IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 September 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007745
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that he elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
2. The applicant states that he elected not to participate in the SBP and that his spouse concurred.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his spouses notarized statement of concurrence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 4 January 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31L (Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer. The applicants service was continuous through reenlistments and extensions.
2. On 13 August 2007, the applicant signed and submitted a Data for Payment of Retired Personnel (DD Form 2656) indicating that he elected SBP coverage for his spouse and children with a reduced base amount of $300.00.
3. Item 30 (Spouse) a. (Signature) does not contains the signature of the applicant's spouse indicating that she concurred with the SBP election made by her husband. This concurrence was required because the applicant opted for SBP coverage at less than the full base amount.
4. On 31 January 2008, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired) on the following day by reason of sufficient service for retirement. He had completed
23 years and 27 days of creditable active duty service. The highest grade he held during his tenure of service was Sergeant First Class/E-7.
5. On 24 March 2008, the applicant's spouse provided a notarized statement indicating that she elected to not participate in the SBP at the time of the applicant's retirement and still declines to participate in the program.
6. Public Law 92-425, enacted 21 September 1972, established the SBP. The SBP provided that military members could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.
7. Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986, required a spouses written concurrence for a retiring members election that provides less than the maximum spouse coverage.
8. Public Law 105-85, enacted 18 November 1997, established the option to terminate SBP participation. Retirees have a one-year period, beginning on the second anniversary of the date on which their retired pay started, to withdraw from the SBP. The spouses concurrence is required. No premiums will be refunded to those who opt to disenroll. The effective date of termination is the first day of the first calendar month following the month in which the election is received by the Secretary concerned.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The available evidence clearly shows that on 13 August 2007, the applicant elected to participate in the SBP to provide coverage for his spouse and children with a reduced base amount of $300.00. Therefore, the spouses subsequent agreement to forego SBP coverage is of no consequence.
2. The spouse's concurrence is required when the retiring service member elects less than full coverage, which means the spouses concurrence was required in the applicant's case. However, it was the applicants apparent intent to have some sort of SBP coverage for his spouse and children. Since the applicants spouse did not sign the concurrence at the reduced base amount, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) defaulted the applicant into coverage at the full base amount.
3. The applicant became eligible to draw retired pay on 1 February 2008. Therefore, he will have a 1-year period beginning on 1 February 2010 in which to terminate his SBP enrollment. He is encouraged to contact the nearest Retirement Services Officer prior to making his decision for more information. A copy of the Retirement Services Officer Directory (available in Army Echoes) will be provided to him.
4. In view of the above, the applicants request should not be granted.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____X____ ____X____ ____X____ 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.
____________X___________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007745
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006454
The applicant requests correction of Item 27 (Level of Coverage) of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), on his DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), to show Coverage with a Reduced Base Amount of $635.00 instead of Coverage Based on the Threshold Amount in Effect on the Date of Retirement. 2. The applicant states that he and his spouse elected coverage with a reduced base amount of $635.00 in Item 27 of his DD Form 2656, which was the minimum threshold amount in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011348
The evidence of record confirms the applicant elected spouse and children SBP coverage at a reduced base amount at the time of his retirement from military service. SBP premiums are deducted from a members retired pay. Therefore, based on the lack of SBP counseling received at the time of retirement, the applicant's record should be corrected in the interest of equity and justice, to show he declined participation, with his wife's concurrence, in the SBP which would also result in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010262
He further states, in effect, that the Army Retirement Services explained that his wife had to sign a separate notarized statement concurring with his SBP election. The applicant provided a Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement indicating that his spouse elected to not participate in the SBP at the time of the his retirement and declined to participate in the program. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008131
The applicant states, in effect, that he and his spouse declined enrollment in the SBP upon retirement. The evidence of record shows that his spouse concurred with his election; however, although she completed a FG Form 6739 and her concurrence was witnessed it appears the concurrence form was not notarized. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he elected not to participate in the SBP, that this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017892
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The election must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or else coverage automatically defaults to spouse coverage, if applicable. The evidence of record shows that prior to her retirement on 30 September 2013 the applicant made an SBP election for spouse and children coverage with a reduced base amount.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002288
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 June 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090002288 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date in 2008 and in anticipation for his upcoming retirement, the applicants servicing Retirement Services Office (RSO) in Korea mailed the applicants spouse a Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement and instructed the spouse to complete, sign, notarize, and return this statement prior to "1 March 2008," the effective date of the applicants retirement. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007119
On 8 September 2009, the applicant submitted a copy of a notarized statement, dated 1 September 2009, indicating that his spouse concurs with his decision not to participate in the SBP. On 8 September 2009, the applicant submitted a notarized statement signed by his spouse on 1 September 2009 that shows she mistakenly checked the non-concur block on the spouse concurrence/non-concurrence statement and that she concurs with her husbands (the applicants) election not to participate in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019757
The applicant elected spouse and child (i.e. spouse only) coverage based on less than his full retirement pay. If she non-concurred with the applicant's election, the applicant would receive automatic spouse SBP full coverage. An election to decline to participate in the SBP or elect SBP in a reduced amount, must be made and have the spouse's concurrence made prior to the effective date of retirement or else coverage automatically defaults to full spouse coverage.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009786
The applicant provides a statement from his spouse. In item 32 (Member), the statement reads "Also I have been counseled that I can terminate SBP participation, with my spouse's written concurrence, within one year after the second anniversary of commencement of retired pay. c. In Section XII (SBP Spouse Concurrence) (Required when member is married and elects child(ren) only coverage, does not elect full spouse coverage, or declines coverage; the date of the spouse's signature in item...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007142
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007142 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 31 January 2011, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) reviewed the applicant's record and recommended that he be permanently retired with a total combined disability rating of 40 percent. Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986, required a spouses written concurrence for a retiring members election that provided less than...