DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
‘ , ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No.NRO8289-13
11 March 2014
‘ .
eee entree
orn
ee
This is in reply to your application dated quar,
requesting reconsideration of your case.
ah review of our files reveals that on Wee. you
petitioned this Board seeking a change to your record to reflect
maximum coverage for your spouse under the Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP). On aD after careful consideration of your
request, the Board Found insufficient evidence of an error or
injustice that would warrant the relief you sought.
Additionally, cn _—_—/_MZ—P, you were sent a letter stating
that your case was denied.
You requested reconsideration of your case on a
through your counsel gps office received the
request on ee. 8 case may be reconsidered only upon
submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is
defined as evidence not previously considered by the Board and
not reasonably available to you at the time of your previous
application. Evidence is considered to be material if it is
likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of the prior
Board's decision. In other words, even if the information which
you now offer was presented to the Board, the decision would
inevitably be the same. While you have not provided any new or
material evidence, the Board agreed to review your case based
upon new arguments raised by your counsel. ,
Your case was reviewed by the Board on qa”. In making
its determination, the Board considered the advisory opinion
furnished by the Naval Personnel Command (NPC), Office of Legal
‘Counsel (PERS-00J) of Fe a copy of which was
provided to your counsel on F along with all of
its enclosures and emails regarding your case, including your
counsel's response on
Biter careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, your request for reconsideration and all addendums, the
Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
The Board was not persuaded by the following issues, your counsel
presented: 1) that it was unreasonable for Petitioner to respond
to an advisory opinion (A/O) by the SBP Manager that was not
fully formed, 2) that Petitioner should not have to agree to pay
an undetermined amount of money prior to the Board's decision,
and 3) that.there is a lack of an opinion from the Defense
Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) for Petitioner to make an
informed decision regarding the amount he was required to pay
back in “buy-in” costs, back premiums, what the impact of active
duty service on the Year's Since Event (YSE) calculation would
be, and how the statue (10 U.S.C. 1452(d)) would be applied in
Petitioner’s case.
Under these circumstances, the Board considered all the evidence |
and ultimately believed that you were given a fully formed A/O,
and that you were also given an approximate amount that you were
required to pay to DFAS’. Additionally, although there was no
formal A/O from DFAS, there was an email which your counsel
received cn ZZ from DFAS’ legal counsel aD
QUE vegarding DFAS’ final position on YSE. Therefore,
the Board believed that since you were not willing to pay the
buy-in and back dated premiums to participate in the 2005 SBP
open-enrollment season, they found insufficient evidence of an
error or injustice that would warrant relief. Accordingly, your
request 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.
Sincerely,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
a
1 BcNR is not the responsible agency for accurate monetary calculations to
establish amounts owed to the U.S. government. DFAS is the appropriate
agency. However, in an effort to assist you, BCNR sent you a letter in June
2012 with an approximate amount that you would be required to pay, in order
to effect an increase in SBP coverage, before making ‘your final decision to
proceed with such change. Our office also stated that DFAS is ultimately
responsible to calculate all final costs.
2
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003085
A letter from DFAS shows $80.69 was paid in premiums each month in 2000. b. DFAS states the additional money her husband was paying was due to the buy-in premiums or "Open Season" cost. However, only the spouse SBP premiums are refundable through Public Law 92-425. c. Public Law 105-261 states all SBP premiums will be terminated effective 1 October 2008 for all members who are at least 70 years old and have paid SBP premiums for 360 or more months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023396
The applicant states her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), applied for spouse and child(ren) SBP participation during the open season extending from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006. Had the FSM's SBP application been processed correctly his effective date would have been 1 January 2006 and he would have paid up the buy-in premium on 30 December 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: *...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2288 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5 COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NRO2288-13 4 December 2013 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Navy Personnel Command/Survivor Benefit Plan Program Manager Casualty Assistance (PERS-13} memo of ‘Meath Certificate in case of ay
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016538
The applicant is advised that open season enrollments typically require payment of buy-in premiums dating back to the time a retiree first could have enrolled in a particular category of coverage. In the applicants case that means in addition to back premiums since his marriage to Donna, he would owe premiums to cover the nearly 15 years between his retirement and divorce from Emma. Therefore, since SBP elections are irrevocable unless an open season is in effect, there are no provisions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11046 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 Petitioner submitted a timely written request to change his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) category of coverage from “former spouse” to “spouse” coverage, before his “former spouse’s" death. b. , (Petitioner), and were marriea on 17 July 1960, enclosure (3) and divorced on 11 May 1976, enclosure (4). g. On 2 October 2013, DFAS...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080017777
The applicant requests that either his 1990 RCSBP (Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan) election be changed from Option C-Spouse Only-Reduced Annuity to Option A-Defer or that he be permitted to increase his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage to an annuity based on the full amount of retired pay effective upon reaching age 60 without a concurrent change to the RCSBP coverage. The applicant states that when he submitted his retirement package at age 60 he elected full SBP benefits. He...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016000
c. Retiree Account Statement, as of 2 September 2008, that shows the applicants retiree pay account has been corrected to implement SBP former spouse coverage and an annuity base amount of $5,431.55, an SBP monthly premium of $353.05, and an annuity payable at 55 percent of the applicants base amount, which would be $2,987.35. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008007
His pay records also show he paid SBP premiums throughout the years based on his SBP election of the reduced amount. His 10 September 2009 retiree account statement shows spouse SBP coverage based on the full amount. His pay records show he paid SBP premiums from 1985 to 2006 based on this reduced amount.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013763
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for spouse coverage at the reduced amount and reimbursement of premiums collected due to being charged premiums for spouse coverage at the full amount. However, he provides an unsigned/archived DD Form 2656 that shows: * he and Ella were married on 24 May 2001 * he elected coverage for spouse * his election was based on a reduced amount of $675.00 6. As a...