RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00924
				COUNSEL:  NONE
				HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of 
Educational Benefits (TEB) to his dependent.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unaware of the TEB benefit while going through the 
retirement process.  He would have been eligible for TEB without 
any obligation.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 August 2010, the applicant was relieved from active duty 
and retired on 1 September 2010, in the grade of master sergeant 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Vol Retirement: Sufficient 
Service for Retirement).  He served 20 years, 3 months and 
15 days of active duty service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  DPSIT states the applicant’s 
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 16 May 
1990.  According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) 
application, there is no record the applicant applied for TEB, 
nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) 
according to the Right Now Technology regarding TEB (to include 
his eligibility for the program).  Based on the applicant’s 
TAFMSD, he would have incurred a one year Active Duty Service 
Commitment (ADSC) from the date of the TEB request. 




There is no record in DMDC the applicant applied for TEB; 
therefore, no eligibility for the program could be established, 
as the law/regulations cite the “date of request” as the date on 
which the appropriate service obligation would be established.  
Without a request, no eligibility can be determined and no TEB 
application can be approved.  The applicant made no effort to 
contact the TFSC or the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to 
confirm his ineligibility for the TEB program.

The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the changes to the Post 9/11 GI Bill in 
August of 2009 were not communicated efficiently to all branches 
of the service.  The terms of this benefit were never discussed 
at any out-briefings that he attended prior to his separation 
from the Air Force.  Never once was he told that he met the new 
requirement of service time for the benefit.  The DoD changed 
the eligibility for benefits in August of 2009 – if he had not 
met the eligibility requirements - he may have opted to stay on 
active duty for whatever amount of time required in order to 
secure this benefit.  He was deployed for approximately four 
months during his last year of active duty, he was the 
Production Superintendent for the 1st Fighter Wing - 94th AMU, 
Langley Air Force Base with a serious amount of responsibility 
for security and safety for this country, and yet somehow, he 
was supposed to have found the time to peruse any and all DOD 
documents that may or may not have explained this one benefit.  
This is absolutely an injustice.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of 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 or injustice.  We 
note there is no record the applicant applied for TEB or that he 
inquired with the TFSC regarding the TEB.  Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2014-00924 in Executive Session on 20 February 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 February 2014, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 1 April 2014.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 September 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 October 2014, w/atchs.