DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-158 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX P. 
xxx xx xxxx, XXX  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on August 12, 2002 upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  25,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  elected 
survivor  benefit  plan  (SBP)  coverage  for  his  former  spouse  on  XXXXXXX  22,  20XX, 
during open season.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  although  the  Coast  Guard  attempted  on  several 
occasions  through  correspondence  to  assist  him  in  completing  his  SBP  enrollment 
forms,  he  “could  not  accurately  complete  the  election  forms  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
[Coast  Guard]”  because  he  simply  “lacked 
[required]  knowledge  and 
understanding.”  He alleged that “vague instructions, [the] complexity of the program, 
and [a] lack of available resources locally to counsel retired members” were among the 
reasons which led to the termination of his former spouse’s SBP coverage.  He asserted 
that based upon his record of written communications with the Coast Guard, the Board 

the 

should find that he always intended to “maintain SBP coverage for [his] spouse/former 
spouse and a dependent child.” 

 
In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  a  letter,  dated 
March  27,  20xx,  that  he  wrote  to  the  Commandant,  wherein  he  requested 
reconsideration  of  the  decision  denying  SBP  coverage  for  his  former  spouse.    In  that 
letter, he explained that from 19xx (when he became eligible for retired pay) to 19xx, his 
personal life was “in a state of turmoil due to [his] separation and divorce proceedings.”  
He  stated  that  he  completely  misunderstood  how  to  properly  complete  the  SBP 
enrollment forms to ensure that his “potential survivors” were covered under the SBP.  
He  stated  that  because  SBP  premiums  continued  to  be  deducted  from  his  retirement 
pay each month, he was led to believe that his former spouse was covered under the 
SBP, when in fact, she was not.   

 
The applicant further wrote that during the March 1, 1999 to February 29, 2000 
open  enrollment  season,  he  was  again  unable  to  correct  his  SBP  election  to  provided 
coverage  for  his  former  spouse  and  a  dependent  child.    He  stated  that  he  made 
numerous  good  faith  efforts  to  comply  with  the  requirements  but  his  inability  to 
understand the election forms resulted in the coverage being terminated.  He stated that 
after  he  received  assistance  from  personnel  at  an  integrated  support  center  (ISC),  he 
understood that he would be required to (a) pay all retroactive premiums; (b) provide 
proof  of  birth,  adoption,  and  medical  documentation  for  any  child  deemed 
incapacitated; and (c) appear at the ISC to receive counseling in completing the required 
enrollment forms.  In attachment to his letter was a signed statement from his former 
spouse  containing  the  following:  “[n]o  objection  to  continue  being  the  beneficiary  for 
the Survivors Benefit Plan of [the applicant].”   

 
The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter, which he received in response to 
his  March  27,  20xx  letter,  dated  May  16,  20xx  from  the  acting  director  of  personnel 
management on behalf of the Commandant.  He wrote that a thorough review of the 
applicant’s case indicated no evidence that an administrative error had occurred.  He 
chronicled events, that had transpired between May 4, 19xx and May 8, 20xx, as follows: 

 
a.  You attained age 60 and were eligible to apply for retired pay on 4 XXXXX 19xx. 
b. 

In  December  19xx,  the  Coast  Guard’s  Human  Resources  Service  and  Information 
Center  (HRSIC)  received  a  copy  of  an  Order  from  the  XXXX  Probate  and  Family 
Court requesting garnishment of your retired pay for child support and arrearages. 

c.  You applied for retired pay on 10 March 19xx, and submitted an election to enroll in 
the SBP program.  The election was made under the SBP because you had not made a 
previous election under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).  You 
elected to provide an annuity based on the full amount of your retired pay for your 
spouse, listed as …, and four children. 

