B-131063, MAY 9, 1957, 36 COMP. GEN. 764

B-131063, MAY 9, 1957, 36 COMP. GEN. 764

MILITARY PERSONNEL - RETIRED PAY ANNUITY ELECTIONS - CORRECTION A SECOND ANNUITY OPTION ELECTION MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES AFTER RECEIPT OF ADVICE THAT THE PRIOR COMBINATION OF OPTIONS EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF REDUCED RETIRED PAY PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 4 (B) OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN THE FIRST ELECTION RATHER THAN A MODIFICATION OF AN ELECTION, AND THE CORRECTION ACTION IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ELECTION. AN OFFICER WHO, IN CORRECTING AN ERRONEOUS ANNUITY OPTION ELECTION, DESIGNATED OPTIONS (3) AND (4) UNDER SECTION 4 (A) OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953, BUT INDICATED AN INTENTION THAT HIS WIFE SHOULD RECEIVE AN ANNUITY OF ONE-HALF OF RETIRED PAY SO LONG AS SHE REMAINS ELIGIBLE AND THAT SIMILAR AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAID TO HIS CHILDREN ON TERMINATION OF THE WIFE'S ANNUITY, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ELECTED AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE AND, ON TERMINATION OF HER ELIGIBILITY, AN ANNUITY PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY UNDER OPTIONS (3) AND (4). AN OFFICER WHO, IN CORRECTING ERRONEOUS ANNUITY OPTION ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF REDUCED RETIRED PAY PERMISSIBLE, DESIGNATED OPINIONS (3) AND (4) UNDER SECTION 4 (A) OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TAKEN ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL ELECTION TO PROVIDE AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE AND, UPON TERMINATION OF HER ELIGIBILITY, AN ANNUITY TO HIS DAUGHTER ON BASIS OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY UNDER OPTIONS (3) AND (4) EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ELECTION.

TO L. A. CAMPBELL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MAY 9, 1957:

BY LETTER DATED MARCH 11, 1957, THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY FORWARDED HERE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 11, 1957, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS MADE BY REAR ADMIRAL CARL G. DRESCHER, RETIRED, AND LIEUTENANT COMMANDER WILSON E. HARRIS, RETIRED, U.S. NAVY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953, 67 STAT. 501, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED.

SECTION 3 (A) OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953, 37 U.S.C. SUPP. III 372 (A), PROVIDES THAT ACTIVE MEMBERS MAY ELECT---

* * * TO RECEIVE A REDUCED AMOUNT OF ANY RETIRED PAY WHICH MAY BE AWARDED HIM AS THE RESULT OF SERVICE IN HIS UNIFORMED SERVICE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE OR MORE OF THE ANNUITIES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 4, PAYABLE AFTER HIS DEATH IN A RETIRED STATUS TO HIS WIDOW, CHILD, OR CHILDREN, IF SUCH WIDOW, CHILD, OR CHILDREN ARE LIVING AT THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT. * * *

SUCH ELECTION MAY BE MADE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF 18 YEARS OF SERVICE, OR UPON RETIREMENT FOR DISABILITY IF SOONER RETIRED. ACTIVE MEMBERS WHO HAD COMPLETED 18 YEARS OF SERVICE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT COULD SO ELECT WITHIN ONE YEAR. THE TERMS OF THE ELECTION MAY BE REVOKED OR MODIFIED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE ACTIVE MEMBER'S RETIREMENT BUT ANY MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION SO MADE WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE IF HE RETIRES WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DATE IT IS MADE.

SECTION 3 (B), 37 U.S.C. SUPP. III 372 (B), PROVIDES THAT RETIRED MEMBERS AWARDED RETIRED PAY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ACT MAY, WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER ITS EFFECTIVE DATE ( NOVEMBER 1, 1953), ELECT TO RECEIVE A REDUCED AMOUNT OF RETIRED PAY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE OR MORE OF THE ANNUITIES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 4 "PAYABLE AFTER HIS DEATH TO HIS WIDOW, CHILD, OR CHILDREN.' SUCH AN ELECTION WAS IRREVOCABLE. SECTION 4, 37 U.S.C. SUPP. III 373 (A), OF THE ACT PROVIDES:

SEC. 4. (A) UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3, AN ACTIVE OR RETIRED MEMBER MAY ELECT ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ANNUITIES, PAYABLE UNDER THIS ACT, IN SUCH AMOUNT, EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF HIS RETIRED PAY, AS HE MAY SPECIFY AT THE TIME OF ELECTION, IN AMOUNTS EQUAL TO ONE-HALF, ONE-QUARTER OR ONE-EIGHTH OF THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF HIS RETIRED PAY.

