Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008131
Original file (20090008131.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
            
		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 December 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090008131 


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 and his spouse elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he and his spouse declined enrollment in the SBP upon retirement.  The applicant further states, in effect, that the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS) rejected his DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) because of a discrepancy about the date it was signed but that was straightened out and he was told the payments would stop the following month, but they did not.  He continues to state that he was also told that the Fort Gordon (FG) Form 6739 (Spousal SBP Concurrence Statement) was not sealed by a notary public and since it is now past his retirement date he could not resubmit the form.  He concludes by stating that he and his spouse do not wish to be enrolled in the SBP.

3.  The applicant provides the DD Form 2656, the FG Form 6739, and his spouse’s notarized statement of concurrence. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant retired from the United States Army on 31 August 2008, after serving for 20 years and 8 days.

2.  On 12 June 2008, the applicant signed and submitted a DD Form 2656 indicating that he did not elect SBP coverage for his spouse.  
3.  Item 32 (Spouse) a. (Signature) of the DD Form 2656 does not contain 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.  Item 33 (Notary Witness) does not contain a signature.  This is required because the spouse must concur with the applicant's election of less than full SBP coverage.

4.  On 26 July 2008, the applicant's spouse provided a FG Form 6739 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.  The statement was signed by a witness but it is unknown if the witness was an SBP counselor or a notary public. 

5.  On 29 September 2009, the applicant's spouse provided a notarized statement which indicated that she declined to 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 spouse’s written concurrence for a retiring member’s election that provides less than the maximum spouse coverage.

8.  Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, volume 7B, chapter 43, provides guidance on SBP elections.  This chapter states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 March 1986, a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage on full retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the member.  When the spouse’s concurrence is required, the signature indicating concurrence must be corroborated by one or more witnesses.  This chapter also states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Military Department concerned (or designee) may correct any election or any change or revocation of an election when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an administrative error.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his election under the SBP should be changed from full coverage to no survivor coverage was carefully considered and found to have merit.

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant elected not to participate in the SBP.  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.  The applicant's spouse has since submitted a notarized concurrence.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show that he elected not to participate in the SBP, that his spouse concurred with his election on 12 June 2008, and that he is entitled to reimbursement of any SBP deductions from his retired military pay.

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 showing that he elected not to participate in the SBP, that this spouse concurred with his election on 12 June 2008, and that DFAS reimburse the applicant any SBP deductions already deducted from his retired pay.
      
      
      
      ___________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)                                         AR20090008131



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010262

    Original file (20090010262.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 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 | CY2008 | 20080019169

    Original file (20080019169.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that her records be corrected to show she elected, with her spouse's concurrence, not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and reimbursement of SBP premiums deducted from her retired pay. Evidence of record shows that the applicant declined SBP coverage on 12 May 2008. 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 her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001340

    Original file (20090001340.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) to show his spouse concurred with his election made on 27 October 2008, not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), by showing that date in block 32b (Date Signed). As for the applicant's request for an expedited refund of the costs of the SBP already deducted from his retired pay account, the ABCMR only corrects military records. As a result, the Board recommends that all...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012463

    Original file (20080012463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The letter stated "Your spouse, CSM R________ G. A______ has requested retirement from the military service to be effective July 1, 2008. Evidence of record shows that the applicant retired on 1 July 2008.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080020073

    Original file (20080020073.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His spouse provided a notarized statement, dated 13 May 2009, indicating she concurred with the applicant's election not to participate in the SBP. However, even though his spouse signed the DD Form 2656 indicating she concurred with his decision to decline participation in the SBP, the form was not notarized as required. As a result, the Board recommends that the DD Form 2656 of the individual concerned be amended to show he and his spouse signed the form in a timely manner declining to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009918

    Original file (20100009918.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states she elected not to participate in the SBP; however, SBP premium payments were withdrawn from her first retirement pay statement. She states when she initially completed the form electing to decline SBP coverage, there were no instructions stating that signatures on the form must be notarized. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the applicant accurately completed the DD Form...

  • 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 | CY2013 | 20130020241

    Original file (20130020241.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record confirms that in conjunction with her disability retirement the applicant completed a DD Form 2656 on 30 July 2013 and elected not to participate in the SBP. However, although her spouse signed the DD Form 2656 on 5 August 2013 indicating he concurred with her election, the notary public dated the form 5 July 2013 as the date she witnessed his signature. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016366

    Original file (20100016366.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record shows that subsequent to receiving her 20-year letter, the applicant elected Option A wherein she declined enrollment at that time and deferred her SBP election to age 60. The evidence of record shows she retired on 6 May 2010, at age 60. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the applicant accurately completed the DD Form 2656 on 30 March 2010 electing not to participate in...