RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01985 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to his dependents. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not counseled on the requirements to transfer at least one month of education benefits to each dependent prior to his retirement. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former Regular Air Force member who retired on 1 Apr 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant was provided adequate information and failed to follow through with the requirement to transfer benefits while on active duty. The applicant attended a pre-separation briefing and indicated he did not want counseling on education benefits concerning the GI Bill. Furthermore, the applicant also signed up for the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) on the MilConnect website, which very clearly indicates that only those currently serving on active duty or in selected reserve may transfer their educational benefits to their dependents. The applicant had plenty of time from his pre- separation briefing and his retirement to designate the number of months for each of his dependents and effect the transfer. His failure to act in a timely manner is not a basis for approval on the part of the Air Force. The law governing these benefits specifically states that an individual approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the armed forces when the transfer is executed. The Air Force, in implementing its guidance, developed a communication plan that used the Air Force Personnel Center Commander and the Education and Training Sections at each installation to serve as spokespersons to communicate the Post- 9/11 GI Bill transfer-to-dependent program using internal media, internal communication tools, and external trade publications. There were various news articles about the Post-9/11 GI Bill; most noted the requirement to be on duty on the 1 Aug 09 effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to be eligible to transfer benefits. Some articles mentioned that service members on active duty or in the selected reserve could transfer benefits. Notably, since 1 August 2009, the Air Force approved over 30,000 transferability applications. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the DoD and the Military Services widely publicized the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the transferability feature. DoD developed a special website, hosted by Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), to facilitate the transfer of educational benefits. The website system was operational on 27 Jun 09 for the purpose of accepting transfer of benefits applications. The Directive Type Memo (DTM) and Air Force Instruction state the transfer must be made while the member is serving in the Armed Forces. Both documents were published on government-hosted websites prior to 1 Aug 09, the effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He did attend the required pre-separations briefing and indicated he did not want counseling on VA Benefits. However, he believes this should not be optional for separating members who have enrolled in the Post-9/11 benefit to deny counseling. Furthermore, this line item does not state that he understood the requirement to transfer the benefit prior to separation. He has been in leadership positions and has on a number of occasions the need to have subordinates actually sign and date documentation that specifically address a particular policy or instruction. Without such documentation he would not have been able to legally prove their concurrence or acknowledgment. He also has had to sign such documents, proving that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. On the DD Form 2648 he denied counseling and should not have knowing what he knows now, this counseling specifically addresses the requirement to transfer benefit. He recommends that counseling on this matter be a requirement and not an option. In regards to the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) on the MilConnect website question, he admits that he didn't read every word; otherwise he would have taken the steps to transfer at least one month to each of his two sons. He recommends when service members transfer benefit, or request the transfer of benefit that there be a line item that they, initial to indicate they understand the limitations and responsibility to complete the transfer prior to separation. In addition, the members must be told that a request to transfer and subsequent approval to transfer is not complete until they log in and actually transfer at least one month to each dependent listed. He believes that many members think that an approval of transfer was enough to ensure the benefit was transferred. He argues that he was not told to transfer the benefit prior to his retirement. He believes there is some confusion about the request to transfer and the actual transfer. He also contends there is no signed documentation that specifically states he was aware of this requirement. He is asking for the Board to rectify this situation by approving his request to transfer one month of benefit to each of his dependents. If his Post-9/11 benefits are still available for him to use, he should be able to transfer it, regardless of his status as an active duty member or retiree. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01985 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 12. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 21 May 12, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jul 12. Panel Chair