IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 3 March 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009505
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 military records to show he and his spouse elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
2. The applicant states:
* he never consciously agreed to participate in the SBP program
* his SBP counselor did not give him the opportunity to reject this plan, nor did she explain the monthly $200.00 deduction from his paycheck
* she (the counselor) was more interested in finishing his paperwork and rushing him out the door
* neither he nor his family want SBP
* they already have life insurance coverage
3. The applicant provides:
* a DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel)
* a notarized statement from his spouse
* a memorandum
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. After prior active duty service in the Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve. He was ordered to active duty on 11 October 2000 and served until he retired on 31 January 2014.
2. The applicant submitted a DD Form 2656, dated 2 December 2013, which he signed indicating that he elected full SBP coverage for his spouse and children.
Item 32a (Spouse Signature) of the applicant's DD Form 2656 does not contain the signature of the applicant's spouse indicating that she concurred with the SBP election he made. However, her concurrence was not required because the applicant opted for full SBP coverage.
3. He submitted a notarized statement, dated 1 March 2014, from his spouse indicating that:
* she was rejecting the SBP
* she understood that cancellation of the SPB would not be in her best interest if the applicant died
* she did not ask for nor did she agree to SBP
* it is creating a financial burden on her family budget
* she wants the deduction to stop immediately
4. 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.
5. Public Law 99-145, enacted 8 November 1985 but effective 1 March 1986, required a spouses written concurrence for a retiring member's election that provides less than the maximum spouse coverage.
6. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, volume 7B, chapter 43, provides guidance on SBP elections. This chapter states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 March 1986, a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage based on full retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the member. When the spouses concurrence is required, the signature indicating concurrence must be corroborated by one or more witnesses. This chapter also states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Military Department concerned (or designee) may correct any election or any change or revocation of an election when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an administrative error.
7. Public Law 105-85, enacted 18 November 1997, established the option to terminate SBP participation. Retirees have a 1-year period, beginning on the second anniversary of the date on which their retired pay started, to withdraw from the 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's request to be disenrolled from SBP due to his misunderstanding of the programs costs and benefits was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.
2. The evidence shows that on 2 December 2013, the applicant elected to participate in the SBP and provide full coverage for his spouse and children. The spouse's concurrence is required when the retiring service member elects less than full coverage, which means the spouses concurrence was not required in the applicant's case.
3. The applicant became eligible to draw retired pay on 1 February 2014. Therefore, he will have a 1-year period beginning on 1 February 2016 in which to terminate his SBP enrollment. He is encouraged to contact the nearest Retirement Services Office prior to making his decision for more information.
4. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.
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) AR20140009505
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140009505
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018920
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 | CY2009 | 20090014707
This letter notified the applicant that she had completed the required years of service and would be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60. The evidence of record also shows she submitted a DD Form 2656 on 25 February 2009 wherein she elected, in the presence of an RSO counselor, not to participate in the SBP. However, 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 retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011716
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) with his spouse's concurrence. By doing so, he also acknowledged he had been counseled that he can terminate SBP participation, with his spouse's written concurrence, within one year after the second anniversary of commencement of retired pay. Completion of Section XI (SBP Spouse Concurrence) of DD Form 2656 is required when a service member is married and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004758
The applicant provides: * His and his spouse's DD Forms 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel) * His April 2011 and his spouse's March 2011 RAS * Wife's notarized statement CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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. However, by law, his spouse was required...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007522
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 | CY2011 | 20110012267
The evidence of record shows that prior to his retirement on 31 December 2010, the applicant and his wife elected to decline participation in the SBP with a duly witnessed and notarized DD Form 2656, dated 21 December 2010. In the interest of equity and justice, his records should be corrected to show he elected not to participate in the SBP with his spouse's concurrence prior to the date of his retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017892
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The election must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or else coverage automatically defaults to spouse coverage, if applicable. The evidence of record shows that prior to her retirement on 30 September 2013 the applicant made an SBP election for spouse and children coverage with a reduced base amount.
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 | CY2009 | 20090004189
The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a DD Form 2656 wherein she elected, in the presence of an RSO counselor, not to participate in the SBP. Although her spouse failed to date the DD Form 2656 before her retirement, it appears the RSO counselor also failed to inform her or her spouse that the SBP concurrence statement 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021185
The applicant provides: * DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel), dated 2 March 2011 * SBP Spouse Election Concurrence Statement, dated 8 March 2011 * Retiree Account Statement, dated 29 September 2011 * letter of explanation/correction request, dated 14 October 2011 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all...