RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02267 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational benefits to his dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He assumed a 4-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) on 4 January 2010. On 23 March 2011, he was notified that he was non-selected for promotion and would be retained until his eligible retirement date of 30 June 2013. According to Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003: Post-9/11 GI Bill dated 22 June 2009, Attachment 2 paragraph 3(a), a service member who has at least 10 years of service and is precluded by either standard policy or statute from committing to four additional years, and agrees to serve the maximum time allowed under such policy or statute, is an eligible individual. His record is in error or unjust because he served the maximum amount of time under such policy or statute and his retirement from active duty precluded him from serving the entire ADSC. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, DTM 09-003: Post-9/11 GI Bill and various other documents related to his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s Total Federal Active Military Service Date is 22 June 1993. On 6 January 2010, the applicant signed the Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits Statement of Understanding, and agreed to incur a 4-year ADSC. In a letter dated 23 March 2010, the applicant was notified that he was not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). However, the letter stated he would be retained on active since he was within 2 years of qualifying for retirement on 30 June 2013. On 30 June 2013, the applicant retired after serving 20 years and 9 days on active duty. His narrative reason for separation is “Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service or Time in Grade.” Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability: Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) who meets Post- 9/11 GI Bill eligibility requirements and: * Has at least six years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on the date of election and agrees to serve four additional years in the Air Force from the date of request, regardless of the number of months transferred, or * Has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on the date of election, is precluded by either Air Force policy, DoD policy or statute from committing to four additional years (HYT, MEB/TDRL, etc.) of service and agrees to serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. The applicant was properly approved for TEB; however, because he was not selected for promotion, he was unable to fulfill his previously agreed upon Transfer of Education Benefits ADSC to 4 January 2014. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 9 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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 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 the rationale expressed 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 requested relief. 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 this application in Executive Session on 14 July 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02267 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 June 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 14 July 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 September 2014. 1