DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2011-041 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.   The Chair docketed the case  after receiving  the applicant’s 
completed application on December 6, 2010, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the 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  December  8,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his 
record  to  show  that  he  has  elected  his  wife  as  his  beneficiary  under  the  Reserve  Component 
Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP or Plan).1  The applicant  alleged that he discovered the error in 
his record on March 6, 2009.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  “wife  has  been  unfairly  and  unjustly  denied  concurrency 
and the benefit of the [RCSBP] should [he] die before [he is] of age to next elect her as a benefi-
ciary.”  The applicant provided the following timeline of events: 
 
May 2001—The applicant was notified of his completion of 20 years of satisfactory service for a 
Reserve retirement and his opportunity to make an RCSBP election with 90 days. 

 
June 2001—The applicant submitted his RCSBP election form.  In response to questions 5 and 6 
on  the  form,  the  applicant  checked  blocks  showing  that  he  was  not  married  and 

                                                 
1 The Plan, which reduces members’ retired pay so that their survivor(s) may receive an annuity, allows reservists 
who qualify for retired pay to make elections regarding their participation in the Plan and beneficiaries (a) within 90 
days of their notification that they have completed 20 satisfactory years of service; (b) during the six months prior to 
their  60th  birthday  (when  they  first  receive  retired  pay);  and  (c)  if  they  marry  or  acquire  a  child  in  the  interim 
between (a) and (b), during the first year after they marry or acquire the child.   U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST 
M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Arts. 18.F.5.a., 18.F.6.c. & 18.F.12.a. (Change 40, Oct. 2005). 

 

 

did not have dependent children.  In response to question 7, regarding what kind 
of coverage he wanted, he checked the last block, 7f, for coverage for a “natural 
person with  insurable interest,” instead of  one of  the blocks requesting coverage 
for  a  spouse  only,  spouse  and  children,  children  only,  former  spouse,  or  former 
spouse and children.  In response to question 8, also concerning the type of cover-
age he wanted, the applicant checked the block stating “I do not wish to make an 
election at this time,” instead of electing coverage (a) upon his 60th birthday or his 
death,  whichever  is  later,  or  (b)  upon  his  death,  whether  before  or  after  his  60th 
birthday.    Question  19  on  the  form  states,  “If  you  are  unmarried  and  have  no 
dependent  children  and  you  checked  7f  complete  this  section  with  information 
pertaining  to  the  person  you  want  to  receive  an  annuity  who  has  an  insurable 
interest in you.”  The applicant named his sister in response to question 19. 

 
October 2006—The applicant married.  He advised the Coast Guard of his marriage, which was 
entered  in  his  record  in  November  2006.    However,  he  alleged,  he  and  his  wife 
received no notice of his one-year opportunity to change his RCSBP election. 

 
March 2009—The applicant learned that his wife was not covered by the Plan.  He subsequently 
sent two letters to the Commandant requesting coverage for her, but his requests 
were denied. 

 
 
The applicant stated that when he completed his original election form on June 4, 2001, 
he was confused because he did not understand why he needed to name a beneficiary (insurable 
interest) if he was not electing  coverage in response to question 8 and he did not have to show 
whether  he  wanted  the  annuity  to  be  based  on  his  full  retirement  pay  or  a  reduced  amount  in 
response to question 9.  In addition, he noted that even though he named his sister as his benefi-
ciary, the Coast Guard’s database states that “no annuity has been chosen,” and the PSC advised 
him  in August  2010  that  his  beneficiary  designation  was  invalid  and  that  his  sister  was  not  an 
eligible  choice.    The  applicant  argued  that  his  sister  was  an  insurable  interest,  according  to 
Article 18.F.3.g. of the Personnel Manual, and that if she was not an eligible choice, he should 
have been informed in 2001.  He noted that in 2001, a chief warrant officer serving as the Dis-
trict Personnel Officer counseled him about how to fill out the election form, witnessed his sig-
nature,  and  submitted  the  form  to  the  proper  office,  where  it  was  accepted  and  entered  in  the 
system.  He argued that he should have been able to rely on the guidance he received from the 
District Personnel Officer regarding his elections, but he did not.  As evidence that the 2001 elec-
tion  form  was  confusing,  the  applicant  pointed  out  that  it  has  been  revised  several  times  since 
2001.  The applicant argued that if his beneficiary election is actually invalid, as the PSC claims, 
he should have the opportunity to change his election.   
 
 
The applicant stated that when he married in October 2006, he was still drilling actively 
at  his  unit,  and  he  asked  his  Servicing  Personnel  Office  (SPO)  what  forms  needed  completion 
because of his marriage.  He completed forms regarding Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, 
housing allowance,  and  dependency, but  he  “was not  notified of the need to  update an RCSBP 
Election Certificate.”  The applicant alleged that he relied on the SPO to tell him what forms to 
fill out, and the SPO did not mention the Plan.  He alleged that the Coast Guard operates the Plan 
poorly  and  fails  to  educate  reservists  and  administrative  personnel  about  it  adequately.   There-

 

 

fore, he argued, it was not unreasonable for him to forget to inquire about his coverage under the 
Plan after he married.  The applicant also alleged that he believed that “the marriage certificate 
and the other  forms  [he] had  completed provided notice of my marriage to the Coast  Guard to 
qualify my wife for insurance and benefits should I predecease her.”  When he learned in March 
2009 that his RCSBP election had not been updated by the Coast Guard to reflect his marriage, 
he tried to have his election corrected through the Personnel Service Center (PSC) to no avail. 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  under  10  U.S.C.  §  1448,  a  spouse  must  consent  to  a  married 
 
member  not  electing  the  spouse  as  an  RCSBP  beneficiary  and  under  §  1455(a)(1)(A),  retiring 
members  and  spouses  must  be  informed  of  RCSBP  options  and  effects.   The  applicant  alleged 
that  the  Coast  Guard  violated  both  of  these  provisions  because  even  though  he  informed  the 
Coast  Guard  of  his  marriage,  the  PSC  has  never  attempted  any  communication  with  his  wife 
about  his  RCSBP  coverage.    The  applicant  argued  that  his  wife  should  have  the  same  right  to 
notification as other spouses and that, even if these statutes do not require notice to his wife, in 
the interest of justice and equity the intent of the statutes should be fulfilled to protect her interest 
and she should be covered by the Plan as his beneficiary.  The applicant argued that even if no 
law  requires  her  to  consent  to  her  non-coverage  under  the  Plan,  she  should  be  included  in  the 
interests of equity and justice because the statute “clearly is meant to protect the spousal interest 
regardless of the member’s failure to include a spouse in the Plan.” 
 
