IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 June 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220005991 APPLICANT REQUESTS: •Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) to his children •personal appearance before the Board (video/telephone) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: •DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) •DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data) •Memorandum Authorization to TEB •MilConnect TEB print out FACTS: 1.The applicant states, in effect: a.He wishes to transfer one month of his post 9/11 GI Bill education benefit fromthe entire allocation made to each of his children. He wants to complete this to ensure each of his children receive the education benefit. b.His intention with TEB of his post 9/11 GI Bill education benefit was always toprovide this incredible benefit to his children equally. Each of his children were born, during his time of active duty service, and therefore eligible prior to his termination of service. c.He was not directly informed that his separation would change the eligibility of hischildren to receive TEB. The wording from the MilConnect website did not outline this, and it is only vaguely referenced in his letter from the Manpower Data Center, dated 15 January 2015. d.He would have certainly changed his TEB allocation to ensure each child had atleast one month allocated to maintain eligibility for the education benefit had he realized they would no longer be eligible, upon his separation, (all were visible on the latest review prior to his separation - not printed, no record at that time). e.Hence, upon learning this, and of the process for requesting a change, he ishumbly asking that his children all be eligible for at least one month of TEB. He is willing to appear before the Board to ensure he has provided all necessary information and context of his request but defers to the Board about whether this was necessary or help in this instance. 2.The applicant's service records contain the following documents for the Board'sconsideration: a.DA Form 61 (Application for Appointment), which shows on 12 November 2002,the applicant applied for appointment as a reserve commissioned officer. DA Form 160-R (Application for Active Duty), which shows on 12 November 2002, the applicant applied for active duty as a commissioned Army Reserve officer. b.DA Form 61 which shows on 1 May 2003, the applicant applied for appointmentas a reserve commissioned officer. c.A memorandum for the applicant from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command,dated 30 May 2003, appointed the applicant as a reserve commissioned officer. d.DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) shows the applicant wasappointed as a Reserve commissioned officer and completed the oath of office, on 30 May 2003. e.DA Form 71 showing the applicant was appointed as a Regular Armycommissioned officer and completed the oath of office, on 19 May 2007. f.Orders Number 063-0257, published by the U.S. Army Installation ManagementCommand, dated 4 March 2019 shows the applicant was released from active duty, effective 31 May 2019. g.A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows theapplicant was honorably released from active duty on 31 May 2019 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). He completed 12 years and 12 days of active duty service and was released for completion of required active service. h.On 1 June 2019, a memorandum from the U.S. Army Human ResourcesCommand (HRC) appointed the applicant as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of lieutenant colonel. i.On 23 September 2019, Orders Number D-09-922716 issued by the U.S. ArmyHuman Resources Command, discharged the applicant from the USAR, effective 20 September 2019. 3.The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's consideration: a.DD Form 93 dated 3 February 2018, which shows the names and dates of birth of his children. b. A letter from the Manpower Data Center, dated 12 June 2015, which states theapplicant was eligible to transfer his unused Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his immediate family. The letter further states family members could not be added to his transfer request after he separated from the service; however, separated members can still edit, transfer months, and revoke transferred months on a transfer request that has already been submitted. His request was approved on 24 June 2013 with 36 months transferred to his eldest son . c. A MilConnect print out, which shows one of his children () had 36 months of benefits beginning on 24 June 2013 and his second child and spouse had 0 months of benefits. 4.On 19 November 2022, the Chief, Education Incentives Branch, U.S. Army HumanResources Command (HRC) provided an advisory opinion for the Board'sconsideration, which states, in effect: a.They recommended disapproval of the applicant's request to waive the Post 9/11GI Bill TEB service obligation. The Post 9/11 GI Bill is a servicemember's benefit; however, TEB is a retention incentive requiring an Additional Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) calculated from their TEB request date. It is always the servicemember's responsibility to know their TEB ADSO period and the date they will complete their requirement, called the Obligation End Date (OED). To transfer the Post 9/11 GI Bill to dependents, an individual must be on Active Duty or in the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009; have at least six years in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status; and have no current negative action flag (i.e. height and weight flag, Army Combat Fitness Test/Amy Physical Fitness Test failure flag), commit to the ADSO, and transfer benefits to the dependents through the TEB website. All must be transferred before the servicemember separates or retires. Public Law 110-252 makes no provisions for waiving this requirement. b.HRC did not recommend administrative relief based on the following: (1)Soldiers earn the Post 9/11 GI Bill for their use because