From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO USN, XXX-XX Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) NAVADMIN 187/09 of 26 Jun 09 (c) NAVADMIN 203/09 of 11 Jul 09 (d) BUPERSNOTE 1780 series (e) OPNAVINST 1780.4 of 2 Mar 15 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Member Data Summary (3) BEAST Service Member History (4) NAVPERS 1070/621, Immediate Reenlistment Contract of 4 Mar 05 (5) NAVPERS 1070/621, Agreement to Extend Enlistment of 2 Jun 09 (6) NAVPERS 1070/601, Immediate Reenlistment Contract of 1 Sep 11 (7) NAVPERS 1070/621, Agreement to Extend Enlistment of 18 Oct 17 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to establish his eligibility to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to his eligible dependents. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 January 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of enclosures (1) through (7), relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record 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 of the Navy. b. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational 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 of service on or after 11 September 2001. The act also provides that qualifying Service members may transfer education benefits to their eligible dependents. General descriptions of the essential components of the law were widely available beginning in summer 2008, but specific implementing guidance was not published until summer 2009. c. References (b) and (c) implemented Navy Transferability policies. These policies encapsulate Transferability eligibility, processing, service obligation, and reference information. Thereafter, references (d) and (e) were promulgated, providing additional guidance to complete the process of transferring education benefits to eligible dependents. Specifically, references (b) through (e) outline the general requirement for members to incur an additional four-year service obligation at the time of election. Additionally, members are directed to periodically check the status of their application. If the request is disapproved, members are required to take corrective action and reapply with a new service obligation date. d. Petitioner’s active-duty service date is 27 July 1998. See enclosure (2). e. Petitioner submitted his Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) application on 30 December 2009. At the time, Petitioner had less than four years remaining on contract. The Service disapproved Petitioner’s TEB application the same day and indicated “service member needs to contact Service Representative to resolve status.” See enclosures (3), (4), and (5). f. Petitioner submitted his second TEB application on 8 October 2013, and the Service disapproved the application the same date and indicated “service member has not committed to the required additional service time.” At the time, Petitioner had less than four years remaining on contract. See enclosures (3) and (6). g. Petitioner submitted his final TEB application on 23 April 2018, and the Service disapproved the application on 26 April 2018 and 19 September 2018 indicating “service member has not committed to the required additional service time.” At the time, Petitioner had less than four years remaining on contract. See enclosures (3), (6), and (7). MAJORITY CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority, concluded that Petitioner’s request warranted favorable corrective action. In this regard, the majority determined that Petitioner met the basic eligibility criteria to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to eligible dependents; however, he failed to complete the required administrative requirements outlined in references (b) through (e) before submitting his TEB application. The majority noted that, had Petitioner been given clear and timely guidance regarding the reasons for his denied application, he would have followed the proper steps to successfully transfer his benefits. Although the proper administrative requirements were not completed by Petitioner, the Board determined that, under these circumstances, a measure of relief is warranted. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: Petitioner elected to transfer unused education benefits to 35-months, through the MilConnect TEB portal on 1 September 2011. The Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-311) reviewed Petitioner’s TEB application, and it was approved on 1 September 2011 with a four-year service obligation. MINORITY CONCLUSION In reaching her conclusion, the minority determined that the Navy Transferability of Post-9/11 GI Bill policies clearly outlined the requirements and procedures to transfer education benefits, and, accordingly, relief was not warranted. Additionally, noted that Petitioner is still on active duty and has the ability to reenlist to meet the eligibility criteria to transfer his education benefits. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s request be denied. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for review and action. Executive Director Reviewed and Approved/Disapproved.