RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01157 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He always intended to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents; however, a car accident in Dec 13 impacted his ability to execute his intent. Upon release from the hospital and after his return to duty in Apr 14, he once again remembered that he needed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependent. When he tried, he was unable to do so because he did not have the required retainability. He tried to reenlist, but the Assignment Availability code (AAC) 37 restricted him as he was pending a Medical Evaluation Board. In Sep and Nov 14, he was informed via MilPERS, he would be able to transfer his benefits because he was being medically retired. In Mar 15, after receiving his medical retirement orders, he was informed he could not transfer them. He argues that he has been through enough with recovering from a serious accident, injuries and trying to return to duty to finish his career and now after all of that, he was medically retired. In support of his request, the applicant provided a narrative summary and copies of MyPers discussion thread. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Oct 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 2 Dec 13, the applicant was in a sever car accident that resulted in numerous traumatic injuries. He was hospitalized through Apr 14. On 25 Aug 14, the applicant initially applied for TEB. On 25 Sep 14, the applicant’s request to TEB was rejected based on the fact he did not have the required retainability nor did he sign the TEB Statement of Understanding. On 11 Mar 15, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be permanently retired under the provisions of 10 USC 1201. On 28 May 15, the applicant was medically retired and credited with 21 years, 7 months, and 7 days of active service. 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: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While the applicant tried to obtain the required service retainability, an Assignment Availability Code 37 (Medical Evaluation Board) restriction his action. The applicant is ineligible for TEB because he could not agree to serve four additional years with application approval. Without retainability and a signed Statement of Understanding (SOU), eligibility for the program cannot be established, as the law/instructions cite the date of request as the date on which the appropriate service obligation would be established. In accordance with DoD Instruction 1314.13, Enclosure 3 and AFI, 36-2649, Voluntary Education Program, members must commit to an additional four years of service from the date of request. Because the applicant was medically retired, he is ineligible for TEB approval. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT 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 9 Jul 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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-2015-01157 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01157 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 20 Apr 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 15.