 
The  applicant  complained  that  spouses,  former  spouses,  and  spouses  acquired  after  a 
reservist’s qualification for a 20-year retirement are treated very differently under the Plan.  He 
listed the notification and consent entitlements afforded a spouse or former spouse when a mem-
ber  makes  an  RCSBP  election  that  are  not  afforded  to  a  spouse  acquired  after  the  election  is 
made.  He alleged that spouses acquired after the 20-year mark are unjustly denied notice of their 
entitlements  under  the  RCSBP.    The  applicant  argued  that  this  discrimination  among  types  of 
spouses  is  unjust  and  that  all  spouses  should  receive  the  same  notification  and  protection.    He 
noted that his next opportunity to change his election is his 60th birthday, xxxxxxxxxxx, and that 
his wife will be ineligible for RCSBP benefits if he dies before then. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the Plan “is complicated, and many [administrative personnel] 
who  should  understand  RCSBP  do  not.   To  place  the  burden  solely  on  the  Reservist  to  under-
stand RCSBP and how to make elections is unfair and unjust.”  Moreover, he argued that infor-
mation about the RCSBP is not readily accessible, as the Coast Guard claims, since throughout 
his career he has received information about it only once, when the election form was mailed to 
him  in  2001,  except  in  response  to  his  complaints  about  his  coverage  in  2009  and  2010.    He 
pointed out that active duty members get to attend a Transition Assistance Program with a great 
deal of information about retirement planning before they retire, whereas reservists receive only 
a pamphlet in the mail, and it says nothing about what to do if the reservist marries after the 20-
year mark. 
 

The  applicant  noted  that  the  law  allows  that  the  “Secretary  concerned  may  revoke  an 
election  when  necessary  to  correct  an  administrative  error”  and  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his 
election form to show that he elected coverage and his wife is his beneficiary. 
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
In  March  2001,  the  applicant  completed  20  years  of  satisfactory  service  towards  a 
 
Reserve  retirement,  including  receipt  of  retired  pay  following  his  60th  birthday  in  20xx.    The 
Coast  Guard sent  him his 20-year notification  letter with  RCSBP information on May  1, 2001.  
The  letter  notes  that  the  “Plan  permits  you  to  provide  an  annuity  for  your  spouse,  spouse  and 
children, children alone, or persons with an insurable interest in the event you die before reach-
ing  age 60.   It is  very  important  that  you  carefully read the options described in  enclosure (2).  
By  law,  you  must  make  your  choice  within  90  days  of  the  date  of  this  letter.    If  you  choose 
Option A with spousal concurrence, you are deferring any opportunity for a Coast Guard annuity 
until your 60th birthday.  There will be no RCSBP coverage if you die before you reach age 60.  
In addition,  you should be aware that your decision is irrevocable after the 90-day period.”  At 
the time, the applicant was not married and had no children.  The RCSBP pamphlet sent to the 
applicant with the 20-year letter stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) 

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

 

 
Please  take  a  moment  to  read  this  very  important  information  concerning 
coverage for your family in the event of your death. 
 
Introduction:  Reservists who complete 20 years of satisfactory service are entitled to apply for 
retired pay once they reach age 60.  If the Reservist dies prior to reaching age 60, entitlement to 
retired  pay  terminates.    The  only  way  your  survivor(s)  may  receive  a  payment  from  the  Coast 
Guard  in  the  form  of  an  annuity,  if  you  die  prior  to  age  60,  is  through  the  Reserve  Component 
Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). 
 
• NOTE:  Effective 1 January 2001, Reservists completing 20 years satisfactory service will 
be automatically  covered under the RCSBP at the maximum level (OPTION C), unless the 
reservist  declines  coverage,  or  elects  reduced  coverage.    If  the  Reservist  declines,  or  elects 
reduced coverage, the member’s spouse must concur with that election. 
 
Election Options at time of 20 year satisfactory service letter: 
 

Option  A.    Under  this  option,  the  reservist  declines  coverage  until  reaching  retired  pay 
eligibility  at  age  60.    At  that  time,  survivor  coverage  will  become  automatic  under  the 
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) unless  specifically declined, or a lesser coverage is elected 
with the reservist’s spouse’s concurrence.  Election of Option A means that if the mem-
ber dies prior to reaching age 60, the survivor is not covered by a Coast Guard annuity. 
 
Option B.  Election of this option means that if the member dies prior to reaching age 60, 
the  beneficiary  would  be  entitled  to  an  annuity  when  the  Reservist  would  have  reached 
aged 60.  Member may elect to provide an annuity based on full or reduced retired pay. 
 
Option C.  Election of this option means that if the member dies prior to reaching age 60, 
the beneficiary would be entitled to an annuity starting immediately.  Member may elect 
to provide an annuity based on full or reduced retired pay. 

 

 

 

 

• NOTE:  If an election is not made by the Reservist, or not received by HRSIC (RAS) within 
90  days  from  the  issuance  of  the  20  years  satisfactory  service  letter,  the  member  will  be 
automatically enrolled in Option C at the full level of retired pay. 
 
Beneficiaries:  You  may elect to provide an annuity  under the RCSBP for the following benefi-
ciaries: 
 

  Spouse … 
  Spouse and Children … 
  Children Only … 
 
  Former Spouse … 
  Former Spouse and Children … 
 

Incapacitated Children … 

Insurable Interest Person – A person who depends on your income for support, i.e., Par-
ent,  Dependent  or  Non-Dependent  Child,  Relative,  Business  Associate,  etc.    Electing 
Insurable Interest provides an annuity during the life of the beneficiary. 

