RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05348 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect he transferred his Post-9/11 Educational GI Bill (TEB) to his dependents effective 9 May 2011. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He applied to transfer his Post-9/11 Gill to his dependents on two separate occasions, 9 May 2011 and 25 June 2012. He was unsuccessful as he did not complete the Statement of Understanding (SOU). He was also preparing to depart to Afghanistan for a 365-day deployment. He received a rejection notice upon his return and then attempted to re-apply in June 2012. His intent was clearly displayed and he requests establishment of his TEB at the original application date of 8 May 2011. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides MYPERS print- out, deployment orders and other supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is active duty serving in the grade of colonel. The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is listed at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. The applicant submitted an application for the Post-9/11 GI Bill on 6 May 2011. An e-mail was sent to the address listed in his application on 9 May 2011 requesting that he sign the Statement of Understanding regarding this TEB. It appears he never followed through with signing the SOU. The e-mail also listed a website that would show him the status of his application. He never attempted to follow up with the Total Force Service Center, which is also listed in the e- mail should members experience problems. Had he contacted the AFPC Service Center, he would have received guidance to sign his SOU. It is clear the applicant simply failed to check each of the acknowledgements at the Department of Defense’s website and click on the button to sign up for the TEB benefits. He submitted the application on 6 May 2011, but failed to sign the SOU. He was sent another e-mail on 3 June 2011, stating that his application had expired. His application is not supported with evidence that he was the victim of an error or injustice. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states during 6 May to 3 June 2011 a rejection notice was sent to his USEUCOM e-mail address. Unfortunately, he did not have access to that e-mail account while being deployed to and returning from Afghanistan. He acknowledges receiving the initial reminder to complete the SOU and failing to accomplish it prior to his deployment; however he did not receive the cancellation until he returned from his deployment in June 2012. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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 available evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission, to include his response to the Air Force advisory, 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim or an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-05348 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 14 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dtd 4 Dec 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 21 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 16 Jan 13.