RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 July 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000096
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Michael J. Fowler
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Jeanette R. McCants
Chairperson
Mr. Thomas H. Ray
Member
Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann
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 his records be corrected to show he has former spouse Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was required to name his former spouse as his SBP beneficiary by the court. He erroneously named his current wife as beneficiary and inadvertently defied a court order.
3. The applicant provides a letter from his former spouse's attorney, dated
12 December 2006; a 2-page Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida, Mediation Agreement, dated 15 July 2004; a 2-page Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida, Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, dated 27 July 2004; his spouse's concurrence letter, dated 11 July 2007; and a State of Florida Marriage Record, dated 14 August 2004.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant had prior service in the United States Naval Reserve and enlisted in the United States Army on 20 January 1966. He married on
6 January 1968.
2. On 9 September 1987, the applicant completed a DA Form 4240 (Data for Payment of Retired Army Personnel). On this form he indicated that he elected spouse and children SBP coverage, full base amount.
3. The applicant retired on 31 October 1987.
4. On 24 July 2004, he divorced. The divorce decree stated in pertinent part that the applicant's retirement pay would be split 50/50 and that the SBP provision of his retirement would be made payable to his former spouse. The decree also noted the children were no longer minors.
5. On 14 August 2004, the applicant remarried.
6. There is no evidence that shows the applicant submitted a written request, or that the former spouse submitted a written request for a deemed election, to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to change the SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse coverage within one year of the divorce.
7. On 11 July 2007, the applicant's current spouse irrevocably waived her right to the SBP with no qualifications.
8. 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.
9. Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA), dated 8 September 1982, established SBP coverage for former spouses of retiring members.
10. Public Law 98-94, dated 24 September 1983, established SBP coverage for former spouses of retired members.
11. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1448(b)(3) incorporates the provisions of the USFSPA relating to the SBP. It permits a person to elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse. Any such election must be written, signed by the person making the election, and received by the Secretary concerned within one year after the date of the decree of divorce. The member must disclose whether the election is being made pursuant to the requirements of a court order or pursuant to a written agreement previously entered into voluntarily by the member as part of a proceeding of divorce.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
It appears neither the applicant nor the former spouse requested that his SBP spouse coverage be changed to former spouse coverage in the manner prescribed by law within the statutory one year time limit. However, his current spouse has provided her concurrence with his request to change his SBP election to former spouse coverage. It would be equitable to correct his records to show that he requested to change his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage in a timely manner.
BOARD VOTE:
__JRM __ ___THR _ ___JC __ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that, on 1 August 2004, he made a written request to change his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage and his request was received and processed by the appropriate officials in a timely manner.
____ Jeanette R. McCants __
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20070000096
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
31 JULY 2007
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MR. SHATZER
ISSUES 1.
137.0200.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003460
Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. The evidence of record confirms the FSM initially elected SBP coverage for spouse and children at the time of his retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018395
She also provides a letter from the FSM, dated 1 October 2008, in which he confirms that it was and is his intent that his former spouse (the applicant) continue to be the beneficiary of his SBP, and a letter from her counsel, dated 6 October 200, in which he indicates that a copy of the applicants Final Judgment was sent to DFAS in order that she receive her portion of the FSMs military retirement benefits and to ensure that she would be listed as beneficiary of the SBP benefits. Public...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004710C070206
The applicant requests that the records of her former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for former spouse coverage. The FSM and the applicant divorced on 12 February 2003. When the FSM and the applicant divorced on 12 February 2003, the divorce decree stated in pertinent part that the FSM would enroll in the SBP and name the applicant as the beneficiary.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017616C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, 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. The FSM and the applicant divorced on 14 May 1984. The FSM and the applicant divorced in May 1984, prior to the law that permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage without the member’s agreement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012875
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election to former spouse coverage and that she be awarded the SBP annuity retroactive to the date of his death. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012684
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he participated in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) with former spouse coverage. This document shows the applicant requested that the Court equitably distribute the parties' retirement plans, including, in pertinent part, "Military Retirement, or any and all other forms of retirement and death or survivor's benefits." c. Thus, the evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009572
On 19 March 1993, the FSM and his spouse, the applicant were divorced. He did not do so, and although the applicant provided copies of letters that show she did make a request for a deemed election of the SBP for former spouse coverage within one year of the divorce as required by law, there is no indication that these letters were received by DFAS. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008929
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070008929 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. The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election from spouse and child...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005029
He requested that DFAS correct his records to show the former spouse coverage. Public Law 98-94, dated 24 September 1983, established SBP coverage for former spouses of retired members. Neither the applicant nor the former spouse requested that his SBP spouse coverage be changed to former spouse coverage in the manner prescribed by law within the statutory one-year time limit.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000163
The letter provided by the applicant from DFAS indicates that she was denied an SBP annuity because no election was made by the applicant or the FSM for former spouse coverage within 1 year of the divorce. Although there is no conclusive evidence that shows a proper former spouse election was made by the FSM, the applicant, or her attorney, the available evidence suggests that it was the FSMs intention to provide an SBP annuity for the applicant. As a result, the Board recommends that all...