RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 August 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050017988
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. Victoria A. Donaldson | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Scott W. Faught | |Member |
| |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin | |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 that the DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan
Election Certificate) of her deceased brother, a former service member
(FSM), be corrected to show that he elected Option C instead of Option A.
2. The applicant states that the last time the form was updated was
18 November 1998. The applicant, in effect, contends that the FSM would
have designated herself and her son as the beneficiaries of his Survivor
Benefit Plan.
3. The applicant continues that she is the executor and sole beneficiary
of the FSM's Last Will and Testament and that she is also the beneficiary
of his Servicemember's Group Life Insurance policy.
4. The applicant provides a copy of the FSM's Death Certificate, a copy of
the FSM's Last Will and Testament, a Certificate of Executor Appointment,
Sole Distributee Affidavit, a memorandum for record, dated 21 September
2005, the FSM's Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60, a
copy of the FSM's Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Election and
Certificate, and a copy of the FSM's Divorce Decree in support of this
application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant provided a Death Certificate which shows that the FSM was
born on 6 March 1953 and died on 5 June 2005. His death certificate also
shows his marital status as divorced.
2. Records show that the FSM was granted a judgment of divorce on 8 April
1983.
3. On 14 October 1998, the FSM was notified by Headquarters, New York Army
National Guard (NYARNG) that he was eligible for retired pay at age 60.
4. The FSM's records contain a Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate
which shows that FSM identified himself as married. This Certificate
further shows that the FSM placed his "X" in the Option A (Defer) box.
Option A is identified in the instructions as "I decline to make an
election at this time (I will remain eligible to make an election for
coverage at age 60)." This Certificate identifies the FSM's former spouse
by name and date of birth and was authenticated by the FSM and witnessed on
18 November 1998. The applicant is not identified as the beneficiary on
this Certificate.
5. The applicant's records contain a 21 September 2005 memorandum from the
NYARNG. This memorandum shows that the applicant was an enlisted member of
the NYARNG during the period 18 August 1977 through 6 June 2005, the date
of his death.
6. There is no indication in the available records that the FSM designated
his sister and her son as the beneficiaries of his SBP benefits or had any
intention to do so.
7. The applicant provided a copy of the FSM's Last Will and Testament
which shows that she was identified as the executor of the applicant's
estate. The FSM's Last Will and Testament states, in section eight, that
he served in the Armed Forces of the United States and that the executor
should ascertain whether there are any benefits to which his estate is
entitled. The FSM's Last Will and Testament specifically stated that the
executor should consult with a retired affairs officer at the nearest
military installation, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Social
Security Administration.
8. Public Law 95-397, the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP),
enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for those who had qualified for
reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 to provide an annuity for their
survivors should they die before reaching age 60. 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 60th birthday; (C) elect that a beneficiary receive an
annuity immediately upon their death if before age 60. Spousal
notification and concurrence are required only if the member elects to
participate in the RCSBP for less than full spouse coverage. A member must
make the election within 90 days of receiving the notification of
eligibility to receive retired pay at age 60 or else wait until he/she
applies for retired pay and elect to participate in the standard SBP.
Before spousal notification and concurrence were required, failure to elect
an option resulted in the default election of option A.
9. Public Law 99-145, dated 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986,
permitted retirees to elect SBP coverage for a former spouse under spouse
coverage provisions vice insurable interest provisions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that the FSM's records should be corrected to
show that he elected Option C (Immediate Coverage) on his Survivor Benefit
Plan Election Certificate and that she and her son be named the
beneficiaries of the FSM's SBP benefits.
2. There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not
provided sufficient evidence showing that the FSM elected her and her son
as the beneficiaries of his SBP benefits or had the specific intention of
doing so.
3. Furthermore, the FSM clearly identified his former spouse on the
Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate completed on 18 November 1998.
4. The FSM clearly elected to defer selecting an SBP option at the time
that he completed the Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate.
Therefore, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request to amend this
form to show that the FSM elected Option C (Immediate Coverage) for her and
her son.
5. Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to amend the FSM's Survivor
Benefit Plan Election Certificate as requested.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_JRM___ __RCH___ _SWF___ 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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.
_Jeanette R. McCants___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050017988 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20060824 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |YYYYMMDD |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR . . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. | |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009004
The Probate Court found that at the time the FSM executed his Will, it was his last will and testament and that his mother was to be appointed to serve as the Executrix of his general estate. Counsel provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 5 March 2007 * DA Form 199, dated 9 April 2007 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) * VA Rating Decision, dated 14 November 2007 *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008789C070206
DFAS stated in the letter that the FSM's account had been corrected to show spouse coverage only, based on full gross retired pay at a monthly cost of $93.60. Therefore, since the evidence clearly shows that the applicant and his mother made timely attempts to file for SBP, it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to recommend that the FSM's records be corrected to show that the FSM's spouse, the applicant’s mother, applied for SBP, (spousal coverage only, based on full gross...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065650C070402
The applicant was appointed the executor-administrator of his estate. Records at DFAS-CL indicate the FSM continued to pay SBP premiums until his death. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011959
She adds, in effect, that the reason that no beneficiary [type of coverage] is indicated on the form is because the FSM was married at the time and he was not aware that his children could receive SBP benefits in the event of his death before he began to receive retired pay at age 60. The FSM's military records show his date of birth (DOB) as 28 May 1959. This document shows, in pertinent part, that the FSM was notified that having completed the required years of service, he would be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013181
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013181 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct all records to include DEERS to show the applicant and FSM were married on 14 April 2007, that the FSM was enrolled in the RCSBP under Option C (full coverage), and that the applicant was the FSMs legal spouse and SBP beneficiary at the time of the FSMs death on 12 February 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011773
The applicant requests the records of her deceased former husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show her eligibility for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity based on the FSM's death. The record is void of any change of SBP election made by the FSM subsequent to his 2001 divorce from the applicant. The evidence in this case shows the FSM elected coverage for the applicant as his spouse upon his retirement in 1992.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004649
The applicant requests, in effect, that the military records of her deceased spouse, an active duty Soldier who died while on active duty be corrected to show the applicant is the beneficiary for all Survivor Benefit Plan annuities. In the divorce decree presented to the Board, there is no discussion nor was it adjudged that the applicant, the former spouse of the deceased Soldier, was awarded benefits under the SBP. On 14 September 2006, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005810
The applicant requests that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage to former spouse coverage and that she be granted an SBP annuity. The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of their divorce the divorce decree provided that she remain the beneficiary of the FSMs SBP annuity. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006196C070205
The applicant states, in effect, when her husband was notified in 1991 of his eligibility for retired pay at age 60, he was single and listed his sister as the person to receive his RCSBP annuity. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1448 (Application of Plan), provides, in pertinent part, that a person who is not married and 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 Plan. However,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009440
The applicant, the former spouse of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests reconsideration of her request for correction of the FSM's records to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election from spouse to former spouse coverage. Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's request for correction of the FSM's record to show he changed his SBP election from spouse to former spouse coverage. On 27 March 2012, in ABCMR Docket Number AR20110018472, the Board denied...