RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03344

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be approved to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) without incurring an additional 4 year service commitment.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Despite being on orders multiple times between 1 Aug 2009 and 1 Aug 13, he did not receive counseling regarding the transfer election deadline.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 Feb 84, the applicant initially enlisted in the Air Force Reserve.

On 19 Sep 84, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 22 Sep 92, he commissioned in the Air Force Reserve.

On 26 Feb 05, the applicant was retirement eligible.

On 30 Sep 16, the applicant was relieved from his Reserve assignment and transferred to the Retired Reserve awaiting pay at age 60.  He was credited with 23 years, 3 months, and 18 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:

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial indicating that although the member did not receive the information in a personal message or briefing, it was available through various channels.  In addition, the member has yet to formally request the transfer of his benefits to his dependents in milConnect.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

On 22 Jun 09, DTM 09-003, states that the USAF is responsible to inform Reserve Component members of the TEB election deadline. 

Post-9/11 GI Bill with the opportunity (not entitlement) to transfer unused benefits to dependents was a highly anticipated piece of legislation.  

Summer 09, articles started appearing in every military related web site in the country.  One sample can still be seen at http://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0409_gibill/, Link to U.S. Department of Defense website discussing Post-9/11 GI Bill.  This contains articles explaining the programs, rationale for the programs, opinions and videos as well as additional links to: Transferability Process, Transferability Application, Transferability Policy, Transferability Fact Sheet.

In addition, there were articles in the Readiness Management Group (RMG) Newsletter, HQ ARPC web page, AFPers – the forerunner to MyPers, containing program description as well as checklists and “How to Process”.   This included guides along with complete program information, ARPC NOTAMs, Lt Gen Stenner’s email to all reservists in Oct 09 encouraging enrollment and transfer.

In Jun 13, a podcast reminding reservists of the approaching end of the prorated service commitment opportunity.  Eight ARPC Cadre teams traveled to Guard and Reserve UTAs and IMA Training Assemblies throughout the country to present briefings.  Each team briefed 6 sessions of 50 to 100 people each specifically on Post-9/11 GI Bill.  This is a potential audience of 100,000 members.

To grant relief would be contrary to the established criteria in the law and of DoD Instruction.  However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, the record should be corrected to show that the Air Force Reserve accepted his request to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits and no 4 year service commitment is required. 

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues the AFPC/DPTT opinion does not include DoDI Enclosure 2, 4. Secretary Concerned, (4v), May 31, 2013 requirements stating “Direct that all eligible active duty Service members and members of the Reserve Components be made aware that they are automatically eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance upon serving the required active duty time as outlined in section 3311 of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”  He argues that this did not occur in his situation. 

He states that he did not have direct pre-separation or release from active duty counseling on Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.

He also states that he was not informed that there was a requirement to apply for a TEB by August 2013.  

In support of his response, the applicant provides a letter to the board (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 in judging the merits of the case; 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 did not receive direct counseling on Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and that he was not informed that there was a requirement to apply for a TEB by August 2013, other than his own assertions, he has presented no evidence to indicate that he was somehow miscounseled by Air Force officials or that there was error on the part of the Air Force.  Ultimately, the transferability feature of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, was well publicized and the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that an error on the part of the Air Force prevented him from acting to secure this important benefit when he could have done so.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 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-2015-03344 in Executive Session on 13 December 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03344 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Aug 15, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memoranda, ARPC/DPTT, dated 24 Nov 15 and 
  5 Apr 16.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 7 Oct 16.

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.