RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03811 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits (TEB) to his dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his retirement and during the timeframe from 2009 to 2011, he was never made aware of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and the opportunity to transfer his benefits to his dependents. He believes this was due to his duties, while stationed at the USAF Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base from 2010-2012. These duties caused him to work in environments that resulted in a lack of communication about such benefits. This includes workspaces and locations involving classified programs and systems. Had he been made aware of these benefits he would have certainly taken advantage of the opportunity to transfer his benefits to his children. He is willing to appear before the board and swear under oath as to the statements he has made. Additionally, upon the Board’s request, he can provide a letter from or the contact information for his direct supervisor at that time, to verify the information he has provided above. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal letter outlining his rationale and justification for his request to transfer his GI Bill benefits. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) effective 1 Nov 12. According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the member applied for TEB at any time, nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) according to the Right Now Technology regarding TEB (to include eligibility for the program). The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 11 Jun 84. In accordance with AFI 36-2306, “For individuals eligible for retirement on 1 August 2009, no additional service is required.” Based on his TAFMSD, 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: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. There is no record in the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application that 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 (IAW AFI 36-2306, Attachment 9, A9.18.l.2, A9.18.l.3 and A9.18.l.4). Without a request, a TEB application cannot be approved and eligibility cannot be determined. According to the applicant’s DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist, he indicated that he did desire counseling on the educational benefits of the MGIB or Post-9/11 GI Bill. Had the applicant contacted the education office or the TFSC he would have received the counseling on how to apply for the TEB. If the BCMR feels an injustice has occurred and decides to approve the case, the TEB approval date would be 1 Oct 12, the date his pre-separation checklist was started, with no incurred ADSC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation, with attachment, 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, he would like to re-emphasize that he never received information specific to TEB. The advisory opinion from AFPC concerning his DD Form 2648 indicates he selected "yes", as a desire to receive counseling on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, having at the time no insight that the Post-9/11 GI Bill included an option for TEB, he interpreted this (section 14a on the DD 2648) to mean education benefits for himself. Had this section of the form specifically referenced TEB, or had he been aware of the importance to apply for TEB before retiring, he is certain he would have made it a priority and transferred his benefits. Due to circumstances as outlined above and in his original letter, he missed the opportunity to apply for TEB. He believes his case can be categorized as an injustice and contrary to the intent of the TEB. In this respect, he requests a decision now be made on his behalf, to retroactively initiate and allow him to transfer his benefits. 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 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-2014-03811 in Executive Session on Tuesday, 14 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 14, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 23 Oct 14 w/atch. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 12 Dec 14.