DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-186 
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records June 29, 2009, and subse-
quently prepared the final decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).          
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  22,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant is the former spouse of CWO4 XXXXXX (CWO4 T) who is a deceased 
member of the Coast Guard Reserve. She asked the Board to correct CWO4 T’s military record 
“to  have  [her]  eligibility  upheld  as  [he]  originally  designated”  on  the  Reserve  Component 
Survivor Plan (RCSBP) election certificate.   
 
 
On July 8, 1992, the Coast Guard notified CWO4 T that he had completed twenty years 
of satisfactory service and would be eligible for retired pay upon reaching age 60.  He was also 
advised that that he was eligible to participate in the RCSBP, which would permit him to provide 
an annuity for his surviving spouse, children, or persons with an insured interest upon his death.    
 
 
On October 6, 1992, CWO4 T signed an SBP election certificate naming his then spouse, 
the  applicant,  as  his  beneficiary  under  the  plan.    CWO4 T  elected  an  SBP  option  that  would 
allow an annuity for his widow if he died before age 60, but the annuity would not actually begin 
until the date on which CWO4 T reached his 60th birthday.  CWO4 T and the applicant were 
divorced  on  July  27,  1999.    The  divorce  judgment  was  silent  with  regard  to  the  applicant’s 
RCSBP.  Both parties were represented by counsel during the divorce proceedings. 
 
 
On July 30, 2002, CWO4 T died.  Apparently, sometime in the fall of 2007, the applicant 
wrote to Coast Guard claiming entitlement to an annuity as the beneficiary of CWO4 T’s RCSBP 

based upon the original 1992 election form.  The Coast Guard responded by informing her that 
she was not eligible to receive the annuity payments.   
 
 
In an October 30, 2007 letter, the applicant responded to the Coast Guard’s letter denying 
her annuity benefits.  She argued that the Coast Guard’s guidance1 (only a page of which was 
submitted) stated, “If  you elect spouse coverage . . . and later divorce you have the following 
rights: You  may  suspend  your  RCSBP  spouse  coverage  by  providing  a  copy  of  your  divorce 
decree.   You  may  voluntarily  elect  to  cover  your  former  spouse  under  the  RCSBP.   Submit  a 
written request with a copy of your divorce decree.” The applicant argued that in her opinion the 
use  of  the  word  “may”  instead  of  “must”  in  the  guidance  allowed  the  original  beneficiary 
election to remain in effect.  She also stated that she had CWO4 T’s durable power of attorney 
“expressly giving her . . . the power to sell or encumber all real estate and retirement benefits, 
deposit  and  withdraw  all  monies  and  collect  pay  checks.”    She  argued  since  the  Power  of 
attorney was never canceled, it appeared that she would be eligible to collect his retirement.   
 
 
eligible to receive a retirement annuity for the following reasons: 
 

In a November 30, 2007 letter, the Coast Guard informed the applicant that she was not 

First,  Coast  Guard  members  eligible  to  participate  in  RCSBP  may  provide 
coverage  to  either  their  spouse  or  former  spouse.  [Footnote  omitted]   Although 
you  were named a spouse beneficiary  in 1992,  your eligibility to continue as  a 
spouse  beneficiary  terminated  by  operation  of  law  when  you  divorced  in  1999.  
To be named a former spouse beneficiary, [CWO4 T] had to voluntarily name you 
as  his  former  spouse  beneficiary  within  one  year  of  the  date  of  your  divorce 
decree,  or  if  ordered  by  a  court  to  name  you,  file  an  election  form.    In  the 
alternative,  if  a  court  ordered  [CWO4  T]  to  name  you  as  former  spouse 
beneficiary and he did not elect you, you could request to be deemed as his former 
spouse beneficiary within one year of the divorce decree.  
 
