RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-00106
		
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) service obligation date be changed from 30 Jan 15 to 12 May 14.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jan 11, he learned from a co-worker he could transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to his two sons.  This co-worker assisted him with the application.  There was no formal instruction on this process and no official briefing.  Additionally, other Guardsmen who had allocated benefits to their dependents told him these benefits were good as long as he completed 20 years of service.

He was assigned to the 111th Fighter Wing (111 FW), Pennsylvania Air National Guard (ANG) until it was closed due to Base Realignment and Closure in Sep 11.  He wanted to complete his 20 years to retain the GI Bill benefits for his dependents, so he transferred to the 177th Fighter Wing (177 FW), New Jersey ANG.  Despite over-manning, the 177 FW allowed the enlistment with the understanding he would retire upon attaining 20 years of service.

When his retirement was approved in Apr 13, he processed through the Retention Office and was asked to sign the Montgomery GI Bill Retirement Separation Counseling form.  There was no actual counseling and no mention of a service obligation date other than 12 May 14.

On 3 Oct 14, he received a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) stating he had not completed his service obligation with the Air Force; therefore, his son was no longer eligible for benefits.  When he called DVA, he learned for the first time he was not supposed to retire until 30 Jan 15.  Because he did not meet his service obligation, he would be required to repay the benefits already provided to his son, totaling $17,840.67.

He consulted with the 111 FW legal officer and was told his personnel file should have been flagged to indicate the service obligation.  As he was applying to retire prior to that date, he should have been required to sign a statement acknowledging loss of benefits.

He complied with the Post-9/11 GI Bill rules of transfer having at least 10 years of service and unable, due to policy or statute, to complete his service obligation.  The BRAC of the 111 FW and the subsequent agreement with the 177 FW, only allowed him to serve until May 14.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 May 94, the applicant enlisted in the 111 FW, Pennsylvania Air National Guard.

On 24 Feb 12, the applicant enlisted in the 177 FW, New Jersey Air National Guard.

On 6 Apr 14, the applicant signed the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Retirement/Separation Counseling form.

On 12 May 14, the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve.

On 3 Oct 14, the applicant received a letter from DVA notifying him of his Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility.

On 3 Oct 14, the applicant’s son received a letter from DVA notifying him of his ineligibility for benefits due to the applicant’s failure to meet his service obligation and the resulting debt of $17,840.67.

On 9 Oct 14, the applicant received a letter from Air Reserve Personnel Center notifying him of service requirement completion and eligibility for retired pay.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1Y recommends granting the applicant’s request, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice.

The applicant may not have been aware of the 4-year service obligation.  While the Retention Office Manager states she briefed the applicant on the service obligation when completing the exit survey and providing the MGIB Counseling form, she could not locate any records or additional documentation regarding the applicant’s TEB request, to include the Statement of Understanding (SOU).  Normally an SOU is signed by the member and submitted to the National Guard Bureau before a TEB request is approved.  She also did not verify his actual service obligation date during counseling.

Additionally, the MGIB Counseling form signed by the member did not indicate a service obligation date.
 
A complete copy of the NGB/A1Y evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a copy of the National Guard Bureau’s response to his Senator’s office, on this subject, which stated the member had been counseled by his Retention Office Manager on 4 Apr 14 regarding his service obligation date.  He disputes this information as 4 Apr 14 was a Friday, and as a traditional guardsman, he would not have been present on that day.  The Unit Training Assembly was not scheduled until 5-6 Apr 14, and these documents were completed and filed prior to that date.  He was not counseled on this subject at all.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, 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.  Sufficient 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 comments, in judging the merits of the case.  We agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Specifically, there is no evidence the applicant was aware of the 30 Jan 15 service obligation date.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown 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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show on 13 May 2010, he was approved to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits (TEB) to his eligible dependents, and on 12 May 2014, he completed the required Active Duty Service Commitment for TEB as required by DODI 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00106 in Executive Session on 8 Jun 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00106 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Record
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1Y, dated 19 Jul 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Aug 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Rebuttal, undated, w/atch.

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