d.  In February 19xx[,] we became aware that you were divorced in March 19xx.  Your 
SBP deductions for spouse coverage were stopped and the spouse premiums for the 
period  April  19xx  through  January  19xx  in  the  amount  of  $xxxx  were  refunded  to 

you.    You  did  not  contest  this  action,  nor  did  you  elect  to  continue  your  former 
spouse,  …,  as  your  SBP  beneficiary  within  the  one-year  period  following  your 
divorce, as required by law. 

e.  On  25  XXXXX  20xx,  during  the  yearlong  SBP  Open  Enrollment  period  held  from  1 
March  1999  through  29  February  2000,  we  received  your  open  season  enrollment 
election dated 22 XXXXXX 20xx. 

f.  The  enrollment  form  was  incomplete  and  after  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to 
contact you directly via telephone, HRSIC wrote you a letter requesting you contact 
them via their toll-free number. 
In  HRSIC’s  letter,  dated  28  March  20xx,  they  requested  you  provide  specific 
information to complete the open season enrollment and provided you with the total 
buy-in premium costs of $xxxx of which a minimum of $xxxx was due to complete 
the enrollment process.  Because the Open Enrollment period had already ended we 
gave you an additional time period until 21 April 20xx to return the DD Form 2656-3. 
h.  You  replied  to  HRSIC  by  letter  on  3  April  20xx  but  did  not  include  the  required 

g. 

documentation needed to process your enrollment. 

j. 

i.  On 19 April 20xx, we informed you that we could not honor your request to enroll in 
SBP  during  the  open  season  since  you  had  failed  to  provide  us  with  the 
documentation required by law. 
In  July  20xx,  you  acknowledged  receipt  of  our  denial  letter  to  enroll  your  former 
spouse in SBP during the Open Enrollment season. 
In February 20xx, over xx months after our 21 April 20xx deadline, we received your 
letter  dated  8  Feb  20xx  [20xx],  requesting  consideration  for  election  to  enroll  in  the 
SBP.    It  is  in  this  letter  that  you  first  acknowledge  that  the  coverage  would  be  for 
your former spouse and that you requested X% supplemental coverage. 

l.  Because the SBP open enrollment period had long passed we were not able to honor 

k. 

your request. 

m.  On 8 May 20xx[,] we informed you that your request to enroll in the SBP had been 

disapproved. 

 

The  acting  director  further  wrote  that  he  believed  that  “every  reasonable 
attempt” had been made to assist the applicant in processing his request.  He asserted 
that  the  applicant  was  provided  clear  instructions  and  direct  information  about  the 
denial of his request.  He concluded by stating that the applicant would be notified if 
Congress authorizes another open enrollment season.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
By  certified  letter  dated  XXXXXXX  26,  19xx,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  he 
 
had  completed  twenty  years  of  satisfactory  service  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve.    The 
letter  stated  that  he  was  currently  eligible  to  participate  in  the  RCSBP  to  provide  an 
annuity  to  his  “spouse,  spouse  and  children,  [or]  children  alone,  ….”    He  was  given 
ninety days from the date of receipt of the letter to elect one of the options described but 
took no action.   
 
 
eligibility to receive retirement pay but did not apply for it. 
 

On May 4, 19xx, the applicant reached the age of sixty.  He was notified of his 

On March 10, 19xx, the applicant completed an RC-SBP election certificate.  He 
elected to provide an annuity based on the full amount of his retired pay for his spouse 
and children and provided identifying information for them as beneficiaries.   

 
On  March  31,  19xx,  the  applicant  was  transferred  to  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve 

retired list, effective XXXXX 4, 19xx with pay.   

 
On  February  4,  19xx,  the  Coast  Guard  discontinued  the  applicant’s  RC-SBP 
premium deductions and refunded the premiums paid, retroactive to April 19xx.  The 
record indicates that the Coast Guard took this action based on the discovery that the 
applicant was divorced in March 19xx. 