 
Election Opportunities: 
 

  Within 90 days from the issuance of your 20 year satisfactory service letter. 

 

 

 

If Option  A is elected at time of 20 year satisfactory service letter, and spouse concurs, 
member will have an opportunity to elect into the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) at age 60. 

  NOTE:  If Reservist declines RCSBP at completion of 20 years (elects Option A with 
spouse  concurrence),  and  dies  before  reaching  age  60,  the  survivors  will  not  be 
entitled to receive a Coast Guard annuity. 

 
Annuity:   
 

FULL  LEVEL  -  …  the  annuity  will  be  computed  based  on  the  reserve  member’s  full 
amount of retired pay … 
 
REDUCED  LEVEL  - … the annuity  will be computed based on the  member’s elected 
dollar amount, any amount from $300.00 to full amount of retired pay … 

 
Cost for RCSBP Coverage: 
 

No premiums are collected for election into the RCSBP until the reservist begins receiv-
ing retired pay [at age 60]. … 

 
Between 20 Years Satisfactory Service and Reaching Age 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have no spouse or children at the 20 year point, and later acquire a spouse and/or 
children you may elect to enroll your new beneficiaries in the RCSBP.  You must request 
enrollment in writing, within one year of obtaining a spouse and/or child.  A copy of the 
marriage and/or birth certificate must accompany request. 

If you elect spouse coverage under Option B or C and your spouse dies … 

If you elect spouse coverage under Option B or C and later divorce … 

If you remarry after losing your RCSBP spouse beneficiary … 

 

 

On  October  15,  2006,  the  applicant  married.    His  marriage  was  entered  in  the  Coast 

 
NOTE:  The opportunity to make any changes to your RCSBP election must be made within one 
year of your remarriage by written notification to us at the address provided below. … [Address 
of Commanding Officer, Retiree & Annuitant Services (RAS) in Topeka, Kansas, which is part of 
the Personnel and Pay Center (PPC)] 
 
On June 4, 2001, the applicant submitted his RCSBP election form showing that he did 
“not wish to make an election at this time,” as opposed to choosing coverage beginning imme-
diately or coverage beginning only at age 60.  When instructed by the form to identify a benefi-
ciary, he elected the last option, “natural person with an insurable interest (may be elected only if 
you have no spouse and/or children).”  In addition, he identified his sister as the “natural person 
with an insurable interest.” 
 
 
Guard’s database on November 15, 2006. 
 
 
On March 16, 2009, someone sent the following inquiry by email to the PPC in Topeka:  
“We have a reserve member [name] who was single when he went  over 20 (so SBP wasn’t  an 
issue at that time).  I’m actually not sure what election he made.  He’s since gotten married.  Can 
he now elect  SBP?”  In  response, the PPC advised that if the applicant  “would like pre-age 60 
RCSBP coverage for his  new spouse, he’ll want  to  submit an  election within one  year of mar-
riage.” 
 
 
 
On  June  24,  2009,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  to  the  PSC  attempting  to  elect  his 
spouse as his beneficiary under the Plan and to elect coverage for an immediate annuity based on 
his full retired pay in case of his death.  The applicant stated that he was never notified that his 
election  form  needed  to  be  updated.    He  complained  that  the  RCSBP  pamphlet  he  received  in 
2001 was confusing and erroneously stated that one’s beneficiary election could not be changed.  
In addition, after he submitted a copy of his marriage license to his unit SPO in November 2006, 
he  alleged,  he  was  given  only  the  “Designation  of  Beneficiaries  (CG  PSC-2020D),  BAH/ 
Dependency  Data  (CG-4170A),  and  Servicemembers’  Group  Life  Insurance  Election  and  Cer-
tificate  (SGLV-8286)”  to  update,  and  no  mention  of  updating  his  RCSBP  election  was  made 
even after he asked whether there were any other forms he needed to fill out.  He noted that the 
form  CG  PSC-2020D  is  particularly  misleading  because  it  “gives  the  impression  that  all  other 
programs and forms are satisfactorily covered.  It further validates this point by stating a mem-
ber’s  ‘spouse  and  eligible  children  are  automatically  covered  designated  by  law  of  your  death 
gratuity.’”  The applicant also noted that unit administrative personnel appear to be unaware of 
the RCSBP form  and requirements because the form  is  not generated at  the unit level,  it is not 
required  to  be  kept  in  the  unit  records,  it  does  not  appear  on  a  unit’s  administrative  check  list, 
and it “does not appear in Direct Access, on the Dependency/Emergency Data ‘update’ tab.”   He 
stated that the only  reason he discovered that he should have filled out  a Plan election form  to 
ensure his wife’s coverage after their marriage is that he was recently inspired to review his own 
election  form  after  helping  another  member  complete  his  and  that,  when  he  subsequently  con-
tacted numerous administrative and personnel officers, none of them could answer his questions 
about changing his election until someone contacted the RAS for him. 
 

 

 

On December 10, 2009, the Commandant (Compensation Division; CG-1222) responded 
 
to  the  PPC’s  inquiry  forwarding  the  applicant’s  letter  dated  June  24,  2009.    The  Commandant 
stated that RCSBP matters are handled “directly between members and PPC” and that unit SPOs 
“have no requirement to process or forward retired pay applications or SBP/RCSBP designations 
to  PPC  on  behalf  of  a  member;  the  responsibility  for  timely  and  correct  submission  of  such 
administrative  correspondence  lies  with  the  member.”    The  Commandant  noted  that  under  10 
U.S.C.  §  1454  and  DoD  Financial  Management  Regulation,  Vol.  7B,  Military  Pay  Policy  and 
Procedures – Retired Pay, members have one  year after marrying to  change their RCSBP elec-
tion.  The Commandant claimed that the RCSBP guide mailed to the applicant with his 20-year 
letter “provided understandable, specific guidance on what to do should he acquire a dependent.”  
The Commandant noted that the instructions in the current RCSBP guide about  what to do if a 
member has no dependents when he receives his 20-year letter have not changed.  The Comman-
dant stated that in 2001, the applicant “did not have an eligible beneficiary” but “designated his 
sister as his beneficiary under the insurable interest rule.” 
 