(1) AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO OR ON BEHALF OF HIS WIDOW, * * *

(2)AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO OR ON BEHALF OF HIS SURVIVING CHILD OR CHILDREN,

(3) AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO OR ON BEHALF OF HIS WIDOW AND SURVIVING CHILDREN, * * *

(4) AN ANNUITY PAYABLE UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN (1), (2), OR (3), OF THIS SUBSECTION, WITH THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT NO FURTHER DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE MADE FROM THE RETIRED PAY OF THE MEMBER COMMENCING WITH THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING THAT IN WHICH THERE WAS NO BENEFICIARY WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE, UPON THE DEATH OF THE MEMBER, AN ANNUITY PAYABLE UNDER THE ELECTION MADE BY HIM.

(B) WHERE AN ACTIVE OR RETIRED MEMBER DESIRES TO PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE ANNUITY, HE MAY ELECT (1) AND (2) OF SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION, WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROVISIONS OF (4) THEREOF, BUT IN NO CASE MAY THE COMBINED AMOUNTS OF THE ANNUITIES EXCEED 50 PERCENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY.

IN DECISION 36 COMP. GEN. 325, 326-327, WE SAID THAT THE ACT---

* * * CONTEMPLATES THAT THE BENEFITS PAYABLE TO SURVIVORS SHALL BE FINANCED WHOLLY FROM DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM THE RETIRED PAY OF PARTICIPATING MEMBERS AND CONTAINS PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO EFFECT THAT PURPOSE. BASICALLY THE ACT ESTABLISHED A FORM OF GROUP INSURANCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SURVIVING SPOUSES AND CHILDREN. THE BENEFITS PAYABLE TO SURVIVORS ARE NOT GRATUITIES BUT IN EFFECT REPRESENT INSURANCE BENEFITS PURCHASED BY THE PARTICIPATING RETIRED MEMBERS THROUGH DEDUCTIONS FROM THEIR RETIRED PAY.

SECTION 4 (C), 37 U.S.C. 373 (C), OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE COMPUTED IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, AS OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT IN THE CASE OF AN ACTIVE MEMBER AND AS OF THE DATE OF THE ELECTION IN THE CASE OF A RETIRED MEMBER, BY AN ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENT METHOD USING AS A BASIS APPROPRIATE ACTUARIAL TABLES. DEDUCTIONS MAY BE MADE ONLY ON BEHALF OF A CHILD LIVING AT DATE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECTION, AS APPROPRIATE, AND THE ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENT IS DETERMINED AS OF THAT DATE WITH RESPECT TO THE YOUNGEST CHILD.

IN THE CASE OF ADMIRAL DRESCHER, IT APPEARS THAT ON MARCH 11, 1954, HE ELECTED OPTIONS (1) AND (2) COMBINED WITH OPTION (4) WITH ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS SURVIVING WIDOW UPON HIS DEATH, AND ONE-HALF OF SUCH PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS SON AND DAUGHTER, UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. BY LETTER DATED APRIL 14, 1954, THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL INFORMED HIM THAT THE COMBINED TOTAL OF OPTIONS ELECTED BY HIM EXCEEDED 50 PERCENT OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY AND FURNISHED HIM WITH ANOTHER ELECTION FORM TO COMPLETE. ON APRIL 21, 1954, REAR ADMIRAL DRESCHER EXECUTED A SECOND ELECTION FORM DESIGNATING OPTIONS (3) AND (4) WITH ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS WIDOW UNTIL HER REMARRIAGE OR DEATH AND THEREAFTER TO HIS SON AND DAUGHTER. ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1956, WHEN THE OFFICER RETIRED, HIS CHILDREN WERE OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE AND WERE NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE ACT. YOU ASK WHETHER THE ELECTION OF MARCH 11, 1954, MAY BE CONSIDERED A VALID ELECTION COMPUTED AT ONE-FOURTH REDUCED PAY. YOU FURTHER SAY THAT, IF THE ANSWER IS IN THE NEGATIVE, A DECISION IS REQUESTED WHETHER THE ELECTION OF APRIL 21, 1954, IS A VALID ELECTION AND WHETHER THE COST OF THE ANNUITY AND THE ANNUITY SHOULD BE COMPUTED AS THOUGH HE HAD ELECTED OPTIONS (1) AND (4) AT ONE-HALF REDUCED RETIRED PAY. YOU STATE THAT PENDING OUR DECISION, DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ADMIRAL DRESCHER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF OPTIONS (1) AND (4) AT ONE-FOURTH REDUCED RETIRED PAY.

THE COMBINATIONS OF OPTIONS AND THE ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES DESIGNATED BY REAR ADMIRAL DRESCHER ON MARCH 11, 1954, WERE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE, BUT NO LITERAL EFFECT COULD BE GIVEN SUCH DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE TOTAL OF THE ANNUITIES DESIGNATED (TWO ANNUITIES TOTALING 100 PERCENT OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY, EACH BEING FOR ONE-HALF) EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY (50 PERCENT) PERMITTED BY THE STATUTE. HE THERE INDICATED THAT HE INTENDED THAT HIS WIFE SHOULD RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM ANNUITY AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND THE INTENTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ACTION TAKEN ON APRIL 21, 1954. THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ELECTION FORM ON MARCH 11, 1954, WAS DEFECTIVE AND THE ACTION TAKEN ON APRIL 21, 1954, WAS BASICALLY CONSISTENT THEREWITH, SINCE IT ALSO CONTEMPLATED THAT HIS WIFE SHOULD RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM ANNUITY. WE BELIEVE THAT THE ACTION OF APRIL 21, 1954, REASONABLY MAY BE VIEWED AS A SUBSTANTIALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS CORRECTION OF A PATENT ERROR IN THE ELECTION OF MARCH 11, 1954, RATHER THAN A MODIFICATION OF AN ELECTION SUCH AS IS PRECLUDED FROM BECOMING EFFECTIVE IF THE MEMBER RETIRES WITHIN 5 YEARS AFTER THE MODIFICATION IS MADE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACT THAT THE ANNUITY TO THE CHILDREN WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON TERMINATION OF THE WIFE'S ANNUITY RATHER THAN PAID CONCURRENTLY IS REGARDED AS A RESULT FLOWING FROM THE CORRECTION OF THE ELECTION OF MARCH 11, 1954, RATHER THAN A MODIFICATION OF THAT ELECTION OR A NEW ELECTION.

IN A CASE WHERE A RETIRED MEMBER WITH THREE MINOR CHILDREN DESIGNATED BOTH HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN (OPTIONS 1-4 AND 2-4) EACH TO RECEIVE AN ANNUITY OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY (AS IN THIS CASE) AND DIED BEFORE THE ELECTION COULD BE CLARIFIED, WE VIEWED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS REASONABLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE MEMBER "INTENDED TO PROVIDE ANNUITIES FOR HIS ELIGIBLE SURVIVING CHILDREN AS WELL AS HIS WIDOW--- THE SHARE TO BE PAID TO THE CHILDREN TO BE THE SAME AS THAT TO BE PAID TO HIS WIDOW--- RATHER THAN TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUITY ON SOME OTHER AUTHORIZED BASIS.' WE CONCLUDED THAT HE INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAXIMUM ANNUITY AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID UNDER OPTIONS 1-4 AND 2-4 COMBINED, AND HENCE THAT AN ANNUITY OF ONE-FOURTH OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY COULD BE PAID TO (1) HIS WIDOW AND (2) HIS CHILDREN. 34 COMP. GEN. 35. THE RETIRED MEMBER HAVING DIED WITHOUT CORRECTING THE ELECTION, A HOLDING IN THAT CASE THAT THE ELECTION WAS INVALID WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF NO ANNUITY TO HIS DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES AND, HIS BASIC INTENTIONS HAVING BEEN ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THE ELECTIONS INDICATED WERE CONSTRUED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.

IN ANOTHER CASE WE HELD THAT A DECEASED RETIRED MEMBER WHO HAD DESIGNATED OPTIONS 1 AND 4 TO PROVIDE AN ANNUITY FOR HIS WIFE UPON HIS DEATH, BUT WHO FAILED TO INDICATE WHETHER HE WISHED SUCH ANNUITY TO BE PAID AT THE RATE OF ONE-EIGHTH, ONE-FOURTH OR ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT, HAVING DIED BEFORE A RATE WAS DESIGNATED, MAY BE ASSUMED TO ELECT THE MINIMUM RATE OF ONE-EIGHTH IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT A PARTICULAR RATE WAS INTENDED. IN THAT CASE, 34 COMP. GEN. 63-64, WE SAID THAT THE ACT- -

* * * PROVIDES THAT AN ELECTION MADE BY A RETIRED MEMBER WITHIN THE PERIOD MENTIONED THEREIN ,SHALL THEREAFTER BE IRREVOCABLE.' THE ELECTION SUBMITTED BY EACH OF THE OFFICERS HERE INVOLVED SHOWS AN UNEQUIVOCAL INTENT TO PURCHASE AN ANNUITY FOR HIS WIFE. WHILE AN ELECTION IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS IT INDICATES THE PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO THE DEPENDENT, THE INTENT OF THE MEMBER IN SUCH A CASE MAY BE DETERMINED FROM EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THAT APPEARING ON THE ELECTION FORM. WHERE AN OTHERWISE VALID ELECTION IS RECEIVED WHICH FAILS TO SHOW THE PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID, AND EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN INTENTION TO ELECT A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO THE DEPENDENT CANNOT BE OBTAINED, IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE MINIMUM RATE OF ONE-EIGHTH WAS CHOSEN. IF IT APPEARS FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT A PARTICULAR RATE WAS INTENDED, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ELECTION WAS MADE ON THAT BASIS. WHERE THE MEMBER IS ALIVE AND ABLE TO STATE HIS INTENTION IN THE MATTER, HIS STATEMENT AS TO THE PARTICULAR RATE MAY BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CASE OF DECEASED MEMBERS EVIDENCE IN AFFIDAVIT FORM FROM THE ATTESTING OFFICER AND OTHERS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEMBER'S INTENTION SHOULD BE OBTAINED.

