| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
2. The applicant requests that he be allowed to enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
3. The applicant states that he married in June 2000. When he applied for an identification card for his spouse in July 2000, he inquired about enrolling in the SBP. He was told they had to be married at least 2 years before he could enroll. During October/November 2002, he inquired again about enrolling in the SBP. He was told at that time that it was too late to enroll, that he had to enroll "within" 2 years of getting married.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1976. He retired under a voluntary early retirement program on 1 June 1995. At that time, he was not married, had two dependent children, and
elected not to participate in the SBP.
5. The applicant married on 12 June 2000.
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. It required a 2-year waiting period for new spouse eligibility following post-retirement remarriage. Public Law 94-496, enacted 14 October 1976, reduced this waiting period to 1 year following post-retirement remarriage.
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. The Board accepts the applicant's contention that he was given erroneous information concerning enrolling in the SBP after his post-retirement marriage. The erroneous information may have arisen over a confusion about the original rules for enrolling a spouse after a post-retirement marriage.
2. The Board concludes that it would be equitable to correct the applicant's records to show he enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage in a timely manner. Back premiums would be due.
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 the applicant made a written request to enroll in the SBP for spouse coverage, full base amount, on 1 July 2000 and that his request was received and processed by the appropriate office in a timely manner.
2. That the applicant be advised the Defense Finance and Accounting Service will be instructed to collect any SBP costs due.
BOARD VOTE:
__js___ ___wp___ ___lm___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___John N. Slone___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003086846 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030619 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 137.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105727C070208
The applicant states that, on 22 March 2001, the FSM faxed a letter to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), along with their marriage certificate, requesting enrollment in the SBP. Nevertheless, the letter is accepted as sufficient evidence to show the FSM made a good faith effort to comply with the law by requesting enrollment in the SBP within one year of his post-retirement marriage. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062732C070421
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he enrolled his spouse in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) within one year of their marriage. After receiving his June 2000 Retiree Account Statement and noticing his no-longer-dependent child was still listed as his SBP beneficiary and his spouse was not listed, he called the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to have his daughter taken off and to have spouse coverage added. That all of the Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015283
A DD Form 2656-6, dated 17 June 2014, which shows he elected to change his SBP coverage from child only to spouse and children, at the full retired pay level. An email from RSO, Fort Jackson, SC, initiated 17 June 2014, wherein the RSO requests that the applicant's SBP coverage election be changed due to remarriage. c. A letter from the DFAS representative, dated 18 June 2014, wherein the applicant's request for modification of his SBP coverage was denied because the election was not...
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120018320
He states, in effect, prior to marriage to his current spouse he went to Retirement Services and he was told he had to wait until he had been married for 1 year to sign his wife up for survivor benefits. The evidence of record shows the applicant was not married when he elected child only SBP coverage based on full gross retired pay on 14 September 2010. Following marriage to his current spouse on 2 May 2011, he had a 1 year period to make an election to add his spouse as an SBP beneficiary.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002256
On 24 November 2008, he elected "spouse and child" SBP coverage in anticipation of retiring. The applicant requests a change of his SBP coverage to show he elected "spouse only" coverage within 1 year of marriage. The evidence provided by the applicant shows on that on 16 February 2011 he requested to change/add his new spouse as his SBP beneficiary which was approximately 25 days beyond the 1-year period to make such an election.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007495
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he elected Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his spouse within one year of his remarriage. The applicant provides: * DD Form 2656-6, dated 4 April 2014 * Certificate of marriage (Connie), dated 12 February 2013 * Emails to DFAS * Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 * DD Form 1883 (SBP Election Certificate) * DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), dated 7 July 2008 * National Guard...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065247C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. It permits a person who, incident to a proceeding of divorce, is required by court order to elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063754C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he was not married at the time he retired and believes this caused the retirement services officer (RSO) to omit eligibility information should he get married in the future. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is...