RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04503

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 Education Benefits (TEB) equally to his three dependents.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A lack of personnel support and information about the Post-9/11 GI Bill at his joint duty assignment inhibited his ability to transfer GI Bill benefits while on active duty.

He was not timely informed of the TEB eligibility and the possibility of obtaining a waiver for Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) incurred.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 Jan 93, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the member applied for TEB.

Based on member’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (27 Jan 93), he would have incurred a four year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) with TEB approval.

On 1 Feb 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 20 years, 0 months, and 4 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:

AFPC/DP3SA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

There is no evidence in DMDC the member applied for TEB; therefore, eligibility could not be determined.

In addition, according to the Right Now Technology, he did not inquire with Total Force Service Center (TFSC) personnel regarding the TEB program prior to retirement.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that the conclusion reached by AFPC/DP3SA did not address his original issue - his concern that he was not provided reasonable opportunity to obtain the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB benefits.

He did not become aware of the distinction between the Post-9/11 Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill (for which he was not eligible) until mid-2011.

He states that neither his unit nor the Air Force support agency provided information to him regarding Post-9/11 Bill or TEB.

Additionally, the applicant is aware of cases where Air Force members have had TEB-associated ADSC waived, thus permitting them to retire while retaining the benefits.  The TEB ADSC was the primary reason he chose not to submit a request for the TEB during the mid-2011 timeframe.

The applicant states that if he was informed about TEB sooner, then he would have been able to take advantage of the TEB closer to its initial offering; therefore, reducing the impact to his planned retirement dates.

The applicant’s complete 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.  While the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force OPR.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  The applicant did not apply to transfer educational benefits while he was on active duty and states the TEB ADSC was the primary reason he chose not to submit a request for the TEB during the mid-2011 timeframe.  Other than his own assertions, he has presented no evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force or that he was treated differently than others similarly situated. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2015-04503 in Executive Session on 15 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04503 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SA, dated 17 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Apr 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 9 May 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.