Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09987-06
Original file (09987-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 DJC
Docket No. 9987-06.
7 February 2007









This is in reference to your application for correction of your former husband’s naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 usc 1552.
A three - member panel of the Board f or correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 2007. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo dtd 12 Jan 07, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board noted that you concurred in your former spouse’s decision to decline SBP in 1995. And they found no substantiation for your claim that the signature was “forged.” The Board also noted that your divorce decree from 1996 does not contain any requirement that your former husband provide “former spouse” SBP coverage and no “former spouse” premiums were paid. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. You may address your contention that your former husband died of a service connected disability to the Veteran’s Administration.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence
 or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,



Enclosure

12 Jan 07

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Via:     Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)
Subj:    COIYIMENTS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS IC O D OCKET NO. 09987-06
Ref:     (a) Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (Vol 7B)
r reference (a), recommend the BCNR not correct P01 record to reflect that he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) prior to transferring to the Retired List.
2. The recommendation is based on the following:

 a. . transferred to the Retired List on 14 June 1995. He declined participation in the SBP at that time. He died on 21 November 2005.
b.       Reference (a) states in part that a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage based on full-retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the member. When the spouse’s concurrence is required, one or more witnesses must corroborate the signature indicating concurrence. If all requirements for an election needing the spouse’s concurrence have not been satisfied prior to retirement, for whatever reason, full spouse costs and coverage will be implemented, regardless of any request by the member to do otherwise.

c.     were divorced on 2 May 1996. Their divorce decree contained no requirement for former spouse SBP coverage. alleges that she did not provide written concurrence with her husband’s election to decline participation in the SBP. She currently claims that her signature was forged, though she provided no documentation to verify her claim. Currently government records bear a presumption of regularity as well as that the official actions of public officers responsible for keeping those records have performed their duties in a
 regular and proper manner. The written concurrence of was witnessed by The Navy Personnel
 Command is not an investigative body, and with that thought in mind, it obligated to provide an advisory opinion based on the information provided with an individual’s application. As stated previously, the burden of proving that a forgery exists in this particular case rests with and not that Navy. Additionally, as the applicant she must gather and present evi dence to substantiate her claim.

2. It should be noted that there has been no substantive evidence provided to support the claim of a forgery which allegedly occurred over 11 years ago. Additionally, had elected SBP coverage when he retired, he would have been able to have those premiums suspended as a result of divorce and the lack of a requi r e m en t to provide e coverage.




























2

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801377

    Original file (9801377.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant alleges that her signature on AF Form 694, “Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel,” the concurrence portion for an SBP election concurring with less than full spouse SBP coverage, is forged. Although it is unfortunate there is no original document for comparison with regard to the applicant’s signature, we found no persuasive evidence that she did not sign the document at the time of her late husband’s retirement which appears to be properly witnessed. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319

    Original file (BC-2003-00319.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02361

    Original file (BC-2007-02361.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    With no SBP election annotated, full SBP coverage should have been established for her unless there was another AF Form 1266 completed. DFAS-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) did not properly ensure copies of critical SBP documents, such as members' election forms and spouses' concurrence statements, were safeguarded and retrievable following Oct 93 when DFAS-CL assumed Air Force retired pay responsibilities. Assuming possible facts most favorable to the applicant, at its best possible, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017644

    Original file (20080017644.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence the applicant's former spouse filed a "deemed election for SBP 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 election. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show that he completed his DD Form...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011387

    Original file (20080011387.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his beneficiary for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage be changed from his spouse to his former spouse and that premiums for this SBP coverage be deducted from his former spouse's entitlement to his retired pay. The evidence of record shows the applicant divorced his spouse of 23 years on 29 June 2005. The applicant has requested a change in beneficiary for SBP coverage of from spouse to former spouse to comply with his agreement with his former...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011734

    Original file (20100011734.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, she requests correction of her records to show, at the time she retired, she elected not to participate in the SBP. Although she and her spouse failed to make the election before her retirement, it appears the RSO counselor also failed to inform her or her spouse that the SBP election was required to be signed and dated before the effective date of her retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002897C070206

    Original file (20050002897C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that Section 24 of the DA Form 4240 (Data for Payment of Retired Army Personnel) contains a signature which has been forged. She requests that this signature be removed and replaced with a statement indicating that she did not agree with the decision of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), to decline SBP. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing that the applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021682

    Original file (20130021682.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant, the former spouse of a retired service member (RSM), requests in effect correction of her former husband's record to show he elected Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for former spouse. 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 retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. Title 10, U.S. Code,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03737

    Original file (BC 2007 03737.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Even though the SBP was not addressed in the divorce decree, the member could have elected former spouse coverage voluntarily within the first year following the divorce, but failed to do so. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060303C070421

    Original file (2001060303C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By letter dated14 February 2001, DFAS informed the applicant that the SBP portion of his retired pay account was being adjusted from declined to automatic spouse coverage based on the fact his spouse did not concur in his declination. DFAS did not notice this error until seven years later, when they informed the applicant that he had made an invalid SBP election by not obtaining his spouse’s written concurrence with his declination and imposing a $8,000 debt upon him for back premiums. ...