| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be amended to show her new name.
APPLICANT STATES: That she divorced Bruce H____ and remarried Robert R___ in May 1963. As supporting evidence she provides her DD Form 214, her divorce decree, and her marriage certificate.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 June 1961 under the name B___. She married Bruce H___ in March 1962 and requested her name be changed to H___. Her request was approved on 5 April 1962.
The applicant was released from active duty on 22 October 1962. Her DD Form 214 shows her name as H___.
The divorce decree provided by the applicant shows she divorced Bruce H___ on 18 February 1963. She married Robert R___ on 21 May 1963.
Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.
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. For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant married Bruce H___ after she enlisted in the Army and still retained that married name when she was released from active duty on 22 October 1962. She did not divorce and remarry until after she had separated. While the Board understands the applicant’s desire to have the records changed, it finds no basis for compromising the integrity of the Army’s records. This Board action will be filed in her military records so a record of her new married name will be on hand.
3. 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
__rvo___ __fcj___ __bje___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085882 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030904 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060936C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records be corrected to show her request for a deemed election of the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), was received in a timely manner. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant requested a deemed election of the FSM’s SBP and forwarded the request and a copy of the divorce decree to DFAS on 27 August 1999. That the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060366C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he did not cancel his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage but instead changed it to former spouse coverage. 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 had not yet made an SBP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084760C070212
The applicant requests that his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election be changed to former spouse coverage and that his former spouse be entitled to a military identification (ID) card and privileges. On 3 May 1991, the applicant and his former spouse 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 member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015665C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage to former spouse coverage. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. The DFAS letter provided by the applicant pertained to her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014731C070206
She included in the divorce decree that she would like the SBP as part of her divorce settlement for herself and her two children. The applicant submitted a written request, dated 25 May 2005, for a deemed election to DFAS to change the SBP coverage from spouse and children to former spouse and children coverage. Considering the applicant submitted a deemed election for former spouse and children coverage in a timely manner and provided documentation as evidence of her timely deemed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000618C070205
Since there is no evidence to show the applicant was awarded the SBP as a former spouse by the divorce court, even if the FSM had applied for retired pay, there would have been insufficient evidence to warrant correcting the records to show she is the FSM’s SBP beneficiary. However, retired pay is only an entitlement if the member applies for it. The evidence of record shows the FSM did not apply for retired pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008544C070205
David Tucker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. The military records at DFAS verify that the FSM’s widow, T______, is receiving the SBP annuity.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061276C070421
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 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 had not yet made an SBP election. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations,...
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 | CY2006 | 20060004313C070205
There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant submitted a written request for a deemed election for former spouse coverage. The FSM retired on 1 May 1986 and elected SBP spouse and dependent children coverage. It stated that “[FSM] shall not, during his lifetime, provide, modify, amend, withdraw, or in any other manner alter the election to name [applicant] beneficiary of the Armed Services Survivor Benefit Plan.” However, there is no evidence of record that shows the...