RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05876 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His transfer of education benefits (TEB) approval be amended to reflect 1 Aug 11, rather than 16 May 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After submitting his request for TEB, he was notified he did not have retainability and needed to submit a Statement of Understanding (SOU). He submitted his promotion SOU. He later found out that a TEB request required a different SOU. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force 9 Mar 93. On 16 Nov 11, the applicant entered into a 26 month extension to qualify for TEB. His new date of separation (DOS) was established as 7 Nov 15. Had the applicant transferred his benefits on 1 Aug 11 as he requests, he would have incurred an active duty service commitment (ADSC) of four years and been required to serve until 31 Jul 15. On 6 Jun 13, the applicant entered into his second extension for 25 months to qualify for TEB. His new date of separation was established as 7 Mar 17. On 3 Feb 14, the applicant submitted an application for retirement with an effective date of 1 Jun 14. On 3 Feb 14, the applicant’s commander requested a waiver for the applicant’s ADSC for TEB noting the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 8F000 was currently manned at 100 percent, his original AFSC 3E0X1 was over manned, and the last ADSC was accomplished at the direction of the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). On 1 Jun 14, the applicant retired and was credited with 21 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), 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 did not meet the eligibility requirements as prescribed by law. The applicant’s first TEB application clearly stated the service member must use the vMPF to complete the TEB SOU. It also stated if the service member did not meet the retainability requirements and failed to sign the TEB SOU within 14 days, the application would be rejected. The applicant failed to complete both actions within the required time period. He reapplied on 26 Oct 11 and again failed to secure retainability and sign the TEB SOU within 14 day period. He was provided a TEB extension until 16 Nov 11; however, he failed to sign the TEB SOU. Service members, who apply for TEB through the MilConnect website, are forwarded a message that states the transfer request is not final until the AF Form 4406, Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits Statement of Understanding, is digitally signed in vMPF. Within 72 duty hours, the service member will receive an email from the AFPC stating their AF Form 4406 is ready for signature. The service member is instructed to call the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) if they did not receive the email. The applicant did not inquire about his TEB requests until 22 Mar 13. He was officially approved for TEB on 16 May 13. If the applicant fulfills his active duty service commitment (27 Feb 17), he will retain the TEB benefits. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2013-05876 in Executive Session on 8 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 8 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.