IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 21 January 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011314
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 that her records be corrected to show that she does not wish to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) program.
2. The applicant states she had been assured by military officials that she was not enrolled in the SBP. However, upon receipt of her retirement pay she found that monies were being taken out for SBP. She wants the withholding of the money to stop and the money already withheld to be reimbursed.
3. The applicant provides a November 2008 notarized statement confirming that she and her husband declined participation in the SBP, a July 2006 Retired Pay Department document, a July 2006 Retiree Account Statement, and a March 2008 statement from the applicant and her spouse.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant, a career Soldier, served on active duty from 12 June 1986 through 30 June 2006, attaining the rank and pay grade of first sergeant (1SG)/ E-8.
2. At the time the applicant applied for retirement she was stationed in Lansing, Michigan and her spouse was in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
3. The applicant's iPERMS (integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System) file does not contain a copy of her DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel).
4. A Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter to the applicant, dated 7 July 2006, sets out her basic retirement information and advises her of her monthly retirement pay level. It states that she elected not to participate in the SBP.
5. Her Retiree Account Statement, dated 7 July 2006, lists her only withholding as Federal Income Tax.
6. A DD Form 2656, dated 20 March 2006, provided by DFAS, provides the following information:
a. at block 26g, that the applicant elected not to participate in the SBP;
b. at block 29, that there was a "spouse letter" attached;
c. at block 31, states "See spousal concurrence statement"; and
d. has the statement "missing sps letter. invalid due to missing (sic) signature" in what appears to be a computer generated insert block superimposed on the form.
7. The applicant and her spouse provided a jointly signed statement, dated 7Â March 2008, that outlines the applicant's contentions and requests that the SBP withholding be stopped.
8. An 18 November 2008 notarized statement was provided confirming that the applicant and her spouse declined to participate in the SBP program.
9. Public Law 92-425, enacted 21 September 1972, established the SBP. The SBP provided that military members on active duty could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents. An SBP election must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or the SBP will, by law, default to automatic SBP spouse coverage (if married).
10. Public Law 95-145, enacted 8 November 1985, required the spouse's written concurrence for a retiring member's election that provides less than maximum spouse coverage.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence clearly shows that both the applicant and her spouse attempted to properly complete and sign the DD Form 2656 prior to the date of the applicant's retirement. This form was originally accepted as noted by the 7 July 2006 DFAS letter.
2. Because the applicant's spouse was not physically located near the applicant at the time of her retirement, the DD Form 2656 shows that he provided a separate concurrence letter. However, the concurrence letter does not appear to have been properly attached to the DD Form 2656 forwarded to the DFAS. As a result, the DFAS apparently applied the letter of the law and started withholding SBP payments as if no election was made.
3. The applicant and her spouse have submitted jointly signed and notarized, statements stating that they intended to decline participation in the SBP.
4. The available documentation shows that the applicant and her spouse had properly submitted a declination of the SBP. Through no fault of the applicant or her spouse the necessary supporting documentation was lost.
5. As a matter of equity the records should be corrected to show that the applicant's spouse concurred with the declination of SBP, that his signature was properly witnessed on 21 March 2006, and that the applicant be reimbursed all SBP premiums previously withheld.
BOARD VOTE:
____X___ ___X ___ ___X____ 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:
a. showing that the applicant's spouse concurred with the declination of SBP and that his signature was properly witnessed on 21 March 2006; and
b. directing DFAS to stop withholding SBP premiums and refund all SBP premiums already withheld to the applicant.
_________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) AR20080011314
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011314
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009860
The applicant provides copies of two DD Forms 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), his retirement orders, and four DFAS Forms 7220 (Retiree Account Statement). On 22 October 2009, he completed and forwarded to DFAS a copy of an April 2006 version of a DD Form 2656, declining participation in SBP. At this time he applied for receipt of retired pay and completed a 2006 version of the DD Form 2656.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011042
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011042 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The iPERMS record does not contain copies of his retirement orders, any SBP election forms, or any other documentation dated after the 20-year letter issue date. The DD Form 2656 provided by the applicant is dated 27 August 2007.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007159
Section IV (Coverage), she elected Option A - I decline to make an election until age 60; c. Section VIII (Member Signature), the applicant and a witness signed the document on 11 April 2013; d. Section IX (Spouse Concurrence): (1) item 20 (Spouse), "I hereby consent in my spouse's RCSBP election as indicated. However, it appears the applicant's spouse was not notified of the applicant's election to decline SBP because there is no evidence of record that shows a spouse concurrence letter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012764
The letter also advised her that she must notify the USAR Personnel Command, using DD Form 1883 (SBP Election Certificate), of her decision within 90 days of the date of the letter. Public Law 106-398, dated 30 October 2000, required Reserve and Guard members, who had completed their service obligation, considered entitled for retired pay, but who are not yet age 60, to obtain their spouse's concurrence in RCSBP elections that do not provide maximum spouse coverage (immediate option). As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006372
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001471
He provides a Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement. After he retired, on 30 August 2013, the applicant completed a DD Form 2656 and elected not to participate in the SBP. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. amending his DD Form 2656 to show he and his spouse timely signed the form declining to participate in the SBP and the form was properly notarized; b. showing DFAS timely received and processed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018041
The ABCMR analyst of record telephonically contacted the DFAS Retired Pay Office on 23 January 2009, which confirmed that the DD Form 2656, dated 10 July 2008 was not authenticated by the spouse on or after the date the applicant made his election. In a notarized statement, dated 27 January 2009, the applicant's spouse indicated that she had previously agreed with her husband's decision to not participate in the SBP and that she previously signed the one form provided by the Fort Drum, NY,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014707
This letter notified the applicant that she had completed the required years of service and would be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60. The evidence of record also shows she submitted a DD Form 2656 on 25 February 2009 wherein she elected, in the presence of an RSO counselor, not to participate in the SBP. However, by law, her spouse was required to authenticate this form on or after the date she made this election but prior to the date of retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017092
The applicant requests her records be corrected to show she declined participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and that she receive a refund for all SBP premiums taken from her retired pay. She provides: * Certified mail receipt * Letter addressed to DFAS * Standard Form 1199A (Direct Deposit) * DD Form 108 (Application for Retired Pay Benefits) * DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) * Retiree Account Statement * Letter from DFAS, Retired and Annuity Pay * ARPC Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011853
On 25 July 2009, the applicant and her spouse, who is also retired from the USAR, completed a DD Form 2656 (April 2006 version) in which they elected to decline participation in the SBP. A staff member of the Board also contacted the applicantÂ’s spouse regarding the notarized election form and he informed the staff member that he and his spouse (the applicant) did decline participation in the SBP and that they did so as well when he retired from the USAR in February 2008. Therefore, as a...