 
The Commandant also noted that under 10 U.S.C. § 1448, the Coast Guard may correct 
or revoke any election made when “necessary to correct  an administrative error. … An agency 
commits  administrative  error  when  it  fails  to  take  a  required  action.    The  Comptroller  General 
determined  agency  administrative  error  occurs  when  an  agency  does  not  ‘carry  out  written 
administrative policy of a non-discretionary nature or to comply with administrative regulations 
having mandatory effect.’ [Citation omitted.] Despite [the applicant’s] assertion, he does not cite 
any written administrative policy or regulation  that requires his  SPO to  ensure that his  RCSBP 
election was updated at the time they processed his change in dependency status.  Accordingly, 
there was no administrative error on his SPO’s part.”  Exploring the legislative history of § 1448, 
the  Commandant  quoted  from  a  Senate  report  regarding  the  Retired  Serviceman’s  Family  Pro-
tection Plan, which was the precursor of the RCSBP.  The Senate report states the following: 
 

Void elections.  The election forms of certain members have been found to be void due to admin-
istrative  deficiencies  and  irregularities.    Where  a  sufficient  time  remains  prior  to  the  applicable 
deadline  date,  it  is  possible  for  the  service  to  return  the  form  to  the  member  for  resubmission.  
However,  if  this  is  not  accomplished  before  the  deadline  date,  the  election  is  not  effective.    For 
that reason, it is proposed that, if an election made under section 1431 is found to be void for  any 
reason except fraud or willful intent of the member, a corrected election may be submitted within 
90 days after he is notified in writing that the election is void. 

 
 
The  Commandant  concluded  that  the  applicant  bore  the  responsibility  of  changing  his 
RCSBP election within a year of his marriage to satisfy the statute, that the Coast Guard had not 
committed  any  administrative  error,  and  that  his  request  to  change  his  election  was  therefore 
denied. 
 
 
On March 30, 2010, the applicant submitted a letter to the Commandant again asking to 
correct  his  election  under  the  Plan.    The  applicant  complained  that  the  Direct  Access  database 
shows that “no annuity has been chosen” and yet the Commandant acknowledged that his sister 
was his beneficiary under the insurable interest rule.  He argued that these statements are incon-
sistent  and  the  inconsistency  was  caused  by  the  confusing  election  form.    Regarding  the  Com-
mandant’s statement that it was his responsibility to update his Plan election after his marriage, 
the  applicant  claimed  that  the  other  military  services  “regularly  educate  their  personnel  about 
SBP benefits” and noted that active duty members attend a transition program with information 

 

 

about SBP before they retire, whereas reservists receive only a pamphlet.  The applicant admitted 
that in 2006—five years after he read the pamphlet and completed the confusing election form—
he  did  not  recall  that  he  needed  to  change  his  election  within  one  year  of  his  marriage  or  that 
updating other forms was insufficient to change his RCSBP election. 
 

The applicant made many of the same complaints and recommendations for improvement 
that he made in his application.  He also repeated his claim that his original election form is inac-
curately completed and should have been rejected by Headquarters. 
 
 
On August 25, 2010, the Commandant (Office of Military Personnel; CG-122) replied to 
the applicant’s second letter.  The Commandant stated that in 2001, if a reservist failed to make 
an election during the 90 days following the 20-year letter, the reservist was ineligible for bene-
fits (had no coverage) until age 60, when he could make a new election.  The Commandant noted 
that the law changed in 2006 so that no election within 90 days results in automatic spouse-only 
coverage.  The Commandant also noted that the rule about having one year to change SBP cov-
erage after a marriage had not changed since 2001. 
 
 
Regarding the applicant’s election in 2001, the Commandant claimed that the applicant’s 
election of his sister as a beneficiary was invalid since she was married at the time and living in 
another state with her husband. 
 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  marriage  in  2006,  the  Commandant  stated  that  the  unit  SPO 
whom  the  applicant  informed  of  his  marriage  did  not  have  any  statutory  or  regulatory  require-
ment or duty to counsel members about SBP and that all inquiries about SBP must be directed to 
the PPC.  The Commandant stated that the applicant was notified in his 20-year letter of the need 
to change his SBP election through the PPC within a year of the marriage and that because he did 
not do so, his election could not be changed until he attained age 60. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On March 16, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion in which he  recommended that the  Board deny the applicant’s request.    In so 
doing he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by the Person-
nel Service Center (PSC).   

 
The PSC stated that the Coast Guard committed no error in this case and that the appli-
cant has not put forth any new evidence of error that has not already been reviewed and rejected 
by the Commandant.  The PSC adopted the Commandant’s memorandum dated August 25, 2010, 
in its entirety in this regard and recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.    

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  served  more  than  20  years  to  earn  his  pension,  which  does 
not begin until age 60, but that if he dies before age 60, his wife receives no SBP.  He argued that 
this situation is clearly unjust.  He noted that the advisory opinion failed to argue that no injustice 
was  committed  and  so  the  Board  should  find  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  correct  the 

 

 

applicant’s  SBP  election.    The  applicant  also  submitted  an  affidavit  from  his  wife  requesting 
coverage  under  the  SBP.    He  argued  that  his  failure  to  elect  coverage  for  her  within  a  year  of 
their  marriage  constitutes  a  de  facto  declination  of  spousal  coverage  without  the  assent  of  the 
spouse,  which  is  impermissible  under  the  law.    He  argued  that  the  SBP  statute  requires  the 
concurrence of a spouse in not electing coverage even if the spouse is acquired after the 90-day 
election period following the 20-day letter has passed.  Therefore, when the one-year period for 
making  an  election  after  the  marriage  passed  without  any  election  being  made,  by  default,  his 
wife’s coverage should have been automatic.  In this regard, the applicant alleged that the Coast 
Guard erred by failing to notify her of his de facto declination of coverage for her. 
 

