Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00419
Original file (BC-2012-00419.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00419 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She be allowed to transfer her Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to her 
dependents. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Prior  to  retirement  in  2009  she  attempted  to  transfer  equal 
benefits to her dependents.  
 
In  support  of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  she  provides  a  personal 
statement, Department of Defense – TEB Form, and a Department of 
Defense Manpower Data Center Letter. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 August 2009 and 
retired on 1 September 2009 in the grade of technical sergeant. 
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in 
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at 
Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIT  recommends  denial.    DPSIT  states  the  applicant 
indicated  she  submitted  the  application  to  transfer  to  her  two 
daughters prior to her retirement on 31 August 2009.  However, at 
the time prior to her retirement she only transferred 36 months 
to  her  oldest  daughter  and  as  stated  by  the  applicant  and 
confirmed  by  her  TEB  Transfer  Request  Form.    Her  youngest 
daughter  was  listed  in  DEERS  under  her  husband.    This  is 
confirmed  by  the  member’s  approval  form  dated  23  January  2012.  
 
 

The  applicant  stated  that  she  discovered  the  error  on  29  June 
2009  –  if  this  is  the  case  she  could  have  changed  the  benefit 
prior  to  her  retirement  of  31  August  2009.    The  fact  that  the 
youngest daughter was not listed at the time of transfer should 
have  triggered  the  applicant  in  seeking  out  why  she  was  not 
listed  and  then  to  take  the  corrective  action  to  get  transfer 
benefits prior to retirement.   
 
The DPSIT complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 8 March 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit 
C).    As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this 
office.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.    The 
applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;  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.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief 
sought. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  an  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  the 
application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of 
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

2 
 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-00419  in  Executive  Session  on  13  November  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00419 was considered: 
 
  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2011. 
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 4 January 2012. 
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 January 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00168

    Original file (BC 2014 00168.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends granting the applicant’s request noting the applicant may not have received accurate information regarding transferring education benefits to his dependents. Service members of the Armed Forces who, on or after 1 Aug 09, eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, had...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03525

    Original file (BC 2014 03525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For individuals eligible for retirement on 1 August 2009, no additional service is required. For individuals eligible for retirement after 1 August 2009, and before 1 August 2010, 1 year of additional service is required. Since the stand-up of the TEB website on 1 August 2009, when a member submits a TEB request and does not allocate months of benefits to a dependent, a message pops up which states: "Warning: You have one or more eligible family members to whom you have not transferred months.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02602

    Original file (BC-2012-02602.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In this respect, we note the applicant has provided documentation substantiating he was approved for the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) for one of his dependent daughters prior to his active duty retirement in October 2009. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 27 October 2009, he elected to transfer his Post-9/11 GI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02355

    Original file (BC-2012-02355.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02355 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. If the Board finds there was an injustice to the extent that the member did not receive adequate pre-separation counseling, as required by law and DoD regulation, and was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02890

    Original file (BC 2014 02890.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant failed to allocate a month of benefits in MilConnect to all eligible dependents during his initial application and by regulation they are now ineligible. 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. Exhibit D....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04229

    Original file (BC-2010-04229.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was never informed her benefits had to be transferred prior to her retirement in November 2009. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates she was unable to transfer her benefits because the TEB system did not recognize her family members and there was no one to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02389

    Original file (BC 2014 02389.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her retirement from the Air Force in 2005 was due to high year of tenure restrictions. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider her untimely application because he did not discover the error until 7 March 2014. The applicant provides no evidence of error or injustice on the part of the Air Force.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04071

    Original file (BC 2013 04071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He has served 4 years since the start of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. ________________________________________________________________ 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. Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03582

    Original file (BC-2012-03582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01180

    Original file (BC-2010-01180.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A1PA states that members may have had the impression that being on active duty or in the Selected Reserve (SELRES) on the effective date of the law, 1 Aug 09, was sufficient to “vest” them with the right to transfer benefits at some time in the future. However, the Board could find that there was an injustice if the members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a transfer while serving in the Armed Forces, and did not have ready access to...