Court Opinion

ID: 9389811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:01:48.534067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.809045
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1819    Document: 68     Page: 1   Filed: 04/26/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  CINDY SCHUSSLER,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2021-1819
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:18-cv-00598-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: April 26, 2023
                  ______________________

     ANTHONY BENJAMIN EMMI, Betty and Michael D. Wohl
 Veterans Legal Clinic, Syracuse University College of Law,
 Syracuse, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by ELIZABETH GARRISON KUBALA.

     PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS
 K. MICKLE.
                  ______________________
Case: 21-1819      Document: 68    Page: 2    Filed: 04/26/2023

 2                                           SCHUSSLER   v. US

         Before DYK, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Cindy Schussler appeals a decision of the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s
 motion for judgment on the administrative record as to her
 suit for payment under the Survivor Benefit Plan (“SBP”),
 a federal program that pays annuities to eligible survivors
 of U.S. military personnel. We affirm.
                               I
     The SBP “is an insurance-style program allowing eligi-
 ble servicemembers and military retirees to elect to have
 premiums deducted from their pay in order to provide their
 spouses [and dependents] with additional benefits after
 their deaths.” Sharp v. United States, 580 F.3d 1234, 1236
 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see 10 U.S.C. §§ 1447–55. Although it has
 been amended several times, both parties agree that the
 relevant SBP statutory scheme in this case is the one that
 was in force in 1995.
     In 1995, both regular servicemembers and reservists
 could become eligible for the SBP. All personnel entitled to
 retirement pay with a spouse or dependent child were by
 default enrolled in the SBP, though they could opt out. 10
 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(2)(A) (1995). 1 Reservists were generally
 not entitled to retirement pay until their sixtieth birthday,
 and so even if they had a spouse or dependent child they
 were not automatically enrolled in SBP until age sixty. Id.;
 see also id. § 12731(a)(1). But Congress allowed reservists
 to opt in to the plan after twenty years of service even be-
 fore reaching retirement age so if they died before reaching
 age sixty their survivors could receive benefits. Id.

     1   Citations to the United States Code throughout
 this opinion are to the 1995 edition.
Case: 21-1819        Document: 68   Page: 3   Filed: 04/26/2023

 SCHUSSLER   v. US                                          3

 § 1448(a)(1)(B); see also id. § 12731(a)(2). Such reservists
 had to elect to participate within ninety days of becoming
 eligible. Id. § 1448(a)(2)(B). Those who failed to do so
 would only be able to participate in the SBP after turning
 sixty. Id.
     Congress required that married, SBP-eligible regular
 servicemembers and reservists over age sixty obtain
 spousal consent before opting out of SBP. 2              Id.
 § 1448(a)(3)(A) (spousal consent requirement applied to
 “married person[s] who [were] eligible to provide a stand-
 ard annuity”). Married eligible reservists under age sixty
 “who elect[ed] to provide a reserve-component annuity”
 had to obtain spousal consent before electing less than the
 maximum benefit or electing to provide benefits to a de-
 pendent child but not for a spouse. Id. § 1448(a)(3)(B). In
 1995, therefore, the law did not require spousal consent for
 decisions of eligible reservists who had not reached age
 sixty to entirely forego opting in to the SBP.
                               II
     Ms. Schussler is the surviving spouse of Frederick
 Schussler, who served in the United States Army Reserve
 Component between 1975 and 2005. In 1995, the Army
 sent Mr. Schussler a letter informing him that he could opt
 in to the SBP within ninety days of the letter. The letter
 told him that if he did not opt to participate in the SBP
 within that period he would not have the opportunity to do
 so again until he turned sixty. Mr. Schussler did not elect

    2     Congress has subsequently amended the spousal
 consent provisions of the SBP, see Floyd D. Spence Na-
 tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub.
 L. No. 106-398, § 655, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–165 (2000),
 but all parties agree that the later amendments do not ap-
 ply here.
Case: 21-1819    Document: 68       Page: 4   Filed: 04/26/2023

 4                                            SCHUSSLER   v. US

 to participate in the SBP within ninety days, and he died
 before his sixtieth birthday.
      Ms. Schussler contends that, because she did not con-
 sent to Mr. Schussler’s non-enrollment in the SBP, his fail-
 ure to enroll should be disregarded. But under § 1448 as it
 existed in 1995, Ms. Schussler’s consent was not required
 for Mr. Schussler to forego participation in the SBP. Mr.
 Schussler was neither “eligible to provide a standard annu-
 ity,” id. § 1448(a)(3)(A), because he had not reached the age
 of sixty, nor a person “who elect[ed] to provide a reserve-
 component annuity,” id. § 1448(a)(3)(B).           Congress’s
 spousal consent requirements did not apply under these
 circumstances.
     The Claims Court is
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.