The  applicant  also  argued  that  not  requiring  his  spouse’s  concurrence  constitutes  an 
unconstitutional taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.  The 
applicant  also  reiterated  many of the  arguments  he made in  his  application and in  his  letters to 
the Coast Guard. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
United States Code 
 

The  SBP  and  RCSBP  are  authorized  under  10  U.S.C.  §§  1447  et  seq.    Although  the 
statutes  have  been  amended  since  the  applicant  first  made  his  election  in  2001,  none  of  the 
amendments  affected  the  provisions  relevant  to  the  disposition  of  this  case.2    Section  1448, 
“Application of Plan,” states the following in pertinent part: 
 

(a) General rules for participation in the Plan.-- 
 

(1) Name of Plan; eligible participants.--The program established by this subchapter shall 
be  known  as  the  Survivor  Benefit  Plan.  The  following  persons  are  eligible  to  participate  in  the 
Plan: 
 

(A) Persons entitled to retired pay. 

 

 

(B) Persons who would be eligible for reserve-component retired pay but for the 

fact that they are under 60 years of age. 

(2) Participants in the Plan.--The Plan applies to the following persons, who shall be par-

ticipants in the Plan: 
 

(A) Standard annuity participants.--A person who is eligible to participate in the 
Plan  under  paragraph  (1)(A)  and  who  is  married  or  has  a  dependent  child  when  he 
becomes  entitled  to  retired  pay,  unless  he  elects  (with  his  spouse’s  concurrence,  if 
required under paragraph (3)) not to participate in the Plan before the first day for which 
he is eligible for that pay. 

(B)  Reserve-component  annuity  participants.--A  person  who  (i)  is  eligible  to 
participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is married or has a dependent child 
when he is notified under section 12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years of 

 

                                                 
2 Pub. L. 107-107, § 642(a), (c)(1), 115 Stat. 1151, 1152 (2001); Pub. L. 108-136, §§ 644(a), (b), 645(a), (b)(1), (c), 
117 Stat. 1517 (2003); Pub. L. 108-375, § 1084(d)(10), 118 Stat. 2061 (2004); Pub. L. 109-364, §§ 643(a), 644(a), 
1071(a)(8), 120 Stat. 2260, 2261, 2398 (2006). 

 

 

 

service required for eligibility for reserve-component retired pay, unless the person elects 
(with his spouse's concurrence, if required under paragraph (3)) not to participate in the 
Plan before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which he receives that 
notification. 

A person who elects under subparagraph (B) not to participate in the Plan remains eligi-
ble, upon reaching 60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled to retired pay, to par-
ticipate in the Plan in accordance with eligibility under paragraph (1)(A). 

 

 

(3) Elections.-- 

•  •  • 

 

  
(B) Spousal consent for certain elections respecting reserve-component annuity. 
--A  married  person  who  is  eligible  to  provide  a  reserve-component  annuity  may  not  without  the 
concurrence of the person’s spouse elect-- 
 

(i) not to participate in the Plan; 

 

 

 

(ii)  to  designate  under  subsection  (e)(2)  the  effective  date  for  com-
mencement  of  annuity  payments  under  the  Plan  in  the  event  that  the  member 
dies before becoming 60 years of age to be the 60th anniversary of the member’s 
birth (rather than the day after the date of the member’s death); 

(iii)  to  provide  an  annuity  for  the  person’s  spouse  at  less  than  the 

maximum level; or 

(iv) to provide an annuity for a dependent child but not for the person’s 

spouse. 

(4) Irrevocability of elections.-- 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

 

  
able if not revoked before the end of the 90-day period referred to in that paragraph. 
 

(B) Reserve-component annuity.--An election under paragraph (2)(B) is irrevoc-

 

 

 

 

 

(5) Participation by person marrying after retirement, etc.-- 

(A)  Election  to  participate  in  Plan.--A  person  who  is  not  married  and  has  no 
dependent child upon becoming eligible to participate in the Plan but who later marries or 
acquires a dependent child may elect to participate in the Plan. 

(B)  Manner  and  time  of  election.--Such  an  election  must  be  written,  signed  by 
the person making the election, and received by the Secretary concerned within one year 
after the date on which that person marries or acquires that dependent child. 

(C) Limitation on revocation of election.--Such an election may not be revoked 

except in accordance with subsection (b)(3). 

(D) Effective date of election.--The election is effective as of the first day of the 
first calendar month following the month in which the election is received by the Secre-
tary concerned. 

(E) Designation if RCSBP election.--In the case of a person providing a reserve-

component annuity, such an election shall include a designation under subsection (e). 

•  •  • 
(b) Insurable interest and former spouse coverage.-- 
 

(1) Coverage for person with insurable interest.-- 

 

 

(A) General rule.--A person who is not married and does not have a dependent 
child  upon  becoming  eligible  to  participate  in  the  Plan  may  elect  to  provide  an  annuity 
under the Plan to a natural person with an insurable interest in that person. In the case of 
a person providing a reserve-component annuity, such an election shall include a desig-
nation under subsection (e). 

•  •  • 

(e) Designation for commencement of reserve-component annuity.--In any case in which a person 
is required to make a designation under this subsection, the person shall designate whether, in the 
event he dies before becoming 60 years of age, the annuity provided shall become effective on-- 
 

(1) the day after the date of his death; or 
 
(2) the 60th anniversary of his birth. 

Title  10  U.S.C.  §  1454  states  the  following  regarding  the  “Correction  of  administrative 

 
 
errors” in the administration of the Plan: 
 

(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned may, under regulations prescribed under  section 1455 of 
this  title,  correct  or  revoke  any  election  under  this  subchapter  when  the  Secretary  considers  it 
necessary to correct an administrative error. 
 
(b) Finality.--Except when procured by fraud, a correction or revocation under this section is final 
and conclusive on all officers of the United States. 

 

Title 10 U.S.C. § 1455 states the President “shall prescribe  regulations to carry out this 
subchapter.  Those regulations shall, so far as practicable, be uniform for the uniformed services” 
and the following: 
 

(b)  Notice  of  elections.--Regulations  prescribed  under  this  section  shall  provide  that  before  the 
date on which a member becomes entitled to retired pay-- 
 
(1) if the member is married, the member and the member’s spouse shall be informed of the elec-
tions available under section 1448(a) of this title and the effects of such elections; … 

 
Reserve Policy Manual 
 

Chapter  8.C.7.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  states  that  the  Coast  Guard  “will  notify 
members in writing within one year of completing satisfactory federal service for retirement pur-
poses, of eligibility for retired pay at age 60.  The written notification is commonly called the 20-
year  letter.    The  notification  shall  contain  information  about  the  Reserve  Component  Survivor 
Benefit Plan (RC-SBP), which is described in the Personnel Manual.” 
 
