RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-01342

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be removed.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She revoked transferred benefits shortly after applying for TEB.  No information was provided that the benefit and the service commitment (which, when signed for, was conjoined) are not conjoined, and revocation only applied to the benefit.  The injustice placed on her and her child stems from vague and deceptive guidance that was left to her sole interpretation.   This caused suffrage by forceful demands of continued service against her will and health, based on misleading and disingenuous verbiage used in MilConnect. 

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides a supporting letter from her commander, a personal statement and TEB Acknowledgments.
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a currently serving Air Force captain (O-3).  

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-2306, Voluntary Education Program, dated 13 August 2010.  Attachment 9, Chapter 33, Post-9/11 GI Bill Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA):

A9.2. Program Description and Purpose. The Air Force Post-9/11 GI Bill Program carries out DoD policy that implements the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Post-9/11 GI Bill Program (also known as Chapter 33 benefits). The Program offers increased educational benefits to veterans who served on or after 11 September 2001 and a transfer program that supports Air Force recruiting and retention. 

A9.3. Applicability. Applies to military personnel of the following components: Air Force active duty, the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard (Active, Reserve and Guard). The Post-9/11 GI Bill is effective 1 August 2009.

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.  The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) records show the applicant applied for TEB on 8 July 2021.  The application was approved with a service obligation to 7 July 2025.  In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2670 AFGM 2020-03, Total Force Development (6.11.15.4.), revocation of transferred benefits does not cancel the service commitment.  On 16 March 2022, Air Force Personnel Center technicians informed the applicant that revocation of transferred benefits does not remove the associated ADSC. Additionally, the applicant submitted and was disapproved for a service commitment waiver. Lastly, the “Message from Your Service Component” on MilConnect reads:

“DO NOT apply and obtain approval for TEB unless you are willing to complete the associated Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC).  Revoking transferred benefits will not revoke the ADSC, even if benefits have not been used.  An ADSC waiver allowing members to separate or retire from active duty is NOT equivalent to having transferred benefits permanently “vested” with dependents.  Members forfeit transferred benefits if the associated service obligation is not complete and the application will be rejected (disapproved).”

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.  Revocation of transferred benefits does not remove the associated service commitment.

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 21 June 2022 for comment (Exhibit D).  The applicant responded on 11 July 2022, indicating at no point did she receive counsel on the true meaning behind the terms and conditions of the TEB before signing.  There was no requirement to speak to the education office, first sergeant, chief or her supervisor/command regarding the stipulations associated with the TEB.  For any other instance in which a service member may obtain an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), the member is required to speak to an agent regarding the stipulations which they are about to agree to.  She was never advised that a revocation of the TEB only implies to the revocation of the educational benefits, not the service commitment.  It is noted that some service components will be able to revoke benefits and forego the service obligation if no dependents have used the entitlement.   In regards to consideration for her service commitment waiver, she followed the instructions provided and confirmed her dependents had not utilized TEB, thus she was not indebted by the recoupment of any funds.  She was further advised to include a memorandum from her senior commanding officer concurring with the ADSC waiver.    

It is an injustice to expect service members to single-handedly navigate through a contractually binding agreement without assistance from counsel, advisors, or the governing program agent.  It appears the Air Force has recognized this fallacy as well, given that the TEB application process has now moved onto the myFSS platform.  The misfortune of timeliness in transparent communication should not be a burden that she or her son should carry in the form of a four-year service commitment.  Moreover, she signed up for something that she was not eligible to receive.  In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2670, Total Force Development, her statutorily obligated regular Air Force service time ended in 2019, leaving her ineligible for TEB until six years later after having served as a regular Air Force service member.     

The complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was 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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case.  However, 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.  Therefore, the Board 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 evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, 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-2022-01342 in Executive Session on 12 July 2022 and 2 August 2022:

, 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 13 May 2022.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP3SA, w/atchs, dated 13 June 2022.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 21 June 2022.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 11 July 2022, received 21 July 2022.

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.