RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00432 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military records be corrected to show Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) to his eligible dependent. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his retirement in 2011, he submitted his request to transfer his entire benefit to his dependent. Since it was prior to 1 Aug 13, he would not have incurred any Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for transferring benefits to a dependent. The MilConnect system currently reflects that he did not transfer his benefits and he is ineligible to do so now. His Unit Career Advisor failed to ensure the transfer processed successfully. Due to constant duty absences and lack of knowledge, the Retention Office Manager was negligent in failing to provide proper oversight of the program. He has contacted his Congresswoman for support in resolving the issues. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Oct 96, the applicant entered the Air National Guard. On 15 Feb 11, he signed DD Form 2648, Preparation Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service Members, marking “Yes” in Block 13a, Education/Training. On 31 Mar 11, the applicant was relieved from service and retired effective 1 Apr 11, and transferred to the Reserve Retired List. He was credited with 27 years, 5 months and 12 days of active service for base pay and 27 years, 16 days for retired pay. Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members. 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: 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 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. Because the applicant served on active duty after 11 Sep 01, he was entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits in his own right. As the applicant was eligible for retirement prior to 1 Aug 09, he would not have incurred an active duty service commitment (ADSC) if he had transferred his benefits on the requested date. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1YR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to transfer benefits to his dependent. He did not transfer his Post-9/11 GI benefits prior to his retirement as required by and defined in Public Law No. 110-252 and Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003. No record is reflected in TEB to indicate that he attempted to transfer benefits to his dependent. While the applicant indicated his Retention Office Manager was routinely absent and was lacking knowledge and responsibilities of her duties, the RRM at his former unit indicated she was in contact with him during his out-processing and briefed him on the rules and regulations regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The RRM provided the Montgomery GI-Bill (MGIB) counseling letter, with the applicant’s signature, indicating he was briefed on 16 Feb 11 for the Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Chapter 1606 (MGIB- Selected Reserve) and Chapter 1607 (Reserve Education Assistance Program). The Post-9/11 GI Bill program became effective 1 Aug 09 based on the Post-9/11 Veteran Education Assistance Act of 2008, as a result of Public Law No. 110-252 signed by the President on 30 Jun 08. Transfer of Education Benefits to dependents was includes as part of the law. Public Law No. 110-252, section 3319(f)(1) states in part, that “an individual approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the armed forces when the transfer is executive.” DTM 09-003 – Post-9/11 GI Bill, 22 Jun 09, (reissued 14 Sep 11) attachment 2, paragraph 3.g.1 states: “Time for Transfer. An individual approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section may transfer such entitlement to the individual’s family member only while serving in the Armed Forces.” Both of these documents were published on government-hosted websites prior to the effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the 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 became operational on 27 Jun 09 for the purpose of accepting transfer of benefits applications. The Air National Guard implemented a communication plan, utilizing the RRMs, to serve as liaisons between NGB, DMDC, DVA and the 54 states/territories. The RRM is required to give Post-9/11 GI Bill and Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) program briefings, as well as, advertise the programs via internal media and communication tools (Facebook, print-ads, and newsletters). The complete A1YR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days. On 12 Nov 15 [sic], the applicant responded that he was disappointed in the NGB/A1Y Advisory recommendation to deny his transfer request. He unfortunately did not make a “print screen” copy of the MilConnect system indicating his request had processed and his dependent would be entitled to receive his transferred benefits. He has since learned that the process relies on the Retention Officer Manager (ROM) to physically follow-up with a secondary transaction in order to keep the process flowing to completion. If the ROM fails to complete the required steps in the allotted timeframe, the transaction times-out or cancels out of the system. He knows of an individual at his old unit who had a similar experience with the same ROM who handled his case and failed to follow up with the secondary transaction to allow the process to flow through properly. Fortunately, this individual had printed a screen-shot and her eligibility was restored. He signed the counseling document under the presumption that his online transfer request transmitted thru the MilConnect system and had been accepted. Had the ROM checked the system at the time he signed the counseling document, she would have noticed something had gone wrong and that his transfer request had not been accepted. He feels the ROM failed to do her part in ensuring his transfer request had processed successfully. He asks the Board to consider all factors regarding how the retention office operations and not base their decision solely on the fact that he signed a counseling document. He needs assistance in reinstating TEB eligibility as the financial loss of approximately $107,000 will be devastating. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely, 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 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 National Guard 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. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00432 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1YR, dated 14 Oct 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 15.