of their Active Dutyservice; however, the ability to transfer it to their eligible dependent(s) is neither a reward for service or a transition benefit, but a retention incentive (e.g. much like a reenlistment bonus) requiring the commitment to add and then fulfillment of the mandatory, by-law, 4 year ADSO. Furthermore, the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB program is an integral part of the Army's talent management initiative. Consequently, the Post 9/11 GI Bill transfer incentive was included in the statute for the express purpose of recruitment and retention. (2) On 24 June 2013, the applicant requested the transfer of 36 months to his son (date of birth ) but not to other dependents: his spouse, his daughter (date of birth ) and his daughter (date of birth ). His TEB request was approved on 25 June 2013 by HRC Education Incentive Branch with a TEB service obligation until 23 June 2017 (4-year TEB service obligation). The applicant did not transfer to any other dependent before his discharge from the U.S. Army on 20 September 2019. (3) 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, DoD, and Department of Veterans Affairs 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. This information was available to the applicant prior to his discharge on 20 September 2019. (4) Because the applicant had not transferred at least one month to his other dependents before his discharge from the U.S. Army, he cannot make these dependents eligible for TEB, while in a discharged status. Changes to the number of months allocated to dependents can be made at any time, to include once a Soldier leaves military service, provided the Soldier allocates at least one month of benefits to the respective dependent prior to separation or retirement. If the Soldier fails to transfer at least one month to a dependent, the Soldier may not transfer to that dependent after leaving military service. 5.On 19 January 2023, the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant to offer him anopportunity to respond. On 29 January 2023, the applicant responded stating inpertinent part: a.He appreciated the time and effort taken to review and prepare his application forpresentation to the Board. He also wanted to voice his appreciation for the thoughtful opinion rendered by HRC. As he provides his respectful request to the Board to reject the advisory opinion in part or in whole, he requests the Board consider his circumstances; an honorably discharged servicemember looking to offer the same benefit justly earned through completion of the TEB service obligation, to all of his previously eligible children. He discovered his TEB benefit was locked onto only his first-born only after his separation and with great shock and disappointment that he could no longer transfer this to his other children. His request is for the Board to consider a recommendation to the Secretary of the Army to permit a transfer of one month's educational benefits from his eldest child to each of his other eligible children. This authority is provided to the Secretary under Title 38 United States Code (USC), section 3319(a)(1) and his children's eligibility under Title 10, USC, section 1072(2)(d). b.Paragraph 1 of the advisory details a disapproval recommendation to waive thePost 9/11 GI Bill TEB service obligation. He respectfully does not understand the context of this disapproval as he did not seek to waive a service obligation. He apologized to the Board for any confusion in that regard. To his knowledge, as outlined in paragraph 2b of the advisory, he met the service obligation for the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB. c.Paragraph 2a of the advisory details the intent of the Post 9/11 GI Bill and theTEB. His retention beyond his TEB obligation date, 23 June 2017, as paragraph 2b states, service as evidence that this indeed serve the stated intent of "The Army talent management initiative." His singular goal is to be able to transfer this earned benefit to all of his children who were eligible prior to his resignation from Army service. d.Paragraph 2b includes the date of his initial TEB request, birth dates of hischildren, and perceived lack of any further action on the applicant's part before his discharge from the U.S. Army, on 20 September 2019. It is therefore clear when he first embarked on this transfer of benefits, he had only one child. He would like to share with the Board he received notice of his TEB request approval in a DoD Manpower Date Center correspondence, dated 12 January 2015. At the time, he had two children and his spouse, as are seen on his listed beneficiaries. His printout reflects 36 months of benefits going to his son. There is no indication in the TEB acknowledgements section that his listed beneficiaries would not be considered active beneficiaries of this benefit on separation from service. Furthermore, there is no detail of a requirement to allocate at least one month of benefit to maintain eligibility after separation of service. The milConnect website also contained Frequently Asked Questions containing 20 questions. At the time, he was only able to print the top sheet due to HTML formatting issues, and therefore he elected to copy/paste the remainder of the FAQ test. This has been kept in his filing cabinet for reference ever since. He would call attention that there is no question and answer addressing changes in eligibility for this benefit on separation from service. He shares these as a demonstration of the information space contributing to his working knowledge of the TEB process when embarking on this process. He submits this provides important context in his address to the subsequent paragraph in the advisory opinion, paragraph 2c. e.Paragraph 2c asserts "A Soldier should not be granted relief based onunawareness of the law, program rules, or procedures unless they left the service during the implementation phase (first 90 days) of the program. The author further details "The Army, DoD, and Department of Veterans Affairs 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" and