Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012463
Original file (20080012463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        15 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012463 


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, in effect, that his DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), dated 4 April 2008, be corrected to show he timely elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

2.  The applicant states he elected not to participate in the SBP; however, he is currently having spouse-only full coverage SBP deductions taken from his retired pay.  The applicant further states that he attended his Pre-Retirement Briefing in April 2008 and does not recall the briefer, a Retirement Services Officer (RSO) at Fort Myer, VA, stating that his spouse had to sign the concurrence portion of the DD Form 2656 by a certain [retirement] date.

3.  On 5 May 2008, the RSO sent the applicant’s spouse a letter informing her that the applicant had elected not to participate in the SBP.  He attached an information fact sheet concerning the SBP and an election form for her to sign and have notarized concurring, or nonconcurring, with her spouse’s election.  The applicant’s spouse signed the form before a Notary Public on 14 July 2008.

4.  In a letter to the RSO at Fort Myer, the applicant’s spouse states although the original letter was dated 5 May 2008, it was not delivered by the US Postal Service until 10 June 2008.  With her daughter’s college graduation and a family reunion, she was unable to have the election form signed and notarized until 14 July 2008, two weeks after the applicant’s retirement.  She states the RSO letter did not specify a timeline and did not express a sense of urgency.  She adds she, too, attended the Pre-Retirement Briefing in April 2008 and does not recall the briefer stating that spouses must sign the spousal concurrence form by a certain date or an automatic deduction would occur based upon a default election of full coverage, spouse only.

5.  The applicant provides the front-page of a DD Form 2656, dated 21 July 2008; the back-page of a DD Form 2656, dated 28 April 2008; a letter from Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Fort Myer, dated 5 May 2008; a City of Manila, Province of Philippine Marriage Contract, dated 18 December 1978; a letter addressed to the RSO, dated 11 July 2008; a Notarized SBP election, dated 14 July 2008; a 5-page e-mail, with dates of July 2008 through August 2008; a Retiree Account Statement from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), a letter addressed to DFAS, dated 21 July 2008; a letter from DFAS, dated 9 July 2008; a U.S. Postal Service, Track and Confirm document; and a copy of a letter post marked 20 May 2008. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 February 1979.  He was promoted to Command Sergeant Major (CSM) on 1 December 2001.  

2.  On 4 April 2008, the applicant completed a DD Form 2656.  Section IX (Survivor Benefit Plan Election) shows he elected not to participate in the SBP.  Section XI (SBP Spouse Concurrence) does not contain the signature of the applicant’s spouse.  The instructions for completing Section XI are, “Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 1448 requires that an otherwise eligible spouse concur if the member declines to elect SBP coverage,...a member with an eligible spouse upon retirement, who elects any combination other than items 26.a. or 26.b. and 27.a., must obtain the spouse's concurrence in Section XI.  A Notary Public must be the witness.  In addition, the witness cannot be named beneficiary in Section V, VIII, or IX.  Spouse's concurrence must be obtained and dated on or after the date of the member's election, but before the retirement/transfer date (emphasis added).  If concurrence is not obtained when required, maximum coverage will be established for your spouse and child(ren) if appropriate.”

3.  On 5 May 2008, the RSO at Fort Meyer, Virginia mailed the applicant's spouse a certified letter.  The letter was post marked 20 May 2008 and not delivered until 10 June 2008, due to the applicant and his spouse having been out of town.  The letter stated "Your spouse, CSM R________ G. A______ has requested retirement from the military service to be effective July 1, 2008.  He has made a decision, electing not to participate in Survivor Benefit Plan.  To help you understand the impact of this decision, I have enclosed a fact sheet describing SBP in more detail."  The applicant's spouse was asked to review the document, sign it before a notary and return the statement form. 

4.  The applicant retired on 1 July 2008.

5.  The applicant provided a copy of his Retiree Account Statement, with an effective date of 9 July 2008, showing SBP spouse only costs had been deducted from his retired pay.

6.  On 14 July 2008, the applicant's spouse concurred with his SBP election, she signed and had the document notarized.  The document was forwarded to the RSO at Fort Meyer, Virginia.

7.  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.  

8.  Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986, required a spouse’s written concurrence for a retiring member’s election that provides less than the maximum spouse coverage.

9.  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 SBP.  The spouse’s 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 applicant contends that he does not recall that the briefer informed him that his spouse must sign the consent form by a certain date if they declined SBP coverage.  However, if he had any questions, the applicant, a senior noncommissioned officer, had a responsibility to himself to obtain information on the SBP prior to signing any document presented to him.  The instructions on the DD Form 2656 specifically stated spouse's concurrence must be obtained and dated on or after the date of the member's election, but before the retirement/transfer date.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant retired on 1 July 2008.  His spouse failed to provide concurrence to his declination of SBP coverage until 
14 July 2008.  This made the applicant's DD Form 2656 invalid and he was automatically enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage.  The SBP statute states that retirees have a one-year period, beginning on the second anniversary of the date on which their retired pay started, to withdraw from SBP; however, again, the spouse's concurrence is required.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  He may withdraw, with his spouse's concurrence, during the one year period beginning 1 July 2010 and ending 30 June 2011.

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.



															XXX
      _______ _   _______   ___
       	   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)                                         AR20080012463





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012463



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001582

    Original file (20090001582.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's Retiree Account Statement, dated 9 July 2008, shows an SBP deduction of $268.84 for spouse only coverage, indicating that he was covered under the SBP for spouse coverage. The evidence of record shows that the applicant submitted a DD Form 2656 wherein he elected, in the presence of an RSO counselor, not to participate in the SBP. The SBP spouse concurrence statement shows she concurred with his decision after the date he made that decision but not before he retired.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011716

    Original file (20080011716.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) with his spouse's concurrence. By doing so, he also acknowledged he had been counseled that he can terminate SBP participation, with his spouse's written concurrence, within one year after the second anniversary of commencement of retired pay. Completion of Section XI (SBP Spouse Concurrence) of DD Form 2656 is required when a service member is married and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018041

    Original file (20080018041.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2011 | 20110021185

    Original file (20110021185.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), dated 2 March 2011 * SBP Spouse Election Concurrence Statement, dated 8 March 2011 * Retiree Account Statement, dated 29 September 2011 * letter of explanation/correction request, dated 14 October 2011 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. By law, his spouse was required to authenticate this form on or after the date he made this election but prior to the date of retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007522

    Original file (20100007522.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends the DD Form 2656 that he completed on 27 October 2009 where he declined SBP spouse coverage should be honored and the SBP premiums refunded because both he and his spouse were present when he signed the document in the presence of an Army SBP counselor and notary public, respectively. The evidence of record confirms that on 27 October 2009, in his application for retired pay, the applicant declined to participate in SBP. The evidence shows that, for some period of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012530

    Original file (20110012530.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) * SBP Spouse Election Concurrence Statement * Retiree Account Statement CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's Retiree Account Statement, dated 9 March 2011 (effective 1 April 2011), shows an SBP deduction for spouse coverage. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * showing the applicant accurately completed the DD Form 2656,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007159

    Original file (20130007159.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2014 | 20140019757

    Original file (20140019757.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2010 | 20100021362

    Original file (20100021362.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that on or about 21 July 2008 he completed a DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) at the Army Retirement Services Office (RSO) at Fort Irwin, CA declining enrollment in the SBP. The RSO sent his wife a "Spouse Concurrence Letter Decline SBP," dated 21 July 2008, and a Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement via FedEx. The letter to the applicant's wife would not have been sent if he had not already completed a DD Form 2656.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007119

    Original file (20090007119.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 husband’s (the applicant’s) election not to participate in the...