RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04071 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) be converted to Post-9/11 GI Bill transfer of educational benefits (TEB) effective 31 August 2009 and this benefit be transferred to his dependent daughter. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was retirement eligible as of 7 January 2012. He will have honorably served 21 years, 7 months and 24 days at the time of his retirement. He has served 4 years since the start of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As a prior enlisted member, he knew he had the MGIB. At his transition assistance program (TAP) briefing, he learned that he could convert his MGIB to Post-9/11 GI Bill and that he could transfer the education benefits to his daughter. The benefits he has earned, with four years of service since the start of Post-9/11, will go unused if this is left uncorrected. His daughter will be able to attend college with approval of this request. He is retiring with a date of separation (DOS) of 31 August 2013. He attempted to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits prior to l August 2013, but found out that this was not possible due to his lack of retainability. He is submitting this request while he is still on active duty as is required. 2. He spoke with individuals at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) education office and they informed him that they briefed at various commander's calls and other venues to spread the word about the Post-9/11 GI Bill before and after August 2009. He graduated from the Air Force Institute of Technology in March 2009 and started a new assignment in April 2009. At that time, he had heard of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but he definitely did not realize some of the key requirements. Someone in the WPAFB education office mentioned that the only mandate in AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, attachment 9, is “ensure Airman are counseled at pre-separation or release from active duty” and documented on a DD Form 2648. He attended this pre-separation counseling on 11 March 2013, and discovered his oversight. In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, letter of support from his commander and a copy of his retirement special order. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents submitted by the applicant, he is a former commissioned officer of the Regular Air Force who was released from active duty on 31 August 2013, and retired on 1 September 2013, and was credited with 21 years, 7 months and 24 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states the applicant did not provide adequate justification or documentation. Numerous briefings and public affairs articles were published at the standup of the TEB program starting on 1 August 2009, through present date. Eligibility for TEB has always been determined by the date of request/application. An active duty service commitment (ADSC) for TEB cannot be applied until the member submits an application through MilConnect. The applicant’s statement that he served the time minus the ADSC is not sufficient for TEB approval. Because the applicant waited until he had an approved retirement to apply, he could not meet the retainability requirements outlined in attachment 9 of AFI 36- 2306. The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 January 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). To date, a response has not been received. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application is timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted. The applicant has not provided evidence that he was denied the opportunity to transfer benefits to his dependent or that he was miscounseled. Therefore, 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. In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive 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 this application in Executive Session on 28 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04071 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 August 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 12 September 2013. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2014. 1 2