There is nothing in the record at PSC to indicate that [CWO4 T] either elected 
you voluntarily or by court order.  Likewise, there is nothing that shows you made 
a  request  to  be  deemed  his  former  spouse  beneficiary  [2]  within  one  year  of  a 
court order requiring that you be named.  In fact, there is nothing in the record at 

                                                 
1      Only  one  page  was  submitted  from  the  guidance  allegedly  provided  to  CWO4  T  and  the  applicant  in  1992.   
However, article 18-F-7b. of the Personnel Manual then in effect stated that Upon retirement reservists are provided 
a  comprehensive  packet  by  Commandant  (G-RSM)  explaining  RCSBP  computations  by  points,  election  forms, 
work sheets, etc.”   
2 Section 1450(f)(3) of title 10 of the United States Code states that a former spouse election is deemed to have been 
made if a  member has entered into a  written agreement, incident to a divorce, to provide an annuity  to a former 
spouse and such person then fails or refuses to make such an election.   Subsection (4) states that a person may be 
required to elect or to enter into an agreement to elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse by a court order.  A 
deemed election is a method by which a former spouse may become the SBP beneficiary of a service member.  A 
deemed election may occur in one of the following circumstances:  (1) when a member refuses or fails to make the 
former spouse election after entering into a voluntary agreement to do so and the agreement has been incorporated, 
ratified, or approved by a court order; or (2) when the member did not enter into a written agreement with the former 
spouse, but the court order mandates that the member provide SPB coverage for the former spouse.   
 

PSC to even suggest that a court order is on file directing that you be named a 
former  spouse  beneficiary.    And  you  note  in  your  letter  too,  that  “retirement 
benefits were not addressed by either of [your] attorneys . . .” which demonstrates 
that there is no such court order.   
 
Second,  Florida  law  provides  that  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  a  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  a  durable  power  of  attorney  terminates  upon  the 
principal’s death.    

  

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 10, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.  The JAG adopted the comments 
and  analysis  provided  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  as  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory 
opinion.   PSC stated the following: 
 

[SBP],  10  USC  §§  1447-1460b,  is  an  income  maintenance  program  for  the 
survivor(s) of members of the uniformed services.  Spousal coverage ends upon a 
divorce.    If  a  member  divorces  and  wishes  to  maintain  SBP  coverage  for  their 
former spouse, they must notify the Secretary within one year of the date of the 
divorce in writing of their intention to provide coverage for their former spouse, 
even  if  the  former  spouse  was  the  spousal  beneficiary  immediately  before  the 
divorce was executed.  See 10 USC § 1448(b)(3)(A).  If the member is required 
under  the  terms  of  the  divorce  decree  to  provide  SBP  coverage  to  their  former 
spouse and he or she fails or refuses to do so, the former spouse has one year from 
the date of the divorce to request a deemed election.   
 
The one year period is statutory and not left open to interpretation.   Further, [the 
applicant]  has  provided  no  reasons  for  her  or  her  former  spouse’s  failure  to 
comply  with  the  one  year  statute  of  limitations  requirement,  if  it  was  in  fact 
CWO4  T’s  intent  that  she  be  selected  as  his  beneficiary  for  former  spouse 
coverage.  [The applicant’s] comments concerning her attorney’s failure to inform 
her about SBP procedures or address [CWO4 T’s] retirement benefits during the 
divorce is a separate matter beyond the scope of the investigation.  The attorney’s 
potential negligence is not a basis for her being granted an SBP beneficiary.   
 
[T]here  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  suggest  that  [CWO4  T’s]  intent  was  to 
designate  his  former  spouse  as  his  SBP  beneficiary.    [The  applicant]  points  to 
[CWO4 T’s] removing her as a beneficiary on a life insurance [policy], [but] he 
did not change his pre-divorce SBP designation.  On the contrary . . . CWO4 T 
was  advised  in  1992  that  if  he  divorced  he  “may  voluntarily  elect  to  cover  his 
former spouse under the RCSBP. Submit a written request, with a copy of your 
divorce decree.”   This instruction is clear.  Based on this guidance, [CWO4 T] 
was made aware that a divorce would end his spouse’s SBP coverage and that it 
would  require  an  affirmative  action  to  reconstitute  a  former  spouse’s  SBP 
coverage.  [CWO4 T’s] failure to take such action is indicative of his intent not to 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  January  22,  2010,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast  Guard  expressing  her  disagreement  with  them.      She  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  has 
committed an injustice by refusing to recognize her as the beneficiary under CWO4 T’s RCSBP.  
She contended that the Coast Guard is violating CWO4 T’s rights by withholding SBP payments 
to her because he chose her as his beneficiary in 1992.  She argued that he followed the guidance 
provided  as  a  “reasonably  prudent  person”  would  have  by  not  submitting  the  divorce  decree, 
thereby in his mind maintaining his original RCSBP election.  She stated that CWO4 T was not 
aware that any special form was required to maintain her as his beneficiary after their divorce. 
 
