DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 03341-10
1 September 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Te: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ret: (a) Daele 16 U.8.c. Tss2
Enel: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Headquarters United States Marine Corps (HQMC) memo
1741 MMSR-6K of 24 May 10
(3) DD Form 2656 dated 3 Jun 09
1. 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 that Petitioner
enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) electing “children-
only” coverage with spousal concurrence on 3 June 2009, prior to
his effective date of retirement on 1 October 2009.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 19 July 2010 and, pursuant to its 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.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. On 3 June 2009, Petitioner completed a DD Form 2656
declining Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage with spousal
concurrence. He retired on 1 October 2009. On 17 December
2009, approximately two months after his retirement date,
Petitioner submitted a request to the Board for Correction of
Naval Records requesting to change his SBP election from
declining coverage to “child(ren)-only” coverage. Petitioner
reasoned that the SBP program was not fully explained to him,
and that he was unaware that he could have elected the
“child(ren)-only” option [although there is a box that states “I
elect coverage for child(ren)” on the DD Form 2656,] enclosures
(1) and (3).
c. By enclosure (2), HQMC recommended that no relief be
granted, stating Petitioner’s “..election is irrevocable if not
revoked before the date on which the person first becomes
entitled to retired pay”. Additionally, HOMC stated that there
was “no supporting documentation to support GHEE - <.ok ins
his election not to participate in SBP”.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence in the record,
the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action. The Board understood and carefully considered the
comments made in enclosure (2). The Board found no
corroboration for Petitioner’s claim that he received inadequate
counseling. However, the Board does understand that the
transition from active duty to retired status can create
financial stress and uncertainty. Petitioner’s request to
enroll his child(ren) was made within 3 months of his
retirement. In the Board’s view, because the lapse of time
between retirement and the request was short, and because the
child(ren) coverage will only be effective until the child(ren)
reaches adulthood, the potential for prejudice against the
government is minor. For these reasons, the Board finds that,
as an exception to policy, applicant’s request should be granted
favorable consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:
a. On 3 June 2009, prior to his retirement, Petitioner
executed a written request for SBP coverage with his spouse’s
concurrence electing “child(ren)-only” coverage.
b. Upon his retirement, effective 1 October 2009,
Petitioner was enrolled in the SBP “child(ren) only” category.
c. Petitioner is responsible for any unpaid SBP costs that
would have been deducted after his retirement on 1 October 2009,
if he had elected “child-only” coverage. No waiver of unpaid
costs will be granted.
d. That a copy of the Report of Proceedings, be filed in
the Petitioner's naval record.
4. Pursuant to Gection 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was
present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the
foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's
proceedings in the above entitled matter.
ROBERT D. 4ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
LoWoms
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dir
Reviewed and approved: jo/ts fr
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20850-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08345 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 7 004 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 pyc Docket No. 8345-12 27 Aug 13 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy x Ref: {a) Title 10 U.9.c. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsaiman, and Mr. George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 Bugust 2013 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11855-10
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 Petitioner submitted a timely written request to terminate Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for spouse and child during the one-year period beginning on the second anniversary of the date of commencement of receiving retired pay. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1945 14
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 that prior to his transfer to the retirement list on 31 August 2009, he declined Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) category of coverage with spousal concurrence. e. On 17 November 2011, Petitioner stated he submitted a valid and timely request using the DD Form 2656, to the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) within the 25t...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012764
The letter also advised her that she must notify the USAR Personnel Command, using DD Form 1883 (SBP Election Certificate), of her decision within 90 days of the date of the letter. Public Law 106-398, dated 30 October 2000, required Reserve and Guard members, who had completed their service obligation, considered entitled for retired pay, but who are not yet age 60, to obtain their spouse's concurrence in RCSBP elections that do not provide maximum spouse coverage (immediate option). As a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3501-13
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 that prior to Petitioner’s retirement on 30 August 2012, he declined Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage with spousal concurrence. Docket No.NRO3501-13 b. Petitioner and his spouse married on on prior to the of his retirement, he submitted a DD Form 2656-2 (SBP Termination Request) seeking to decline SBP coverage. c,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2537 13
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 that prior to her transfer to the retirement list on 29 July 2012, she declined Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) category of coverage for “spouse” with spousal concurrence. Additionally, in the Petitioner's response to the A/O, she again asserts that she was not counseled prior to her retirement date that the SBP election...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4533 14
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 | CY2009 | 11316-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 March 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. In July 2009, after 11 months of paying SBP premiums, Petitioner submitted another DD Form 2656 to DFAS seeking to decline coverage for SBP, with spousal concurrence, (enclosure (4)). Under Title 10 U.S. Code...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018041
The ABCMR analyst of record telephonically contacted the DFAS Retired Pay Office on 23 January 2009, which confirmed that the DD Form 2656, dated 10 July 2008 was not authenticated by the spouse on or after the date the applicant made his election. In a notarized statement, dated 27 January 2009, the applicant's spouse indicated that she had previously agreed with her husband's decision to not participate in the SBP and that she previously signed the one form provided by the Fort Drum, NY,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5444 14
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...