Personnel Manual 
 

The  Coast  Guard’s  regulations  for  the  Plan  appear  in  Article  18.F.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  In 2001, when the applicant first made his election, and in 2006, when he married, the 
following provisions applied: 
 

Article  18.F.5.a.3.  states  that  those  eligible  for  coverage  under  the  Plan  include  “[a]ny 

 

 

member  or  former  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  qualifying  for  retired  pay  at  age  60  in 
accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1331-1337.  Reservists in this category who do not submit an election 
or who elect option A under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RC-SBP) (refer to 
Article 18.F.12.), will be covered AUTOMATICALLY at the MAXIMUM LEVEL, unless they 
choose,  prior  to  entitlement  to  retired  pay,  to  elect  reduced  coverage  as  described  in  Article 
18.F.4.c.  Such a member will be notified concerning SBP and its provisions approximately six 
months before reaching age 60.” 
 

Article 18.F.12.b. states that upon completing 20 years of satisfactory service, reservists 

are sent “a comprehensive packet explaining RC-SBP,” under which they have three options: 

 
1. Option A.  This option is chosen by a reservist who is undecided about a RC-SBP election upon 
completing 20 years service, and defers that decision until reaching age 60.  If the retired reservist 
dies before age 60 and has chosen option A, no annuity under RC-SBP will go to the spouse.  An 
election under this option states:  I decline to make an election at this time. (I will remain eligible 
to make an election for coverage at age 60). 

 

2.  Option  B.    Choosing  this  option  allows  an  SBP  annuity  to  flow  to  the  widow(er)  should  the 
reservist die before reaching age 60.  The annuity will not begin, however, until the date on which 
the reservist would have been age 60.  An election under this option states:  I elect to provide an 
annuity beginning on the 60th anniversary of my birth should I die before that date, or on the day 
after the date of death should I die on or after my 60th birthday. 

 

3. Option C.  This option allows a SBP annuity to begin being paid to the survivor upon the death 
of the reservist whether before or after the reservist’s 60th birthday. An election under this option 
states:  I  elect  to  provide  an  immediate  annuity  beginning  on  the  day  after  date  of  my  death, 
whether before or after my 60th birthday. 
 
Article 18.F.6.b. states that “[i]f a member elects not  to  participate or participate at  less 
than  the  maximum  level,  or  elects  children-only  coverage  when  there  is  an  otherwise  eligible 
spouse, that spouse must sign a statement concurring with the member’s election.”   

 
Article  18.F.6.c.  states  that  a  “member  who  has  no  spouse  and/or  child(ren)  on  date  of 
retirement, but who later acquires a spouse and/or child(ren), may elect to participate in the Plan, 
provided he/she elects to do so within one year of such acquisition. Such election must be sub-
mitted  in  writing  to  the  Pay  and  Personnel  Center  (PPC).    Spouse  coverage  becomes  effective 
one year after marriage, unless a child is born of that marriage before the first anniversary.” 

 
Article 18.F.6.d.1. states that a Plan election may be changed if “a member elected to pro-
vide  coverage  for  an  insurable  interested  person,  that  election  may  be  …  changed  to  cover  a 
newly acquired spouse or dependent child(ren), provided such election is received by PPC within 
one year of acquisition of the spouse and/or child(ren).” 

 
Article 18.F.4.d. states that a “member who is unmarried and has no dependent child(ren) 
on  the  date  of  entitlement  to  retired  pay,  may  elect  to  provide  an  annuity  for  a  person  with  an 
insurable  interest  in  the  member.”   Article  18.F.3.g.  defines  and  “insurable  interest  person”  as 
“any person having a reasonable and lawful expectation of monetary benefit from the continued 
life  of  a  retiree.    Some  examples  are:  parents;  stepparents;  grandparents;  grandchildren;  aunts; 
uncles;  sisters;  brothers;  half-sisters;  half-brothers;  child(ren);  or  a  nonrelative  business  asso-

 

 

ciate, employee, etc.  If the designation is  for a nonrelative, proof of financial benefit from the 
continuance of life of the retiree must be submitted.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant  to  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
The record supports that the applicant’s claim that he discovered that his wife was not covered 
under the RCSBP in 2009.  Therefore, his application is timely. 

 
2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.3   

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that his current lack of coverage under the RCSBP is erro-
neous and unjust and that it should be corrected to show that he has coverage for the spouse he 
married  in  2006.    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed 
information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the appli-
cant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed informa-
tion  is  erroneous  or  unjust.4    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast 
Guard  officials  and  other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  law-
fully, and in good faith.”5  

 
4. 

The applicant alleged that he completed the RCSBP election form improperly in 
2001 and so that election form should be considered invalid.  The record shows that the applicant 
had  no  wife  or  dependent  child  when  he  received  his  20-year  letter  in  2001.    Therefore,  when 
directed to pick a beneficiary in block 7f of the election form, he elected a “natural person with 
insurable interest” as a beneficiary, and in block 8 he elected to defer his decision about whether 
to actually participate in the Plan.  In block 19, he named his sister as a person having an insura-
ble  interest  in  him.   Whether  she  qualified  in  2001  or  might  at  some  point  qualify  as  someone 
having  an  “insurable  interest”  is  unclear.6    Although  the  applicant’s  sister  might  not  ever  have 
                                                 
3 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 754, 764 (1974) (stating that a hearing is not required because BCMR pro-
ceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b) (2011). 
5 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
6 See U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF DEFENSE, FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT  REGULATION 7000.14-R, vol. 7B, chap. 44, para. 
440205, which defines a “natural person with an insurable interest” as  

