RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04503 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she transferred 50 percent of her Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits (TEB) to her spouse while on active duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) changed after she applied for retirement and she could not extend her service obligation with benefit transfer after the changes went into effect. Her spouse could not be entered into the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) as a dependent until after 1 Sep 13. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Oct 13, the applicant was released from active duty and retired, effective 1 Nov 13. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described 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 the applicant never applied for TEB prior to retirement. Had the applicant applied prior to retirement, she would have incurred a four-year obligation from the date of application if approved. The applicant initially applied for retirement on 1 Dec 12, but due to an active duty service commitment associated with a permanent change of station she was approved for a 1 Nov 13 retirement. At no time did the applicant contact the Total Force Service Center prior to or after retirement date approval to inquire about TEB. Therefore, there is no evidence of an injustice to the extent that the applicant did not receive adequate counseling as required by law and Department of Defense regulation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jan 14 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. While the applicant argues that she could not extend her service for the purpose of qualifying for the transfer of educational benefits to her spouse, we are not convinced that she is the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note that other than her own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever that would convince us that an error on the part of the Air Force precluded her from qualifying for the entitlement she now seeks. While she argues that a change to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) somehow makes her the victim of an injustice, the burden of proof of an error or injustice rests with an applicant and we do not find her uncorroborated assertions sufficient for us to recommend that relief be granted. 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 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-2013-04503 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 13. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 30 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 14.