RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 27 September 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006054
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
Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Richard Dunbar
Chairperson
Mr. Chester Damian
Member
Mr. Edward Montgomery
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 his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with an effective date 30 April 1999 be corrected to show the proper spelling of his wife's first name as "Jeanette" instead of "Jeannette".
2. The applicant states, in effect, his wife's first name was misspelled and it was an oversight on his part when he proofread his DD Form 214 upon retirement.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his wife's DD Form 1173 (Military Dependent Identification and Privilege Card) and his DD Form 214 in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant is a retired member of the United States Army who served honorably on active duty as an Attack Helicopter Repairman in the military occupational specialty 67Y. The applicant retired on 30 April 1999 after serving 22 years and 13 days of net active federal service.
3. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant shows in Block 19b (Nearest Relative) the entry "Jeannette."
4. The applicant provided a photocopy of his wife's valid DD Form 1173, which shows the entry "Jeanette" as the person to whom the military identification card was issued.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-14, (Identification Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, Their Eligible Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel) provides, in pertinent part, directives to verification officers concerning legal documents required to verify identify before issuing family members and dependents of retirees their military identification card. The retired Soldier must present himself with his spouse to the Verifying Official at the Military Identification Card and DEERS/RAPIDS (Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) Real-Time Automated Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS)) military facility with the proper validation documents required to request a military identification card for a retiree's spouse. The documents required are original marriage certificates, divorce documents, birth certificates, Social Security Cards, and valid state driver's license.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that when his DD Form 214 was prepared and issued to him upon his retirement on 30 April 1999, his spouse's name was misspelled. The applicant contends that his wife's name is spelled "Jeanette" as shown on her military identification card and not "Jeannette" as it is spelled in Block 19b of his DD Form 214.
2. The regulatory guidance governs the proper identification documents used for authenticating and verifying a family members identity prior to issuance of a military identification card. The proper documents were required for verification prior to issuing the retirees spouse her identification card. Therefore, it appears that the misspelling of the spouses first name on the DD Form 214 issued on
30 April 1999 was an administrative oversight.
3. In view of the evidence presented and published directives, the applicant's
DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the spelling of his spouse's first name as "Jeanette."
BOARD VOTE:
__RD ___ __CD ___ __EM __ 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 amending Block 19b the applicants 30 April 1999 DD Form 214 to show "Jeanette" as the proper spelling of the first name of his nearest relative.
_____Richard Dunbar_______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20070006054
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070927
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
100.0100
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022811
A DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) provided by DFAS shows the following: * retirement date 1 October 2004 * spouse F____ * child S____ with a date of birth of 23 July 1991 * SBP election 26b, coverage for spouse and child(ren) * date signed 7 July 2004 4. DFAS stated in an email to this Board, dated 9 May 2011, the FSM's DD Form 2656 was submitted by Fort Carson on 3 November 2004 and shows he elected spouse and child(ren) coverage. The applicant and the FSM...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061276C070421
Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA), dated 8 September 1982, established SBP for former military spouses for retiring members. 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. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063604C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) coverage from spouse to former spouse. The FSM and the applicant divorced on 9 February 1999. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010847
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 June 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130010847 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides his: * DD Form 214 * Identification and Privilege Card * Retirement Data Sheet * Retirement orders * Defense Meritorious Service Medal approval memorandum, citation, and award certificate CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. adding the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001991
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001991 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. In a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Retired and Annuity Pay, dated 20 April 2011, the applicant was informed they could not process his SBP request because he had not elected coverage for his spouse within one year of the marriage. The member may elect not to participate (with their spouses concurrence, if required), but the election must be made...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011493
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his retirement orders to show his last name as "R________lave." His retirement orders show his last name spelled as "R______lve". As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his retirement orders to show his name as "R______lave" as shown on the DD Form 1343.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016084
His DD Form 214 shows in: * Item 13, he was awarded or authorized the: * Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Award) * Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award) * Joint Service Achievement Medal * Army Achievement Medal (5th Award) * Meritorious Unit Commendation * USAF Presidential Unit Citation * Army Good Conduct Medal (6th Award) * National Defense Service Medal (3rd Award) * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (2nd Award) * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Korea Defense Service...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02752
There is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPSIAR recommends the member's record be corrected to reflect on 10 Apr 2009, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. There is no evidence of Air Force error; however, to preclude an injustice, we agree with AFPC/DPSIARs recommendation that the members records should be corrected to reflect that he made a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023818
The applicant requests correction of her date of birth in item 5 (Date of Birth) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show 12 November 1969 instead of 12 November 1970. Her DD Form 214 for this period of service shows her date of birth as 12 November 1970. The applicant's copy of her birth record, DD Form 4, and other documents in her military records show her date of birth as 12 November 1969.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02752
The member did not request coverage for his former spouse be terminated and the fact that SBP premiums were deducted from his retired pay for over three years following their divorce are indicative of his intent to maintain the applicant as the eligible SBP beneficiary. There is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPSIAR recommends the member's record be corrected to reflect on 10 Apr 2009, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage...