RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01117 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits (TEB) to his dependents while he was on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not aware of the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB Program until his pre-separation (retirement) briefing on 18 Dec 12, so he could not have applied before then. He has twin children. He had an active duty service commitment (ADSC) of five years beginning 4 Sep 08 from his Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) education, so the ADSC for TEB would have run concurrently. Had he known about the TEB Program, he would certainly have applied. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the regular Air Force, retiring on 1 Oct 13 after 20 years, 3 months, and 29 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. For the first time in history, service members enrolled in the Post-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, on or after 1 Aug 09, who is eligible for the Post-9/11 Bill, has at least six years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election, and agrees to serve four 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 the armed forces when the transfer is executed. Information on this program has been available on the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and Air Force Service Center/MyPers websites since the program’s inception in Aug 09. The fact the applicant didn’t seek out information on TEB prior to his retirement is not the fault of the Air Force. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He reiterates that he did not find out about the TEB Program until his pre-retirement briefing, and he would have applied in 2009 had he known about the program because the four year ADSC would have run concurrently with his AFIT ADSC. Pre-separation counseling is too late for the Air Force to brief members on TEB. The Air Force requires everyone to sign a form acknowledging they are aware of their Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) benefits, but they don’t for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. He was assigned to the Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL) at Kirtland Air Force Base in 2009 and did not receive any information on TEB. Many active duty members at AFRL have advanced degrees including Maters and PHDs, so many times education opportunities are not properly shared or communicated under the assumption that further education is not needed. The advisory assumes Air Force members would know where to look for information on a program they did not even know existed (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 applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-01117 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 12 Mar 13, w/atch. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 13. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 May 13. Panel Chair