RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03977 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 21-month extension he incurred on his current enlistment in order to qualify for the Post 9/11 GI Bill transfer of education benefits (TEB) be voided. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Post 9/11 GI Bill Benefits came into effect on 1 Aug 09, the exact month/year he had four years of retainability on his current enlistment. At the time the Post 9/11 GI Bill came into effect there was not a lot of solid information with regards to transferring education benefits to dependents. He did not feel confident in the information that was out there to make an educated/safe decision with regards to the pros and cons that are associated with making such a significant decision. He has since transferred Post 9/11 benefits; however, he does not think that he should have had to extend to do so. He realizes the considerable amount of time that has passed since the commencement of the Post 9/11 GI Bill (1 Aug 09), and when he submitted his application to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents (19 May 11). The reasons for this time span is due to (but not limited to) a significant temporary duty (TDY)/deployment schedule (hence being away from his home location of education subject matter experts) In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter from a member of his commander’s support staff. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant. On 19 May 11, the applicant applied for the Post 911 GI Bill to transfer his education benefits to his children, thereby incurring the required retainability. 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 B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states the applicant provides no evidence of error or injustice on the part of the Air Force. Retainability requirements were well publicized through print and video media. Furthermore, the retainability requirements have not changed since program inception. The applicant finally chose to transfer benefits to his dependents two years later and obtained the required retainability. It is unreasonable and highly unlikely the applicant is just now coming to the understanding of the retainability requirements. The Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force guidance is clear on the retention requirements and that the commitment starts on the date the member requests TEB. Members who have more than six years service but are not yet eligible to retire must agree to serve four additional years in the Air Force from the date of the request, regardless of the months transferred. The Air Force, in implementing its guidance, developed a communication plan that used the Air Force Personnel Center Commander and the Education and Training Sections at each installation to serve as spokespersons to communicate the Post 9/11 GI Bill transfer-to-dependent program using internal media, internal communication tools, and external trade publications. There were various news articles about the Post 9/11 GI Bill; most noted the requirement to be on active duty on the 1 Aug 09 effective date of the Post 9/11 GI Bill to be eligible to transfer benefits. Some articles mentioned that service members on active duty or in the Selected Reserve could transfer benefits. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 Nov 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 that 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 relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2011-03977 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11.