RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05310
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	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 was not afforded the opportunity or informed of the 
requirement to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill to his dependents 
prior to separating from active duty.  Moreover, he was not 
offered any of the Transition Assistance Program, Yellow Ribbon 
or Pre-Separation briefings.

In support of his request the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Mar 2011, the applicant separated from the Air National 
Guard with 14 years of satisfactory service towards retirement.

Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability:  Any member of the Armed 
Forces (active duty or Selected Reserve, officer or enlisted) on 
or after 1 Aug 2009, who is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air National Guard.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite 
these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/AlY recommends denial.  A1Y states that the applicant did 
not transfer his benefits to his dependents prior to his 
separation date as defined in Public Law 110-252 and DTM 09-003.  

At the time of his separation, he only had 14 years satisfactory 
service towards retirement.  Therefore, a four year service 
obligation would have been incurred, to approve a TEB request.  
Had he transferred his benefits when the Post-9/11 GI Bill 
program first became effective on 1 Aug 2009, he would have had 
to extend his enlistment two years and four months, to meet the 
required service obligation ending 1 Aug 2013.

The complete A1Y evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 Dec 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To 
date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2012-05310 in Executive Session on 12 Aug 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 Nov 2012, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1Y, dated 14 Dec 2012, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 2012. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


2


2