RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00940 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be authorized Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly denied TEB. While he was mandatorily retired as an officer at the 28 year point, he could have remained in the Air Force longer by returning to the enlisted force. He wanted to return to the enlisted force to remain on active duty to qualify for TEB. His MSD was two months short of qualifying. On 12 May 09, he called the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) National Education Call Center and was told he would be “grandfathered” into the Post-9/11 Bill TEB program because his retirement was mandatory. He called a second time just to be sure, received the same response, and completed a VA Form 22-1990, Application for VA Education Benefits, on 20 May 09, almost immediately after his second conversation with a DVA Education Case Manager. Based upon the incorrect information he received from the DVA, he retired on his MSD as an officer rather than reenlisting. Both his Senator and Congressional Representative signed a letter of support asking for “equitable relief” for the applicant since he “suffered loss as a consequence of reliance upon determination by the Department of eligibility or entitlement of benefits…” based upon Title 38, United States Code (USC) § 503. Please note DoD published its Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-033: Post 9/11 GI Bill, on 22 Jun 09, and the Air Force published AFI 36-2306 AFGMI, Air Force Guidance Memorandum-Post-9/11 GI Bill, on 23 Jul 09, after his inquiries about his eligibility. Therefore, the DVA’s confusion surrounding the implementation of this Bill is understandable. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under Special Order AB-3956, dated 15 Jul 76, the applicant entered extended active duty to attend the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) Preparatory School. On 27 May 81, the applicant signed his Oath of Office as a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force after graduating from USAFA. On 25 Aug 88, the applicant was issued an honorable discharge certificate, and was credited with serving 8 years, 1 month, and 25 days to total active service. Under Reserve Order EK-1466, dated 5 Jan 09, the applicant was placed on the Reserve Retired List in the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective 1 Jun 09. 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: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant retired on 1 Jun 09, two months before the effective date of the TEB Program. In accordance with Public Law 110-252, to be eligible to request transfer of unused education benefits to family members, Armed Forces members must be serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve. The member was never eligible for TEB. A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant submitted an additional personal statement reiterating the contention that his reason for contacting the DVA was to determine if it was necessary to extend in order to qualify for the TEB program, and the injustice stemmed from the inaccurate information he received from the DVA Educational Counselors. The TEB Users’ Manual and TEB Website application did not exist at that time. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. 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. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00940 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence as considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTT, dated 8 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 May 15, w/atch.