 
The applicant argued that it was not clear in any of the guidance that she and CWO4 T 
reviewed  in  1991  that  spousal  coverage  ended  upon  divorce,  but  rather  provided  only  the 
following:  
 

identify his former spouse.  Regardless of intent, however, both parties failed to 
comply  with  the  clearly  stated  statutory  requirements  indicated  above  if  they 
desired to continue SBP coverage.  
 
Contrary to [the applicant’s] assertion, the RCSBP guidance used in 1992 is not 
confusing.  In applicable section which mentions a later divorce, the second bullet 
clearly  indicates  what  must  occur  for  the  service  member  voluntarily  elect  to 
cover, or to continue to cover, their former spouse.     

“If  you  elect  spouse  coverage  .  .  .    and  later  divorce,  you  have  the  following 
rights: 
-You  may  suspend  your  RCSBP  spouse  coverage  by  providing  a  copy  of  your 
divorce decree; 
-  You  may  voluntarily  elect  to  cover  your  former  spouse  under  the  RCSBP.  
Submit a written request with a copy of your divorce decree.” 

 
   
The applicant further stated that the subject of divorce was not addressed on the original 
RCSBP election form that she and CWO4 T signed, but it is mentioned on the current election 
form.  The current form contains the following:  “A member with spouse coverage who divorces, 
and  who  does  not  elect  former  spouse  coverage,  is  automatically  in  a  ‘suspended  coverage’ 
status.    To  elect  former  spouse  coverage,  submit  DD  Form  2651-1,  ‘Former  spouse  election 
certificate.’”  She argued that similar guidance should have been on the original form that she 
and CWO4 T executed and because it was not, it is an injustice to hold them responsible for that 
level of knowledge.   
 

With  regard  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  comment  that  CWO4  T  had  one  year  to  notify  the 
Secretary of an election for a former spouse upon his divorce, the applicant stated this was not 
clear from the paperwork they received, as it speaks only to remarriage not to divorce.  She also 
disagreed with the Coast Guard’s contention that CWO4 T was made aware that a divorce would 
end  SBP  coverage  for  his  spouse  and  that  an  affirmative  act  was  required  to  select  a  former 
spouse as a beneficiary under RCSBP.  She stated that this was not clear from the guidance they 

were provided, and that they are not attorneys, but reasonably prudent people.  She stated that 
she believes that CWO4 T thought he maintained her as his beneficiary. 

 
The applicant submitted a copy of the divorce judgment dissolving the marriage between 
CWO4 T and herself.  The court made an equitable distribution of their property, but it did not 
include any provision with respect to military retired pay, benefits, or SBP.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATION 

 
Article  18.F.3.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  widow(er)  as  “the  surviving  spouse  of  a 
deceased retiree who: 
 
1. was married to the retiree when the retiree became eligible for retired pay; or 2.  Married the 
retiree after retirement, and: a. was married to the retiree at least one year immediately before, 
and at the time of, his or her death; or b. was the parent of a natural child from the marriage.   
See also 10 U.S.C. 
 §§ 1447(7) & (9).    
 
Article 18.F.13.b. of the Personnel Manual states that there are five types of former elections that 
may be made under the law.  They are as follows: 
 

 

1.  A voluntary election made by the member without entering into an agreement 
with the former spouse.  If the member is married, his/her current spouse shall be 
notified that the member has made a former spouse election and that such election 
precludes the current spouse from being covered under SBP.   
 
2.    A  voluntary  election  made  pursuant  to  a  written  agreement  between  the 
member and former spouse, and such agreement has been incorporated in a court 
order.   
 
3.    A  voluntary  election  made  pursuant  to  a  written  agreement  between  the 
member and former spouse, and such agreement has not been incorporated in a 
court order.   
 
4.   A  deemed  election  in  which  a  member  entered  into  a  voluntary  agreement, 
which  has  been  incorporated  or  ratified  or  approved  by  a  court  order,  and  the 
member fails to or refuses to make the election.   
 