A. A person who has a reasonable and lawful expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continued 
life of  the  member. This category  may include parents,  stepparents, grandparents, grandchildren, 
aunts,  uncles,  sisters,  brothers,  half-sisters,  half-brothers,  dependent  or  non-dependent  child  or 
stepchild, or any other person more nearly related than cousin; or  

 

 

benefited  as  someone  with  an  “insurable  interest”  under  the  law,  the  applicant  completed  the 
form logically in accordance with the instructions as if his sister had an insurable interest in him, 
and  his  manner  of  completion  did  not  render  the  election  form  as  a  whole  illogical  or  invalid.  
The fact that a beneficiary may later be deemed unqualified does not ipso facto render the entire 
election  form  invalid.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  the  naming  of  a  beneficiary  on  an 
RCSBP election form is always actually the naming of a potential beneficiary because receipt of 
benefits depends upon the beneficiary’s qualification as a beneficiary at the time of death and the 
reservist’s participation in the Plan at the time of death.  For example, even a reservist’s spouse 
or  child  at  the  time  of  completion  of  the  form  may  not  be  an  eligible  beneficiary  when  the 
reservist dies if the couple divorce or the child becomes independent.7  As the election form was 
arranged in 2001, the naming of a beneficiary and the decision to defer choosing or to choose a 
type  of  annuity  were  presented  as  independent  questions,  and  the  applicant’s  answers  to  those 
questions  were  not  illogical.    For  example,  even  though  he  chose  option  A  on  the  form  and 
deferred his election, a named person with an insurable interest on his 2001 election form would 
have  been  automatically  covered  under  the  Plan  if  he  had  failed  to  decline  coverage  when  he 
turned 60 years old.8 

 
5. 

The applicant alleged that his 2001 RCSBP election form was invalid because the 
Coast Guard does not consider his sister a valid beneficiary, as stated in the Commandant’s letter 
dated August 25, 2010.  As noted in finding 4, the record before the Board is not certain about 
whether his sister had,  has, or  could  in  the future have an insurable interest  in  him.  However, 
because in 2001 the applicant chose to defer his decision about electing coverage—option A in 
block 8 and option A in the RCSBP guidance he received—the Board is not persuaded that the 
applicant erroneously believed, after he completed the form, that his sister would receive a bene-
fit if he died before age 60.  Although the applicant alleged that someone should have returned 
the election form to him in 2001 if his sister did not qualify as a person with an insurable interest 
in him, he has not shown that the Coast Guard had a duty at the time to make a legal assessment 
of  whether  his  sister  had  a  “lawful  expectation  of  monetary  benefit  from  [his]  continued  life” 
before accepting the form.  Article 18.F.4.d. of the Personnel Manual requires a member to sub-
mit proof of the named person’s insurable interest only if the named person is not a family mem-
ber.    And  as  noted  in  finding  4,  any  named  beneficiary  on  the  election  form  is  really  only  a 
potential beneficiary, contingent upon that person’s qualification as a beneficiary at the time of 
the reservist’s death.  The Board concludes that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance 
of the evidence that his 2001 RCSBP election form is invalid or void. 

 

                                                                                                                                                             

B. Any individual having a reasonable and lawful basis, founded upon the relationship of parties 
to each other, either pecuniary or of blood or affinity,  to expect some benefit or advantage from 
the continuance of the life of the retiree. Proof of financial benefit from the continuance of the life 
of the member is required for persons other than those listed in subparagraph 440205.A. 

7 Bonewell v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 413 (2009) (noting that coverage elected for a spouse does not convert to 
coverage for a former spouse after a divorce unless a subsequent election for “former spouse” coverage is made). 
8  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST  M1000.6A,  PERSONNEL  MANUAL,  Art.  18.F.5.a.3.  (Change  33,  Sept.  2000) 
(stating that those eligible for coverage under the Plan included any reservist qualifying for a Reserve retirement and 
that such reservists “who do not submit an election or who elect option A under the Reserve Component Survivor 
Benefit  Plan  (RC-SBP)  (refer  to  Article  18.F.12.),  will  be  covered  AUTOMATICALLY  at  the  MAXIMUM 
LEVEL,  unless  they  choose,  prior  to  entitlement  to  retired  pay,  to  elect  reduced  coverage  as  described  in  Article 
18.F.4.c.”).   

 

 

6. 

The applicant complained that although he named his sister as his beneficiary on 
his RCSBP election form, the Coast Guard’s Direct Access database states that “no annuity has 
been  chosen.”    The  Board  finds  that  this  notation  in  Direct  Access  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
applicant’s RCSBP election form because in block 8 of the form, the applicant deferred his elec-
tion of an annuity.   

 
7. 

Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1448(a)(5),  entitled  “Participation  by  person  marrying  after 
retirement,  etc.,”  the  applicant  was  eligible  to  change  his  election  and  elect  coverage  for  his 
spouse within one year of his marriage.  Because he did not do so, the Coast Guard’s refusal to 
allow  him  to  change  his  election  at  this  time  is  not  erroneous.   Although  the  applicant  alleged 
that his spouse was or should be entitled to notification of his failure to change his election and 
to consent to (or not—i.e., veto) his failure to ensure her coverage, nothing in the statute creates 
these alleged entitlements.  As the applicant noted, Congress has conferred different rights upon 
spouses  under  the  RCSBP  and  SBP  depending  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  marriage.    For 
example,   
 

  someone who is already a spouse when the reservist receives his 20-year retirement eligi-
bility letter has the right to consent to—in essence, to veto—a member’s decision not to 
provide full coverage for the spouse;9  

