RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-02673

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His request to transfer educational benefits to his qualified family members was denied because he was precluded from committing to an additional four years of service.  On 23 May 16, when he applied for TEB, he had over 14 years active duty service and was going through a Medical Evaluation Board.  According to Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment and Extension of Enlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 5.18.2., “Airmen may not reenlist when pending evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).”  On 1 Jun 16, he received notice his application was denied because he could not commit to four additional years and therefore, did not meet the eligibility requirements.

Public Law 110-252 mandates a member must have at least “six years of service and enter an agreement to serve at least four more” for a total of 10 years of service.”  Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, and Air Force Instructions (AFI) 36-2649, Voluntary Education Program, added additional eligibility requirements, but did not state members are eligible if they are already approved and a policy or statute precluded them from finishing the service commitment.

Upon contacting the A1 Service Desk, he was informed the “10 year rule was included in the DoDI/AFI for a policy that would affect all members of a certain grade with certain years of service.”  This information is not written in the DoDI or AFI.  Within an email he received, it stated “transferability was included in the statute for the express purpose of recruitment and retention.”  But neither the Public Law nor the DoDI specifies that TEB is solely for recruitment and retention purposes.

To reject a TEB application for members going through a process that precludes them from committing to four years of service, where willful misconduct was not the cause, goes against the DoDI, AFI, and Public Law.  For members going through an MEB, there is no known result.  They should still be approved and serve the maximum time allowed.

All members are allowed to transfer their benefits per Public Law, and should not be denied while being told TEB “is neither a reward for service nor a transition benefit.”  TEB is an entitlement.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Aug 01, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 25 Feb 17, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge and credited with 15 years, 5 months, and 28 days active service.

On 26 Feb 17, the applicant was permanently disability retired, in the grade of Technical Sergeant, with a compensable physical disability of 60 percent.
  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

The applicant contends he is undergoing an MEB and wants the 4-year service commitment waived to allow TEB approval.  The applicant is unable to secure retainability due to an Assignment Availability Code (AAC) 37 (MEB) restriction.  The applicant is ineligible for TEB because he cannot agree to serve the four years required with application approval.  To be approved, the applicant must meet all eligibility requirements.

Additionally, Defense Manpower Data Center records show the member applied for TEB on 23 May 16, after his AAC was updated on 16 Feb 16.
  
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Feb 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2016-02673 in Executive Session on 28 Sep 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02673 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SA, dated 21 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Feb 16 (sic), 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 regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02673, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.