RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 


IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01300 

COUNSEL: NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His official records be corrected to show he is eligible for thePost-9/11 GI Bill Transferability of Educational Benefits (TEB). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was never informed his request needed to be completed priorto his retirement. All he was told was to go to the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) website to apply. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant retired from the Air National Guard on 15 May 10. 

For the first time in history, service members enrolled in thePost-9/11 GI Bill Program are able to transfer unused 
educational benefits to their dependent spouses or children.
Any member of the Armed Forces, active duty or Selected Reserve,
officer or enlisted who, on or after 1 Aug 09, is eligible forthe Post-9/11 Bill, has at least six years of service in the 
Armed Forces on the date of election, and agrees to serve4 additional years in the Armed Forces from the date of election 
can transfer their unused Post-9/11 benefits to their dependents(Title 38 USC, Chapter 33, § 3319(b)(1)). Title 38 USC,
Chapter 33, § 3319(f)(1) adds that the transfer of such 
entitlement can only be done while serving as a member of thearmed forces when the transfer is executed. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application aredescribed in the letter prepared by the Air Force office ofprimary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

NGB/A1PS recommends approval, basing its evaluation of a 
memorandum from NGB/A1YR. NGB/A1YR contacted the RetentionManagement Office (ROM) at the applicant’s former Wing. The ROM 
stated the Post-9/11 GI Bill informational briefings were givento each squadron, but the applicant’s squadron did not receivetheir briefing until 2 Oct 10, two months after his retirement. 
In addition, the applicant never out processed through the ROM,
thereby missing the GI Bill separation briefing. The ROM also 
stated the Post-9/11 GI Bill information was posted in the Wingpublication explaining the program, but nothing pertaining to 
eligibility post retirement. A web address was also given forfurther information on the benefits. 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, isat Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Jun 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office(Exhibit D). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided byexisting 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 themerits of the case. While we note the comments of NGB/A1PSindicating the applicant’s squadron did not receive the Post9/11 GI Bill Informational Briefing until after the applicanthad retired, we also note the applicant never out-processedthrough the Retention Office Manager (ROM), where he would havelikely received the information necessary to make an informedelection regarding his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. Therefore,
in view of the fact the applicant failed to complete his outprocessing, 
we are not convinced his failure to elect to 
transfer his benefits to a dependents is the result of an erroron behalf of the Air Force. Therefore, in the absence ofevidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend grantingthe relief sought in this application. 
2 



4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has notbeen shown that a personal appearance with or without counselwill materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorablyconsidered. 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; theapplication was denied without a personal appearance; and theapplication will only be reconsidered upon the submission ofnewly discovered relevant evidence not considered with thisapplication. 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR DocketNumber BC-2012-01300 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 13, under theprovisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 May 12, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 12. 

Panel Chair 

3