RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011372 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director Ms. Wanda L. Waller Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Mark Manning Chairperson Mr. John Meixell Member Mr. Qawiy Sabree Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) for spouse only coverage. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the FSM was not properly notified of the SBP options prior to his death. She contends that the paperwork was sent to an old address even though the Department of the Army had their current address, at that time, which was ____ Shadow Bay Drive, Orlando, Florida, because the Army sent them a letter to the correct address during that time period. A copy of the 17 June 1998 letter was just recently sent to her. As a result, the FSM was never presented an opportunity to select any SBP option. 3. The applicant provides a Death Certificate; a Marriage Certificate; the FSM’s 20-year letter; a letter, dated 15 March 2000, from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, Missouri; and a copy of the FSM’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The FSM was born on 25 October 1950. He was inducted on 20 October 1970, served as a light weapons infantryman, and was released from active duty on 15 May 1972 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). He married the applicant on 15 April 1983. 2. The FSM's notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) is dated 17 June 1998. Paragraph 4 of this letter pertains to the RCSBP and DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate) and informed him that he had 90 calendar days from the date he received the letter to submit his DD Form 1883. Records at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command - St. Louis indicate that the FSM's records did not contain a DD Form 1883. The 20-year letter was addressed to the FSM at ____ Ross Place, Orlando, Florida. 3. By letter, dated 15 March 2000, the applicant was informed the FSM failed to submit the DD Form 1883 and therefore his survivors would not receive an RCSBP annuity if he died before age 60. The letter was addressed to her at ___ Shadow Bay Drive, Orlando, Florida. 4. The FSM died on 23 March 2006. 5. Public Law 92-425, the SBP, enacted 21 September 1972, provided that military members could elect to have their retired pay reduced to provide for an annuity after death to surviving dependents. 6. Public Law 95-397, the RCSBP, enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for those who had qualified for reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. Three options are available: (A) elect to decline enrollment and choose at age 60 whether to start SBP participation; (B) elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity if they die before age 60 but delay payment of it until the date of the member's 60th birthday; (C) elect that a beneficiary receive an annuity immediately upon their death if before age 60. Before the law was amended in October 2000, a member must have made the election within 90 days of receiving the notification of eligibility to receive retired pay at age 60, or else wait until he/she applies for retired pay and elect to participate in the standard SBP. In other words, failure to elect an option resulted in the default election of option A, decline enrollment and choose at age 60 whether to start SBP participation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions are noted. However, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show the FSM did not receive his 20-year letter in 1998. There is no evidence to show the FSM ever attempted to enroll in the RCSBP at any time. 2. More importantly, it appears the applicant acknowledged that she (and presumably the FSM) received the 15 March 2000 letter informing her that the FSM failed to enroll in the RCSBP. If the FSM had not received his 17 June 1998 20-year letter, the 15 March 2000 letter should have caused him to inquire where it was. There is no evidence to show he made such an inquiry, and there is no evidence to show the 15 March 2000 letter caused the FSM to complain that he never had the option to enroll in the RCSBP. Regrettably, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING MM____ _JM_____ __QS____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___Mark Manning___________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011372 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070222 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 137.0400 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.