DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY  

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 

BCMR Docket  
No. 2002-142 

FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  8,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 
 
This is a proceeding under section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the 
United  States  Code.    It  was  docketed  on  July  24,  2002,  upon  the  Board's  receipt  of  a 
complete application for the correction of the applicant's military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.   
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  elected 
coverage  for  his  developmentally  disabled  adult  son  under  the  survivor  benefit  plan 
(SBP).1    The  applicant  retired  on  April  30,  1966,  which  he  stated  was  prior  to  the 
existence of the SPB program. On August 23, 1973, he was afforded an opportunity to 
participate in the SBP program and elected coverage for his wife but not for any of his 
dependent children.2 The SBP election certificate contained the following warning:  "The 
decision  you  make  with  respect  to  participation  in  this  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  is  a 
permanent  irrevocable  decision.    Please  consider  your  decision  and  its  effect  very 
carefully."  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  recently  divorced  and  had  asked  the  retired 
affairs office to designate his son as his beneficiary under the SBP program.  He stated 
that he was told by that office that coverage for his son had to have been made at the 
time he retired.  
 
 

The  applicant  stated  that  he  understood  that  "it  was  a  spousal  benefit,  no 

                                                 
1  The purpose of the SBP is to establish a survivor benefit program for military personnel in retirement to 
complement the survivor benefits of social security. 
 
2   Article 18.F.3.e. 2. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states that a dependent child means an 
unmarried child who meets the following criteria:  "a.  Under 18 years of age, or at least 18, but under 22, 
if pursuing a full-time course of study or training in a high school . . . or  b.  Incapable of self-support 
because of mental or physical incapacity which existed before the 18th birthday or which was incurred 
before age 22 while pursuing a full-time course of study or training." 
 

mention of children.  I paid for almost 30 years."   He stated he recently learned that 
children  can  be  made  beneficiaries  in  special  cases  and  that  his  son  has  had  a  Coast 
Guard  identification  card  for  a  number  of  years.    He  stated,  "I  don't  feel  there  is 
necessarily any injury or injustice.  More a matter of lack of information."  The applicant 
listed August 2001 as the date he discovered the alleged error or injustice but provided 
no further explanation.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
The  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast 
Guard, dated January 24, 2003.  He recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant failed to demonstrate an error in the 
Coast Guard's refusal to change his beneficiary under the SBP program. He stated that 
on August 23, 1973, the applicant elected "spouse only" coverage.  
 
 
The  advisory  opinion  contained  a  memorandum  from  the  Commander  of  the 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command.    He  stated  that  although  the  applicant's  son  was 
eligible  for  SPB  child  coverage  at  the  time  the  applicant  made  his  SBP  election,  the 
applicant did not elect coverage for the child or any of his children.  CGPC stated that 
the  SBP  election  form  clearly  warned  members  to  carefully  consider  their  decision 
regarding dependent children coverage because the election once made is irrevocable.   
 
  
CGPC  stated  that  Article  43.C.3.  of  Volume  7B  of  the  Department  of  Defense 
Financial Management Regulation states that a member who "refuses coverage for his 
or her dependent children, and elects coverage for spouse only, is barred from electing 
child  coverage  at  a  later  date."    He  further  stated  that  original  elections  might  be 
changed only to add dependent children born after the original election is made.3    
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant's  situation  does  not  meet  any  of  the  special 
circumstances under law and regulation that would permit a retroactive change to his 
SBP election. 
 
Applicant's Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On February 20, 2003, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  He stated that at the time of his election he was not aware of the extent of 
his  child's  disability.    He  also  requested  that  the  Board  consider  the  fact  that  he  paid 
into the SBP program for almost 30 years.    
 
                                                 
3   Article 18.F.6.d. (Elections are irrevocable) of the Personnel Manual states SBP elections are irrevocable 
after the award of retired pay, however an election may be changed or revoked to cover a newly acquired 
spouse or dependent children. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. The Board has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
submissions  of  the  applicant  and  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant's  military  record, 
and applicable law: 
 
  
United States Code.  It was not timely.  
 
 
2. The Board may still consider the application on the merits, however, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so.  The interest of justice is determined by taking into 
consideration the reasons for and the length of the delay and the likelihood of success 
on the merits of the claim. See Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F. 3rd 1396 (D.D.C. 
1995). 
 
 
3.  To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a  military  record  must  be 
submitted within three years after the applicant discovered or should have discovered 
the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.  The  applicant  retired  in  1966.  
Subsequently  in  1973,  he  elected  to  participate  in  the  SBP  and  chose  coverage  for  his 
spouse only.  Approximately 29 years after that decision, he filed an application with 
the Board asking for a change to his SBP election. 
 
 
4.  Although  the  applicant  listed  August  2001,  as  the  date  he  discovered  the 
alleged  error  or  injustice,  the  Board  finds  that  he  has  submitted  insufficient  evidence 
showing that he could not or should not have discovered the alleged error sooner.  He 
commented that he recently learned that in special cases children could be designated 
as beneficiaries, but he did not explain how he discovered this information and why he 
could not have discovered it sooner. He also stated that he did not know the extent of 
his son's disability at the time he made his SBP election, but he failed to state when he 
discovered the extent of his son's disability, whether the disability existed at the time he 
made his SBP election, or the nature of the disability.  
 
 
5.  The Board further finds that it is not likely that the applicant would prevail on 
the  merits  of  this  claim,  even  if  the  Board  were  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations.  
According  to  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  and  the  Department  of  Defense 
Financial  Management  Regulation,  SBP  elections  not  to  cover  dependent  children  are 
irrevocable, except in some cases for children born after an SBP election was made.  The 
applicant's son could have been covered at the time of the applicant's election in 1973.  
The applicant presented no evidence, and the Board is not aware of any, that allows a 
member  who  decided  not  to  elect  SBP  coverage  for  an  existing  child  to  subsequently 
change that election, even for disabled children.  The applicant alleged he suffered from 
a  "lack  of  information"  but  did not provide any evidence that the lack of information 
resulted from Coast Guard error or injustice.   
 

 
6.  Based on the length of the delay, the lack of persuasive reasons for not acting 
sooner to correct his record, and the probable lack of success on the merits of the claim, 
the  Board  finds  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  three-year  statute  of 
limitations in this case.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

7.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied. 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  for  the  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
 Quang Nguyen 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer