RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01647 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be approved to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to his dependents. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He retired effective 31 January 2004 before the law was enacted. His dependents are being penalized if he is denied Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) as there is currently no provision for veterans who are eligible themselves to be “grandfathered” for the TEB. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired 1 February 2004 in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7). He was credited with 22 years, 4 months and 21 days of active duty 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 B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. The applicant retired on 1 February 2004. By law and DOD regulations, the program for the TEB started on 1 August 2009. Per 38 U.S.C. § 3319(f)(1), “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 executed.” The applicant is ineligible to transfer educational benefits to his dependents. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by law and DODI 1314.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, and AFI 36-2649, Voluntary Education Program. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT 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 14 September 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 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 Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 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-2015-01647 in Executive Session on 28 January 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 April 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 28 April 2015. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 September 2015.