| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show his spouse-only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage was reinstated but not Supplemental SBP (SSBP).
3. The applicant states that in February 2002 he sent in the form requesting reinstatement of his SBP but he did not want any SSBP. The sections on the form were very misleading. He provides a Survivor Benefit Plan Remarriage Election Certificate, DFAS-CL Form 1772/11a; his retiree account statements for the months of April and May 2002; and his spouse’s concurrence with this correction as supporting evidence.
4. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 1952. He retired on 1 February 1972. On 1 August 1973, he enrolled in the SBP for spouse-only coverage, reduced base amount. His base amount was increased in February 1981. Apparently, his SBP was suspended on an unknown date for an unknown reason.
5. Apparently, the applicant remarried on 2 January 2001. On 11 February 2002, he completed a DFAS-CL Form 1772/11a. On this form he checked that he requested resumption of his spouse coverage and that he elected, in the Supplemental Spouse Election block, SSBP at the 55 percent level.
6. Election of the SSBP increased the applicant’s SBP monthly costs from $95.20 (spouse only cost) to an additional $209.16 (supplemental cost).
7. Public Law 92-425, enacted 21 September 1972 established the SBP. The SBP 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. It declared a 12-month Open Season for those members who retired prior to enactment of the law.
8. Public Law 94-496, enacted 14 October 1976 but effective 1 October 1976 suspended spouse costs if marriage ends in death or divorce. Spouse costs would resume if the member remarried.
9. Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 permitted a previously participating retiree upon remarriage to elect not to resume spouse coverage or to increase reduced coverage for the latter spouse.
10. Public Law 101-189, enacted 29 November 1989, established the SSBP (effective 1 October 1991). The SSBP annuity (5, 10, 15 or 20 percent of full retired pay) would be paid in addition to the standard 35 percent-tier payment for surviving spouses age 62 and older.
11. The SBP Counselor Training Manual briefs that the SBP, an annuity program subsidized by the Government, provides a survivor 55 percent of a participant’s military retired pay. The after-62 benefit amount drops to 35 percent of the retired pay because Social Security is meant to provide the additional coverage to bring the survivor support level back up to the 55 percent level. SSBP provides a means to increase the after-62 benefit to 40, 45, 50 or 55 percent of the retired pay. It is not a government subsidy. It is voluntary, a court cannot order it, and no spousal concurrence is required. SSBP cost is age-based, unlike SBP.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. There is no evidence of Government error in this case. The applicant provides evidence to show that he did request SSBP in February 2002, albeit perhaps erroneously.
2. However, the SSBP is not a Government subsidized program and in that regard is more like a commercial annuity program. Although her concurrence is not mandatory, the applicant’s spouse has concurred in his request to terminate the SSBP. The Board believes that it would be appropriate to correct the records to show the applicant did not request SSBP.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the DFAS-CL Form 1772/11a completed by the applicant on 11 February 2002 be amended to show he did not elect SSBP.
2. That any SSBP premiums paid by the applicant be refunded.
BOARD VOTE:
___LLS__ __PM___ __DPH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Luther L. Santiful _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002071960 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/06 |
| 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 | DRB | CY2005 | 20050004916
Dennis J. Phillips | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 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. The applicant provides no evidence to show her and the FSM were improperly briefed when he enrolled in the SBP during the 1981 through 1982 Open...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074802C070403
SBP provides a survivor 55 percent of a participant’s military retired pay. The evidence of record shows that the applicant enrolled in the SBP in March 1990. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant requested on 1 August 1997 not to resume his spouse SBP coverage.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106544C070208
She contended she did not receive any briefing on the SBP and so did not know that, because her husband was 75 years of age, the SBP annuity would be reduced to 35 percent of her retired pay. The SSBP annuity (5, 10, 15 or 20 percent of full retired pay) would be paid in addition to the standard 35 percent-tier payment for surviving spouses age 62 and older. She could have received that information from any one of the three Army installation Retirement Services Officers near her.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608324C070209
The applicants record indicates that on 20 May 1986, he elected RC-SBP for spouse with full retired pay. On 3 November 1994, the applicant reaffirmed his prior election by again electing coverage for his spouse. The SSBP is a voluntary supplemental coverage, paid solely by the applicant and since the supplement coverage is an addition to the SBP it would be in the interest of justice to cancel the coverage.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009083
The applicant requests that the records of her husband, the former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he was not retired but on active duty at the time of his death, thereby entitling her to receive $150,000 in additional Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI). Now that the SSBP two-tiered advantage she gained has been negated by new law, she wants to correct the FSM's record to show he was on active duty at the time of his death in order to obtain the additional...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002260C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he requested Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan (SSBP) coverage at the 20 percent level within the time frame provided for by law. The FSM and the applicant married on 25 September 2002. There is no evidence to show the FSM elected to provide SSBP for the applicant until possibly 2 November 2003 and definitely on 22 December 2003.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608669C070209
The applicant request, in effect, correction of his military records to show that he change his SBP election from spouse only, with 20 percent supplemental SBP (SSBP) to spouse only with no SSBP. On 9 June 1996, the applicant appealed to this Board for correction of his military records. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the applicant changed his SBP election from spouse only with 20 percent supplement SBP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072861C070403
The applicant states that the divorce decree ordered the FSM to designate the former spouse as his SBP beneficiary. 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 is participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. That the FSM's former spouse be paid the SBP annuity retroactive to 6 June 2001, the date of the FSM's death.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...
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...