RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01506 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of 
his transfer of education benefits (TEB) be revoked. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He revoked the TEB benefit but the Air Force refused to remove 
the ADSC. When transferring benefits, he signed a statement of 
understanding (SOU) that states “I understand I may transfer up 
to 36 months of my educational benefits to my spouse or children 
or in combination; and I understand I may modify or revoke my 
election at any time.” 

 

No where does it state that the ADSC will remain even if benefits 
are revoked before ever being used. 

 

There is no AF or Department of Defense (DoD) policy or 
regulation that requires the member to serve out the commitment 
after benefits are revoked. Absolutely no benefits were used 
prior to revocation so he has not cost the AF, DoD, or tax payers 
any money at all. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB SOU. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of captain. 

 

On 7 Jan 10, the applicant signed a Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of 
Educational Benefits Statement of Understanding, whereby he 
acknowledged and agreed to a service obligation associated with 
the TEB. 

 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states, the applicant signed 
the SOU and his TEB benefits were approved on 7 Jan 10. On the 
SOU under Section I, SERVICE OBLIGATION, it clearly states that 
the member will incur a service obligation period of four years 
and the ADSC will be updated in the member’s record effective 
from the date of application in the Defense Manpower Data Center 
(DMDC) TEB website. Exceptions applicable to members eligible 
for retirement are also listed. 

 

DPSIT states, based on information reported in Right Now 
Technology (RNT) by Total Force Service Center (TFSC) personnel, 
the applicant was provided with instructions/requirements that he 
needed to accomplish prior to his TEB application being approved. 
More specifically, the requirement to sign a SOU agreeing to the 
obligated service required to participate in the transfer of 
benefits option under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. 

 

When a member applies for TEB on the DMDS website the first thing 
that appears is the Submit Transfer Request, under the members 
personal information is a Message from Your Service Component 
which states: “Please note the following: (1) Do not transfer 
benefits unless you are willing to complete the service 
obligation. While you may revoke your transfer at any time, a 
revocation DOES NOT automatically cancel the associated Active 
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), EVEN IF BENEFITS HAVE NOT BEEN 
USED. (2) AFPC WILL NOT prorate ADSCs for members who have used 
any part of their VA educational benefits.” 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The recommendation to deny his application is based on a flawed 
reading of the facts. It is based on a single line on the SOU he 
signed which reads “While you may revoke your transfer at any 
time, a revocation does not automatically cancel the associated 
ADSC, even if benefits have not been used.” The advisory writer 
chose to focus on the words “does not,” but ignored the important 
qualifier of “automatically.” 

 

The addition of the word “automatically” explicitly implies that 
consideration for removal of the associated ADSC should be given 
if the member makes an effort to have it removed. In the absence 
of a dedicated procedure for removing the ADSC this process is 
that effort. 

 

It would be an injustice to force him to serve this ADSC when the 
SOU specifically states that he may revoke his election at any 
time and his family and he used absolutely no benefits. Since no 


benefits were used and the Air Force expended no resources during 
this process the associated ADSC should be removed. 

 

The applicant's complete response is at 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 to include his rebuttal 
statement, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. The applicant’s interpretation of the 
statement of understanding (SOU) is noted; however, in our view, 
the SOU put the applicant on notice that he would possibly have 
to serve the ADSC even if he had not used any of the benefits. 
The applicant has not provided evidence of due diligence on his 
part to obtain clarification of the ADSC requirement if he chose 
to revoke the transfer of benefits. 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 Docket Number 
BC-2012-01506 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2012-01506 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 12, w/atchs. 


 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 10 May 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair