RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-02140

XXXX X. XXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His application submitted on 31 Jul 13 to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits (TEB) be approved. 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

On 31 Jul 13 he elected to transfer his education benefits to his children wherein he recently found out his election to TEB was denied.  He spoke to Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on 9 Jun 21.  The customer service representative told him it was denied, because he did not sign the Statement of Understanding (SOU) and the representative would open a ticket in response to his query to investigate further.  When he got a response from the service ticket, he was told he also did not have the required retainability.  He retired from Active Duty effective 1 Aug 17 wherein he had completed the required four year commitment.  From Jul 11 through Aug 17, he had three assignments where he had extensions or a two year re-enlistment.  During this time he also had multiple surgeries where he did not have access to any of his accounts.  Due to his multiple extensions and his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) or Permanent Change of Assignment (PCA) he was unable to re-enlist and had to extend his enlistment until his final two year enlistment which occurred on 2 Apr 15.  When he asked his local personnel flight at the time they believed since he was going to be retiring, his final two year enlistment would override the error which he has recently learned was not the case.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force technical sergeant (E-6).  On 1 Aug 17, he retired with 20 years and one day of active service.

The Automated Records Management System (ARMS) does not contain AF Form 4406, Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits Statement of Understanding.

On 3 Sep 13, as noted in the documents provided by AFPC/DP3SA, the TEB application was rejected because he did not secure the required retainability or complete the SOU.

On 21 Nov 13, as noted in the documents provided by AFPC/DP3SA, the applicant was sent a message from the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) that his application for TEB had been  received.  The message further indicated that in order to be approved, he must submit a SOU, and commit to four additional years of service from the date of application that would take the applicant to high year tenure of 30 Jul 17.

According to DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment document Armed Forces of the United States, the applicant reenlisted on 2 Apr 15 for a period of 2 years and 2 months.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SA recommends denying the application.  In accordance with AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, dated 13 Aug 10, A9.18.1.2 and A9.20.1, members must secure 4 years retainability from the date of application and complete and submit the required TEB SOU within the application period.  The applicant reenlisted on 2 Apr 15, 19 months after the application closed.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice on the part of the Air Force.  The applicant did not secure the required retainability or complete and submit the required TEB SOU within the application period.  Additionally, Air Force Personnel Center technicians sent an audit email on 21 Nov 13 informing the applicant his application was rejected, the reason and of the requirement to reapply. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 20 Jul 21 for comment       (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 17 Aug 21.  In his response, the applicant contended the advisory decision did not take into account of any extenuating circumstances.  He cross-trained from 3A071 (Administration) to 7S071 (Special Investigation) with a graduation date of Jul 09 and averaged an assignment change every two years which is very uncommon for an enlisted member.  He includes a list of his last four assignments leading to his retirement in his response.

Due to his constant PCS’s his personnel flight at HQ Office of Special Investigations (OSI) would only allow him to extend and not re-enlist which caused issues in transferring his education benefits.  If the situation is looked at in totality he met the intent and spirit of the policy and completed the mandated four years of retainability even though it was not through one straight enlistment.  Since 09 he had at least four extensions and one two year re-enlistment in order to take him to his retirement date of 1 Aug 17.

He requests the Board take into account the full scope of the situation and how his military career ended since it was an unusual situation where he PCS’d/PCA’d every two years which is extremely uncommon for an enlisted member.  There is no DoD guidance or Instructions that would account for his situation and that is why he is asking for his request to be approved.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SA and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the applicant contends his average assignment change of every two years interfered with his ability to transfer his education benefits, we note his situation is no different than cases of similarly situated members and he has been provided the same fair and equitable consideration as others under the same circumstances.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-02140 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 22:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 14 Jun 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP3SA, w/atchs, dated 19 Jul 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 20 Jul 21.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, w/atch, dated 17 Aug 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.