DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

DJC
Docket No. 9987-06.
7 February 2007

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

A three-member panel of the Board f or correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 2007. 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 naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo dtd 12 Jan 07, a copy of which is attached.

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board noted that you concurred in your former spouse’s decision to decline SBP in 1995. And they found no substantiation for your claim that the signature was “forged.” The Board also noted that your divorce decree from 1996 does not contain any requirement that your former husband provide “former spouse” SBP coverage and no “former spouse” premiums were paid. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. You may address your contention that your former husband died of a service connected disability to the Veteran’s Administration.

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 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.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

12 Jan 07

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Subj:	COIYIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO DOCKET NO. 09987-06

Ref:	(a) Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (Vol 7B)

r reference (a), recommend the BCNR not correct P01 record to reflect that he enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) prior to transferring to the Retired List.

2. The recommendation is based on the following:

a.. transferred to the Retired List on 14 June 1995. He declined participation in the SBP at that time. He died on 21 November 2005.

b.	Reference (a) states in part that a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage based on full-retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the member. When the spouse’s concurrence is required, one or more witnesses must corroborate the signature indicating concurrence. If all requirements for an election needing the spouse’s concurrence have not been satisfied prior to retirement, for whatever reason, full spouse costs and coverage will be implemented, regardless of any request by the member to do otherwise.

     c. 	were divorced on 2 May 1996. Their divorce decree contained no requirement for former spouse SBP coverage. alleges that she did not provide written concurrence with her husband’s election to decline participation in the SBP. She currently claims that her signature was forged, though she provided no documentation to verify her claim. Currently government records bear a presumption of regularity as well as that the official actions of public officers responsible for keeping those records have performed their duties in a
regular and proper manner. The written concurrence of was witnessed by    The Navy Personnel
Command is not an investigative body, and with that thought in mind, it obligated to provide an advisory opinion based on the information provided with an individual’s application. As stated previously, the burden of proving that a forgery exists in this particular case rests with and not that Navy. Additionally, as the applicant she must gather and present evidence to substantiate her claim.

2. It should be noted that there has been no substantive evidence provided to support the claim of a forgery which allegedly occurred over 11 years ago. Additionally, had elected SBP coverage when he retired, he would have been able to have those premiums suspended as a result of divorce and the lack of a requirement to provide e coverage.

2