5. A deemed election in which the member did not enter into a written agreement 
with  the  former  spouse,  but  the  court  order  mandates  that  the  member  provide 
SBP coverage for the former spouse.”   

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.3  The application was timely.4 

 
2.    The  standard  of  proof  before  the  board  is  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.      The 
applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard 
committed an error or injustice by denying her request for payments under CWO4 T’s RCSBP.   
 

3.  The applicant was married to CWO4 T at the time he earned 20 years of satisfactory 
service for retired pay at age 60.  One of the benefits of qualifying for retired pay is participation 
in  the  RCSBP.    On  October  6,  1992,  CWO4  T  elected  to  participate  in  RCSBP  and  elected 
“spouse only” coverage.   On July 27, 1999, the applicant and CWO4 T were divorced but the 
judgment did not discuss or divide the parties’ retirement benefits; nor did it discuss or direct 
CWO4 T to cover the applicant under his RCSBP.  On July 30, 2002, CWO4 T died without 
having elected to cover the applicant as a former spouse beneficiary under his RCSBP.   

 
4.  Although CWO4 T  did not elect the applicant as a  former spouse beneficiary after 
their divorce, the applicant claims that she is entitled to RCSBP payments under CWO4 T’s 1992 
original election certificate for spousal coverage because the guidance provided to CWO4 T and 
her at the time of his election did not require him to take any further action to keep her as his 
beneficiary if they divorced.  She further argued that neither the SBP guidance nor the election 
certificate stated that spousal coverage ended upon divorce.  The applicant submitted only one 
sheet of the alleged RCSBP guidance provided to them before CWO4 T made his 1992 election.  
The remainder of the guidance, which according to the Personnel Manual then in effect consisted 
of  a  comprehensive  packet,  was  not  provided  to  the  Board.   Therefore,  the  Board  cannot  say 
what other guidance was provided to the applicant and CWO4 T regarding this matter at the time 
he made his 1992 election. The sheet of guidance the applicant submitted included the following 
paragraph: 

 
If you elect spouse coverage . . . and later divorce, you have the following rights:  
You  may  suspend  your  RCSBP  spouse  coverage  by  providing  a  copy  of  your 
divorce decree.  You may voluntarily elect to cover your former spouse under the 
RCSBP.  Submit a written request with copy of your divorce decree.  [Emphasis 
added.] 
  
 

                                                 
3   Section 1552(g) of title 10 of the United States Codes states the following:  [T]he term ‘military record’ means a 
document or other record that pertains to (1) an individual member or former member of the armed forces, or (2) at 
the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned, any other military matter affecting a member or 
former member of the armed forces, an employee or former employee of that military department, or a dependent or 
current or former spouse of any such person.  Such term does not include records pertaining to civilian employment 
matters . . . “   (Emphasis added.) 
4   Under CWO4 T’s SBP election in 1992, he chose the option that allowed for survivor payments to begin upon his 
60th birthday, which would have been July 23, 2007.  The BCMR application was filed on June 19, 2009, within 
three years of what would have been CWO4 T’s 60th birthday.  The applicant indicated on her DD 149 that she did 
not discover the alleged error until October 30, 2007.    

The  applicant  argued  that  the  above  guidance  used  the  word  “may,”  a  permissive  term,  to 
describe  actions CWO4 T could take if they  divorced.  The applicant stated that a reasonable 
person  would  conclude,  as  she  did  upon  reading  the  guidance  that  the  original  certificate 
remained in effect if no action was taken to change it after the divorce.   
 

5.    However, Article  18.F.2  of  the  Personnel  Manual  clearly  states  that  the  purpose  of 
SBP  is  to  provide  career  members  who  reach  retirement  eligibility  the  opportunity  to  leave  a 
portion of their pay to their survivors  at a reasonable cost.   Once the applicant and CWO4 T 
divorced, the applicant was no longer a surviving spouse. Under Article 18.F. of the Personnel 
Manual, the applicant does not meet the definition of a widow which is defined as the surviving 
spouse of a deceased retiree who was married to the retiree when the retiree became eligible for 
retired pay or was married to the retiree after retirement for at least one year immediately before 
and at the time of the retiree’s death.   Notwithstanding the fact that CWO4 T did not request 
suspension of his SBP or elect another SBP beneficiary after their divorce, the applicant was not 
married to CWO4 T at the time of his death because they were divorced in 1999.  Therefore, she 
does not meet the statutory definition of a widow and is not entitled to RCSBP payments as his 
surviving spouse.   
 
