RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           6 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002212


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred N. Eichorn               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |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.  The applicant requests reconsideration of her earlier request that the
records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected
to show he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for spouse coverage
and that she be determined to be entitled to his retired pay.

2.  The applicant states that an amendment to his death certificate shows
she was married to the FSM at the time of his death.

3.  The applicant provides the FSM's death certificate containing a pen and
ink correction to the Marital Status and Surviving Spouse items.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003092569 on 30 March 2004.

2.  After having had prior service, the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on
      28 October 1964.  He and the applicant married on 3 November 1979.

3.  A DD Form 1172 (Application for Uniformed Services Identification Card
DEERS Enrollment) dated 28 July 1989 shows that the FSM's spouse, a woman
not the applicant, was issued a dependent identification card.  A date of
marriage of 22 October 1987 is listed on the form.  This woman is also
listed as his spouse on his DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data) dated 25
October 1988.

4.  The FSM retired on 1 November 1992.  He had completed a DA Form 4240
(Data for Payment of Retired Army Personnel) on which he indicated he was
not married and that he declined to participate in the SBP.

5.  The FSM died on 10 March 2003.  His death certificate originally
indicated he was divorced.  The applicant provided an amended death
certificate (it cannot be determined who amended it) that has a pen and ink
correction indicating his marital status was "married" and that his
surviving spouse was the applicant.  The death certificate also indicated
that someone other than the applicant was the informant.

6.  In the original consideration of her case, the applicant had provided a
letter from the Clerk, Superior Court, Cumberland County, Fayetteville, NC
which stated that a diligent search was made in that office for divorce
records between the applicant and the FSM and that their records did not
reflect a divorce being granted in that county between the years of 1966
through 2003.

7.  Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that
military members could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide
for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.  Retiring members and
spouses were to be informed of the SBP options and effects.

8.  Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986,
required a spouse’s written concurrence for a retiring member’s election
that provides less than the maximum spouse coverage.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-14 (Identification Cards, Tags and Badges) states
that all initial applications [for a dependent identification card] for
family members and all applications for family members status changes will
be verified through presentation of legal documentation regardless of the
sponsor's grade.  All documentation must be State or county certified.  For
the lawful spouse, a marriage certificate and, if either party was
previously married, a copy of the divorce decree or decree of annulment
terminating any previous marriages must be presented.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-1 (Army Casualty and Memorial Affairs and Line
of Duty Investigations), dated 18 September 1986, in pertinent part stated
that, when deemed necessary, the DD Form 93 preparing activity would
require the individual to present documented evidence of marriage or
divorce.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board has carefully considered the amended death certificate;
however, it is insufficient evidence to show that the FSM was not divorced
at the time of his death.  There is no evidence to show who made those
changes and no evidence to show what documentation was presented that would
have justified those changes.

2.  The Board also carefully considered the letter from the Clerk, Superior
Court, Cumberland County, Fayetteville, NC.  However, that letter only
testifies to the fact that a search of that county's records failed to
reveal that the FSM and the applicant were divorced from their county.  It
does not substantiate that a divorce was not obtained in another county.

3.  A DD Form 1172 and a DD Form 93 show that the FSM was married to a
woman other than the applicant in 1987, 1988, and 1989.  Both of those
documents required that the FSM produce a divorce or annulment decree prior
to their being prepared.  The Board must presume that he had in fact
produced a divorce or annulment decree that was valid on the face of it.
There is no evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence to show
that such a divorce or annulment was not valid.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fne___  __rtd___  __ym____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2003092596 dated 30 March 2004.




            __Fred N. Eichorn_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002212                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050106                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |137.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]