RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05219 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 29 Sep 10, she applied to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents. The education office and Military Personnel Flight (MPF) assisted in adding their children to her records. Her spouse’s transfer was successful; however, her transfer action was not reflected in the system. Both applied to have their benefits transferred to their children at the same time because her spouse was preparing for retirement and no Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) would be incurred. Prior to leaving for the Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) she applied to transfer her benefits. Her spouse witnessed her applying on his computer; however, due to a computer glitch there is no record of her application other than the emails to the education office and MPF requesting assistance on adding their kids to her DEERS records. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of statements from her spouse, MPF Supt, and email communiques. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of SMSgt. Her Total Federal Active Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Aug 91. Transferability of unused benefits to dependents: • Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on or after 1 August 2009 who meets Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility requirements and at the time of the approval of the member’s request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance the member meets one of the following: o Has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of application and agrees to serve four additional years in the Air Force from the date of request, regardless of the number of months transferred, or o Has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of application, is precluded by either Air Force policy (e.g., High Year Tenure [HYT]), DoD policy or statute from committing to four additional years of service and agrees to serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute. For those members eligible for retirement after 1 August 2010 and on or before 1 August 2011, two years of additional service from the date of request was required. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a regulation, Directive Type Memo (DTM) 09-003 (reissued 10 Sep 10), that authorized the Military Departments to offer service members the option to transfer benefits. The Air Force, in implementing its guidance, developed a communication plan that used the Air Force Personnel Center Commander and the Education and Training Sections at each installation to serve as spokespersons to communicate the Post-9/ 11 GI Bill transfer-to dependent program using internal media, internal communication tools, and external trade publications. The applicant’s request is not supported by the evidence that she has been a victim of an error or injustice. Without a signed Statement of Understanding (SOU), Total Force Service Center (TFSC) personnel have no idea whether the applicant agrees to the 3 year ADSC that is required with the transfer of benefits. As of the date of this BCMR, the applicant has not reapplied for the TEB. The applicant states that she never received approval to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents. However, had she contacted the TFSC as directed she would have been told she needed to get the required retainability and sign the SOU. The applicant’s spouse stated in his letter that both he and his spouse applied on 29 Sep 10, to transfer their benefits to their children, splitting their benefits three ways across each of their children. They both watched the other complete the TEB; however, neither received a confirmation stating the transfer had been successful. The applicant’s spouse successfully transferred his benefits to his children as noted on his Submit Transfer Request form which reflects 9 months, 10 months, and 9 months to his dependents. Her spouse also received an email confirmation of approval from the TFSC on 28 Sep 10. In addition, her spouse’s Service Member History record reflects a transaction date of 27 Sep 10 with an approval date of 28 Sep 10. While the letter from the Supt, MPF is correct in stating the process of transferring dependents in DEERS, it has no bearing on the confirmation of TEB nor indicates that the applicant’s request had been processed. The applicant states she submitted her application for the Post- 9/11 GI Bill through the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) website in Sep 10. However, all documentation proves the applicant did not do the TEB as noted on her Submit Transfer Request and Service Member History forms. The applicant states in her letter that she “did not think it was odd” that she did not have to sign an ADSC for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Without a signed SOU, the AF has no way to determine if the applicant agreed to the 3 year ADSC. Further, the applicant states that it was her intent to transfer benefits in Sep 10; however, the applicant never got the retainability for the TEB and never signed the SOU. Without the retainability and SOU, the applicant’s intent cannot be determined. If the Board finds there was an injustice to the extent that the applicant did not receive adequate counseling as required by law and DoD regulation, the Board may approve the applicant’s request. The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: When she applied to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her children the program was new and there were many glitches in the process. There were no step-by-step instructions that are available today. The only guidance they received was to go into the system and apply for the transfer. DPSIT stated she should have received an email within 72 hours and signed the SOU; however, she contends that when she applied in Sep 10, the site did not have those instructions posted. Neither her nor her spouse received notification in any form once they submitted their applications for transfer. While DPSIT states her spouse received a confirmation email, that statement is incorrect. The system may show he got a message, but he did not and will attest to that fact. Her spouse is a retired Chief Master Sergeant with over 29 years of service and his word should count for something. The emails referenced by DPSIT do not confirm that an email was sent to her spouse but that the transaction was approved by AFPC. DPSIT states that all the documentation proves she did not submit her application; however, she contends there was a system error. She took what she believed to be the proper steps to transfer the educational benefits to her children. She does not have concrete proof; however, her intent has been clearly shown. Specifically, the emails between the Supt, MPF, education office, and herself are proof of her intent to transfer her benefits to her children. In addition, the memo from the Supt, MPF states the sole purpose in attempting to fix the DEERS situation was to transfer the applicant’s dependents under her records for the purpose of transferring educational benefits. She did not acquire the retainability for the TEB because she was informed that her extension for her promotion was already mandatory. In addition, she was serving in a joint billet and knew her Assignment Availability Code (AAC) 50, which denotes CONUS Maximum Stabilized Tours, would extend her enlistment until the end of 2013. She has since reenlisted until Nov 16. She was informed by a reenlistment technician that serving until 2013 would satisfy the service commitment associated with the TEB. She has not gone back into the system to transfer her education benefits to her children because she believed she had done so in 2010 and re-accomplishing this transfer would have extended her enlistment for an additional 3 years. In further support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her spouse’s Submit Transfer Request form, email communiques and Supt, MPF statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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 an error or injustice. We note the steps the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicates were taken to inform eligible personnel of this new benefit. However, based on the evidence from the Supt, MPF and the Education and Training Section, (spokesperson to communicate the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB program) in support of her request, we find it more likely than not that the applicant was not properly counseled regarding the steps necessary to transfer her benefits to her dependents. We also do not find it reasonable that she would have knowingly elected not to pursue use of this important entitlement. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we recommend the record 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 issues 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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 Sep 10, she elected to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to her dependents. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05219 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 31 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter,SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 14, w/atchs.