Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08663-07
Original file (08663-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



BAN
Docket No. 08663-07
22 May 2008



This is in reference to your application for correction of your husband’s naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on May 19, 2008. 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 husband’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director Casualty Assistance Division (N135C) of 28 Apr 08. In addition, the Board also considered relevant documentation, including the receipt of the Notification of Eligibility (NOE) dated 20 July 1995, addressed to your husband regarding his eligibility in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP), which was signed by you, via certified mail on 7 August 1995, and a letter addressed to you, notifying you of your husband’s options under RCSBP, dated 2 August 1995.

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. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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 also 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.
        
         Sinc
ere ly


W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director


Enclosures
28 Apr 08



MEMORANDUM FO R EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)

Via:     Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)

Subj:    CONNENTS AND RECONNENDATION ICO
        
DOCKET NO. 08663-07


Ref:     (a) BCNR memo of 10 Apr 08

End:     (1) CO. NRPC ltr 1820 Code 20 dtd 20 Jul 95
(2)      CO, NRPC ltr 1772 Code 414 2 Aug 95

1.       In response to reference (a), recommend the BCNR not correct record to reflect that he enrolled his
spouse in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).

2. The recommendation is based on the following:

a.       transferred to the Retired List (without pay) on 1 January 1997. He died on 21 July 2006.
        
        
b                 Notice of Eligibility (NOE)
enclosure (1), was mailed on or about 20 July 1995 informing him that he could enroll in the RCSBP. The letter re qu ested that he complete the enclosed RCSBP election and return it to the Naval Reserve Personnel Center (NRPC) within 90 days of the receipt of his NOE. He failed to comply. it should be noted that signed for his NOE as evidenced by enclosure (1).


C.       The NRPC also notified in writing, via certified mail, of her spouse’s option to elect RCSBP coverage.

signed for that information as evidence by enclosure (2)

d.       Members who fail to elect RCSBP coverage when they receive their NOE remain eligible to elect Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage when they reach age 60.

         e.       ___      could have also elected RCSBP
coverage for his spouse during the widely publicized 1999-2000 or the 30 September 2005 to 1 October 2006 SBP open season enrollment periods. Information about the open seasons was published in the Navy retiree newsletter “Shift Colors” and was available on the NRPC webpage.

3.       did not elect to participate in the RCSBP during the timeframe required by law, or during either of the subsequent open season enrollment periods, therefore his widow is not eligible for protection under the RCSBP or the SBP.

Director
Casualty Assistance Division
(N135C)





























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5444 14

    Original file (NR5444 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter 'referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show timely written request for conversion from child only to- spouse and child coverage. k. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner's application has commented to the effect that the request has no merit and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4533 14

    Original file (NR4533 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Therefore, as of 3 January 2005, you have been enrolled in an immediate RC-SBP annuity for your spouse and child{ren).” See ‘enclosure (7). They notified Petitioner that as of 3 January 2005, he had been enrolled in the RCSBP under the spouse and child category with immediate (Option C) coverage. b. Petitioner is responsible for future unpaid RCSBP costs (Petitioner will be eligible for retire pay on or about 20 April 2021) that would have been deducted if he enrolled at the time of his Marriage.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10316-06

    Original file (10316-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. When received his NOE he was unmarried and had no eligible beneficiary for participation in the RCSBP andremarried on 15 October 2005.c. As previously stated, was unmarried when he received his NOE and is divorce decree contained no provision requiring him to provide former spouse RCSBP...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03595-08

    Original file (03595-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. In response to reference (a), recommend BCNR not correct uiPiiiimnge «ecord to reflect that he lived the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00703

    Original file (BC-2009-00703.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00703 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband's records be changed to reflect that he elected to participate in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) with election (Option C) based on full retired pay during an Open Enrollment Season. We note the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11104-09

    Original file (11104-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your spouse’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007305

    Original file (20130007305.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Despite this, there is no documentation in his record that shows he elected to participate in the RCSBP after receiving his 15-year letter. Public Law 95-397, the RCSBP, enacted 30 September 1978, provides a means for those who have qualified for Reserve retirement, but who are not yet age 60 [upon which they would be eligible to begin drawing retired pay, upon request, and to participate in the SBP], to provide an annuity to their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. The...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05886-08

    Original file (05886-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 September 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your deceased husband's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Per reference (a), recommend BCNR not correct record to reflect that he enrolled his spouse in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004957

    Original file (20130004957.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests correction of her husband's records to show he enrolled in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) with spouse coverage. She applied for the survivor annuity and was told that a DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Certificate) was not on file in the FSM's military records. The applicant contends that the records of her deceased husband should be corrected to show he enrolled in the RCSBP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801709

    Original file (9801709.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her deceased husband planned to take his Air Force retirement at age 60. 6 98-01709 On 28 December 1981, ARPC/DPAAR notified the spouse of the deceased member that an RCSBP election had not been received by the deadline and informed her that RCSBP coverage was not in effect and no further election could be made until the member reached age 60. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...