indicates the information was made available to him prior to his separation from service. He respectfully challenges this assertion. He will not argue the existence of a campaign that in execution never reached him as an individual Soldier. In his challenge to the assertion, he would first share a functional example of effective communication that reaches every individual Soldier, before inviting Board members to consider their personal knowledge and experiences with the TEB service transfer process. He will ask Board members to consider the information environment provided in the system of record on 12 January 2015, as per enclosures 1 and 2. He will also provide the Board additional framing of the information environment from currently available communications regarding the Post 9/11 GI Bill, specifically exploring the "public campaign plan" and assertion it includes the "subsequent transfer of education benefits." Lastly, he would provide a brief summary and counter-point applying the logic from the advisory opinion in defense of his position not of unawareness, but limited, obfuscated information. f.When considering examples of effective communications reaching every Soldier,all Soldiers might easily consider the communications and process dedicated to the annual update of the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) form and DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data). He submits the frequency and attention these documents received from HRC demonstrates a highly effective communication campaign. In great contrast, the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB process carries few required actions to following requests and not prior to separation. A "comprehensive public campaign" on the "subsequent TEB" certainly should be integrated formally into separation processing, especially since it relates to the otherwise unknown one-month allocation provision located in Title 38, USC, section 3319(f)(1). The advisory opinion does not detail any specific effort or elements of the campaign to incorporate review of this important statute when separating from service. g.He respectfully asks current and former active duty servicemembers on theBoard to consider personally how they first learned of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, the TEB process, and specifically the one-month allocation requirement for beneficiary eligibility prior to separation of service. He would likewise ask the Board members to consider if they agree there had been a meaningful execution of a "comprehensive campaign that generated major communications..." that informed Soldiers of this important nuance found in Title 38, USC, section 3319(f)(1). Perhaps it would be valuable if examples of the "major communication" from the campaign were made available both to the Board and himself. h.He would share that a simple search using "Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB" results thefollowing top result with the official Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) website. He encouraged Board members to consider reviewing the VA website as evidence of the absence of critical information regarding the one-month allocation requirement for beneficiary eligibility prior to separation of service. There is no alert, warning or caution to be found. The website instead focuses on prompting the opportunity and availability to family members and provides reassurances in situations such as divorce, which have clear implications for beneficiary eligibility. The website further details, "Once you leave active duty, you can still provide a future effective date for when the TEB can be used, change the number of months transferred, or revoke the TEB by submitting a written request to the VA through milConnect. He finds this to be obscuring and misleading of the precise critical elements within Title 38, USC, section 3319(f)(1). i.To summarize his commentary surrounding paragraph 2c, he would point out thatthe advisory opinion details a caveat to the recommendation not to grant relief "based on unawareness of the law, program rules, or procedures unless they left during the implementation phase (first 90 days) of the program," prior to referencing the "comprehensive public campaign." Dates for the campaign were not provided but seem critically relevant. The logic implication is that Soldiers during the "implementation phase" may not have had the necessary awareness of the "law, program rules, or procedures" prior to the information campaign, and therefore not responsible for this information. To apply this logic to his situation requires an agreement that this information campaign effectively reached individual Soldiers, including the applicant, such that no reasonable or acceptable terms to demonstrate an "unawareness of the law, program rules, or procedures" might exist. He asserts that as he has earned his Post 9/11 GI Bill and met the obligation to transfer this to his oldest son, they are not determining whether this benefit should be available, bur rather how to make it available to our Soldiers earning this benefit. He submits his error may be best classified not as unawareness, but rather misinformation. He certainly did not act out of negligence or ignorance of known available information. Rather he submits he was working with obfuscating information in a passive information environment. Boiled down to an empiric model for clarity, a signal sent does not equal a signal received. He studied the signal available at the outset and did not receive any signal of a changing information environment. He will anecdotally add that in his initial inquiries prior to submitting his application to the Board, he spoke with a VA Education department employee who told him he was not alone with this problem. He suspects that is correct though this is a limited conjecture and not an assertion he had any further evidence to support. j.On a more humanistic note, he finds the tone of paragraph 2c to subversivelysuggests personal negligence on his part. As a veteran, as a physician, as a