IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011498 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011498 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ______________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011498 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an exception to policy (ETP) to transfer his unused education benefits to his spouse under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 2. The applicant states, during his medical evaluation board (MEB), he was not given the option to transfer any of his education benefits. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 2005. 2. The applicant was honorably discharged on 27 February 2013. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was credited with completing 7 years, 8 months, and 19 days of net active service. His narrative reason for separation was disability, severance pay, non-combat (enhanced), meaning he was separated in accordance with the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). 3. During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion, dated 7 April 2016, was obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command recommending disapproval. The advisory official stated: a. On 9 June 2011, the applicant was eligible for TEB at his six year point in service. He would have needed to extend or reenlist to commit to the four-year TEB service obligation. He did not request TEB during this timeframe. b. On 11 Sep 2012, the applicant was enrolled in the medical disability process through the IDES. Because he had six but less than ten years of service and was in the IDES process, any TEB request on/after this date would require an ETP through his unit to Army G-1 Enlisted Professional Development Branch to allow him to extend or reenlist to commit to the four-year TEB service obligation. He did not request TEB during this timeframe. c. The applicant stated he was not given the option to request TEB; however, every Soldier may access the TEB website and request TEB. d. On 14 December 2012, the physical evaluation board (PEB) convened, found the applicant unfit for duty, and formally counseled him on being found unfit for duty. Therefore, any TEB request submitted on or after this date would be rejected because any ETP request for him to extend or reenlist would be rejected by Army G-1. If the PEB changed the determination to fit for duty at a later date, he would have returned to duty and could have requested TEB. e. On 27 February 2013, the applicant was discharged with a 10% medical disability and $42,595 in severance pay. 4. On 27 April 2016, the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant to afford him the opportunity to respond to its contents; however, no response was received. REFERENCES: 1. Public Law 110-252, as amended by Public Law 111-377, identified the qualifications to receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Public Law 110-252 established legal requirements on the transferability of unused benefits to those members of the Armed Forces who were serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009. 2. On 22 June 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) established the criteria for eligibility and transfer of unused education benefits to eligible family members. The policy limits the entitlement to transfer education benefits to any member of the Armed Forces on or after 1 August 2009, who, at the time of the approval of his or her request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and: a. Has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election and agrees to serve 4 additional years in the Armed Forces from the date of election; or b. Has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on the date of election, is precluded by either standard policy (service or DOD) or statute from committing to 4 additional years, and agrees to serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute, or c. Is or becomes retirement eligible during the period from 1 August 2009 through 1 August 2013. A service member is considered to be retirement eligible if he or she has completed 20 years of active duty or 20 qualifying years of reserve service. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request to transfer his unused education benefits to his spouse under the TEB provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill was carefully considered. 2. The DOD, VA, and U. S. Army conducted extensive public campaigns that generated communications through military, public, and social media venues. The information was published well in advance with emphasis on the criteria. The applicant was on active duty when the program was implemented in August 2009. He continued on active duty until his separation on 27 February 2013. This was more than sufficient time to obligate himself to additional active service and to request transfer of his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his spouse. 3. The requirements for transferring Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits are set in law. A change to the law is not within the purview of this Board. Based on the foregoing, the applicant has not shown an error or an injustice. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011498 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011498 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2