IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 12 July 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100030358
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 his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election be changed from spouse and child coverage to child-only coverage.
2. He states that his wife was assured that the "non-concur" option was selected, but he found out later that she selected the "concur" box instead. When his wife realized she made a mistake, she immediately filed for a correction.
3. He provides a notarized statement from spouse, his spouse's identification card, and his marriage license.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 1987.
2. His marriage certificate shows he was married on 20 February 2009.
3. His DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) is not available.
4. On 8 July 2009, his spouse signed a Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement indicating she non-concurred with the applicant's SBP election, child-only SBP coverage. She stated she understood that her non-concurrence would result in the applicant receiving an automatic spouse SBP election based on full retired pay.
5. He was retired from active duty on 31 December 2009.
6. On 14 December 2010, his spouse submitted a notarized statement indicating that she/her:
a. husband noticed an SBP premium of $167.00 had been deducted from his first retirement check;
b. called Retirement Services at Fort Bragg, NC, and a representative stated that she had checked the box to concur with the election;
c. must have checked the wrong box in error or misunderstood that the box she checked should have been to decline this benefit;
d. husband agreed they would decline the SBP option because she's also a Reserve retiree and she would be financially sound in the event of his death;
e. would like to reverse the first decision that was documented and received on 8 July 2009 and be reimbursed any monies taken from her husband's past retirement checks.
7. In an 18 April 2011 email, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service informed a staff member that the applicant was automatically enrolled in the SBP for spouse coverage as a result of his spouse's non-concurrence with his election of child-only coverage.
8. Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that military members on active duty could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although a completed DD Form 2656 is not available, it appears the applicant elected to participate in the SBP for child-only coverage. He was married at the time he enrolled in SBP. However, his spouse signed a statement on 8 July 2009 indicating she non-concurred with his election of child-only SBP coverage. As a result, the applicant was automatically enrolled in the SBP for spouse and child coverage.
2. His spouse provided a notarized statement, dated 14 December 2010, which is accepted as sufficient evidence to support her concurrence with his decision to enroll in the SBP for child-only coverage.
3. It appears it was the applicant's and his spouse's intent to elect SBP child-only coverage. Therefore, as a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to amend his DD Form 2656 to show he elected to participate in the SBP for child-only coverage and his spouse concurred with his decision in a timely manner and to refund him any paid premiums.
BOARD VOTE:
__X_____ __X_____ ___X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined the evidence presented is 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:
a. amending his DD Form 2656 to show he and his spouse signed the form in the appropriate manner electing to participate in the SBP for child-only coverage,
b. showing the Defense Finance and Accounting Service timely received and processed the DD Form 2656 confirming his election in the SBP, and
c. refunding him SBP premiums paid for spouse coverage as a result of this correction.
_______ _ 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) AR20100030358
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100030358
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012764
The letter also advised her that she must notify the USAR Personnel Command, using DD Form 1883 (SBP Election Certificate), of her decision within 90 days of the date of the letter. Public Law 106-398, dated 30 October 2000, required Reserve and Guard members, who had completed their service obligation, considered entitled for retired pay, but who are not yet age 60, to obtain their spouse's concurrence in RCSBP elections that do not provide maximum spouse coverage (immediate option). As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007119
On 8 September 2009, the applicant submitted a copy of a notarized statement, dated 1 September 2009, indicating that his spouse concurs with his decision not to participate in the SBP. On 8 September 2009, the applicant submitted a notarized statement signed by his spouse on 1 September 2009 that shows she mistakenly checked the non-concur block on the spouse concurrence/non-concurrence statement and that she concurs with her husbands (the applicants) election not to participate in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018041
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 | CY2010 | 20100009918
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 | CY2010 | 20100029388
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 | CY2010 | 20100021362
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
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 | CY2012 | 20120022350
However, the date she signed was after the date of her spouse's signature on the Spouse SBP Election Concurrence Statement. By law, her spouse was required to authenticate this form on or after the date she made this election but prior to the date of her retirement. Therefore, in the interest of equity, the applicant's records should be corrected to show she elected not to participate in the SBP with her spouse's concurrence and reimbursing her for any excess SBP premiums paid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020627
His spouse did not sign the DD Form 2656 under Section XII (SBP Spouse Concurrence) to indicate she concurred with the SBP decision made by her spouse. The applicant's RAS, dated 2 November 2009, shows that he is paying SBP coverage, spouse only, in the amount of $265.92. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021135
The applicant subsequently provided a notarized statement from her husband, dated 29 March 2011, requesting discontinuance of their participation in the SBP. There is no indication in the available records that shows the applicant submitted a DD Form 2656-1 (SBP Termination Request) or that she has made any attempt to terminate participation in the SBP. However, since the applicant has provided a notarized statement from her spouse within her 2-year anniversary of retirement, it would be...