father, and as an American - he respectfully comments that this paragraph is offensive to read, and he further conjectures this would not be included if this process involved in-person dialogue. If his error was found to be one of unawareness, he submits this was not due to negligence but rather obfuscating communication lacking clarity regarding restrictions and rules surrounding this earned benefit. k.Paragraph 2d gets to the crux of the applicant's request. Truly, he alone cannotallocate one month of his previously active beneficiary children in his discharged status. As the advisory opinion relates to his singular request of the Secretary of the Army, he offers there was no information of the requirement to make this critical change while on active duty and certainly not during his out processing prior to his separation from service. Had there been any signal, he certainly would have acted immediately. He is therefore requesting the Board consider recommending to the Secretary, to allocate one month of his Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB to his previously eligible dependent children so that they might have the same educational benefit opportunity that is currently limited to his first-born child. This is his request as a loving father who served his country honorably. l.He appreciates the note that his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits are still available, albeitlimited to his first born child. He hopes the Board will view his singular plight favorably. He likewise appreciates the print out of scholarship opportunities. He offers his sincere appreciation and respect for the process. 6.The applicant provides the following documents, with his rebuttal to the advisoryopinion, for the Board's consideration: a.A milConnect printout entitled TEB, which shows the names of his dependentsand shows his son with 36 months of benefits and his other dependents with zero months of benefits. b.A letter from the Manpower Data Center, dated 12 January 2015, which states hehad been approved to TEB to his immediate family. It further shows his son with 36 months of benefits. c.A printout from milConnect showing Frequently Asked Questions, which isavailable for the Board's consideration. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found therelief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record ofservice, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensiveand standard review based on law, policy and regulation. The governing regulationprovides that Soldiers may increase, decrease, or revoke months to an eligibledependent at any time as long as at least one month is transferred to the dependentbefore the Soldier leaves the Armed Forces. Upon review of the applicant’s petition,available military records and Human Resources Command advisory, the Board concurred with the advisory official finding on 24 June 2013, the applicant requested the transfer of 36 months to his son, but no other family member. The Board agreed the applicant had not transferred at least one month to his other dependents before his discharge from the U.S. Army, and could not make those dependents eligible for TEB while in a discharged status. The Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant relief in this case. 2.The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitabledecision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve theinterest of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 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. Microsoft Office Signature Line... 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. Public Law 110-252, as amended by Public Law 111-377, identified the qualifications to receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill, one of which was that the service member must have performed active service on or after 11 September 2001 in order to be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. a. 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. b. A Soldier may only transfer to eligible family members. To be considered an eligible family member the spouse or child must be enrolled in the DEERS. Children lose eligible family member status upon turning age 21 or at marriage. Eligible family member status can be extended from age 21 to age 23 only if the child is enrolled as a full-time student and unmarried (verified by DEERS). Once the benefits are transferred, children may use the benefits up to age 26. 3. 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. 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. b. Has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or service in the 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. 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 service or 20 qualifying years of Reserve service. 4. AR 621-202 (Army Educational Incentives and Entitlements) paragraph 4-15 states Soldiers may elect to transfer their Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to their spouse, one or more of their children, or a combination of spouse and children through the TEB website in the milConnect portal at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/mil-connect or http://milconnect.dmdc.mil. Only dependents listed as eligible in the TEB website may receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit. TEB is neither an entitlement nor a transition benefit but was specifically identified by statute as a tool for recruitment and retention of the career force. The ability to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit was created as a recruitment and retention incentive for additional service within the Uniformed Services. Soldiers may increase, decrease, or revoke months to an eligible dependent at any time as long as at least one month is transferred to the dependent before the Soldier leaves the Armed Forces. Once a Soldier leaves service, the Soldier may not transfer benefits to dependents who had not received at least one month while the Soldier was on active duty or in the SELRES. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//