RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008808


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. 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.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct the
records of his deceased wife and former service member (FSM) to show:

      a.  that she requested and received a 15-year, non-regular retirement
from the US Army Reserve (USAR); and

      b.  that she elected the survivor benefit plan (SBP) for him.

2.  The applicant further requests that he be paid SBP payment retroactive
to the date of the FSM's death.

3.  The applicant states that he disagrees with the Discussion and
Conclusions (D&C) portion of the previous case, ABCMR Docket Number
AR2003098804, which was considered on 24 August 2004.  Specifically, he
contends that his wife knew nothing of her option to request a 15-year
retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) authorized
under Section 4403, Public Law 102-484 of 23 October 1992 (as amended by
Section 542d, Public Law 103-337 of 5 October 1994).  He further takes
exception to the statement in the D&C that reads:  "If the [ABCMR] were to
approve SBP along with early retirement, the applicant still would not be
eligible to receive SBP as long as he draws DIC [Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation, a Department of Veterans Affairs benefit], due to the
statutory offset provisions imbedded in those programs."  He requests that
he be informed which program offers the greatest financial benefit.

4.  The applicant provides two pages of a four-page document obtained from
the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, entitled "2003 Legislative
Accomplishments and Activity."  He highlights two sections dealing with
SBP.  This document was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR and is,
therefore, considered new evidence.

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
ABCMR in Docket Number AR2003098804, on 24 August 2004.

2.  The applicant's new evidence is merely a single-sentence recounting of
the extension of SBP benefits to surviving spouses of Reservists who die
from a service-incurred injury or illness during inactive duty training.

3.  The FSM was a Major (MAJ/O-4) with more than 16 years of USAR service.
She was also an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Given her
position as a field grade officer with considerable service experience, and
given that she was an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Government department directly dealing with veterans' benefits issues, the
previous ABCMR decision presumed that she knew about the rights, benefits,
and programs for which she might qualify.  The decision presumed that, for
whatever reason, and absent evidence to the contrary, the FSM chose not to
apply for early retirement under TERA.

4.  The previous ABCMR consideration correctly pointed out that a statutory
offset provision applies to DIC and SBP payments.  The previous decision
applied no dollar amounts to either category (DIC payment or SBP payment).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's new evidence is not germane to the central issue of
this case; it merely synopsizes facts already known to the Board.

2.  It is not known why the FSM did not seek early retirement under TERA;
perhaps she believed that she could win her fight with breast cancer and
continue to serve in the USAR.  What is known is that she did not apply for
an early retirement.  It is reasonable to presume that the applicant, as a
field grade officer with years of experience, and as an employee with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, was well-versed in the benefits and options
available to her as she fought her long battle with cancer.

3.  The ABCMR is not a benefits advisement agency.  It is not within the
purview of the ABCMR to advise applicants concerning the amount of a
projected SBP annuity, or to compare the relative values of various payment
plans.

4.  The applicant has provided no evidence to warrant a reversal of the
ABCMR's original decision in this matter.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __rtd___  __lmd___  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 AR2003098804, dated 24 August 2004.



                                        James E. Anderholm
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008808                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050804                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.0500                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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