IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 September 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130021793 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his request to transfer his Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits to his family members. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he has additional evidence to support his contention that he was not properly notified/counseled regarding the transfer of his Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits to his family members. 3. The applicant provides a memorandum from the Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 and a copy of his previous case. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120010069, on 3 January 2013. 2. On 1 June 2010, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank of colonel by reason of maximum authorized years of service. He completed 29 years of qualifying service for retirement. 3. The applicant provides a memorandum from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 which states, in effect, that he (the deputy G-1) was the Deputy Commanding General of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command when the transfer of Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits was approved and implemented and he personally attests that he spoke to many U.S. Army Reserve officers and Noncommissioned officers who stated that they had very little information or were having difficulty obtaining information on the program. He goes on to state that the Army failed the applicant and his family and he strongly urges approval of the applicant’s request. 4. In previous cases processed by the Board, information was obtained from the Chief, Enlisted Professional Development Branch, Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, which indicated that although significant measures were taken to disseminate the information to all Soldiers within all Army components during the initial phase of the program, many Soldiers who left the service or started transition leave during the first 90 days of the program were not fully aware of the requirement to transfer benefits prior to leaving military service. 5. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 is described under Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, House of Representatives, 2642. In July of 2008, Congress passed a law for the Post-9/11 GI Bill that went into effect on 1 August 2009. 6. Public Law 110-252 and Department of the Army, G1 Post-9/11 GI Bill Policy, dated 10 July 2009, provides that a veteran may modify entitlements or revoke entitlements among only those family members that were designated to receive transferred benefits prior to separating from the Armed Forces. Veterans who transferred entitlements prior to separation or retirement from the Armed Forces may not add new family members after separation or retirement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s request to transfer his education benefits to his family members has been noted. The program was implemented on 1 August 2009 and the applicant retired 10 months later. 2. The laws and policies governing the transfer of education benefits (TEB) provide that service members must make the election to TEB prior to separation from the service. 3. The Post-9/11 GI Bill was implemented on 1 August 2009 and information pertaining to the transferability of entitlements was disseminated down to education counselors at the installation level and through many public information sites. 4. While the sincerity of the applicant’s and the Deputy G-1’s claim that information on the program was hard to obtain is not in doubt, it appears very unlikely that with due diligence the information could not have been obtained. 5. Additionally, given the fact that the applicant retired 10 months after the program was implemented and the law requires individuals to make the transfer of benefits prior to separation, it would not be appropriate to grant the applicant’s request as it would afford him a benefit not normally granted to those in similar circumstances. 6. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ___x_____ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120010069, dated 3 January 2013. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United States during the Global War on Terrorism. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130021793 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130021793 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1