ADMIRAL DRESCHER CORRECTED THE ELECTION OF MARCH 11, 1954, BY THE ACTION OF APRIL 21, 1954, SO AS TO CLEARLY INDICATE HIS INTENTION THAT HIS WIFE SHOULD RECEIVE AN ANNUITY OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY SO LONG AS SHE REMAINS ELIGIBLE AND THAT A SIMILAR AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAID TO HIS CHILDREN CONTINGENT UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE WIFE'S ANNUITY RATHER THAN THAT SMALLER ANNUITIES TOTALING ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO EACH CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES SHOULD BE PAID CONCURRENTLY. ACCORDINGLY, ADMIRAL DRESCHER MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ELECTED AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE (AND UPON THE TERMINATION OF HER ANNUITY TO HIS CHILDREN) ON THE BASIS OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY UNDER OPTIONS (3) AND (4). AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE OFFICER'S RETIRED PAY EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT ON THE BASIS INDICATED.

IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT COMMANDER WILSON E. HARRIS, IT APPEARS THAT ON APRIL 6, 1954, HE ELECTED OPTIONS (1) AND (2) COMBINED WITH OPTION (4), WITH ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS SURVIVING WIDOW UPON HIS DEATH, AND ONE-HALF OF SUCH PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS DAUGHTER UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. COMMANDER HARRIS WAS ADVISED BY THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL THAT THE COMBINED TOTAL OF THE OPTIONS INDICATED EXCEEDED 50 PERCENT OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY AND HE WAS FURNISHED ANOTHER ELECTION FORM TO COMPLETE. ON MAY 19, 1954, COMMANDER HARRIS EXECUTED ANOTHER ELECTION FORM DESIGNATING OPTIONS (3) AND (4) WITH ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY TO BE PAID TO HIS WIDOW UNTIL HER REMARRIAGE OR DEATH AND THEREAFTER TO HIS SURVIVING DAUGHTER UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. YOU STATE THAT COMMANDER HARRIS WAS INFORMED (BY LETTER DATED JULY 1, 1954, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL) THAT THE ORIGINAL ELECTION MADE BY HIM WAS CANCELED BY THE SECOND ELECTION. YOU REQUEST A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE ELECTION OF APRIL 6, 1954, IS TO BE CONSIDERED A VALID ELECTION OF OPTIONS (1) AND (2) COMBINED WITH OPTION (4), EACH AT ONE-FOURTH REDUCED RETIRED PAY, OR WHETHER THE ELECTION OF MAY 19, 1954, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID. YOU ALSO STATE THAT PENDING DECISION, DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT COMMANDER HARRIS IS BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF OPTIONS (1) AND (2) COMBINED WITH (4), EACH AT ONE-FOURTH REDUCED RETIRED PAY. AS IN THE CASE OF REAR ADMIRAL DRESCHER, THE ONLY DEFECT IN COMMANDER HARRIS' ELECTION OF APRIL 6, 1954, IS THAT THE COMBINED TOTAL OF THE ANNUITIES DESIGNATED EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCED RETIRED PAY PERMISSIBLE. WHILE THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE EXACT DATE THAT COMMANDER HARRIS RETIRED, IT DOES APPEAR THAT HE RETIRED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF HIS ORIGINAL ELECTION OF APRIL 6, 1954. AS IN THE CASE OF ADMIRAL DRESCHER, COMMANDER HARRIS CORRECTED HIS ORIGINAL ELECTION OF APRIL 6, 1954, BY HIS ACTION OF MAY 19, 1954. THAT ACTION WAS BASICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL ELECTION, THAT IS, IT CONTEMPLATED THAT HIS WIFE SHOULD RECEIVE AN ANNUITY OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY AND THAT A SIMILAR ANNUITY SHOULD BE PAID TO HIS DAUGHTER CONTINGENT UPON THE TERMINATION OF HIS WIFE'S ANNUITY. HENCE, COMMANDER HARRIS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ELECTED AN ANNUITY PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE, AND UPON TERMINATION OF HER ANNUITY TO HIS DAUGHTER, ON THE BASIS OF ONE-HALF OF HIS REDUCED RETIRED PAY UNDER OPTIONS (3) AND (4) EFFECTIVE FROM APRIL 6, 1954. AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD ALSO BE MADE IN THE OFFICER'S RETIRED PAY ON THAT BASIS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT.