RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00042 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was told he could elect the transfer of education 
benefits (TEB) without incurring an active duty service 
commitment (ADSC). 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
documents extracted from his military personnel records. 

 

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

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force member who 
retired on 1 Jan 11. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate 
office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AF/A1PA recommends denial. The applicant was not eligible 
to transfer education benefits to his dependents without 
incurring a service commitment. In Oct 09, he requested a 
1 Jul 10 retirement; however, based on his 14 Jul 11 ADSC 
related to his permanent change of station (PCS), the 
earliest date he was eligible to retire without a waiver was 
1 Aug 11. His request for retirement and ADSC waiver were 
disapproved on 19 Jan 10. His subsequent appeal to the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) was 


denied. He again applied for an ADSC waiver in order to 
retire on 1 Dec 10. On 23 Sep 10, SAFPC disapproved his 
request, but offered to allow him to retire on 1 Jan 11, 
which he did. Shortly after gaining approval for 
retirement, he applied to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill 
benefits to his dependents on 21 Oct 10. However, his 
application was disapproved because he could not obtain the 
one-year retainability required for the transfer approval. 
The applicant indicates he intended to transfer his benefits 
as early as Oct 09, but his servicing education office 
erroneously counseled him that because he would have over 
20 years of service before 1 Jul 10, he would not require a 
military service obligation. However, he did not provide 
any documentation supporting that contention, and based on 
his earliest retirement eligibility date, the applicant was 
not eligible to transfer benefits without an additional 
service commitment at the programs’s 1 Aug 09 inception. 
Furthermore, his retirement, although based on an alleged 
hardship, was a voluntary action. 

 

The complete AF/A1PA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states due to the issues with the TEB program 
and website dysfunctions he did not submit an application to 
transfer education benefits at the time he was eligible to 
do so without incurring an ADSC. Additionally, he was in a 
catch-22 when it came to making his election. He was told 
he would not incur an ADSC, so he thought he could apply for 
the TEB when his retirement issues were resolved. Had he 
known his ADSC waiver would have been disapproved, he would 
have applied for the TEB in Oct 09 with plenty of time to 
fulfill the requisite ADSC by the time he eventually retired 
in Jan 11. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluation, 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. We note the applicant’s argument in response 
to the Air Force evaluation that he was in a “catch-22” with 
respect to his ability to apply for the TEB. However, other 
than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence that his 
failure to apply for the TEB in Oct 09 was the result of the 
alleged miscounseling. Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2011-00042 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 11, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-00042 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AF/A1PA, dated 28 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair