ey

Yew
Ye

DEPARTWIENT OF THE NAVY

iA Me IOAPD FOR CORRECTION ME NAM Al RECORDS
ere:
poy, very & OW IPT HAUSE PD SUITE 1007
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No.NRO8383-13
98 MBuycauel On) 1A

2

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

lll"

Ref: (a) Title 10 S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Survivor Fenefit Plan Program manager Casualty Assistance

(PERS-13) of 10 Dec 2013
(3) Office of Legal Counsel Pers-007 memo 5420 of 18 Apr 2014
4) Notification of Eligibility (NOE) memo 1820 Pers-912E/bjr of
9 Feb 201
(5) Naval Personnel Command (NPC), Reserve Component -Survivor
Benefit Pian (RCSBP), memo Pers- 912E of 18 Jan 2013

(6) Bmail _ as)

ed 28 Jan 2013

(7) Email ee > 912) +c (iinameneesmnt
WEIMER <2 cc 2 Feb 2012
(8) Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate
of 26 Jul} 2013
(9) RCSBP Affidavit dated 1¢ Jan 2014
a Pursuant to the) provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed

enclosure (1) with jhis Board reques ing, in effect, that the
applicable naval reord be corrected to show that upon receipt of her
Notification of Elijjibility (NOE), she declined Reserve Component
Survivor Benefit Pljin (RCSBP) category of coverage with spousal
concurrence within }0 days of receiving her NOE.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Exnicios and Ruskin
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on

21 July 2014 and, parsuant to its regulations, determined that the
corrective action jadicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of the erclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of rx
ce

d pertaining to
Petitioner's allegetions of error and injusti Ss

as follows:

Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all

a
administrative remedi¢
within the Department

b.

=

fai.

Ch
Eligibility.
retirement,
coverage.

but that

a.

Option “A” (Declined
(Immediate Annuity),

coverage due to her narriage’, enclosure
she thought she would

Cx

Petitioner was sent
enrollment in RCSBP
enclosure (5).

£. However, it
their mistake and au
Option “A”, and then
their actions on the
with her declination
retained in service

g. At this tin
was in Option “A” fq
enrolled in Option '
contacted NPC/PERS-:
2013, Petitioner rec
giving Petitioner at
advice regarding the
RCSBP with spousal ¢
incorrect. Apparen)
until the age of 62

clear and misconstril

In August 20
requesting to termina

On 9 Februar
The let

She had 90
RCSBP coverage with s

Although she
valid request regardi
May 2010, unbeknownst

In early Jal
retained in the Nava

Docket No.NRUS3S83-13

s available under existing law and regulations
of the Navy.

3, Petitioner submitted a request to BCNR
-e her RCSBP coverage with spousal concurrence,

, 2010, Petitioner received her Notification of
-er stated that she was eligible for a reserve
she was also entitled to participate in RCSBP
days to state whether she elected or declined
sousal concurrence, enclosure (4).

was married at that time and did not submit a

ng RCSBP coverage before the 90 day period, on 11
to her, she was erroneously auto-enrolled into
Coverage) until age 60 instead of Option “C"
instead of being auto-enrolled in maximum RCSBP
(5). Petitioner claims that
have until age 62 to make an RCSBP election.
uary 2013, Petitioner submitted a request to be
Reserve until the age of 62. In the meantime,
_ letter on 18 January 2013, which confirmed her
‘overage under Opttion “A”, (three years later),

wasn’t until 28 January 2013, that NPC realized
-o-enrolled Petitioner in Option “cv instead of
notified Petitioner after the fact. NPC based
fact that Petitioner’s spouse never concurred
for RCSBP, enclosure (6). Her request to be
was granted on 9 July 2013..

=

2, Petitioner was confused since she believed she
ry the past three years and did not want to be

c’. Therefore, on 31 January 2013, Petitioner

12 for guidance, enclosure (7). On 2 February
eived an email, enclosure (7), from NPC/PERS-912,
worst, wrong advice, and at best, confusing

steps she should take to completely opt out of
oncurrence when she turned age 62, which was

ly, the timing issues of Petitioner being retained
and the election/declination of RCSBP were not

ed by both NPC/PERS-912 and Petitioner.

 

1 under RCSBP guidelines
Option “B” is “Deferred
2001, the law required

the election was not pr

i

Annuity” and Option ‘C" is
‘ervice members to be Option
erly completed.

