RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02297

XXXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational benefits to his dependents.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was retirement eligible on 1 May 2011 [sic], and required a 2-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) to transfer education benefits (TEB) to his dependents.  The Education office informed him that he did not require an additional 2-year ADSC because met all qualifications to TEB since he was already serving a 3-year ADSC for Critical Skills Assignment Incentive Pay (CSAIP), which began on 23 April 2010.  His initial attempt to TEB was rejected and when he questioned the Education Office about the rejection, he was miscounseled when they informed him that two additional years were required after he completed 20 years of service.  Subsequently, he extended his enlistment for 2 months to obtain 22 years of service.  However, when his second application was also rejected, he contacted the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) who informed him that the Education Office misinterpreted the policy and an additional ADSC had to be established specific to TEB.  Had he been properly counseled he would have timely continued with the additional steps (statement of understanding) necessary to TEB.  The TFSC recommended he submit an application to the Board.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Federal Active Military Service Date is 23 April 1991, and he became retirement eligible on 23 April 2011.

According to AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, dated 13 August 2010, for those members eligible for retirement after 1 August 2010 and on or before 1 August 2011, two years of additional service from the date of request is required.

According to DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, on 23 April 2010, the applicant reenlisted for three years for the purpose of CSAIP, extending his ADSC to 23 April 2013.

According to AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force (REGAF)/Air Force Reserve (AF Reserve)/Air National Guard (ANG), dated 3 May 2012, the applicant extended for a period of 2-months for the purpose of retirement.

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) TEB Service Member History printout, the applicant submitted requests to TEB on 16 June 2011, 4 September 2012 and 10 April 2013. The aforementioned requests were all rejected, with reject reason “R” which denotes “contact the service representative to resolve status.”

The applicant served on active duty since 11 September 2001; therefore, 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.  Had the applicant elected to transfer his benefits when he was retirement eligible (23 April 2011), he would have incurred a two-year ADSC, which he would have been able to fulfill prior to his retirement on 1 May 2013.

On 1 May 2013, the applicant retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) and was credited with 22 years and 8 days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends that when he submitted his initial TEB application, he qualified under Post-9/11 GI Bill guidelines.  DMDC records show the applicant initially applied for TEB on 16 June 2011.  His application was rejected on 5 July 2011, because he did not have the required retainability for approval.  In accordance with AFI 36-2306, the applicant would have incurred a 2-year ADSC from the date of his request (16 June 2013).  The applicant retired effective 1 May 2013.  Without retainability and a signed statement of understanding, eligibility for the program cannot be established.

A complete copy of the DPSIT evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 October 2015, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We note the office of primary responsibility recommends denial indicating there is no evidence the applicant obtained the required retainability to TEB.  However, we disagree.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, the Board majority believes that relief is warranted.  In this respect, the Board majority notes the applicant states that he was counseled that he did not require a separate 2-year ADSC to TEB since he was already serving a 3-year ADSC for CSAIP.  When he realized he was miscounseled and that a separate ADSC to TEB was required his application was disapproved because he did not have the required retainability and therefore could not sign a statement of understanding.  It appears that through no fault of the applicant he was not properly counseled regarding the steps necessary to TEB to his dependents.  Furthermore, the Board majority does not find it reasonable that he would have knowingly elected not to pursue use of this important entitlement given that the applicant’s established ADSC at the time was later than that required to TEB.  Therefore, in the interest of justice the Board majority finds the evidence is sufficient to warrant the requested relief.  Accordingly, the Board majority recommends the applicant’s record be as set forth below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 23 April 2011, he elected to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to his dependents.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02297 in Executive Session on 5 April 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to grant the application.  ---------- voted to deny, but did not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2015, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 20 July 2015 
  w/atch.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 October 2015.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.