was told he had to elect the Plan and he did not.” He does not provide the letter mentioned in the record of phone conversation wherein he was to explain what he was told (about the SBP).
2. It appears from the evidence that the applicant did not complete a document to decline to participate in the SBP. Since he did not specifically decline to participate in the SBP, he was automatically, and properly under the law, enrolled. Any eligible beneficiaries he had during the period he was (is) enrolled in the SBP would have received the SBP annuity had he died. Unless Congress legislates another disenrollment opportunity, the applicant’s SBP premiums should automatically cease in October 2008.
3. The applicant had a one-year opportunity to disenroll from the SBP effective 17 May 1998. There is no evidence to show that he attempted to do so at that time.
4. 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
__kak___ __reb___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062864 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011211 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 137.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020819
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. The applicant's DD Form 1883 shows he enrolled in the RCSBP for spouse and children coverage on 10 December 1996. He is further advised...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067415C070402
His notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) is dated 7 November 1977. Premiums are normally deducted from retired pay. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant completed his DD Form 2656 on 30 September 1996 and declined, with his spouse’s concurrence, to participate in the SBP, making the debt for SBP premiums invalid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069386C070402
Members retired for more than two years as of 17 May 1998 were authorized a one-year opportunity (17 May 1998 through 16 May 1999) to disenroll. The applicant has provided no evidence to show he attempted to disenroll from the SBP prior to the date of his current application. There is insufficient evidence to show that it would be equitable at this date to grant the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010144
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090010144 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants DD Form 2656-11 shows that on 8 January 2009 he verified that he had been notified by DFAS of the requirement to have 360 plus months toward Paid-Up SBP. Effective 1 October 2008, no reduction may be made in the retired pay of a participant in the SBP for any month after the later of : (1) the 360th month for which the participants retired pay is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017267
The applicant requests correction of her record to show that she and her spouse elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 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. Once she made the RCSBP election the premiums would have to be recovered from her retired pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009777
This document shows that on 4 June 1999, the applicant elected Option C (immediate coverage based on full retired pay), spouse-only SBP coverage. The applicant's DFAS-CL Form 7220/148 shows he is paying for spouse-only RCSBP coverage based upon his full gross retired pay. Effective 1 October 2008, no reduction may be made in the retired pay of a participant in the SBP for any month after the later of: (1) the 360th month for which the participants retired pay is reduced; and (2) the month...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002140
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002140 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. This letter further informed her that: a. she was entitled to participate in the RCSBP, as established by Public Law 95-397; b. RCSBP enabled her to provide an annuity for her spouse and other eligible beneficiaries; c. she had, by law, only 90 calendar days from the date she received this notice to submit a DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate); d....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016301
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and that he be reimbursed for any and all deductions from his retirement pay. His spouse provided a notarized statement, dated 19 May 2010, which is accepted as sufficient evidence to support her concurrence with his decision to cancel enrollment in the SBP. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028330
Public Law 95-397, the Reserve Component SBP (RCSBP), enacted 30 September 1978, provides a way for those who had qualified for reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 [upon which they would be eligible to begin drawing retired pay, upon request, and to participate in the SBP], to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. The evidence of record shows that in preparation for retirement, the applicant elected to participate in the SBP with full spouse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018920
Section XII (SBP Spouse Concurrence) of the DD Form 2656 instructs the applicant that "SBP spouse concurrence is required when a member is married and elects child(ren) only coverage, does not elect full spouse coverage, or declines coverage. The evidence of record shows that prior to his retirement on 31 May 2010, the applicant and his wife elected to decline participation in the SBP with a notarized DD Form 2656, dated 30 March 2010. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department...