RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04324 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NONE INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits (TEB) to his daughter. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was overlooked in regards to his retirement briefings, to include transferring benefits to his daughter, because he was undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was under psychiatric care until his discharge from the military, as confirmed by his squadron commander. He was very limited on what he could and could not do. He is qualified to receive 70 percent of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits due to his deployments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air National Guard on 30 September 1999. On 3 February 2012, according to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Mental Health Addendum, the applicant was evaluated by a licensed clinical social worker and staff psychiatrist via information collected from his medical records, mental health records and a clinical interview. He was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. On 17 February 2012, a medical evaluation board was conducted because the applicant had not performed a physical fitness test in over two years and had been on mobility restrictions for greater than one year. A family physician determined the applicant was unable to fulfill the fitness and mobility requirements of an active duty airman. He could perform limited work duties and while his coronary artery disease remained stable, his physical and mental medical conditions greatly impacted his abilities of daily living and his work for the Air National Guard. On 26 April 2012, a MEB convened to consider the applicant for continued active duty. The applicant was diagnosed with osteoarthritis and depression with the approximate date of origin on 1 April 2009. The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 4 September 2012, an IPEB found the applicant unfit due to osteoarthritis, to include back pain, knee pain, and shoulder pain, PTSD and depressive disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS). The IPEB indicated the applicant was a participant of the IDES program and would finalize their recommendation upon receipt of ratings from Veterans Affairs (VA). On 22 October 2012, the DVA reviewed the applicant’s unfitting and claimed service-connected disabilities and proposed a total combined disability rating of 90 percent. On 26 October 2012, an IPEB was convened and determined the applicant was unfit for his duties due to his diagnosis of osteoarthritis, PTSD and depression. Since current directives and practice require cases of PTSD to receive temporary disability retired list (TDRL) status, the applicant was placed on the TDRL, with a combined compensable disability rating of 60 percent for the reevaluation of his PTSD/mental health in six months. However, the applicant requested a shorter date of separation. On 29 November 2012, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. He waived his right to a formal PEB hearing. On 21 February 2013, the applicant was relieved from active duty and placed on the TDRL, effective 22 February 2013, with a compensable disability rating of 60 percent. On 25 February 2014, the applicant was removed from the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) and retired in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) per Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation, with a compensable percentage of 60 percent for physical disability, effective 17 March 2014. The applicant was credited with 15 years, 11 months, and 4 days total active service for retirement. Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on or after 1 August 2009 who meets Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility requirements and at the time of the approval of the member’s request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance, has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of application and agrees to serve four additional years in the Air Force from the date of request are eligible to transfer unused educational benefits to family members. Since the applicant served on active duty since 11 September 2001, he was entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in his own right and was otherwise eligible to transfer said benefits to his dependents, provided he met the prescribed active duty service commitment (ADSC) of four years. According to NGB/A1Y, the applicant has qualifying service for Post-9/11 benefits. In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, the ADSC shall not apply to an individual who fails to complete their service agreement due to discharge or release from active duty or the Selected Reserve for a physical or mental condition, not a disability that did not result from his or her willful misconduct, but did interfere with the performance of duty. Therefore, had the applicant successfully transferred his benefits, he would have been unable to fulfill his ADSC by the time of his disability retirement date of 25 February 2014. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1Y recommends denial. The Post-9/11 GI Bill program became effective 1 August 2009 as a result of Public Law No. 110-252 signed by the President on 30 June 2008, based on the Post-9/11 Veteran Education Assistance Act of 2008. The Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) to dependents was included as part of the law. Public Law No. 110-252 indicates an individual approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed. Also in accordance with (IAW) Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003, Post-9/11 GI Bill, an individual approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance may transfer such entitlement to the individual’s family member only while serving in the Armed Forces. Both of these documents were published on government-hosted websites prior to the effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Additionally, IAW Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, a member must have at least six years of service in the military service (active duty or selected reserve), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Corps, or Public Health Service (PHS) on the date of approval and agrees to serve four additional years in the military service from the date of election. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the military services widely publicized the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the transferability feature. The DoD developed a special website, hosted by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), to facilitate the transfer of educational benefits. The website became operational on 27 June 2009 for the purpose of accepting transfer of benefits applications. The Air National Guard implemented a communication plan, utilizing the Recruiting and Retention Managers (RRMs), to serve as liaisons between the National Guard Bureau (NGB), DMDC, DVA and the 54 states/territories. The RRM is required to give Post-9/11 GI Bill and TEB program briefings, as well as, advertising the programs via internal media and communication tools. The RRM for the applicant’s former unit indicated that she was not the RRM when the applicant retired; however, the previous RRM advertised and briefed the Post-9/11 GI Bill during that period because she herself transferred Post-9/11 benefits to dependents as a result of the previous RRM’s e-mail advertisement of the program. There is no record the applicant attempted or that he transferred his Post 9/11 GI benefits prior to his retirement, as required by and defined in Public Law No. 110-252 and DTM 09-003. In addition, he was unable to serve the four year obligation as required by DODI 1341.13. A complete copy of the NGB/A1Y evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was completely alienated and isolated at work upon release from the hospital after his suicide attempt. Once the process of his medical retirement began, he received no guidance from his superiors. His unit purposely did not follow the chain of command and protocol during his transition into retirement due to the incurring unfortunate chain of events of his hospitalization. As a result, he was unaware and uninformed about the specific guidelines on transferring his Post-9/11 benefits to his daughter. He retired quietly with no ceremony or honor for his service or for his family. He had little to no chance on being treated like a human being during this tumultuous time; therefore, the option or even the idea for something positive for himself and his family to gain while serving his country was a mere phenomenon. The thought that a briefing should have proceeded prior to his retirement on his military retirement benefits was only a mere thought. Unfortunately, he was not informed of the procedural guidelines in the transference of educational benefits. He reiterated the fact that there was no RRM assigned at his location and the information that should have been available to all military members was likely shared with only a small group of individuals. Furthermore, sharing certain information during this period was not a priority because the wing had been identified for closure. The applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, 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 or injustice. While the applicant contends he received no guidance from his superiors, was uninformed and overlooked regarding the specific guidelines on transferring his Post-9/11 benefits because he was undergoing a MEB, he has presented no evidence to substantiate this contention. In this respect, we note that the TEB program was implemented on 1 August 2009, three years before the applicant’s MEB processing began giving the applicant ample time to secure this benefit. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that he has been treated differently than others similarly situated. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2014-04324 in Executive Session on 28 January 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 October 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1Y, undated. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 June 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 July 2015.