RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01061 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His obligation end date for transfer of his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to his dependents be changed to 31 Dec 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would be eligible for Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) had he been forced out by a Reduction In Force (RIF) or Force Shaping action. Instead he was forced to retire due to being passed over a second time for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). All involuntary separations should be treated equally. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members. Subject to the provisions of DoDI 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, the Secretary concerned, to promote recruitment and retention in the Uniformed Services, may permit an individual eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance to elect to transfer to one or more of his or her family members all or a portion of his or her entitlement to such assistance. For individuals eligible for retirement on or after 1 Aug 11, and before 1 Aug 12, 3 years of additional service is required. A Service member is considered to be retirement eligible if he or she has completed 20 years of active Federal service or 20 qualifying years as computed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 12732. The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 May 92. According to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, he was retired on 31 Dec 13 in the grade of major (O-4) with a narrative reason for separation of “Maximum Service or Time in Grade.” He was credited with 15 years, 3 months and 6 days of active service this period and 6 years, 4 months and 18 days of prior active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. He was properly approved for TEB on the requested date of 23 Jan 12. In order for the applicant to retain TEB benefits, he would have had to serve through the obligation end date of 22 Jan 15. However, because he was passed over twice for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, he was forced to retire prior to the obligation end date as he was retired on 31 Dec 13. Therefore, he is ineligible In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Programs, Atch 9, A9.18.8.5. There is no provision in TEB guidance granting fulfillment of obligation that applies to the applicant’s non-selection for promotion after TEB approval. Reasons an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC)/obligation end date can be considered fulfilled are death of the member, disability in conjunction with retirement or separation from the Air Force, hardship, in conjunction with retirement/separation approved by the Secretary of the Air Force. The applicant had an on opportunity from 1 Aug 09 through 31 Dec 10 to apply for TEB and could have fulfilled the 3 year ADSC/obligation required without interference. However, because he did not fulfill his TEB obligation, he is ineligible. A complete copy of the DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: How long he was eligible to request TEB is irrelevant. He was fully eligible and entered into the TEB contract expecting to complete the terms of the contract. It was the Air Force’s action that broke that contract, not his. He fulfilled his part to the maximum extent the Air Force allowed. The ADSC is waived for those separated via a RIF or force shaping. There is no reason the same logic should not apply in his case. In fact, AFI 36-2306, A9.18.1.4.3 seems to specifically address the issue in question. When the member has done all he can to satisfy the TEB requirements, but Air Force policy or statute does not permit it, the member should not be punished. The applicant’s complete submission 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 note the applicant argues that he fulfilled his part of the contract to the maximum extent allowed and believes his separation is similar to those separated by a RIF or force shaping. However, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated we find no equitable basis to grant 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-2014-01061 in Executive Session on 20 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 8 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jun 14.