B-247508.2, June 14, 1993

B-247508.2: Jun 14, 1993

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Prior decision holding that modification of final divorce decree which awarded Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to former spouse and former spouse's request for "deemed election" which was accepted by service was proper. Is affirmed. WA 98498 Dear Colonel Magill: This is in response to your letter of December 4. The main argument in your request for reconsideration is that you had been granted a final decree of divorce on January 9. SBP was not mentioned in the decree and therefore a later change or modification of that order assigning SBP coverage to your former spouse. Should not have been honored by DFAS. 1989 modification of your original divorce decree was the first court order to require that SBP coverage be provided your former spouse.

B-247508.2, June 14, 1993

MILITARY PERSONNEL Pay Survivor benefits Annuities Designated beneficiaries Orders MILITARY PERSONNEL Pay Survivor benefits Cost reimbursement Upon reconsideration, prior decision holding that modification of final divorce decree which awarded Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to former spouse and former spouse's request for "deemed election" which was accepted by service was proper, is affirmed.

Col. William F. Magill, USA (Retired) 7820 Onyx Court, S.W. Tacoma, WA 98498

Dear Colonel Magill:

This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1992, requesting reconsideration of our decision Col. William F. Magill, USA (Retired), B-247508, Sept. 2, 1992, in which we held that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) acted properly in "deeming" an election of Survivor Benefit Plan coverage for your former spouse.

The main argument in your request for reconsideration is that you had been granted a final decree of divorce on January 9, 1981, SBP was not mentioned in the decree and therefore a later change or modification of that order assigning SBP coverage to your former spouse, to which you never agreed, should not have been honored by DFAS.

As we noted in our decision of September 2, 1992, under California law the provisions of any agreement or order for the support of either party shall be subject to subsequent modification or revocation by court order. Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 4811(b) (Deering 1984). Since the August 27, 1989 modification of your original divorce decree was the first court order to require that SBP coverage be provided your former spouse, her request of DFAS for a deemed election within a year of that date was timely.

Regarding your contention that you had not voluntarily agreed to provide SBP coverage for your former spouse as stated in the August 16, 1989 modification, the modification provides for your election of such coverage and we note that it was signed by the attorney who represented you at the hearing several days prior to being signed by the court. Moreover, as noted in your letter of December 4, 1992, after November 14, 1986, under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1450 (f)(4), a court could order a member to make an election for a former spouse.

The copy of a House of Representatives report which you enclosed with your letter does not relate to the court ordered election of SBP benefits for former spouses. It deals with the timeliness of court ordered divisions of retired pay.

Accordingly, as we find no basis to alter our prior decision of September 2, 1992, we affirm it.

Nov 20, 2017

Nov 16, 2017

  • HBI-GF, JV
    We deny the protest.
    B-415036
  • Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it raises a matter of contract administration over which we do not exercise jurisdiction.
    B-414410.4

Nov 15, 2017

Nov 14, 2017

Nov 9, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here