RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03704

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his step-daughter.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed at the time of his retirement that his Post-9/11 benefits could be transferred to one or more dependents, but the transaction had to take place prior to his separation.  

He did not have any dependents at the time of his retirement.  However, he has since married in 2013 and would like to use his benefits to help with his daughter’s college tuition.  

He was only made aware that an appeal to the board might be possible through a 2015 conversation with a Veterans Affair representative.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 July 2011, the applicant retired in the grade of major (O4).  

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:

AFPC/DP3SA recommends denial.  The applicant is ineligible for the transfer of educational benefits because he had no dependents while serving in the Armed Forces.  In accordance with (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, a family member must be enrolled in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) at the time of transfer to receive transferred entitlement.  Additionally, members may only add new dependents while serving in the Armed Forces.  The member had no dependents to transfer educational benefits to prior to retirement.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

His circumstances are unique and merit special consideration.  While the AFI states the transfer of educational benefits should occur while serving as a member of the Armed Forces, it also states that modifications or revocation must be done through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) after separation or retirement.  He contacted the DVA and was directed to seek relief through the AFBCMR.  

He argues the intent of the AFI is to prevent someone who already has at least one dependent from trying to add more.  He would like to apply the same principle as used with the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).  The SBP has a provision for those that retire without any dependents to defer enrollment until such time as beneficiaries are available and the military member initiates the paperwork.  He has earned, never used, and never had the option of transferring.

He has received $90,000 less in benefits over the course of twenty years that were offered through basic allowance for housing (BAH), permanent change of station (PCS) household goods allowances, and family separation allowance (FSA), as a single officer versus his married counterparts.  The value of these benefits far exceed what he is requesting under the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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 of injustice.  Although the applicant contends he should be afforded the same provisions as offered through the Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) in regards to deferring enrollment until such time as beneficiaries are available, we note the entitlement to benefits are uniquely established by relevant laws and regulations governing those specific programs.  Furthermore, the applicant has presented no evidence that he has been treated differently than those similarly situated.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

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-2015-03704 in Executive Session on 29 September 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 August 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SA, dated 4 January 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 February 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 March 2016.

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.