IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000346 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: 31 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000346 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: 31 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000346 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 correction of her military records to show she transferred her educational benefits to her dependents under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 2. The applicant states she is requesting correction of a clerical/computer error in the TEB to her dependents. She applied and was approved for the benefits years ago. She then went online and transferred the benefits to her daughters. However, during her briefings for transition out of the military (she is retiring in June), she got on the eBenefits site and discovered that this transfer was no longer listed in the education records. She cannot perform the transfer again now, as she is 6 months from retirement. She has contacted the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Education section, as well as information technology (IT) personnel who service the eBenefits website. All of them told her that they do not have the authority to correct this without giving her an additional service obligation. 3. She believes the error occurred either during the change of her name in her records (she remarried in 2013 and changed her name) or in the addition of new dependents in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) (when she added her new spouse and her stepdaughter). The IT staff report they have no way of figuring this out, but that this is likely to have been what occurred. In addition, her VA records are confused, as she has a previous DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in her maiden name, which may have led to some of the conflict. None of the above offices have been able to figure out how the issue occurred, as she knows that she performed the transfer. She has a copy of her initial approval for the Post 9/11 GI Bill, on which she indicated her intention to transfer the benefits to her dependents. She does not have a screen shot of the transfer. She has a doctoral degree, and no intention of using the GI Bill for herself, so her only reason to apply for the GI Bill was for the benefit of her children. 4. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214, with a separation date of 30 July 1992 * VA Form 22-1990 (Application for VA Education Benefits), dated 26 May 2009 * a letter, dated 16 July 2009, from VA, Atlanta Regional Office in Decatur, GA * her marriage license showing marriage on 4 May 2013 * Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 3 December 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is a colonel serving on active duty in the Regular Army as an orthopedic surgeon assigned to B Company, Troop Command at Fort Benning, GA. 2. Item 26 (Remarks) of her VA Form 22-1990, dated 26 May 2009, contains the entry "I intend to transfer my GI Bill benefits to my dependents for use when they are over 18." 3. On 14 March 2016, an advisory opinion was received from the Section Chief, Finance and Incentives Branch, HRC. The HRC official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request to transfer her educational benefits to her dependents under the TEB provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The HRC official stated: a. The TEB is an incentive requiring service calculated from the TEB request date. It is the Soldier's responsibility to know the TEB requirements. Public Law 110-252 establishes legal limitations on the transferability of unused Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. Further, section 3020 of Public Law 110-252 limits eligibility to transfer unused benefits to those members of the Armed Forces who are serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009, have at least six years in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status, and commit to the required service obligation. The U.S. Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum, dated 10 July 2009, requires no current negative action flag (includes adverse action flag), but requires transfer of benefits to the dependents through the TEB website, milconnect.dmdc.mil. All benefits must be transferred before the Service Member separates or retires. b. The applicant had 6 years to research TEB requirements and submit a TEB request via the TEB website but failed to do so. c. The Department of Defense (DOD) Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003 for the Post 9/11 GI Bill Memorandum, dated 22 June 2009, provides the following information: (1) Attachment 2, paragraph 3f (Designation of Transferee) states: "An individual transferring an entitlement to educational assistance under this section shall, through notification to the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, as specified in paragraph 3i of this attachment: (1) Designate the dependent or dependents to whom such entitlement is being transferred." (2) Attachment 2, paragraph 3i (Procedures) states: "All requests and transactions for individuals who remain in the Armed Forces will be completed through the Transferability of Educational Benefits (TEB) Web at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/TEB/." The TEB website's URL is now http://www.dmdc.osd.mil/milconnect. d. The U.S. Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum, dated 10 July 2009, provides the following information: (1) Paragraph 17 (Transferability of Unused Benefits to Dependents) states "For the purposes of transferability, Armed Forces include all active duty service and all Selected Reserve service regardless of branch of service or component." (2) Paragraph 17g(1) (Time for Transfer) states "A Soldier 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." e. The applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement on 17 August 2015 with an effective date of 30 June 2016. She will fulfill her medical service obligation on 30 June 2016 which makes her eligible for voluntary retirement on/after that date. Because she has an approved retirement, she cannot commit to the required 4-year TEB service obligation. She could have made herself eligible for TEB and voluntary retirement if she had requested TEB between 28 June 2009 and 1 July 2012 (could have fulfilled the required four year TEB service obligation). The applicant made herself ineligible for TEB when she requested and was approved for voluntary retirement effective 30 June 2016. f. The applicant submitted a VA Form 22-1990 to the VA for herself (not dependents) on 26 May 2009 and stated in block 26 (Remarks) she intended to transfer her GI Bill benefits to her dependents for use when they were over 18; however, she never followed through with the statement and didn't transfer the benefits to her dependents. As of 26 May 2009, she had two dependent children who were born 9 January 2005 and 20 October 2006. She could have transferred benefits via the TEB website when it became available on 28 June 2009. If she intended to transfer upon her children turning age 18 (in years 2023 and 2024), she would be ineligible to transfer because she would be in retired status at that time. A statement of intention to transfer, but not following through with the necessary action over the course of 6 years, does not fulfill TEB requirements set forth in the U.S. Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum. g. The applicant emailed the HRC GI Bill team on 24 November 2015 stating she had requested TEB to her children several years ago, right after she applied for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. She stated the transfer wasn't reflecting in the eBenefits website and wanted to know how to correct this. In an email response, the HRC GI Bill Team confirmed the TEB Service Representative website didn't show a transfer and asked her for a screen shot of a previous transfer. The applicant responded that she didn't have a screen shot since the transfer was years ago, right after she received the approval for the Post 9/11 GI Bill from the VA. She stated she didn't realize something was wrong until she started her retirement briefings and access the eBenefits website. The HRC GI Bill team informed her that her approved retirement date of 30 June 2016 was a voluntary retirement, not a mandatory retirement date, and made her ineligible for TEB since she could no longer commit to the 4-year TEB service obligation. She was provided contact information for the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to see if they could assist in providing more information to her. The applicant never provided a TEB screen shot. On 14 March 2016, the HRC GI Bill Team reached out to the DMDC GI Bill Points of Contact, stating the TEB Service Representative website didn't show any TEB submission by the applicant and asked if DMDC could provide more information. In response, DMDC confirmed the TEB Service Representative website didn't show any TEB submission by the applicant and no other information was available. h. The applicant stated she had no intention of using the Post 9/11 GI Bill, so she wanted to transfer her benefits to her dependents. Unfortunately, she didn't ensure she transferred via the TEB website and fulfill the 4-year TEB service obligation as required by the U.S. Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum. i. The applicant stated her VA file contained erroneous information due to a brief period in service in 1992 for medical school and a DD Form 214 with her maiden name. An erroneous VA file or a DD Form 214 with a maiden name will not negatively impact the ability of any service member to transfer education benefits to a dependent because the TEB website receives data (sponsoring service member's name, respective dependents' names and dates of birth) from DEERS, not from VA. j. Any written or online request by a service member to the VA to transfer education benefits when not first transferred and approved through the TEB website by the DOD is an invalid TEB request. This is not a clerical or computer error by the VA or DOD, but a failure by the service member to follow policy set forth by the U.S. Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum. When the applicant stated she confirmed the transfer was accomplished on the website years ago and had no reason to check again, this office opines she likely is confusing her online submission (VA Form 22-1990) for her Post 9/11 GI Bill usage, and never followed through with the required online submission through the TEB website. k. The applicant stated something may have happened through DEERS when she changed her name upon marriage or when she added her husband and step-daughter as dependents. The HRC GI Bill Team confirmed the applicant's marriage on 4 May 2013 and she added her step-daughter to DEERS on the same date; therefore, these DEERS actions were well after the 2009 timeframe when the applicant stated she submitted the TEB request in the TEB website and didn't negatively impact TEB. l. A Soldier should not be granted relief based on unawareness of the law, program rules, or procedures unless they left the service during the implementation phase (first 90 days) of the program. The Army, the DOD, and the VA initiated a comprehensive public campaign plan that generated major communications through military, public, and social media venues on the Post 9/11 GI Bill and subsequent transfer of education benefits. Based on previous information, the applicant provided no documentation showing she submitted a TEB request through the TEB website for the years she was eligible, nor did she commit to the required 4-year TEB service obligation. 4. On 15 March 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the above advisory opinion. She did not provide any comments or rebuttal in response. REFERENCES: Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 12-102 was issued on 15 April 2013 to emphasize that all Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB requests submitted and approved on/after 1 August 2013 will incur a 4-year service obligation from the TEB request date, regardless of years in service (except when precluded by either policy or statue from committing an additional 4 years). DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was eligible to transfer benefits to her dependents at any time after 1 August 2009. 2. She contends she had requested TEB years ago after she applied for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. However, research by the HRC GI Bill Team was unable to confirm a TEB submission by the applicant and she did not provide any substantive evidence to support her contention. 3. HRC stated that when the applicant stated she confirmed the transfer was accomplished on the website years ago and had no reason to check again, she likely is confusing her online submission (VA Form 22-1990) for her Post 9/11 GI Bill usage, and never followed through with the required online submission through the TEB website. 4. MILPER Message 12-102, issued 15 April 2013, emphasized that all Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB requests submitted and approved on/after 1 August 2013 will incur a 4-year service obligation from the TEB request date, regardless of years in service (except when precluded by either policy or statue from committing an additional 4 years). 5. The applicant is unable to commit to the required 4-year TEB service obligation because she has an approved retirement date of 30 June 2016. 6. She could have made herself eligible for TEB and voluntary retirement if she had requested TEB between 28 June 2009 and 1 July 2012 (could have fulfilled the required four year TEB service obligation). The applicant made herself ineligible for TEB when she requested and was approved for voluntary retirement effective 30 June 2016. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000346 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000346 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2