RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01299 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be approved to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to her dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA), she was not required to out-process from the base prior to her 1 November 2011 retirement. As a result, she was not advised of the requirements for Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB). For this reason, she missed the 1 November 2011 deadline to submit her application for TEB. Her status as an IMA prevented her from receiving information on this benefit and resulted in unjust treatment. On 28 November 2011, she attempted to update her February 2010 TEB application which was previously denied because she did not have qualifying Title 10 service; however, she was unable to submit her application as she was already retired. On 12 December 2011, she contacted the Total Force Service Center (TFSC). She was advised by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) they could not assist her and recommended she contact the education office at Bolling Air Force Base who did not respond to her e-mail request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was placed on the Retired Reserve List effective 1 November 2011 in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). On 12 December 2011, TFSC-Denver advised the applicant that her 28 November 2011 TEB request could not be approved because she was retired on 1 November 2011. Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members. 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 was eligible for retirement prior to 1 August 2009, would not have incurred an active duty service commitment (ADSC) if they had transferred benefits on the requested date. 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 B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial. Based on the applicant’s current status and law, the applicant is not eligible to request TEB of her Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, the applicant does maintain the ability to use the benefit. The applicant first requested TEB on 24 January 2010. At that time, the applicant was not eligible due to having only 11 qualifying days toward the benefit and TEB eligibility requires a minimum of 90 days of qualifying active duty days on or after 11 September 2001 at the time of the request. The applicant reached 90 qualifying days on 21 June 2010 at which point she was eligible to request TEB. Because the applicant was retirement eligible on 10 December 2008, a TEB request would have been approved without a service commitment. However, now that the applicant is retired the TEB cannot be approved. A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 September 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01299 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 22 March 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, ARPC/DPTT, undated, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 September 2015.