 
On  October  17,  19xx,  Congress  authorized  an  “open  enrollment”  season  from 
March 1, 1999 to February 29, 2000 for retired members of the Reserve to enroll eligible 
dependents  in  the  RC-SBP.    Prior  to  the  close  of  the  open  enrollment  season,  the 
applicant submitted an RC-SBP enrollment form, dated XXXXX 22, 20xx.  According to 
the  memorandum  submitted  by  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  the 
applicant’s RC-SBP election form was incomplete and could not be processed.   

 
Also according to CGPC, between February 28, 20xx and March 28, 20xx, HRSIC 
made several attempts to contact the applicant regarding the problems with his RC-SBP 
election.    Moreover,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  RC-SBP  coverage  would  not  be 
started  unless  he  provided  a  completed  form  and  other  documentation  required  by 
April 21, 20xx.  By letter dated April 19, 20xx, the applicant was notified that his request 
to enroll his spouse in the RC-SBP could not be honored because he failed to provide 
the documentation needed before the time given had expired.   

 
On February 8, 20xx, the applicant applied to have his former spouse enrolled for 
RC-SBP  benefits.  His  request was denied in a letter from the Coast Guard’s office of 
compensation policy, which provided the following reason: 
 

[The applicant’s] submission of an incomplete DD Form 2656 and subsequent failure to 
respond to HRSIC’s request for the minimum necessary information within the required 
time  frame  is  a  defacto  decision  on  his  part  not  to  change  his  RCSBP  election.  
Unfortunately,  this  decision  cannot  be  changed  until  Congress  declares  another  open 
season. 

On  May  8,  20xx  and  November  14,  20xx,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  his 

 
 
request to enroll his former spouse in RC-SBP was denied by the Commandant.   
 

On January 4, 20xx, the applicant again requested to enroll his former spouse in 
RC-SBP.  He was informed on January 17, 20xx, that his request was denied but that he 
may be able to enroll his disabled daughter, if specific documentation was submitted. 

 

On March 27, 20xx, the applicant again requested to enroll his former spouse in 
RC-SBP.  The applicant’s request was forwarded to HRSIC for consideration.  On April 
24,  20xx,  HRSIC  recommended  denial.    On  May  16,  20xx,  the  applicant  was  again 
informed  that  his  request  was  denied  but  that  he  would  be  notified  if  Congress 
authorized another open enrollment season. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  13,  2003,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief 
Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard.    In  adopting  the  analysis  of  CGPC,  the  Chief  Counsel 
recommended that the Board deny relief in this case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel asserted that the applicant has failed to demonstrate an error 
or  injustice  on  the  Coast  Guard’s  part.    He  stated  that  although  the  record  contains 
evidence  which  shows  that  the  applicant  attempted  to  change  his  election  coverage 
during the most recent open season, it is “overwhelmingly clear that the [applicant] was 
given ample opportunity to process his enrollment and was even given an extension of 
time beyond the closing date of the open enrollment season in which to complete his 
application.”  He stated that despite the extended time given to complete the forms, the 
applicant  still  failed  to  submit  a  properly  completed  enrollment  form  before  the 
extended deadline expired. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the failure to enroll in the RC-SBP and designate 
his former spouse as the beneficiary is the fault of the applicant’s.  He asserted that the 
applicant’s  claimed  lack  of  “knowledge  and  understanding”  of  the  election  forms  to 
complete the enrollment process is not credible.  He stated that the applicant received 
repeated advice and assistance from the Coast Guard and repeated explanations of why 
his requests were denied.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  denial  of  the  applicant’s 
request to enroll his former spouse in RC-SBP was reasonable.   Notwithstanding that 
denial,  he  stated,  the  applicant  may  still  enroll  his  disabled  daughter  in  the  RC-SBP 
contingent upon his submission of appropriate documentation. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 24, 2003, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 
the  applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    He  was  granted  several 
extensions—the last of which expired on May 31, 2003—but did not submit a response 
to the advisory opinion.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RC-SBP), as follows:   
 

