Other Columns by Thomas D. Segel
Thomas D. Segel Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Survivor Benefit Plan -- Another Government Nightmare?
By Thomas D. Segel
October 10, 2002

For the past thirty years, our federal government has elected to save dollars at the expense of military widows. These are women who served and sacrificed arm in arm with their career husbands. This denigrating confiscation of widow's security during the twilight years of their lives cannot be justified by any rationale. The United States of America is literally robbing widows and orphans by reducing their Survivor Benefit Plan annuities, paid for predominantly by money from their deceased husbands.

Most people are of the opinion the government really tries to write legislation, which will benefit the citizens of this country. That thought may be true when it comes to providing support on behalf of major lobbying interests, unions, large donors and government employees. However, those words ring hollow when it comes to legislation on behalf of career military personnel, retired military personnel and their families.

The Survivor Benefit Plan is a perfect example of meaningful legislation gone astray. Through the tinkering and bumbling of bureaucrats and politicians, it has been transformed into continuing pain for the dependents of deceased career military personnel.

Prior to 1953 there was no program available to career military personnel, which would provide for their families in the event of death. Widows of servicemen could apply to the Veterans Administration for compensation. However, it was only awarded if death was determined to be service connected.

In August of 1953 the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act was passed and it remained the law of the land until 1972, with a name change to Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan in 1961. The benefits were limited and the restrictions were many. This resulted in less than 15% of those retiring from military service participating in the program.

In September 1972 the Survivor Benefit Plan was established. Participation was mandatory, unless the service member specifically declined the coverage in writing prior to retirement. Also, the service member was not allowed to withdraw from the program. Even if the spouse died, premium payments were still required for the life of the service member.

The coverage was linked to the widow's Social Security benefits, reducing Survivor Benefit annuity payments starting at age 62 in a dollar per dollar offset. Under this legislation, there were cases where the entire annuity would be eliminated by the Social Security offset. Part of this poor legislative error was corrected in a change to the bill effective in March of 1986. From that time forward, widows below the age of 62 had their annuity figured at 55 percent of the elected base amount. Widows 62 years of age and older had their annuity adjusted to 35 percent of the base amount. Over the years there have been multiple changes to the SBP, but for most widows above the age of 62, it still remains a discriminatory piece of legislation.

Today the age 62 offset rule remains in effect, with a small degree of modification. The government will reduce the SBP annuity to the "greater" of 35% of the member's covered retired pay, or 55% of the covered retired pay minus the amount of the survivor's Social Security benefit that would have been attributed to the service member's Social Security covered earnings while on active duty. Starting in 1999 at least four bills have been introduced in Congress to reduce or eliminate this Social Security offset. All have been defeated.

Problems with this unwarranted Social Security offset are only the surface issue of retiree and widow concerns about the SBP. Historically the military community has seen Congress try to equate military salaries and benefits to comparable positions within the civilian work force. Though military advocates always argue it is impossible to compare these issues, the federal government still tries to use that rationale in determining what the armed forces should receive. The other face of this same issue is the civilian work force employed by the federal government is never figured into this mix.

When the SBP was established, Congress intended that the government would pay 40% of the cost, which is on par with the federal civilian employee SBP. Congress has kept watering down the government contribution for military retirees SBP to the point where it is now paying in less than 25%, leaving the retiree with premiums which have increased to cover more than 75% of the cost. At the same time the federal civilian employee benefits from a 42% government subsidy to his or her program. Those who were in the Federal Employees Retirement System prior to 1984 have a 50% government subsidy.

Most of the widows facing a loss of SBP benefits today are victims of poor or misleading government information. Few, if any, service personnel were told about the offset provision at the time they enrolled in the program. Most were not told they could never withdraw from the program once they retired. None were told their survivors would face a mountain of paperwork, just to receive the little money they would be awarded under the program. As change after change was initiated by Congress, few were informed of how those new rules would impact their survivors.

Carolyn Epling from Albuquerque, New Mexico has been battling with the government since becoming a widow in 1997. She has been given so much conflicting information and government double speak she still doesn't have an answer to her concerns. "I am still trying to find out exactly how my offset was computed. I have received all kinds of conflicting information. I want to know if the offset is based only on my husband's military earnings. If so, how they can justify a Social Security offset which is greater than my husband's Social Security benefit at the time of his death."

Edie Smith, a military widow in Springfield, Virginia has another concern. She has been receiving money from the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program operated by the VA. She had to endure the loss of a 100% offset of her husband's retirement pay, when he was receiving 100% disability compensation. Now that her husband is deceased, the government is dishonoring her request for payment of the SBP annuity if she is to continue receiving her widow's compensation from the VA. She says, "the military retiree personally pays more than 75% of the SBP with his own money, in order to assure his survivor that his retired pay will continue after his death. It is wrong that survivors are excluded in this manner. It is more wrong that the government, the military associations and the journalists turn a blind eye to the plight of the widow."

In Harlingen, Texas the widow of a retired Marine Major General has some issues about the program, which are not related to the funds. Velma Bowman has concerns about the complex and confusing paper work, which must be completed by a grieving widow trying to access her annuity.

"I notified Headquarters Marine Corps of my husband's death and within a week they delivered a packet to me with most of the forms and an instruction booklet. A local officer tried to help me with the forms but neither of us was trained in casualty assistance procedures. I spent the next two weeks just trying to find someone who could help me prepare the paperwork properly. I had been told errors take months to get straightened out.

"The Marine Corps offered to talk me though the forms on the phone, but I was afraid to go that route because of the possibility of errors on my part. A month after the initial contact a letter arrived from Headquarters Marine Corps containing the same forms... but, a different instruction booklet. By then I had met the local representative from the Veterans Service Office and along with an officer from the local Marine Corps Reserve they got me through the paperwork.

"I knew enough to keep ample funds on hand to cover expenses for several weeks. Many wives are not involved in family finances and also could get caught short of funds. This happens at a time when they are in a state of emotional upheaval. In addition, the wording on these forms is confusing and lengthy. The only logical solution I can see to the problem is... these forms and instructions should be made available to each retired service individual so they can be completed while both man and wife are mentally and physically able to deal with the material."

Problems surrounding the survivor Benefit Plan are so many and so complex they almost defy attempts to correct them. The legislation was written with the best of intentions but over the years has turned into some kind of invisible Washington monster. Instead of comforting military widows during their times of extreme grief, our government does little to assist, but instead turns loose another of its bureaucratic nightmares to frighten some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Hasn't the time come for Congress to cage those SBP dragons and start helping those who reach out to them in need?