RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 19 MAY 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040006746
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Raymond Wagner | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Barbara Ellis | |Member |
| |Ms. LaVerne Douglas | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. In effect, the applicant requests that his record be corrected to show
that he is now married.
2. The applicant states that he was not married when he retired. He is
now married and has been married since 24 November 1997. When he went to
the military personnel office to obtain a military identification card for
his wife, he should have been aware that he should have been directed to
the records section to have his record reflect that he was married. He has
been diagnosed with dementia, and that is why he has given power of
attorney to his wife so that she can handle his affairs.
3. The applicant provides a copy of a marriage license and a copy of a
power of attorney.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 28 February 1974. The application submitted in this case
is dated 16 August 2004.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant retired from the Army in the rank of lieutenant colonel
on 28 February 1974 with more than 21 years of active federal
service. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
does not provide for a Soldier’s marital status. The applicant’s 12 June
1973 record of emergency data, however, shows that he listed his sister and
brother as beneficiaries. His 7 November 1973 report of
medical examination shows that his next of kin was his brother. His
Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Election form, dated 12 June 1973, shows
that he designated his brother and sister as his beneficiaries.
5. The documents that the applicant submits show that he was married on
24 November 1997, and that he gave power of attorney to his wife on 7
May 2004.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s marriage in 1997, an event subsequent to his
retirement, does not require the Army to change its records. Any events or
actions subsequent to retirement or discharge do not require a correction
of a Soldier’s records. The applicant’s records were correct at the time
that he retired in 1974. Consequently, his request to correct his record
to show that he is now married is not warranted.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.
3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 28 February 1974; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 27 February 1977. However, the applicant did not
file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a
compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest
of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___RW__ ___BE __ ___LD___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.
__ Raymond Wagner_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20040006746 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20050519 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |YYYYMMDD |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR . . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |100.00 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006907
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her late husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he elected Reserve Component (RC) Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for her. A DD Form 108, dated 19 March 2003, shows the FSM's sister, Carol R. D____, applied for retired pay for the FSM with a beginning date of 24 October 2000. On 19 March 2003, this sister applied for retired pay for the FSM with a beginning date of 24 October 2000.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003096
The evidence in the FSM's file, and provided by the applicant indicates the FSM was divorced at the time he completed his SBP election form in 1997. In order to provide immediate coverage to the applicant or his nephew the FSM would have had to so indicate on his election form. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the FSM intended to provide an immediate annuity to an insurable interest under the SBP when he made his SBP election in November 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011948
The applicant requests, through a member of congress, in effect, correction of his record to show: * he elected not to resume Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his current spouse in conjunction with remarriage * recoupment of premiums paid 2. Only upon receipt of the marriage certificate some 24 years after the applicant's second marriage did the DFAS resume SBP coverage resulting in a debt of $63,932.30 for unpaid premiums beginning the first month following his first anniversary...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04931
DPFFF states that the applicants sister was over the age of 22 and his deceased father did not name her as a contingent disabled child beneficiary. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicants deceased father has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02783
DPPRT contends the member was married when eligible to elect SBP coverage, the statute did not allow him to elect coverage for anyone other than his wife and/or children. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-041
If Option A is elected at time of 20 year satisfactory service letter, and spouse concurs, member will have an opportunity to elect into the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) at age 60. (B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--A person who (i) is eligible to participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is married or has a dependent child when he is notified under section 12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years of 2 Pub. § 1448(a)(5), entitled “Participation by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007406
The applicant states, in effect, he completed a DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate) at the time he received his Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter). The applicant contends, in effect, that his military records should be corrected to show he elected RCSBP coverage for his spouse within a year of their marriage. In 2003, when he married, he had a 1-year period in which to submit an RCSBP election to provide coverage for his spouse.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00641
With the help of his attorney, he prepared all the necessary documentation to properly claim the SBP entitlement and submitted this information to DFAS. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Her father enrolled in the SBP and subsequently elected maximum spouse and child coverage during an SBP open enrollment, and had a Helpless Child. Her mother predeceased her father by approximately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068814C070402
The FSM’s widow submitted an application dated 14 April 2002 (AR2002074719) to the Board requesting she be granted the RCSBP annuity. 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: Even if the will had “granted” the RCSBP to the applicant, she could not have received it because, again, she was not his spouse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106747C070208
The applicant requests through counsel, in effect, that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election made by her ex-spouse, a former service member (FSM), be changed to former spouse coverage. In view of the facts of this case, the record should be corrected to show the applicant’s request that a “Former Spouse” SBP election be deemed to have been made by the FSM was approved in a timely manner within one year of the divorce, and that this coverage was provided under the terms of the 1984...