RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01154
				COUNSEL:  NONE
                      		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted an exception to policy in order to transfer his 
Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to his two children.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He previously attempted a transfer of educational benefits (TEB) 
through the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF), but he 
received an ineligibility notification because he would not have 
met the three-year retainability before his projected retirement 
date of 1 July 2013.  He had intended to elect TEB beforehand, 
but circumstances beyond his control, prevented him from doing 
so.  After faithfully serving for over 20 years, he would 
appreciate the Air Force’s consideration in allowing him to 
exercise this benefit.   

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his Certificate 
of Eligibility from Veteran Affairs (VA), a letter of support 
from his chain of command, TEB ineligibility notification from 
the vMPF, his hardship curtailment request package, and 
correspondence with the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) 
regarding his TEB.   

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
retired effective 1 July 2013 in the grade of senior master 
sergeant (E-8).  

On 2 September 2009, the applicant received notification from 
the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) that he was entitled to 
benefits for an approved program of education or training under 
the Post 9/11 GI Bill.  

The applicant was subsequently approved for curtailment of his 
Date Eligible for Return from Overseas (DEROS) for a hardship 
retirement. 

Prior to his retirement, the applicant submitted a request for 
TEB; however, he was found to be ineligible because he had an 
approved retirement on file and would not meet the retainability 
requirements.  

For those individuals eligible for retirement on or after 
1 August 2011, and before 1 August 2012, three years of 
additional service is required for approval of Post 9/11 GI Bill 
TEB.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  DPSIT states the applicant does 
not provide evidence that he was a victim of an error or 
injustice.  There seems to be several “holes” in the member’s 
history of events pertaining to his attempt to transfer his Post 
9/11 education benefits.  On 2 September 2009, he submitted an 
application through the VA website; however, the VA does not 
have a website to transfer benefits, but directs you to 
www.dmdc.osd.mil/TEB.  Had the applicant gone to the website 
when he filed for application with the VA in 2009, he would have 
had the retainability for the active duty service commitment 
(ADSC) for TEB and would have been approved.  In December 2012, 
the applicant submitted his application for TEB, but he was 
ineligible because he had an approved retirement on file.  

DPSIT indicates their office finds no injustice to the extent 
that the applicant did not receive adequate counseling as 
required by law and Department of Defense regulation.  

The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 22 March 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find insufficient evidence of an error or 
injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and opinions 
stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the 
evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by the 
applicant.  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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2013-01154 in Executive Session on 16 December 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                     , Panel Chair 
                     , Member
                     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01154:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 13 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13.




                   
Panel Chair