RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03582 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his 
dependents. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He transferred his benefits to his dependents prior to his 
retirement. He gave each of his five children one month in case 
they attended college. His daughter immediately started school. 
His step-son will attend school in the fall. However, when he 
tried to add months for his step-son in the transfer of 
educational benefits (TEB) system, he noticed his step-son’s 
name was no longer listed. He is unsure why this happened. His 
other children should be added back into the TEB system. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired from the Air Force on 1 April 2011. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. For the first time in history, 
service members enrolled in 38 U.S.C, Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 
Educational Assistance) were able to transfer their benefits to 
their dependent spouse or children. Any member of the Armed 
Forces, active duty, or Selected Reserve, officer or enlisted, 
on or after 1 August 2009, who is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill, had at least 6 years of service on the date of election 
may transfer unused Post-9/11 benefits to their dependents. The 
Department of Defense issued a regulation that authorized the 
Military Departments to offer service members the option to 
transfer benefits. The Secretary of the Air Force determined 
the Air Force would offer the transfer of benefits feature. The 
transfer must be initiated while the member is serving in the 


Armed Forces, which is defined as limited to those serving on 
active duty or in the Selected Reserves. 

 

The applicant initially applied for transfer of 36 months to his 
oldest daughter. He states he set up one month for each of his 
dependents in the TEB; yet, there is no documentation to support 
that contention. An e-mail was sent to the applicant from the 
Total Force Service Center on 19 April 2010, stating that he 
must specify the number of months being transferred. The 
evidence suggests he assigned 36 months to his oldest daughter. 
On 14 August 2010, there was an update of 36 months to his 
oldest daughter. Additionally, the applicant declined 
counseling from the Education Office during his Pre-Separation 
Counseling. 

 

The applicant has failed to show an error on behalf of the Air 
Force. 

 

The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 1 October 2012, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received 
no response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of this case; however, we find insufficient evidence of 
an error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts 
and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based 
on the evidence of record; most notably, that the applicant was 
sent a notice to specify the number of months he wished to 
transfer to each dependent and he transferred 36 months to his 
oldest daughter. Based on the evidence before us, it appears 
the applicant failed to exercise due diligence to insure the 
transfer of benefits was effected as he intended. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 


 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly 
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03582 in Executive Session on 9 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 18 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair