DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
MEH:ddj
Docket No: 5676-02
20 September 2002
From
To:
: Chairman, Board for Correction of ‘ Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
Ref: (a)
Title 10 U.S.C.
1552
Encl:
(1)
(2)
(3)
DD Form 149 w/attachments
NPC memorandum of 8 August 2002
Subject’s naval record
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
1.
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected to show timely written request for conversion from spouse to former spouse
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Beckett, Ms. McCormick, and Ms.
011 17 September 2002 and, pursuant to its
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Nofziger, reviewed
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner
of error and injustice, finds as follows:
’s allegations
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies
available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Petitioner transferred to the Retired List on 1 August 1990, at which time he
enrolled in SBP for spouse and child coverage.
C.
Petitioner and his spouse
divorce decree explicitly states th
of his Survivor Benefit Plan with
Order (QDRO) also entitled Mrs:
were divorced on 3 May 1995. The
tain wife as the irrevocable beneficiary
D,omestic Relations
A Qualified
titioner’s retired pay.
d.
Petitioner’s pay statement of May 1996 shows SBP costs being deducted from his
retired pay.
e.
In September 1996 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Garnishment Operations Office advised Petitioner they had received the court order and
$2,431.85 would be deducted from his retired pay an
Petitioner had been making payments directly to Mrs
Mrs.
Prior to this
f.
In September 1996 DFAS advised Petitioner his
SBP had been suspended, based on
from the date of divorce through 3
I August 1996
his divorce, and that the premiums paid
would be refunded.
g.
Petitioner ’s Retiree Account Pay Statement of September 1996 showed a former
$2,601.00. This amount did not agree with the amount stated in the
spouse deduction of
correspondence from Garnishment Operations.
h.
Petitioner initiated an inquiry into the discrepancy and DFAS responded in October
1996 that the $2,601 .OO amount was correct and that they had mistakenly used his SBP
premium as an authorized deduction.
i.
Petitioner states that this letter implies the situation had been reviewed and was now
discovered the problem during financial planning
correct. He further states that he recently
which occurred after his April 2002 remarriage.
i In correspondence attached as enclosure
’s application
subject matter addressed in Petitioner
his record. This recommendation is based on the fact that DFAS advised the Petitioner in
September 1996 that his SBP premiums had been suspended. Also, his Retiree Account
Statements, received annually, clearly indicated that he was not providing former spouse SBP
coverage. Had he desired to correct the situation he could have elected former spouse
coverage during the
1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000 open season enrollment period.
(2), the office having cognizance over the
has recommended the Board not correct
CONCLUSION
(2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the
recommendation of enclosure
requested corrective action. Although Petitioner was at fault for failing to execute a timely
election of former spouse coverage, as required by the divorce decree, the Board concluded
that by his petition he is now attempting to rectify matters.
to not correct the record would be to deny the former Mrs
hers as a matter of law and equity.
The Board further concluded that
a benefit that is rightfully
Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be
corrected,
whet-e appropriate, to show that:
a. He submitted a written request
as previously
for conversion from spouse to former
as. .
coverage, at the same level
clectecl,
etfective 2 May
beneficiary. His request was received by cognizant
1996, one year from the date
authority and became
01‘ divorce.
spouse SBP
the
naming
b. His request was made in compliance with a court order directing him to maintain the
SBP currently in effect.
It is
4.
the foregoing is a true and complete
matter.
certitied that quorum was present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that
of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
I-KOI-d
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
.
. J%?MY
Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action
Reviewed and approved:
OC T
23
200?
Executive Director
Assistant General Counse
(Manpower and Reserve Affafrs
l
)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1465-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD =OR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. d. Subject never remarried, never paid any SBP premiums e. In duly 2012, Petitioner applied to BCNR to correct her deceased former spouse’s record to show that he elected “former spouse” coverage within one year of his divorce, enclosure (1). Petitioner stated that she believed that the former spouse SBP election was made within one year of their divorce when her divorce attorney submitted a copy of the divorce decree to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6055 13
In May 2013, Petitioner a _— my applied deceased former spouse's to BCNR re ing to correct her " |g record to show that he elected former spouse coverage within one year of his divorce, pursuant to a divorce decree, enclosure (1). to DFAS requesting former spouse SBP coverage within one year of their divorce, as required by law. Although the Board recognized that Petitioner, at that time, did not submit a deemed election within one year from the date of divorce as required by law, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3100-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAL, Sulre 100% ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480 DIC Docket No. The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr. Exnicios, and Mr. George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 13 August 2013 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should pe taken on the available evidence of record. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003619C070205
The applicant provides a DA Form 5002 (SBP Election); the FSM’s Alimony Support Statement; a General Power of Attorney; a DFAS-CL Form 5890-2 (Designation of Beneficiary Information); the FSM’s Retiree Account Statement; the FSM’s Last Will and Testament; the FSM’s and the applicant’s joint bank account statement; an Assignment of Proceeds of Insurance with a listing of funeral expenses; a divorce decree; and the FSM’s Certificate of Death. There is no evidence that either the FSM or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074757C070403
Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that military members on active duty could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents. The law requires either the member's request for change or the former spouse's request for a deemed election to be in writing. It would be equitable to correct his records to show that he requested, in writing, that his SBP coverage be changed to former spouse and children coverage...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085250C070212
The applicant states that the court ordered divorce decree required him to provide SBP coverage, with his FS as the beneficiary, with the proviso that the FS make all necessary payments required for continuation of coverage. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. The applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017562
The applicant states: * she and the FSM gave the best years of their lives to the Army * the only reason she divorced the FSM is because of what Operation Desert Storm did to him; he came back a different man * their divorce decree clearly stipulated that she was to be the beneficiary under the SBP at the FSM's expense * the FSM paid SBP premiums from his retired pay each and every month * in spite of their divorce, she and the FSM spoke at least once a week * when the FSM knew he was dying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01116-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5109 BAN Docket No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show Subject submitted a timely written request for conversion from spouse to former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) electing as the sole beneficiary. In February 2011, Petitioner applied to BCNR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020286
Counsel states: * the applicant's divorce was finalized on 5 June 2009 * the final Decree of Divorce incorporated, but did not merge the Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) of the parties, dated 1 April 2009 * as stated on page 12 of the PSA, the SM is to provide coverage for the applicant through the SBP * she submitted the PSA and divorce decree to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Garnishment Operations Branch on 29 March 2010 * she was under the impression this would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105593C070208
He concludes by stating that he has faithfully paid the SBP premiums since his retirement in 1987 and requests the SBP coverage be continued for his former spouse, as required by his divorce decree. The law also permits the former spouse concerned to request a former spouse SBP coverage election be deemed to have been made within one year of a date of a court-order of divorce. The evidence of record confirms the applicant and his former spouse were divorced on 27 September 2002.