  
 6.  Nor is the applicant a former spouse beneficiary under CWO4 T’s RCSBP.  For the 
applicant to be a former spouse beneficiary, CWO4 T was required under Article 18.F.13.b. of 
the Personnel Manual to do one of the following after divorcing the applicant: 
 

Voluntarily elect the former spouse without entering into an agreement with her;   
Voluntary  elect  the  former  spouse  pursuant  to  a  written  agreement  between  the 
member and former spouse with the agreement having been incorporated into a 
court order; or Voluntary elect the former spouse pursuant to a written agreement 
between  the  member  and  former  spouse  with  the  agreement  not  having  been 
incorporated in a court order.   
 
The applicant could have also become a former spouse beneficiary through the deemed 
election process  by submitting a written  request to the Commandant with a copy of the  court 
order within one year of the divorce (1) if the member entered into a voluntary agreement with 
the former spouse, which has been incorporated or ratified or approved by a court order and the 
member fails to or refuses to make the election; or (2) if the member did not enter into a written 
agreement with the former spouse, but the court order mandates that the member provide SBP 
coverage  for  the  former  spouse.    There  was  no  court  order  mandating  SBP  coverage  for  the 
applicant.  Therefore, since CWO4 T never voluntarily elected the applicant as a former spouse 
beneficiary  after  their  divorce  and  since  no  court  of  law  ever  directed  him  to  provide  SBP 
coverage for her she is not a former spouse beneficiary of CWO4 T’s RCSBP under the SBP law.   

 
7.  In the case of Flynn v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 414 (2000),5 in an attempt to obtain 
SBP  benefits,  the  plaintiff  argued  that  she  was  a  former  spouse,  even  though  she  had  earlier 
                                                 
5 The plaintiff was married to Capt. Flynn until 1975 when they divorced.  Captain Flynn retired from the Navy on 
October 1, 1986 and did not elect anyone for SBP coverage.  Approximately five years after he retired, Capt. Flynn 
and the plaintiff remarried on April 21, 1991, he did not notify DFAS of his election to provide survivor benefits for 
the plaintiff until February 20, 1993.   The February 20, 1993 election could not be located, so Capt. Flynn elected to 

divorced Captain Flynn but subsequently remarried him and was married to him at the time of 
his death.  However, Captain Flynn never properly executed an election certificate naming her as 
his  spouse  beneficiary  after  their  remarriage.    In  deciding  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  a  former 
spouse, the court applied the statutory definitions of a “former spouse” and a “widow” to the 
situation and found that the plaintiff did not meet the definition of a former spouse.  The court 
further stated that it considered not only the bare meaning of the word but also its placement and 
purpose in the statutory scheme.  “The purpose of the SBP statute is to permit military retirees to 
establish  annuities  for  surviving  current  or  former  spouses  or  other  dependents  through  a 
reduction in retired pay . . .  To this end, the statute sets forth eligibility requirements for various 
classes of beneficiaries . . . In order for former spouses . . . to be included in the SBP, the service 
member must make an affirmative election under the statute.” Id. at 419; see also MacConnell v. 
United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 33 (1978).  In the instant case, the applicant, although a former spouse 
at the time of CWO4 T’s death, is attempting to gain SBP benefits as a surviving spouse, which 
she clearly was not.  Nor is she a former spouse beneficiary under CWO4 T’s RCSBP because he 
never elected her as such.    Accordingly, the Board finds no error with the Coast Guard’s refusal 
to pay SBP benefits to the applicant.  
 

