| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member |
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:
12. On 11 October 2001, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) returned the case to the Board informing the Board that Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for a person with an insurable interest must be provided at the full base amount and that former spouses were entitled to SBP coverage only under the provisions for a person with an insurable interest until passage of Public Law 99-145 on 8 November 1985. Therefore, paragraph 1 of the Recommendation, which stated that the former service member (FSM) changed his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage, reduced base amount ($300.00) on 24 September 1983 was contrary to law.
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES:
5. At the time of the Board’s 19 July 2001 decision in this case (AR2001058580), it was the intent of the Board to make the FSM’s record as administratively correct as possible to provide equitable relief to the applicant in accordance with applicable laws.
6. In view of the additional factors in this case, it would be appropriate to amend the Recommendation of the Board’s 19 July 2001 action to show the FSM changed his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage (full base amount) on 24 September 1983, when former spouse coverage was based upon person with an insurable interest coverage/cost provisions. DFAS also informed the Board that there were no provisions to provide for a reduction of the amount of coverage under Public Law 99-145. Therefore, the coverage based upon full base amount implemented under the person with insurable interest coverage would have had to remain in effect. This may result in a greater payback in premiums due but it would also result in a larger annuity for the applicant.
7. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the FSM’s records as recommended below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings dated 19 July 2001 (AR2001058580) to show:
a. that the FSM’s SBP coverage was suspended on 27 June 1980, the date of his divorce; that he requested, in writing, that his SBP coverage be changed to former spouse coverage on 24 September 1983; and that he requested that his SBP coverage be changed to former spouse coverage at the spouse cost provisions on 8 November 1985;
b. that the applicant be advised that DFAS will be instructed to collect any SBP costs due; and
c. that the applicant be paid an annuity based upon the FSM’s changed SBP election retroactive to the date of his death.
BOARD VOTE:
__jhl___ __mkp___ __ena___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Joann H. Langston
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001064095 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011204 |
| 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 | 2001058580C070421
Former spouse coverage for retired members was not established until September 1983. The FSM overpaid SBP premiums from the date of divorce, when his costs should have been suspended, until 24 September 1983, when former spouse coverage for retired members was established. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the FSM’s SBP coverage was suspended on 27 June 1980, the date of his divorce; that he requested, in writing, that his SBP...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007628
Robert W. Soniak | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The FSM continued to pay SBP premiums for almost 24 years after the divorce, and the available evidence shows he never remarried. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM made a written request on 1 October 1983 to change his SBP coverage to former spouse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024560
The applicants request to correct the record of the FSM to show he changed his SBP election from spouse to former spouse and that she be provided the SBP annuity has been carefully considered. The evidence of record confirms the FSM elected SBP coverage for his spouse, the applicant, upon his retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * showing the FSM elected former spouse SBP coverage for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014743
The FSM retired on 1 September 1962. The evidence of record shows the FSM retired on 1 September 1962, prior to the establishment of the SBP. Considering there is evidence to show it was the FSMs intent to provide SBP coverage for the applicant, his former spouse, it would be equitable to correct his records to show he changed his SBP spouse coverage to former spouse coverage on 24 September 1983.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015540C070206
Donald L. Lewy | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He and the applicant divorced in December 1978, prior to the establishment of former spouse coverage. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing that the FSM made a written request to change his SBP coverage to former spouse and children coverage on 24 September 1983...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024111
On 15 July 1977, the applicant and FSM completed a settlement agreement in the Superior Court for the County of Whitfield and State of Georgia which stipulated, in pertinent part, that the FSM currently made payments on an annuity contract (SBP) whereby a percentage of his monthly retirement pay from the United States Government would continue at his death unto the applicant and the minor children of the marriage. In view of the foregoing and given there is no current spouse beneficiary, it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068748C070402
The applicant requests that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member, be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage from spouse to former spouse coverage. On 5 November 1975, the FSM and the applicant divorced. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009158
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. There is no evidence the FSM attempted to change his elected SBP from spouse to former spouse prior to his death. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003265C070205
She states that they were legally separated on 7 November 1977 and the decision to conclude with a divorce was made in March 1980 prior to the FSM’s retirement. He should not have been paying SBP premiums from on or about 10 June 1980, when they divorced, until 24 September 1983, when former spouse coverage for retired members was established. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004653C070206
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. It is reasonable to presume his continuing to pay [spouse] SBP premiums for almost 20 years after the divorce indicated his intention to provide the SBP for the applicant. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...