“tT decline to make an election until age 60”,
“Immediate Annuity”. Effective
“car if no election was made or iE

Option “A” is
h. However, it

submitted her DD Form 2656 RCSBP election £

declining coverage to
form was filled out 1
her declination was

she believed that she was now auto-enro

Rd

i. In August 20
be dis-enrolled from |
affidavit from her sf
to elect RCSBP coveré

CO mol receiving a

j. Enclosure (
inaccurate informati¢
Office of Legal Couns
enclosure (3) also sj
their decision on the
PERS-913[s] letter 0)
adding to the confus|
The NOE provided in |
timely response in o
states, the fact thal:

 

2)

|

pocket WNo.NRUSs63-15

Wasn't until 26 July 2013, that Petitioner

orm choosing Option “A",
RS-912, enclosure (8). Although the
(spouse needed to sign the form after

the NPC/PE
1correctly

ade), Petitioner did not pursue the issue since
Jled in Option “A” coverage due
Aww aTAAeEtAR heel in @07/0 2

sat

Cab ea ee en

13, Petitioner submitted a BCNR request asking to

the RCSBP program. Additionally, she provided an

ouse who concurred with her original decision not

ge, enclosure (9).

2) provided an unfavorable advisory opinion citing
Therefore, another advisory opinion from NPC,

el, enclosure (3,) was obtained. However,

ated inaccurate information, but ultimately based
fact that although “..it is unfortunate that the
9 January 2013 contained inaccurate statements,

on surrounding CDR Hadden’s enrollment status.

010 was clear and unambiguous, and required a

der to decline coverage”. Furthermore, enclosure
Petitioner was the auto-enrolled in Option “A”

7.

due to an admin erro: is irrelevant.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:
|

Upon review and cong
Majority concludes 4%
action.

evidence that with
category of coverage.

c

5

Petitioner thought she was under Option “A"
was an incorrect election made by NPC.
se circumstances,
Navy in honoring the request.
hat the record should be corrected to show that

that in light of the
- disadvantage to the
Majority concludes 4
Petitioner submitted,
spousal concurrence

 

ideration of all the evidence in the rec
nat Petitioner's request warrants favorable
The Majority believed that Pe
pousal concurrence,

ord,

titioner presented sufficient

she did not want RCSBP

ity also noted and believed that

in 2010, even though it
Therefore, the Majority finds

there is no significant

Accordingly,

The Major

the

in a timely manner, an RCSBP request with
declining RCSBP coverage on 10 February 2010,

within 90 days of ri:ceiving her NOE.

RECOMMENDATION :

That Petitioner’s njaval recor

show that:

a. Petitioner
request declining R-

submitted a properly completed and timely wri
SBP coverage with spousal concurrence,

d be corrected, where appropriate, to

Even
and that

 

: |
* since Peti

though it was a wrong election tha

tioner did jiot want SBP to begin with,

she was ok with Option “A”, even

t was made by NPC since she was married.

5
pockel NOU.NRUoSosS- 15

cognizant authority and became

request was received and processed by
days of receiving her NOE.

effective 10 February |2010, within 90

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

Exnicios, agrees

tm reaching its conclision, the Minority opinion, Mr
masekta dAert anaswtr aniniang

witli Lie unfavorable qavicex y. opinions and finds that Petitioner did
not submit a declination for RCSBP with 90 days and should have been
auto-enrolled in Opti¢n “Cc”, under maximum “spouse and child”
coverage, regardless ¢f the error made by NPC. Therefore, in view of
the foregoing, the Minority recommends the following action:

MINORITY RECOMMENDATIDN:

a. That Petil:ioner’s request be denied.

of the revised Procedures of the Board
(32 Code of Federal Regulations,

d that quorum was present at the

and that the foregoing is a true and
dings in the above entitled

KL aa

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN DAVID/ ff. CASH

Recorder ne pos ReaeeaeE
L/ “

4, Pursuant to Section 6(c)
for Correction of Naval Records

Section 723.6(c)) it is certifie
Board's review and deliberations,

complete record of the Board’s procee

matter.

5 The foregoing ation of the Board is submitted for your review

aa

and action. ae 2

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Deputy Director

Reviewed and Approved: /0 z24 [Y

Lait

ROBERT L. WOODS

Assistant General Cour se!
(Manpower and Resen 2 Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, fim 4D548
Washington, DC 2035¢ -1000