8.    Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  that  an  injustice  has  occurred  in  this  case.    The 
circumstances of this case are different than those in Docket No. 2008-175, wherein the Board 
directed that that member’s record be corrected to show the former spouse as beneficiary under 
his SBP.  In No. 2008-175, the service member died three days after being granted a divorce but 
before  the  equitable  distribution  portion  of  the  case  was  decided  because  it  had  been  severed 
from  the  divorce  action.    In  the  final  equitable  distribution  judgment,  the  court  ordered  the 
deceased member to provide SBP coverage for the former spouse, to which the administrator of 
the deceased’s estate agreed  The Coast Guard denied the former spouse’s request to be deemed 
the member’s beneficiary  on February 26, 2007, stating that such  an election could not occur 
posthumously.  However, the Board  granted relief in No, 2008-175 finding the Coast Guard’s 
refusal to grant former spouse SBP status contravened, without good reason, the court order, and 
that the deceased service member intended by his actions to provide for his former spouse as he 
had always done.  The Board noted that the deceased member continued  to support the former 
spouse for years after their separation, that he paid the mortgage in full prior to their divorce, and 
that he waited until the former spouse was age 65 to file for divorce.    

 
9.  In contrast to BCMR No. 2008-175, there is no evidence that CWO4 T ever took any 
affirmative action to elect the applicant as a former spouse beneficiary under his SBP.  There is 
no court order directing CWO4 T to cover her under his RCSBP. There is insufficient evidence 
that he intended to cover her under the plan as a former spouse.  In this regard, the Board notes 
that  he  removed  her  as  beneficiary  on  his  life  insurance  policy  and  that  the  applicant  has 
provided no evidence that he continued to support her after their divorce. The applicant argued 

                                                                                                                                                             
cover the plaintiff during an open enrollment period on March 4, 1993, which required a two year waiting period 
before  coverage  became  effective.    Captain  Flynn  died  on April  23,  1993  and  the  plaintiff  sought  SBP  benefits 
immediately thereafter, but DFAS denied benefits because Capt Flynn’s election was not effective because it was not 
made within one year of the 1991 remarriage.  The Board for Naval Records denied her request for a correction to 
Captain  Flynn’s  record  entitling  her  to  SBP  benefits.    In  appealing  the  BCNR  decision  to  the  Court  of  Federal 
Claims, the plaintiff realized that Captain Flynn had not made a timely election and therefore argued that she was 
also a former spouse. 

that CWO4 T intended to keep her as his beneficiary under his SBP because did not make any 
change to his retirement benefits after their divorce.  The argument is not persuasive as to intent 
because an equally strong argument can be made that because they were divorced there was no 
need  to  actually  change  the  election  certificate  because  her  SBP  spousal  coverage  terminated 
upon the divorce.  CWO4 T did not need to act after the divorce to terminate spousal coverage, 
but he was required to act to add a former spouse beneficiary after their divorce, which he did 
not do. The fact that CWO4 T took no action with respect to his SBP is insufficient to overcome 
the law or to establish that CWO4 T intended that the applicant be a former spouse beneficiary 
under his RCSBP. 

 
10.  The applicant complained that it was not expressly stated in the guidance provided to 
them or on CWO4 T’s election certificate that spousal coverage terminated upon divorce as is 
stated  on  the  current  election  certificate.      Again,  since  the  Board  does  not  have  all  of  the 
information that was provided to CWO 4 T at the time, we cannot state whether the totality of the 
information  that  was  provided  would  have  led  one  to  believe  that  spousal  coverage  was 
automatically converted to former spouse coverage if no action was taken to elect former spouse 
coverage after the divorce.  The Board can say that based upon a reading of Chapter 18 of the 
Personnel  Manual,  it  would  not  be  reasonable  for  one  to  believe  that  once  divorced  a  former 
spouse  could  collect  SBP  payments  as  a  surviving  spouse  without  the  service  member  taking 
some affirmative duty to elect the former spouse as his beneficiary after a divorce.  Further, on 
the  sheet  of  guidance  provided  by  the  applicant,  the  Coast  Guard  makes  very  clear  that  upon 
divorce, CWOT 4 had two rights:  (1) he could suspend his coverage; or (2) he could voluntarily 
elect the applicant as a former spouse.  The guidance was clear that if CWO4 T wanted to cover 
his former spouse after their divorce, he was required to take affirmative action by submitting a 
written request to the Coast Guard with a copy of the divorce decree.  There is no evidence in the 
record that he took such action.   

 
11.  The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  denying  her  payments  under  CWO4  T’s  RCSBP 
coverage.   

 
 

 
    

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 ORDER 

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR 

(deceased), by XXXXXXXXXXXXX (former spouse) is denied. 

 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

                     

 

    

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier