RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016021


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 her medical benefits be reinstated to allow
her to be enrolled in TriCare for Life and that her military identification
(ID) card be corrected to show she is eligible for medical benefits.

2.  The applicant states she based her remarriage on erroneous information
that was given to her by several government agencies.  In a letter to her
Representative in Congress dated 7 August 2001, the applicant stated she
decided to remarry in 1997.  She called several agencies and was told that
if she remarried after age 60 she would not lose benefits provided by her
late husband, a former service member (FSM).  She did not, at the time,
feel there was a need to have the definition of benefits spelled out.  At
the time the FSM would have turned age 60 she was issued a military ID card
and was able to get prescriptions and use other medical facilities.  Every
year she received a questionnaire asking if she remarried.  She always told
the truth, so when she did remarry she told “them” she remarried.

3.  The applicant stated in the 7 August 2001 letter that she read that
TriCare for Life would be available in the fall.  She was told by the local
TriCare office that all she needed to do was go to the ID card facility and
tell them she needed to have an ID card that indicated she was on Medicare.
 However, when the personnel at the ID card facility learned she was
remarried, they told her she was ineligible for benefits.  She was told
that even if she divorced, she would get exchange and commissary privileges
back, but no medical benefits.  They even confiscated her ID card.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of her military identification card;
copies of her Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Medicare health insurance cards;
letters to her Representatives in Congress, dated 7 August 2001, 21 July
2003, 2 September 2003, 14 October 2003, 28 June 2004, and 22 July 2004; a
letter to the Vice President, dated 20 April 2005, and a response, dated 13
May 2005; letters from her Representatives in Congress, dated 8 August
2001, 18 September 2001,      2 October 2001, 11 October 2001, 19 December
2001, 12 September 2003,       8 December 2003, 22 July 2004, 15 October
2004, 21 June 2005, and 10 August 2001; a 16 August 2001 letter from
TriWest Healthcare Alliance to her Representative in Congress; and a 25
September 2001 letter from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Health Affairs, TriCare Management Activity to her Representative
in Congress.

5.  The applicant also provides her marriage certificate to the FSM; the
FSM’s National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of
Service); the FSM’s Honorable Discharge Certificate; the FSM’s death
certificate; her certificate of marriage to her second spouse; the divorce
decree from her second marriage; a TriCare Eligibility fact sheet; and a
Survivor Benefit Plan fact sheet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM was born on 21 January 1932.  He enlisted in the Army National
Guard on 14 March 1949.  He and the applicant married on 10 May 1951.  He
was transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 November 1983.  He died on
    23 March 1989.

2.  On 29 March 1997, the applicant remarried.

3.  According to the 25 September 2001 letter from the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, TriCare Management Activity
to her Representative in Congress, the applicant’s status was erroneously
reflected as eligible for TriCare in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System (DEERS) after she lost her eligibility when she remarried
on 29 March 1997.

4.  The applicant divorced on 24 June 2003.  On 22 July 2003, she was
reissued a military ID card authorizing her exchange,
morale/welfare/recreation, and commissary benefits, but not medical
benefits.

5.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1072(2)(B) states the term “dependent,”
with respect to the widow of a member or former member of a uniformed
service, means the unremarried widow.  Section 1076 provides for the
medical and dental care prescribed by section 1077 to dependents of
specified members of a uniformed service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The law provides for medical and dental care to dependents of specified
members of a uniformed service.  The law also specifically defines the term
“dependent,” with respect to the widow of a member or former member of a
uniformed service, to mean the unremarried widow.

2.  As the applicant had remarried, even though she is now divorced, by law
she lost her entitlement to medical benefits based upon the FSM’s service.

3.  It is acknowledged that prior to her remarriage in 1997 the applicant
made good faith efforts to determine whether her remarriage would affect
her benefits.  However, it appears she failed to make specific enough
inquiries regarding medical care benefits.  She even acknowledged in her 7
August 2001 letter that benefits meant different things to different
people, yet, she did not check to make sure her definition of benefits
meant the same thing to the government personnel who gave her information.

4.  The applicant had a means of confirming that her understanding of
benefits was correct.  With her identification card, she presumably could
have made an appointment at the local Staff Judge Advocate’s office (Army
or any branch of service) to request free legal assistance in order to
obtain advice on this point.  It appears she visited the local military
installation on occasion, so such an appointment would have posed no undue
hardship.

5.  The applicant has not effectively shown that it was government error or
negligence that caused her unfortunate situation; rather, it seems likely
that she simply did not sufficiently research the issue before remarrying.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the
relief requested.

6.  The above being said, the applicant might want to consider obtaining
legal assistance at this time in ascertaining whether it would be possible
to change her divorce to an annulment and, if so, if such a change would
reinstate her TriCare benefits.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr___  __rjw___  __dwt___  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.




                                  __Jeffrey C. Redmann__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016021                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070524                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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