2.  The applicant requests two actions – that his records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Kuwait Liberation Medal (KU) and that his SBP be reinstated for his former wife.  He admits he failed to take action within one year to change his SBP from “spouse” to “former spouse,” but only because he assumed, since it was court-ordered, it would be done automatically.

3.  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on     21 May 1971.  He had continuous service until his retirement.  He served in Southwest Asia from 29 July 1992 - 2 August 1993.  He retired on 30 June 1995, after over 24 years active federal service, in pay grade E-8.

4.  When the applicant retired, he elected SBP “spouse and child” coverage.  In August 1996 the applicant and his spouse divorced (the divorce papers are not available).  The applicant states the court ordered his former spouse be covered by his SBP.

5.  Public Law 92-245, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that military members on active duty could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents.  Changes in SBP options are not authorized except in specific instances or authorized by law.

6.  Public Law 97-252, dated 8 September 1982, established SBP for former military spouses.

7.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was requested from the Headquarters Army Retirement Services Office. The Retirement Services Office recommended that the applicant’s request to change his SBP election to “former spouse and child” be approved retroactive to 1 September 1996, the first day of the month following the date of his divorce.  The office opines that while the applicant admits he failed to take the necessary steps to effect the election change, it is in the best interest of all parties concerned to allow him the change he requests.

CONCLUSIONS:  

1.  After his divorce, the applicant failed to take the proper steps to change his SBP election to “former spouse and child” because he assumed, since it was court-ordered, it would be done automatically.  His intent had always been to follow the court’s order.

2.  The applicant is eligible for the Kuwait Liberation Medal (KU).

3.  In view of the foregoing and the advisory opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant changed his SBP election coverage to “former spouse and child” effective 1 September 1996.

2.  That the applicant be advised that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Denver will be instructed to collect any “former spouse” costs not paid retroactive to the date of his divorce.

3.  That the applicant be issued a DD Form 215 to show he was awarded the Kuwait Liberation Medal (KU).

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                        
                                                               CHAIRPERSON