RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04008 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her stepson. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After retiring on 1 September 2010, she called to have her GI Bill benefits transferred to her stepson. During that call, she was told that it was too late and that the transfer had to be done while she was still active duty. She attended the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) seminar at Buckley AFB, but does not recall being told the transfer had to occur while she was still active duty. The applicant submits no supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Air Force on 1 September 2010 in the grade of master sergeant/E7. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. Title 38 U.S.C 3323(b)(1) and (2) required the Secretary to provide members information on the Post-9/11 GI Bill and required the Military Departments to provide and document individuals pre-separation or release from active duty counseling on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense and the Military Services widely publicized the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the transferability feature of this specially developed website to facilitate the transfer of educational benefits (TEB). The system was available on 27 June 2009 for the purpose of transferring benefits. The Directive Type Memo and the Air Force Instruction required the transfer application to be made using the TEB website. Members may have had the impression that being active duty on the effective date of the law was sufficient to vest them with the right to transfer benefits at some point in the future. The applicant attended the TAP seminar on 22 January 2009 and indicated on her Pre-Separation checklist she desired GI Bill education counseling. While attending the second TAP seminar on 3 May 2010, she elected to not receive an additional education briefing. The Education Servicing Officer (ESO) from Buckley was contacted and stated that Post-9/11 GI Bill events take place on a regular basis: Bi-monthly briefings are given at the base theater, e-pamphlets are sent to units on base, base-wide briefings are conducted by the regional VA reps, briefings at TAP and briefings at the SNCO Enhancement seminar. Additionally, the applicant was given literature and received a briefing about the Post-9/11 GI Bill at both TAP seminars. There was no error or injustice on the part of the Air Force. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 January 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 that the applicant was not denied the opportunity to transfer her benefits and she has not provided evidence that she was miscounseled. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04008 in Executive Session on 3 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Oct 11. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 28 Dec 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 12.