Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021899
Original file (20090021899.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 September 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090021899 


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 his enrollment in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) was suspended due to his divorce.

2.  The applicant states the following:

* he was divorced on 13 October 1995
* his retirement date was 1 May 1998
* he did not have a spouse at the time of his retirement
* he thought his children would be the beneficiaries since he had no spouse

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:

* divorce decree
* self-authored statement
* retiree account statement

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was married on an unknown date.  After having prior active and inactive service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 March 1985.

2.  The applicant divorced on 13 October 1995.  The divorce decree does not mention SBP.  He and his wife had two children who were 10 and 6 years old at the time of their divorce.

3.  His service record contains pages 3 and 4 of a DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), dated 9 March 1998, which shows he elected SBP for child-only coverage, full base amount.  He indicated he did not have a spouse.

4.  The applicant retired on 1 May 1998 in the rank of staff sergeant.

5.  His retiree account statement shows SBP premiums for spouse coverage at the full base amount were deducted from his retired pay.

6.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement in support of his claim in which he stated the following:

* he contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in regard to SBP coverage being deducted from his military retirement pay
* DFAS informed him to contact the Army Review Boards Agency
* he contacted the Army Review Boards Agency and was informed the process would take 12 months to correct the mistake
* he divorced in 1995 and retired on 1 May 1998
* DFAS informed him that his SBP coverage was only for spouse and minor children
* he contacted DFAS again in May 2010 and he sent a copy of his divorce decree

7.  On 13 July 2010, DFAS informed a staff member of the Army Review Boards Agency of the following in regard to the applicant:

* applicant retired on 1 May 1998
* no DD Form 2656; automatic SBP enrollment
* received divorce decree on 2 June 2010 and divorce was effective 13 October 1995
* SBP coverage terminated and worked up a refund
* refund subject to the 6-year barring statute 
* worksheet reflecting his refund was computed for the period 2 June 2004 through 30 June 2010 in the amount of $4,252.76

8.  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.  An election, once made, was irrevocable except in certain circumstances.  Election or declination to participate in the SBP must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or else coverage defaults to automatic spouse coverage, full base amount.

9.  Public Law 92-425 also provided that the term "dependent child" means a person who is unmarried; is under 18 years of age or at least 18 but under 22 years of age and pursuing a full-time course of study in a high school, college, or comparable recognized educational institution; is incapable of self-support because of a mental or physical incapacity existing before the person's 18th birthday; or is the child of a person to whom the plan applies including an adopted child, a step or foster child, or a recognized natural child who lived with that person in a regular parent-child relationship.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered.  There is sufficient evidence on which to grant partial relief.

2.  The applicant retired on 1 May 1998.  He was not married at the time and he elected SBP coverage for child-only coverage.  That election was never properly processed.  Therefore, he was mistakenly automatically enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage at the full base amount even though he had no spouse and clearly intended to provide child-only coverage.

3.  Records at DFAS show SBP premiums for spouse coverage have been deducted from his retired pay.

4.  Information obtained from DFAS shows his SBP coverage was terminated and the applicant was refunded SBP spouse premiums for the period 2 June 2004 through 30 June 2010 in the amount of $4,252.76.

5.  As a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to amend the applicant's records to show he notified DFAS that he had no spouse immediately after DFAS erroneously defaulted his SBP coverage to spouse only with the proper SBP coverage he intended initiated in its stead.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  showing he notified DFAS that he had no spouse immediately after DFAS erroneously defaulted his SBP coverage to spouse only and showing DFAS credited him with the proper (i.e., child only) SBP coverage he intended;
   
   b.  having DFAS audit his records and refund any excess SBP premiums due to him as a result of this correction and based on the dependency status of his children.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to suspending his enrollment in the SBP due to his divorce.



      ___________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)                                         AR20090021899



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090021899



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02604

    Original file (BC 2013 02604.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DFAS/CL states that according to law, they cannot provide former spouse SBP coverage without an election at retirement for former spouse SBP or a deemed election from the former spouse or her attorney in her behalf within one year from the date of the final divorce. The applicant was provided automatic coverage for SBP as DFAS did not receive his election for former spouse and child coverage. He enrolled in “SBP for former spouse” at his Air Force retirement out-processing in 2001,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019660

    Original file (20130019660.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 10 June 1992. She provided three letters of explanation in which she stated, in effect: a. she would like to suspend her SBP due to the fact that she was divorced before leaving active duty (Active Guard Reserve); b. she's requesting a refund of the premiums that were deducted from her retired pay for the months of August and September (2013) and any others that may follow; c. her monthly premiums of $117.23 should not have been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020458

    Original file (20100020458.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence in his records that shows he made an SBP election for his brother. Since the applicant was unmarried and had no children at the time he retired and since he was not obligated by his divorce decree to elect former spouse coverage, he should not have had SBP coverage (unless he specifically chose coverage for an insurable interest) and thus he should not have paid premiums from September 2002 through July 2006 (one year from the date of his remarriage). As a result, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013155

    Original file (20080013155.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 04 DECEMBER 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013155 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 31 March 2004, he was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List effective 1 April 2004. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014175

    Original file (20130014175.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    An election to terminate spouse coverage under this law, once made, is irrevocable. When he and Maureen were divorced, the coverage did not change but the spouse premiums were suspended. The applicant does not now have the option to terminate his SBP election.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012836

    Original file (20090012836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, he requests that his military records be corrected to show he elected RCSBP former spouse coverage. The applicant's military records show that he was honorably separated from the New Mexico ARNG on 31 January 2008 and he was transferred to the Retired Reserve. If he is requesting only that his RCSBP coverage be changed from insurable interest to former spouse, based on the evidence of record he has already been refunded the difference in premiums between insurable interest...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028423

    Original file (20100028423.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election to former spouse coverage or reinstatement of his former spouse's SBP coverage. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. The law also permits the former spouse...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05676-02

    Original file (05676-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 Encl: (1) (2) (3) DD Form 149 w/attachments NPC memorandum of 8 August 2002 Subject’s naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, 1. filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show timely written request for conversion from spouse to former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). e. In September 1996 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014744

    Original file (20110014744.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage to former spouse coverage. DFAS informed the Board's staff their records indicated that the FSM and applicant divorced on 1 April 2003. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM made a voluntary change in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012453

    Original file (20140012453.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This requires establishment of his current spouse as the only eligible SBP beneficiary of record. Public Law 99-661, dated 18 November 1984, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member's agreement) in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. The evidence of record shows prior to his retirement, he completed an SBP election form wherein he elected SBP former spouse...