Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014732
Original file (20090014732.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    16 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090014732 


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, correction of his records to show he declined the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) at retirement.

2.  The applicant states there was no time at the end of his tour at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to attend any classes to become educated on this issue.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a separation and property settlement agreement, a divorce decree, and a DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was separated for sufficient service for retirement on 30 June 2008 after completing 34 years and 28 days of total active service.  He was placed on the Retired List on the following day in the rank of major general.

2.  In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) regarding the applicant's SBP coverage election on file.  The DFAS indicated per e-mail that they have no documents indicating the applicant declined SBP coverage for his spouse.  DFAS indicated they had several DD Forms 2656 declaring coverage for spouse only.  DFAS further indicated the applicant's account was suspended on
26 October 2008 due to their divorce, which was effective 9 September 2009.  
DFAS indicated in the e-mail that a manual SBP premium refund was executed for October 2009 and that the applicant received it on 2 November 2009.  DFAS indicates the applicant's account currently reflects "no beneficiary," and that the applicant has the option to reinstate spouse coverage in the event he remarries.

3.  The applicant's SBP election documents provided by DFAS for the Board's review show that on 18 April 2008 he completed a DD Form 2656.  In section IX (SBP Election) of this form, the applicant checked that he elected coverage for spouse only, based on full gross pay.  Section XI (SBP Spouse Concurrence) does not contain the signature of the applicant’s spouse.  The instructions for completing Section XI are, "Required when a member is married and elects child(ren) only coverage, does not elect full spouse coverage, or declines coverage…."  Evidence of record shows the applicant was married at the time this document was signed.

4.  The applicant provided a copy of a DD Form 2656, dated 11 June 2009, with his application to the Board.  Section VIII (Dependency Information) contains his spouse's (now divorced) and a son's name.  Section IX shows his spouse's (now divorced) name in block 28 (Insurable Interest Beneficiary).  The now divorced spouse's signature and a date signed of 11 June 2009 appear in block 32 (Spouse).  The applicant does not explain why he completed and forwarded this DD Form 2656 to the Board with his application.

5.  A separation and property settlement agreement, dated 17 August 2009, provided by the applicant shows that his wife waived any interest in SBP coverage.

6.  The applicant's divorce decree, dated 9 September 2009, contains no mention of the SBP.

7.  Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted on 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.  Elections are made by category, not by name.  An election, once made, is permanent and irrevocable except as provided for by law.

8.  Public Law 94-496, enacted on 14 October 1976, but effective 1 October 1976, established that spouse SBP coverage costs would be suspended if marriage ends in death or divorce and that a waiting period for a new spouse's eligibility was reduced to 1 year following post-retirement marriage.

9.  Public Law 99-145, enacted on 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.

10.  Public Law 105-85, enacted on 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 completed his DD Form 2656 on 18 April 2008 prior to his retirement.  He indicated on the form that he elected to participate in the SBP for spouse coverage, full base amount.  His spouse’s signature was not needed for his election.  A spouse’s signature is required only when the member elects not to provide for full spouse coverage.  The instructions on the DD Form 2656 informed him of that.

2.  The applicant retired on 30 June 2008.  He had until that date to change his SBP election.  If he and his spouse did not want the SBP, he had more than 2 months in which he could have completed a new DD Form 2656 and obtained his spouse’s concurrence to his declination on the new DD Form 2656.  There is no evidence of record and he does not provide any evidence to show that he completed a new DD Form 2656 prior to his retirement date.

3.  There is no evidence that the applicant did not receive an SBP briefing.  However, even if he had not received an SBP briefing, the SBP election form is self-explanatory (completion instructions are on pages 3-4 of the DD Form 2656).  While the applicant's divorce eliminated his need for the SBP, he was divorced after his retirement.

4.  DFAS indicated the applicant requested termination of his SBP coverage in October 2009.  Per communication with DFAS, he was refunded the premium paid for October 2009.

5.  While the applicant's SBP spouse coverage is suspended, he will have a one-year opportunity, beginning on 1 July 2010, in which he may terminate (with his spouse’s concurrence, if remarried) his participation in the SBP.  It is recommended that the applicant discuss these issues with a Retirement Services Officer, if he has not already done so, before making a final decision about terminating his SBP.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 

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)                                         AR20090014732



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090014732



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011734

    Original file (20100011734.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, she requests correction of her records to show, at the time she retired, she elected not to participate in the SBP. Although she and her spouse failed to make the election before her retirement, it appears the RSO counselor also failed to inform her or her spouse that the SBP election was required to be signed and dated before the effective date of her retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2015 | 20150009327

    Original file (20150009327.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a DD Form 2656 and a DD Form 2656-1 wherein he elected to participate in the SBP for former spouse and children coverage pursuant to a written agreement previously entered into voluntarily as part of divorce proceedings and incorporated in a court order. The divorce proceedings do not compel the applicant to provide SBP coverage for his former spouse. Although the applicant indicated on the forms that he entered into a written agreement...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 20090019375

    Original file (20090019375.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 August 2008, the applicant completed a DD Form 2656 and he elected not to participate in SBP. An election to decline to participate in the SBP must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or else coverage automatically defaults to full spouse (or child only coverage, if applicable) coverage. 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 signed the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011231

    Original file (20090011231.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Part XI (Certification) of the DD Form 2656 states, in pertinent part, "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. The evidence of record also shows the applicant retired effective 1 June 2009 and monthly SBP premiums are being deducted from his military retired pay. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018920

    Original file (20100018920.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Section XII (SBP Spouse Concurrence) of the DD Form 2656 instructs the applicant that "SBP spouse concurrence is required when a member is married and elects child(ren) only coverage, does not elect full spouse coverage, or declines coverage. The evidence of record shows that prior to his retirement on 31 May 2010, the applicant and his wife elected to decline participation in the SBP with a notarized DD Form 2656, dated 30 March 2010. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029388

    Original file (20100029388.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The spouse's signature MUST be notarized] of the DD Form 2656 is neither signed by his spouse to indicate her concurrence or non-concurrence with his election nor by a witness and/or retirement services officer. The evidence of record shows he retired on 13 July 2009 by reason of temporary disability. 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.

  • 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.