RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01803 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits (TEB) to his son. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not provided TEB options/counseling prior to separation as mandated by DoD 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill. Had he been counseled on TEB, he would have adjusted his separation effective date to 1 Aug 09, that would have allowed his TEB to his son. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 85. On 15 Feb 07, the applicant received/signed his “Preseparation Counseling Checklist. On 11 Jul 08, the applicant submitted his retirement application requesting a retirement date of 1 Jan 09. On 31 Dec 08, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, retired effective 1 Jan 09, and was credited with 23 years, 7 months, and 10 days of active service. As the applicant served on active duty since 11 Sep 01, he is entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits in his own right. 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. The applicant’s personnel records revealed that he applied for retirement prior to the TEB program establishment (15 Feb 07), therefore, he could not be counseled on a program that was not established. He retired 1 Jan 09, and by law and DoD regulations, the TEB program started 1 Aug 09, well after his retirement. Title 38 USC, implies that in order for an individual to transfer entitlement to educational assistance, they must do so only while serving as a member of the armed forces when the transfer is executed. The applicant is ineligible to transfer educational benefits to dependents. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR regarding their opinion on directed counseling and program initiation not comparatively considered in the timeline and facts. Specifically, he highlights/discusses pertinent dates of his DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist, dated 15 Feb 07, retirement effective date of 1 Jan 09, and the 2008 Post-9/11 GI Bill, signed into law on 30 Jun 08. He argues that at no point during a five month retirement transition (11 Jul 08 to 1 Jan 09) was he counseled or advised on educational benefits, much less the Post-9/11 GI Bill Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008, and the transfer of benefits associated with the program. He opines that Congress specifically directed that all eligible members receive preseparation counseling no fewer than 90 days and up to 12 months before separation, for the intent of recruitment and retention per DoDI 1341.13, para 4b/4g. He closes by reiterating that had he been properly informed of his automatic eligibility, earned privilege, and associated options, he would have remained on active duty longer, per the Post-9/11 GI Bill intent, and continued to benefit the Air Force. A complete copy of the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. 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, including his response to the Air Force Evaluation; 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. The applicant’s contention that had he been properly informed of his automatic eligibility, earned privilege, and associated options, he would have remained on active duty longer, per the Post-9/11 GI Bill intent is duly noted. Nevertheless, we note that by law and DOD regulations, the Post-9/11 GI Bill program for the Transfer of Educational Benefits started on 1 Aug 09. The applicant’s 1 Jan 09 retirement occurred six months prior to the DOD authorizing the Military Departments to offer service members the option to transfer educational benefits. 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-2015-01803 in Executive Session on 26 May 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01803 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 12 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Sep 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Oct 15.