RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03522 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits (TEB) to his dependent. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was improperly counseled on his educational benefits during his retirement out-processing. The sergeant that gave the briefing was a temporary education officer and told him that the process could be completed in their office and would be taken care of in due time for his retirement. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a signed “Montgomery GI Bill Retirement/Separation Counseling” form indicating that he was counseled on 25 Oct 12. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Air National Guard in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6) effective 1 Dec 12. According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the member applied for TEB at any time. The applicant had qualifying service for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and met all other eligibility criteria to transfer the benefit to his dependent. Had he made the transfer, he would have incurred no active duty service commitment (ADSC) obligation with TEB approval. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1Y recommends denial. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, 31 May 13, Enclosure 3, paragraph (f)(1), states that an individual may not add family members after retirement or separation from the Uniformed Services. After contacting the applicant’s former unit, the Retention Office Manager (ROM) stated that she recalls briefing the applicant regarding his Post-9/11 GI Bill and TEB to ensure that he understood the requirements for transfer to his dependents. She does not know why he did not get his TEB request completed at that time or prior to retirement. The ROM also did a data verification with the Force Support Squadron and found no evidence to show that the applicant attempted to transfer his Post 9/11 benefits to his dependents. The applicant did not transfer his TEB prior to his retirement as required by and defined in Public Law No. 110-252 and DTM 09-003. Additionally, the applicant signed the "Montgomery GI Bill Retirement/Counseling" form with the ROM, indicating that he understood the requirements that needed to be met prior to retirement. A complete copy of the NGB/A1Y evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation, was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicant states, that the ROM had only been in her current position for a short amount of time, being that she changed her AFSC multiple times in her career. He understands that he signed the letter, but during this meeting, he mentioned to the ROM that he had limited to no access to the computer or web based military sites. At this time his CAC card access was revoked and his security clearance was temporarily suspended. In this regard, this is the reason he asked the ROM if he could do the process in her office or receive some sort or assistance in conducting the transfer. He believes that there has to be some record or evidence that would show his limited computer access in the last few months of his career. Taking into consideration the conditions at the time of his retirement, all he asks is that he be allowed to transfer his benefits to his son. A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we note the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation and understand that he may have had limited access to the web-based programs, he has failed to provide any evidence that he made an effort to transfer his benefits prior to his retirement. In this regard, the applicant acknowledged that he understood the requirements to transfer his benefits when he signed the "Montgomery GI Bill Retirement/Counseling" form; however, he provides no documentation or indication that he attempted to transfer or reengage with his ROM or any other level of authority on completing the TEB process with or without CAC card access. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the board recommends the requested relief be denied. 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-2014-03522 in Executive Session on Tuesday, 14 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03522 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 14, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Memorandum, NGB/A1Y, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Dec 14.