RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01196 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to his dependents. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 5 Jul 10, he transferred his educational benefits to his dependents, making sure each dependent was awarded three months to “lock them in.” He confirmed via the Department of Defense (DoD) Information System and all three dependents were properly listed and the action was complete. At no time did he take any actions that would have removed their benefit eligibility. In support of his request, the applicant provides an affidavit and a timeline of events. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired in the grade of chief master sergeant effective 1 Jun 11, after serving 27 years, 3 months, and 18 days on active duty. 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. DPSIT states the applicant retired effective 1 Jun 11. Since 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 33, Section 3319 (f)(1) states that “an individual…may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the armed forces when the transfer is executed.” DPSIT finds there has been no injustice to the extent that the service member did not receive adequate counseling as required by law and Department of Defense regulations. The applicant has failed to provide documentation that there was an error on the part of the Air Force. The applicant has not provided adequate justification or documentation to support his claim. The applicant initially applied for the transfer of 18 months to his son, 0 months to his other son, and 0 months to his spouse. The applicant contends that he initially applied to transfer 3 months to one son, 3 months to his spouse, and 18 months to his other son in the TEB system. However, there is no documentation to support this claim. The applicant’s Submit Transfer Request form shows that he designated 18 months to one of his sons. The applicant states that he ensured the on-line transaction was correct. However, in looking at the Submit Transfer Request form at the time of his application, there is no indication that he transferred these months, otherwise it would have showed a begin date and the number of months assigned. The evidence points to the applicant only assigning 18 months to one son. The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the “Submit Transfer Request Form” referred to in the recommendation and submitted as an attachment is not a snapshot of his 2010 actions, but rather a current printout of his status. The “trans end date” of 31 Dec 12 was added by him only after his son completed all of his courses in Dec 12. The dispute is not what the records show now, but that an error occurred after his initial submission on 5 Jul 10. In order for the TEB system to even show his dependents he would have had to populate the list with their names, they do not show up automatically. It was his intent that they all be eligible for benefits. If he only intended for one son to have all the benefits, his would be the only name in the system. It is correct that he did not print out a copy of the transaction immediately after submittal. Printing, storing, and maintaining for perpetuity every automated personnel action ever undertaken is an unreasonable burden and not a requirement. He had every reason to believe his actions were correct and the system to remain accurate. He maintains through the empirical and circumstantial evidence provided that he accurately listed his dependents for benefits in a timely manner and took every reasonable action to ensure the process was correct. The injustice caused by this minor clerical error has a significant financial impact on his dependents. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note the comments of the office of primary responsibility concerning the steps the Air Force took to inform eligible personnel of their ability to transfer Post-9/11 GI educational benefits to their eligible dependents. However, considering the applicant had additional months remaining on his TEB, we do not find it reasonable that he would have deliberately left out his other dependents. Therefore, we find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude the applicant took the necessary steps to transfer his benefits to his dependents. In view of the above, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 Jul 10, he elected to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01196 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2013-01196 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 22 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Apr 13, w/atchs Panel Chair