 

  someone who marries a reservist who, when he received his 20-year letter, elected spouse 
coverage for a prior spouse, which would cover the new spouse if no change was made to 
the election, is  entitled to notification of (but not to veto) the member’s decision  within 
the year after the new marriage to change his election to decline spouse coverage;10 
 

  someone who, like the applicant’s wife, marries a reservist who has no spouse coverage 
because he had no spouse when he received his 20-year letter is not entitled to notifica-
tion of or to consent to the reservist’s failure to take advantage of the opportunity to elect 
coverage for his new spouse within one year of the marriage;11 and 
 

  once former spouse coverage is in effect, the reservist may not change it without a court 

order or the former spouse’s consent.12 

 
Thus, it appears that the law assumes that a new spouse knows and accepts a reservist’s RCSBP 
coverage election—i.e., the status quo—at the moment of marriage and provides a right to notifi-
cation of or to consent to a change in the status quo but not to the continuance of the status quo if 
the reservist decides not to change a pre-existing election upon a new marriage.  The Board notes 
that  the  applicant  argues  that  the  right  of  election  consent  granted  reservists’  spouses  under  
10 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(3)(B) should also apply when a reservist has an opportunity to make a new 
election  because  of  a  new  marriage  under  10  U.S.C.  §  1448(a)(5).    However,  neither  Coast 
Guard  regulations  nor  Department  of  Defense  regulations  apply  the  consent  requirement  under  

                                                 
9 10 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(3) (2006). 
10 10 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(6) (2006). 
11 10 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(5) (2006). 
12 10 U.S.C. § 1448(f)(2) (2006). 

 

 

§ 1448(a)(3)(B) to spouses acquired after the original election is made.13  Although the applicant 
argues that these differences in treatment under the statute are unintended and/or unjust, the mili-
tary services have been interpreting these statutes in this way for many years and that interpreta-
tion is entitled to deference.14  The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred or committed an injustice when it did not notify 
his wife of his  failure to change his  extant, deferred RCSBP election within the  year following 
their marriage or give her the authority to consent to that election. 
 
 
Because  the  applicant  did  not  comply  with  the  requirement  in  10  U.S.C.  
§ 1448(a)(5) to elect RCSBP coverage for his spouse within one year of his marriage, he is not 
entitled to spouse coverage under the statute and his prior election remains irrevocable until he 
gains a new dependent or becomes eligible for retired pay upon his 60th birthday.  The applicant 
argued that the Coast Guard has violated his property rights under the Fifth Amendment15 to the 
Constitution and that the deprivation of spouse coverage under the RCSBP is an unjust “taking” 
of his and/or his wife’s “vested interest” in that coverage.  However, federal military and civilian 
pensions,  allowances,  and  survivor  benefits  are  privileges  and  gratuities  granted  by  Congress 
through statutes—not vested property rights.16  Therefore, because the applicant is not currently 
entitled to spouse coverage under the statute, he is not entitled to it under the Constitution. 

8. 

 
9. 

The applicant argued that the Coast Guard’s failure to notify him of his opportu-
nity  to  change  his  RCSBP  election  when  he  advised  his  unit  of  his  marriage  in  2006  and  its 
reliance  on  his  notification  of  that  right  in  the  RCSBP  guidance  he  received  in  2001  is  unjust.  
The  Board  finds  the  Coast  Guard’s  policy  unwise  to  the  extent  that  the  Coast  Guard  does  not 
automatically  inform  all  retired  or  retirement-eligible  members  who  notify  the  Coast  Guard 
(even  through  a  unit  SPO)  of  a  new  dependent  of  the  opportunity  to  change  their  elections.  
However,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  he  was  treated  differently  than  other  reservists  or 
active duty retirees because the policy places no duty on unit SPOs to counsel members about the 
Plan  and  requires  all  members  to  remember  the  guidance  provided  with  the  20-year  letter  or 
upon retirement (if active duty retired) and to act accordingly by notifying Topeka (RAS/PPC) of 
one’s  intent  to  change  one’s  election  under  the  Plan  because  of  a  newly  acquired  dependent.  
Although  the  applicant  argued  that  the  RCSBP  guidance  he  received  in  2001  is  confusing,  the 
                                                 
13 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. 18.F.6.b. & c. (Change 40, Oct. 2005); 
U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE,  FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT  REGULATION  7000.14-R,  vol.  7B,  chap.  43,  para. 
430303.E. (“Spousal Concurrence”). 
14 See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 
15 U.S. CONSTITUTION, amend. V (“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”). 
16  Holmes  v.  United  States,  98  Fed.  Cl.  767,  782  (2011)  (holding  that  a  court  order  awarding  SBP  benefits  to  a 
former  spouse  pursuant  to  a  divorce  “does  not,  on  its  own,  cause  unvested  government  benefits  to  vest”  and  that 
“[t]he BCNR followed these limiting conditions in concluding that neither Mr. Holmes nor Ms. Noreen Holmes had 
fulfilled the statutory requirements to elect SBP former-spouse coverage”); Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 
1268  (Fed.  Cir.  2002)  (“Benefits  for  retired  military  personnel—and  for  civilian  retired  federal  employees  ...—
depend upon an exercise of legislative grace, not upon principles of contract, property, or ‘takings’ law.”); Zucker v. 
United States, 758 F.2d 637, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that federal workers’ “entitlement to retirement bene-
fits must be determined by reference to the statute[s] and regulations governing these benefits, rather than to  ordi-
nary contract principles”); Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577 (1934) (“Pensions, compensation allowances, 
and  privileges  are  gratuities. They  involve  no  agreement  of  parties;  and  the  grant  of  them  creates  no  vested  right.  
The benefits conferred by gratuities may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress.”). 

 

 

Board finds no ambiguity whatsoever in the guidance’s instruction that “[i]f you have no spouse 
or children at the 20 year point, and later acquire a spouse and/or children you may elect to enroll 
your new beneficiaries in the RCSBP.  You must request enrollment in writing, within one year 
of obtaining a spouse and/or child.  A copy of the marriage and/or birth certificate must accom-
pany request.”  Nor has he shown that active duty members receive clearer instructions on what 
to do regarding their SBP election if they acquire a new dependent after retiring.  Although the 
Board agrees with the applicant that the Coast Guard should have an automatic reminding system 
that  reminds  retirement-eligible  reservists  of  the  opportunity  to  change  their  RCSBP  elections 
after they acquire a new dependent—even if they only notify their unit SPO of the new depen-
dent—the applicant’s failure to remember the guidance and to elect coverage for his new spouse 
is not rendered unjust because of the shortcomings in the Coast Guard’s policy and technology in 
this regard. 

 
10. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

Coast Guard military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Reid Alan Cox 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier