RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00447 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational benefits to his dependents without incurring an additional Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On or about 11 December 2013, with the help of the newly detailed Retention Office Manager (ROM), he applied to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to his dependents. He was told that it would be denied because he failed to apply before 1 August 2013. He and the ROM apparently did not understand or were not aware that an additional ADSC would be in effect after that date. Had he transferred his benefits before August 2013, he would not be required to commit to an additional ADSC. He deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan partially out of a sense of duty and to gain educational benefits for his dependents. Prior to his short notice deployment in January 2013, he made numerous unsuccessful attempts to transfer his educational benefits. The wing ROM position was vacant from July to October 2013 which is the reason the expiration of reduced service commitment options was not well publicized by the wing. He as a commander and his first sergeant were not aware of this change and did not brief his squadron of these requirements. If word of the deadline was announced, it must have happened while he was deployed. He returned from his deployment in April 2013 and was placed on leave. He had his change of command ceremony in June 2013 and there was no Unit Type Assembly (UTA) scheduled for July 2013. The August UTA occurred after the transfer of benefits deadline expired. Basically, he had two working days after his deployment and leave to transfer his benefits. Even if he made this attempt, the wing did not have a ROM assigned, which is required to transfer benefits. He exercised all due diligence that could be expected by a part-time guardsman attempting to transfer his benefits between his deployments. In support of his request, the applicant provides a sworn affidavit. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to his Personal Data System Service History dated 23 December 2014, as of 21 September 2002, the applicant had 20 years satisfactory service towards retirement. According to Reserve Order EK-5720 dated 22 August 2013, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve List effective 31 December 2013. He was eligible for Reserve retired pay at age 60 under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, § 1331. According to his DD Forms 214, the applicant served on active duty from 20 July 2010 to 20 October 2010 for 3 months and 1 day and for the period 20 January 2013 through 21 April 2013 for 3 months and 2 days of active duty. According to AF Form 4406, Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits Statement or Understanding, signed by the applicant on 23 December 2013, he acknowledged that he would incur a service obligation of 4 years. Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members. Subject to the provisions of DoDI 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, the Secretary concerned, to promote recruitment and retention in the Uniformed Services, may permit an individual eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance to elect to transfer to one or more of his or her family members all or a portion of his or her entitlement to such assistance. * If the member 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. Per AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, A9.18.1.4.2, dated 13 August 2010, for those members eligible for retirement on 1 August 2009, no additional service is required. This reduced service commitment option expired on 31 Jul 2013. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/AlY recommends denial. The Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Military Services widely publicized the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the transferability feature. The DoD developed a special website, hosted by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), to facilitate the transfer of educational benefits. The website was operational on 27 June 2009 for the purpose of accepting transfer of benefits application. The Air National Guard implemented a communication plan, using the ROM at each wing to serve as spokespersons to disseminate information to unit members on the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) program using internal media, internal communication tools and external trade publications. The DMDC transfer of benefits website has the feature to track a member's transfer record from the initial request to any changes or modifications made to the request. This feature tracks requests submitted starting from 14 August 2010. After a search was conducted, A1Y found that the applicant requested to transfer his benefit on 6 December 2013. The ROM states that he met with the applicant before his retirement specifically to accomplish the transfer. The ROM briefed the applicant that he would incur a 4-year service obligation for transferring the benefit. The applicant was made aware of the 4-year service obligation when he completed the transfer request in the DMDC database as well as when he completed the Statement of Understanding (SOU) with the ROM. The complete A1Y evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The advisory opinion is based on incorrect information. The Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) states that he claimed to be unaware of the 4-year service obligation that would be incurred if he had transferred benefits. This is not the basis for his request. In fact, he had 32 years of service, had just returned from Afghanistan, was officially told that he was not retained in November 2013, and retired in December 2013. Because he had been non­retained, he could not stay an additional 4 years. The OPR falsely leads the Board to believe that the ROM met with him to accomplish the transfer, contacted NGB/AlY and informed him of a 4-year service obligation to transfer benefits. This misrepresentation of the facts can be verified in the attached email between himself and the ROM. The facts are that the ROM met with him prior to 6 December 2013 and said that he would transfer his benefits. He completed the SOU and signed it. On 6 December 2013, they met again in his office and created a DMDC “milConnect” account and applied to transfer the benefits. The ROM was well aware that he had been non-retained and was retiring. In reading the email one can clearly see that the ROM stated on 14 January 2014 that he would contact NGB to see what was delaying his application to transfer the benefits that he applied for on 6 December 2013. The OPR is incorrect in stating that he was made aware of the 4- year service obligation when he completed the transfer request and when he completed the SOU. He was not aware of this, and from reading his email, one can clearly see that the ROM was also not aware. Additionally, one must question why the ROM would go through completing the paperwork if he was aware of this stipulation. Although he sought counseling on multiple occasions, a series of errors and ignorance of policy prevented him from transferring benefits to his dependents. In further support of his request, the applicant provides an electronic communiqué between himself and the ROM. His complete response is at Exhibit E. 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. The applicant contends that he made numerous unsuccessful attempts to transfer his educational benefits prior to his deployment in January 2013. However, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, he has not provided substantial evidence to show that he made any attempts. The applicant also challenges A1Y’s assertion that he was made aware of the 4-year service obligation. However, the evidence of record clearly indicates he signed the SOU on 23 December 2013, acknowledging that he would incur a service obligation of 4 years. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 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 to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 15 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014- 00447 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 January 2014, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1Y, dated 12 March 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 March 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 April 2014, w/atch.