RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010790


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he
declined to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

2.  The applicant states he was injured in Afghanistan and went through the
physical disability processing system.  By August 2003, he had all but
finished clearing post and was getting ready to go on terminal leave.  One
of the last pieces of paperwork that needed to be completed was the DD Form
2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel).  His wife was in their new
home waiting for him to finish clearing and was unable to sign the form.
Also, the gentleman responsible for processing the DD Form 2656 was on
leave and would not be back for about a week.  As he was anxious to get
home to his wife, he asked if another military facility could process the
DD Form 2656.  He was told, yes, so he went on terminal leave and filed the
paperwork at the local military base.

3.  The applicant states he explained everything to his wife when he got
home and together they decided they did not want to participate in the SBP.
 Money was already tight in their household.  In addition, he had the
option to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability
compensation in lieu of his retired pay and so they saw no need to sign up
for the SBP.  They turned in the paperwork to the military installation in
Bangor, Maine, to the 101st Air Refueling Wing.  It seems the installation
either lost the paperwork, or did not send it to the appropriate office,
and no one working there now was there two years ago.  SBP was
automatically started and a negative debt has accrued since his separation.
 Also, he and his wife are now divorced; therefore, having the SBP becomes
totally unnecessary.

4.  The applicant provides his divorce decree.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant has served in Operation Enduring Freedom.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 January 1998.
Apparently, he was not married when he enlisted.  His date of marriage is
not known; however, a child of that marriage was born on 9 September 1999.

3.  The applicant was retired by reason of permanent disability on 8
October 2003.

4.  On 13 April 2005, the applicant and his spouse divorced.  The divorce
decree does not mention the SBP.  The Defense Finance and Accounting
Service suspended the applicant's SBP coverage effective 13 April 2005 as a
result of his divorce.

5.  Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that
military members could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide
for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.  The election must be
made prior to the effective date of retirement, or coverage automatically
reverts to spouse coverage, full base amount.  The cost of the SBP is
normally deducted from the member's retired pay; however, when retired pay
has been waived in lieu of VA disability compensation, the cost of the SBP
is normally required to be paid by direct remittance.

6.  Public Law 94-496, dated 14 October 1976 but effective 1 October 1976,
provided for the suspension of spouse costs if marriage ends in death or
divorce.

7.  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.

8.  Public Law 99-145 also permitted a previously participating retiree
upon remarriage to elect not to resume spouse coverage.  Changes must be
made prior to the first anniversary of remarriage or else the previously
suspended coverage resumes by default on the first day of the month
following the first anniversary of the remarriage, with costs owed from
that date.  An election to terminate spouse coverage under this law, once
made, is irrevocable.

9.  Public Law 105-85, enacted 18 November 1997, established the option to
terminate SBP participation.  Retirees have a one-year period, beginning on
the second anniversary of the date on which their retired pay started to
withdraw from SBP.  The spouse’s concurrence, if applicable, 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 contentions have been carefully considered; however, in
the absence of corroborating evidence (e.g., a statement from his former
spouse or from officials at the 101st Air Refueling Wing), there is
insufficient evidence on which to grant the relief requested.
2.  The applicant is reminded that he has a one-year opportunity, which
began    8 October 2005, in which he may terminate his SBP coverage.  In
the alternative, if he wishes to keep his options open in the event he
remarries, he would then have a one-year opportunity, beginning on the date
of his remarriage, to elect not to resume spouse coverage.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jlp___  __pbf___  __rdg___  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.




                                  __Jennifer L. Prater__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050010790                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060425                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |137.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]