Article 18.F.12.a. of the Personnel Manual sets forth the general provisions of the 

Public  Law  95-397  …  extended  eligibility  for  coverage  under  the  Survivor  Benefit  Plan 
(SBP) to members and former members of the Reserve components who have 20 or more 
years  of  qualifying  service  and  have  not  reached  age  60,  the  age  at  which  they  will  be 
eligible for retired pay.  Prior to the enactment of [Public Law] 95-397, retired reservists 
could elect SBP coverage but only immediately before becoming eligible for retired pay 
(age 60).  This does not exempt members from the statutory requirement (10 USC 1448) to 
make  their  election  within  90  days  of  receiving  their  notice  of  completion  of  20  years 
satisfactory service.  Members declining to make a selection must wait until age 60 or an 
announced open season. 

 
 
Article  18.F.13.a.  states,  in  pertinent  part,  that  “Public  Law  97-252  permitted 
members  retiring  on  or  after  08  September  1982  to  voluntarily  elect  SBP  coverage  on 
behalf of a former spouse.  …  Public Law placed former spouse coverage under spouse 
coverage at the same costs and benefits effective 01 March 1986.” 
 
 
Section  642  of  Public  Law  105-261  allowed  for  an  open  period  of  enrollment 
between  March  1,  1999  to  February  29,  2000,  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  eligible 
members to elect to participate in or increase their current level of participation in the 
SBP.   
 
 
 
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, act-
 
ing pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition of 
the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
Public Law 105-261, Section 642, authorized a 12-month open enrollment 
period  from  March  1,  1999  through  February  29,  2000  to  provide  an  opportunity  for 

3. 

1. 

2. 

eligible members to elect to participate in or increase their current level of participation 
in the SBP.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the applicant—apparently aware of his eligibility—
submitted an enrollment form to make an election for his former spouse under the SBP.  
The  record  indicates  that  because  his  enrollment  form  was  incomplete,  he  was  given 
more than XXXXXXX beyond the statutory deadline to submit a completed enrollment 
form and the required documentation in support thereof.  However, the record contains 
no evidence which indicates that the applicant ever submitted sufficient documentation 
to establish coverage on behalf of his former spouse.  Therefore, the Board agrees with 
the Chief Counsel, and finds that the applicant has failed to show that the Coast Guard 
has committed an error in denying his request to enroll his former spouse in the SBP. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that due to the complexity of the SBP program, he 
lacked  the  understanding  and  knowledge  to  accurately  complete  the  SBP  election 
forms.  However, in view of the extensive record of assistance provided to the applicant 
by  the  Coast  Guard,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  his  contentions,  in  and  of 
themselves,  show  that  his  record  should  be  corrected  to  reflect  that  he  filed  a  timely 
change  to  his  SBP  election.    Because  the  applicant  has  failed  to  specify  how  he  was 
confused  or  how  he  misinterpreted  the  SBP  election  forms,  he  has  not  sustained  his 
burden  to  show  that  his  record  is  in  error  or  that  he  has  suffered  an  injustice.  
Consequently, the Board finds no basis to grant the applicant’s requested relief.   
 

4. 

5. 

With respect to the applicant’s enrolling his disabled daughter, the Chief 
Counsel  has  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  given  the  opportunity  to  so  do, 
provided he submits the appropriate supporting documentation.  Although the Board 
finds no reasons weighing against the correction of his record to reflect the foregoing 
change in his disabled daughter’s coverage, the Board will not order this correction in 
the absence of the applicant’s request.   
 
 
show that he elected SBP coverage for his former spouse.  
 
 

Accordingly, the Board should deny the applicant’s request that his record 

6. 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXX  Xxxxxx  X.  Xxxxxx,  xxx  xx  xxxx,  USCGR,  for  the 

 
 

______________________________  
 Julia Andrews 

 
 
correction of his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

______________________________ 
 Margot Bester 

______________________________ 
 Donald A. Pedersen