RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01898 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He requests his retirement date be changed from 1 July 2009 to 
1 September 2009 in order to gain eligibility for the Post 9/11 
GI Bill and its provisions to transfer educational benefits (TEB) 
to a dependent. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His retirement date was driven by the needs of the Air Force and 
not his own. His retirement date was established without any Air 
Force program counseling or consideration of the impact it would 
have on his eligibility for the TEB. He attempted to change his 
retirement date while on active duty, but was advised he did not 
have sufficient reason. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, retirement orders, ARPC Factsheet on the AFBCMR 
process, a leave statement, and two letters of support. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 22 April 1983. He was progressively 
promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6) effective 1 August 2002. 

 

On 27 February 2009, the applicant voluntarily requested to 
retire effective 1 July 2009. On 2 March 2009, the Air Force 
approved his request to retire effective 1 July 2009 and, on 
3 March 2009, issued retirement orders. He was honorably 
discharged from active duty on 30 June 2009 and retired effective 
1 July 2009 in the grade of colonel. He served 26 years, 
4 months, and 5 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the law and guidance 
concerning the Post 9/11 GI Bill transferability option clearly 
states that a member must be on active duty in order to apply for 
TEB. The applicant requested voluntary retirement to be 
effective 1 July 2009 taking into consideration that he would be 
selected for assignment on 9 July 2009. 

 

The effective date of the Post 9/11 GI Bill was 1 August 2009 
and, in order to apply for the option to transfer benefits the 
member had to be on active duty on 1 August 2009. The applicant 
having voluntarily requested to retire 1 July 2009 was not 
eligible for the option to transfer his GI Bill benefits. 

 

On 9 July 2009, the Air Force issued policy allowing a one-time 
extension of retirement dates from 1 August 2009 to 1 September 
2009 so members could apply for the option to transfer their GI 
Bill benefits 1-31 August 2009. Members who were not eligible 
for the one-month retirement date extension were those with a 
Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) established by law, who declined 
a Permanent Change of Station (PCS), temporary duty (TDY), or 
training, or whose 1 August 2009 was based upon enlisted High 
Year of Tenure (HYT) policy. The applicant had already retired 
1 July 2009, so this one-time one-month policy did not apply to 
him. In addition, if he had requested a 1 August 2009 retirement 
instead of 1 July 2009, this one-time extension from 1 August to 
1 September 2009 would not have applied to him because he retired 
in lieu of a 9 January 2009 assignment selection date (ASD). 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. DPSI states that the Department of 
Defense (DoD) issued a regulation, Directive Type Memo (DTM) 09-
003 (reissued 10 September 2010), that authorized a servicemember 
that had an approved retirement date after 1 August 2009 and 
before 1 July 2010, to participate in the transfer of benefits 
without incurring additional service obligation. However, the 
transfer of benefits must be accomplished while serving as a 
member of the Armed Forces. 

 

DPSI indicates that the applicant has the Post 9/11 GI Bill for 
his own use but is not eligible to participate in the Post 9/11 
GI Bill transfer option since he was not serving as a member of 
the Armed Forces on or after 1 August 2009. To approve the 
applicant’s request would violate Title 38, United States Code, 
Chapter 33, Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 
and DTM 09-003. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSI evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He believes the Air Force did not adequately advise and make 
provisions for him to be eligible for the TEB. Given the 
circumstances of the establishment of his retirement date, his 
good faith attempts to change it, and the timing of the 22 June 
2009 OASD DTM prior to his 1 July 2009 retirement, he contends 
there was Air Force responsibility, opportunity, and process that 
would have allowed him to change his retirement date to 
1 September 2009 and make him eligible for the TEB. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. We note the applicant’s assertion that he suffered 
an injustice when he was denied changing his retirement effective 
date from 1 July 2009 to 1 September 2009 in order to take 
advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB; however, he has not 
provided sufficient evidence to support that he was treated any 
differently than other members in a similar situation. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-01898 in Executive Session on 11 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01898: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 15 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Dec 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair