RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01282 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependent. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was never briefed on the rules and regulations governing the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It was her desire to take advantage of the TEB program and was unaware of the requirement to do so prior to retirement. Had she known of the transfer requirement, she would have fulfilled her obligation to timely apply for the benefit. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 March 2012, the applicant was relieved from the Air National Guard and transferred to the retired reserve to await reserve retired pay at age 60. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1Y does not provide a recommendation for the applicant’s accurate request. In this case, recommended approval was for the applicant to be allowed the opportunity to apply for Post-9/11 benefits. However, the applicant’s request was for the TEB to her dependent. Nevertheless, the Post-9/11 GI Bill program became effective 1 August 2009 and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the military services widely publicized the Post-9/11 GI Bill and its transferability feature. The website was operational on 27 June 2009 for the purpose of accepting TEB applications. The Air National Guard implemented a communication plan, using the Retention Officer Managers (ROM) at each Wing to serve as spokesperson to disseminate information, to unit members, on the Post-9/11 and TEB program. In this case, the applicant’s ROM indicated that although information on the Post-9/11 GI Bill was disseminated to unit members through various methods to include briefings, Commander Calls, newsletters, and informational handouts, the applicant did not out-process through his office prior to her retirement. As such, she did not receive the GI Bill separation briefing which covers the Post-9/11 GI Bill application process. The complete NGB/A1Y evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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. While we note the applicant’s request as stated in her application is unclear, she confirmed her request to correct her records to reflect the transfer of Post 9/11 GI benefits to her dependent before retiring. We further note the OPR’s recommended approval is based on the applicant’s request as articulated on the application, which is not her actual request. In this case, the applicant argues she was never briefed on the rules and regulations governing the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and the requirement to apply for the transfer of educational benefits prior to retirement. While we note the applicant’s contention of unawareness, other than her own assertion, she has presented no evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force. The Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) indicated the steps taken to inform eligible personnel of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that she was denied the opportunity to transfer benefits to her dependent or that she was not properly counseled. 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 material 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-2013-01282 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 13. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1Y, dated 19 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 13. 3 4