DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 


DocketNo. 126-17 
DEC 13 2017 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) NAVADMIN 
(3) NAVADMIN 
(4) NPC memo 
(5) DEERS printout ICO 
(6) DEERS printout ICO 
(7) NSIPS Reenlistment History ICO 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed 
enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected 
to establish eligibility to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. 

2. The Board, consisting of                , reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations oferror and injustice on 14 September 2017 and, pursuant to its regulations, 
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence 
ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, naval 
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of 
error and injustice, finds as follows: 

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available 
under existing law and regulations within the Department ofthe Navy. 

b. The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act (Post 9/11 GI Bill, 
Public Law 110-252) was signed into law on 30 June 2008 and became effective on 

1 August 2009. The bill provides financial support for education and housing for service 
members with at least 90 days ofservice on or after 11 September 2001. The act also includes a 
provision for qualifying service members to transfer educational benefits to dependents. General 
descriptions ofthe essential components ofthe new law were widely available beginning in 
summer 2008 but specific implementing guidance was not published until summer 2009. 

c. The Navy's guidance implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill was published by NA VADMIN 
, and NAVADMIN . Under the guidance, "active duty sailors that separate, retire, transfer to the Fleet Reserve or who are 
discharged prior to 1 August 2009 are not eligible to elect transferability." See enclosures (2) 
and (3). 

d. On , Petitioner's son was born. See enclosure (5). 

e. On , Petitioner reenlisted for 4 years. See enclosure (7) 

f. On Petitioner signed a 3 year reenlistment contract. He was prevented 
from signing a 4 year contract, as he would reach 20 years ofservice, triggering High Year 
Tenure service limitations and be involuntarily forced to retire. Petitioner could not transfer his 
education benefits because he did not have sufficient time remaining on his contract. 
See enclosure (7). 

g. On , Petitioner's son . See enclosure (6). 

h. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), Commander, Navy Personnel Command has 
recommended the request be denied. The advisory opinion stated the following: the Petitioner 
reenlisted on and his contract was capped at 3 years dµe to High Year 
Tenure, which was 20 years for an E-6 at the time the Petitioner signed his contract. Although 
the regulation has been changed to allow 22 years for an E-6, this was not the regulation in effect 
at the time ofthe Petitioner's reenlistment. Changing the reenlistment term from 3 years to 4 
years would violate the regulation that was in affect at the time the contract was signed. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence ofrecord, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. The Board carefully weighed the observations 
made in enclosure (4) regarding the regulation's restriction on the contract term. However, the 
Board felt that it was unjust to prevent a service member from transferring his education benefits 
(TEB) when he was willing to serve the additional 4 year obligation but unable to do so based on 
the regulation that was in affect at the time ofsigning his reenlistment. Due to the recent change 
to the regulation, allowing 22 years for an E-6, the Petitioner can serve an additional 4 years of 
service. However, because the TEB request cannot be attached to his contract without violating the 
prior regulation, the Board highlighted that the TEB can be attached to his contract. Because the 
Petitioner's ability to change his contract term, the Board felt that under these circumstances a measure of 
relief is warranted. 

RECOMMENDATION 

That Petitioner's naval record be corr.ected, where appropriate, to show that: 

Petitioner elected to transfer unused educational benefits to his son 
through the MilConnect Transfer ofEducational Benefits (TEB) web application on . 

Navy Personnel Command (NPC) reviewed the Petitioner's TEB application, and it was 
approved on . Petitioner incurred four years additional service obligation. 

Petitioner elected and allocated to his son /18 months and to 
his son /18 months, the transfer ofunused educational benefits through the 
MILCONNECT TEB web application on . 

Upon completion ofthe above changes, COMNAVPERSCOM (PERS 314) will execute an 
approved Transferability ofEducational Benefits (TEB) application reflecting the transfer 
information. 

A copy ofthis Report of Proceedings will be filed in Petitioner's naval record. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval 
Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was 
present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoi is a true and complete 
record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.

5. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for your review and action. 


Executive Director