RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03023 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was misinformed about the benefit opportunity/eligibility which was not properly presented. He attempted to apply for the benefit on 1 Dec 09 and again on or about 1 Jun 10; however, he did not received notification that the form was not completed properly. He had a previous Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for an overseas assignment until 1 Nov 10; otherwise, his retirement date would have been 1 Aug 10. However, he did not receive any communication that his application was disapproved or rejected. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and Electronic Mail (email), dated 17 Jun 13. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Jul 90, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 11 Jul 10, the applicant completed 20 years of active duty service. On 24 Feb 10, the applicant applied for a retirement date of 1 Nov 10. At the time of his application, his Date of Separation (DOS) was 24 Mar 11. The applicant’s High Year of Tenure (HYT) was 12 Jul 14. On 31 Oct 10, the applicant was relieved from active duty, with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement: sufficient service for retirement. He retired on 1 Nov 10. IAW Directive-Type Memorandum (DIM) 09-003: Post-9/ 11 GI Bill, dated 22 Jun 09: “Any member of the Armed Forces on or after 1 Aug 09, who, at the time of the approval of the individual's request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and … (3) Is or becomes retirement eligible during the period from 1 Aug 09, through 1 Aug 12, and agrees to serve the additional period, if any, specified in paragraphs 3.a.(3)(a) through 3.a.(3)(e) of this attachment…(c) For those individuals eligible for retirement after 1 Aug 09, and before 1 Aug 10 1 year of additional service is required.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends approval, effective 29 Dec 09. The applicant applied on two occasions, 30 Dec 09 (denied on 2 Feb 10) and 21 Jun 10 (denied on 28 Jul 10). Because there was nothing in place during these applications for a member to provide (validate) the email address at which they could be reached, it is probable the member did not receive notification and therefore could not complete all requirements to be approved for TEB. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Sep 13 for review and response. 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 error or injustice. Although the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends approval stating that it is probable the member did not receive notification and therefore could not complete all requirements to be approved for TEB, we disagree. In this respect, we note that the applicant states that he applied for the TEB in Dec 09 and then again in Jun 10, and both were disapproved. However, given that his first application was denied causing him to submit a second application, we are not persuaded that he did not receive notification that the form was not completed properly. As such, it is our opinion that he did not exercise due diligence in ensuring that the second TEB application was properly submitted and completed prior to his retirement. Additionally, we note that DoD policy, in effect at the time of the intended transfer required members who were retirement eligible after 1 Aug 09 and before 1 Aug 10 to incur a one year ADSC in order to transfer the Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to their dependents. Therefore, even if we agreed with the OPR to correct his record to show that he elected TEB on 9 Dec 09, considering the applicant retired on 1 Nov 2010; he does not meet the one year ADSC requirement to qualify for the TEB. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence that he was denied rights to which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03023 in Executive Session on 1 Jul 14 and 11 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 27 Jun 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13. 1 2