IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 27 July 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100028188
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 her daughter be listed as the dependent of a deceased former service member (FSM).
2. The applicant states she did not find out until the FSM died that he did not update his records to list their daughter as his dependent. That omission will adversely affect their daughter's military benefits.
3. The applicant provides their daughter's birth certificate, a child support allotment request, a final order in suit to establish parentage, and the FSM's death certificate.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The FSM's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 January 1979 with 7 years, 2 months, and 15 days of prior active service. He was promoted to pay grade E-7. He was honorably retired on 30 November 1991 and placed on the Retired List.
2. A birth certificate for a female child born on 19 February 1998 which names the FSM as the father was provided by the applicant.
3. The final order in suit to establish parentage submitted by the applicant, dated 14 April 2000, declared the FSM a parent of the female child born on 19 February 1998. In this court order the applicant was named as a parent sole managing conservator and the FSM as a parent possessory conservator. The applicant was given certain exclusive rights in the court order which included the right to establish the primary residence of the child.
4. The form initiating a child support allotment from the FSM in the amount of $465.00 a month has an effective date of July 2000.
5. The FSM died on 2 July 2010.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-14 (Identification Cards for Members of the Uniform Services, Their Eligible Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel), paragraph 4.9, states that unmarried illegitimate children under age 21 may be entitled to identification (ID) card benefits and privileges when one of the following occurs:
a. Paragraph 4.9.1. A male sponsor presents: (1) a court order that establishes paternity and the child's birth certificate, (2) an approved dependency determination as listed in paragraphs 4.9.2 and 4.10, or (3) a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity per Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness memorandum, dated 28 January 2008, subject: Determinations of Dependency for Health Care Benefits for Out-of-Wedlock Children.
b. Paragraph 4.9.2. A male sponsor must process and receive an approved dependency and residency determination (reflecting over 50 percent support) to include presenting a child's birth certificate. Note: A birth certificate alone does not satisfy documentation requirements for an illegitimate child of a male member.
c. Paragraph 4.9.3. Each state maintains a procedure to allow a father to voluntarily acknowledge paternity of a child born out of wedlock. These state forms will be used to determine eligibility for dependent child status. The sponsor will present the notarized form to the nearest ID card issuance site to have the child added to the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). Note: The child may be enrolled at any time before his or her 21st birthday.
d. Paragraph 4.9.3.1. The state form and a birth certificate will be required to add the child to DEERS. Note: The forms will be scanned into DEERS as part of the enrollment process.
e. Paragraph 4.9.4. Once the child has been added to DEERS, the sponsor will be provided 60 days to remove the child from DEERS. Note: After 60 days, the child will remain in DEERS as the sponsor's child until he/she is 21 or 23 if enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the administering Secretary and is dependent on the member or former member for over one-half of the child's support.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The FSM acknowledged paternity of the applicant's child and was providing child support. Neither of these were contested by the FSM.
2. As such, it would appear that the FSM, then retired, simply forgot or didn't get around to adding his child as his dependent on DEERS.
3. As such, it would be appropriate to now add the applicant's child to DEERS as the FSM's dependent.
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 making the appropriate entry in DEERS to add the applicant's daughter as the FSM's dependent.
_____________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) AR20100028188
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100028188
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested that his child be enrolled in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and was told by a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative that he needed to provide a DNA test to prove his paternity. In a North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, State Center for Health Statistics - N.C. Vital Records, Affidavit of Parentage for Child Born Out of Wedlock...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013206
The applicant requests, in effect, that the record of the deceased former service member (FSM) who fathered her child be corrected to show her daughter is entitled to receive a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity based on the death of the FSM. The FSM's record shows that on 15 October 2007, during his retirement processing, he completed a Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, in which he elected Children Only full SBP coverage. The ARBA legal advisor pointed out that under the 1972 SBP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005016
The applicant, the brother of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests correction of his brother's record to show he elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for child coverage for his daughter. The applicant provides: * a timeline of events related to the FSM's SBP election * the FSM's 20-Year Letter * 3 death certificates for the FSM and each of his parents * the FSM's daughter's birth certificate * Court-issued paternity documents for the FSM's daughter * the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015367C071029
He provided DFAS his new address and then received two notices stating he was denied due to his not paying 50 percent of the bills for his daughter while she was in the care of the Christian City Nursing Home. On 14 September 2006, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Army Military Pay Operations, Dependency Branch, determined dependency had not been established for the applicant's daughter, because the applicant's contribution was less than 50 percent of expenses. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065554C070421
The applicant, Mr. , U.S. Army (Retired), requests that American citizenship be granted his English daughter. The applicant states that he was unaware of his daughter’s existence until 1999 when she contacted him. Consequently, the applicant’s record should reflect the fact that the applicant fathered Ms. , who was born on 25 July 1968, while Mr. was in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000857
On 1 July 2008, by letter, the VA notified the FSM's daughter, Melody, that a special review of the FSM's claims file was mandated by court. On 19 November 2013, by letter, DFAS notified the applicant that her claim for unpaid compensation from the FSM's military retired pay could not be paid due to the statute of limitations (Title 31, U.S. Code, section 3702). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000857 (3)
On 1 July 2008, by letter, the VA notified the FSM's daughter, Melody, that a special review of the FSM's claims file was mandated by court. On 19 November 2013, by letter, DFAS notified the applicant that her claim for unpaid compensation from the FSM's military retired pay could not be paid due to the statute of limitations (Title 31, U.S. Code, section 3702). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000857
On 1 July 2008, by letter, the VA notified the FSM's daughter, Melody, that a special review of the FSM's claims file was mandated by court. On 19 November 2013, by letter, DFAS notified the applicant that her claim for unpaid compensation from the FSM's military retired pay could not be paid due to the statute of limitations (Title 31, U.S. Code, section 3702). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150011111
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: * the document is not current or valid and should not be filed in his records * the document was revoked the same month it was drafted under the guidance of his civilian counsel * the document contains the social security number of his ex-wife, then a second lieutenant (2LT) and now identified by the applicant as First Lieutenant (1LT) A____ M. A____ * his ex-wife has attempted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607246C070209
She obtained joint legal custody and the Army paid her BAQ at the with dependent rate from the date of her enlistment. At Fort Sam Houston, finance personnel informed her that she was entitled to BAQ at the with dependent rate provided she could prove sole, or joint, custody of her child. Army finance personnel made a mistake in paying the applicant BAQ with dependents; they should have paid her the with dependent differential, not the entire amount.