IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 7 October 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100010346
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 reconsideration of his earlier request that his retirement date be changed to add 2 additional months of service so his former spouse may qualify for TRICARE health benefits under the "20/20/20" rule.
2. The applicant states that documentation showing his parents' severe medical conditions was of record at the time of the prior review, but it was not addressed.
The previous Record of Proceedings incorrectly states that "there is no evidence in this case that the applicant retired because of a hardship, emergency, care for his parents, or any other reason."
3. The applicant provides copies of a private doctor's statement, a 31 May 2005 memorandum to a Retirement Services Officer, and the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20090014883 on 12 November 2009.
2. The applicant states the documentation provided with this reconsideration was of record at the time of the ABCMR's prior review; however, it was not
specifically addressed in the Record of Proceedings. In light of the nature of his argument, it should be considered as new evidence.
3. The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 May 1983, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 91W (Health Care Specialist). He executed several extensions and/or reenlistments and attained the rank and pay grade of first sergeant (1SG)/E-8.
4. The physician's statement, dated 20 May 2005, stated that both of the applicant's parents suffer from Alzheimer's disease and his father had recently undergone cardiac bypass surgery. The parents were in need of around-the-clock care and it would be of great value if the applicant were discharged early to assist with their care.
5. On 31 May 2005, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the Retirement Services Officer, subject: Request for Expedited Retirement. In this request he stated, "In addition to my request for retirement, I am requesting an expedited decision for the reasons stated below." He provided background information on his parents' medical conditions. Further, he stated that he had already completed his retirement physical, sold his local house and bought a home near his parents, completed his retirement briefing on 20 May 2005, and completed the Transition Assistance Program.
6. The applicant's record shows he was honorably retired on 31 August 2005 and placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of 1SG/E-8 on 1 September 2005. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 22 years, 8 months, and 4 days of creditable active service.
7. The ABCMR denied the applicant's request to be shown to have had the required period of service for his former spouse to qualify for TRICARE health benefits under the "20/20/20" rule. In the Discussion and Conclusions section, paragraph 3 states:
The retirement date is not changed unless, after the application is submitted, events that justify a change in the retirement occur that would cause an extreme hardship to the Soldier or immediate family. There is no evidence in this case that the applicant retired because of a hardship, emergency, care for his parents, or any other reason. Even in a situation
where a change would have been warranted, the request for the change should have been submitted prior to the Soldier's retirement, not 3 years later.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The record shows applicant submitted a voluntary request for retirement at some point prior to 20 May 2005. His original requested retirement date is not available.
2. The documents in question do show his parents had significant medical conditions, and it appears the applicant's retirement date may have been moved up based upon his request. However, the change in retirement date would have been at his request.
3. At the time, the applicant's priority appears to have been taking care of his parents. That assessment of his priorities is laudable. Unfortunately, the effect of gaining that benefit is that he lost another benefit -- the right of his former spouse to qualify for TRICARE health benefits under the "20/20/20" rule.
4. Regrettably, there appears to be no issue of error or equity in this case. The applicant's retirement date was moved up at his own request.
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090014883 on 12 November 2009.
____________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) AR20100010346
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100010346
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014883
The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 22 years, 8 months, and 4 days of creditable active service. The regulation directs, in pertinent part, that the purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005352
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he was not retired but was on active duty at the time of his death, thereby entitling her to receive $150,000 in additional Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI). The applicant also states that there was no need to medically retire her husband under the Imminent Death Policy on 7 December 2003 because the law was changed two years earlier, with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063893C070421
He stated that he was requesting the discharge because his spouse: Her mother has stated my wife can stay there only long enough in order for me to apply for this discharge and get home to take care of my wife. On 13 May 1968 the applicant's request for hardship discharge was denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01439
Indeed, the Air Force’s error insured to the benefit of the applicant’s former spouse in that she erroneously received medical benefits for nearly 13 years. The applicant’s daughter indicates that it was only after several months of her mother informing the Air Force of what seemed to be a computer error at the time that the Air Force’s error was corrected. Her mother was informed and granted for the last 13 years the entitlement under the 20/20/20 program and then with four days notice,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016021C071029
The applicant requests that her medical benefits be reinstated to allow her to be enrolled in TriCare for Life and that her military identification (ID) card be corrected to show she is eligible for medical benefits. On 29 March 1997, the applicant remarried. As the applicant had remarried, even though she is now divorced, by law she lost her entitlement to medical benefits based upon the FSM’s service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008389
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 1 December 1992, shows the applicant requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 7 (Defective Enlistments and Inductions), paragraph 7-16, based on defective enlistment or unfulfilled enlistment agreement. The applicant contends the authority and narrative reason for her discharge should be changed to a hardship discharge or medical discharge because she enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007352
An election, once made, is permanent and irrevocable except as provided for by law. Since it appears the FSM's SBP election jeopardizes his son's well-being and future, it would be equitable to correct his records to show he elected to participate in the SBP for spouse only coverage at the time of his retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the FSM elected to enroll in the SBP for spouse only...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018883
The applicant requests, in effect, that the dates in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Report System (DEERS) be updated to reflect that his family members were eligible for dental care under the TRICARE Dental Plan (TDP) during the period 14 October 2004 until present. National Guard/Reserve family members are eligible for enrollment in the TDP even if their sponsor does not enroll. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014699
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was honorably discharged due to retirement. He was discharged accordingly under the provisions of paragraph 6-3A, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), due to dependency or hardship on 25 July 2007, in pay grade E-6. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 12-4, states a Soldier who has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020846
The applicant states: a. Her position is that when the law states "only," anything outside of that is an invalid designation to be paid out by law. The FSM designated 25% of the death gratuity to two organizations.