Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00800
Original file (BC-2012-00800.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00800 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
    
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  allowed  to  back  date  his  Transfer  of  Education  Benefits 
(TEB) to 3 Sep 10. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He initially requested TEB on 3 Sep 10 and was informed that he 
needed to extend for retainability purposes.  He accomplished the 
extension  paperwork  and  signed  the  Statement  of  Understanding 
(SOU).    He  was  informed  by  his  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF) 
that  everything  was  complete.    He  is  asking  for  his  TEB  to  be 
back dated due to errors that were made by the MPF personnel with 
regard  to  submitting  the  TEB  SOU  and  his  correct  extension 
paperwork.   
 
The applicant does not provide any supporting documentation. 
 
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in 
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIT  recommends  denial.    Post  9/11  GI  Bill,  Chapter  33, 
became  effective  1  Aug  09  based  on  Post  9/11  Veteran  Education 
Act of 2008.  The Public Law states in part, that “an individual 
may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of 
the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.”  Articles were 
published  that  explained  the  program  benefits  and  requirements.  
 
 

This  communication  plan  was  carefully  implemented  because  there 
is no provision in the law or DoD policy for a waiver if a member 
retires  without  transferring  the  benefits.    The  opportunity  to 
transfer  is  not  an  entitlement  and  is  in  fact  intended  as  a 
retention tool in exchange for additional service.  Every effort 
was  made,  even  before  the  program  became  available,  to  convey 
information to eligible members.   
 
In  this  case,  the  applicant  did  not  provide  adequate 
justification or documentation to show that an error or injustice 
occurred.    The  applicant  initially  applied  for  TEB  on  3  Sep; 
however,  the  member  was  informed  that  he  needed  to  extend  his 
enlistment  in  order  to  be  eligible  for  TEB.    On  7 Oct  10,  the 
applicant was notified that his application had expired because 
he did not sign the SOU.  The applicant then inquired as to his 
TEB status approximately two years after he re-applied.  His TEB 
application  was  finally  approved  on  21  Feb  12.    The  applicant 
received several notifications regarding his TEB status. 
 
The  AFPC/DPSIT  complete  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 30 Apr 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 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 in this application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

2 

 
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-2012-00800 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 3 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05847

    Original file (BC 2013 05847.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He obtained the necessary retainability, his intentions were documented on his AF Form 901 and the fact the MilConnect and VMPF does not reflect that he qualified for the TEB, on 13 Sep 11, reflects a clear disservice to him. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, the Board majority recommends approval. We note AFPC/DPSIT states there is no evidence the applicant applied for the TEB in MILCONNECT or signed the SOU.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05219

    Original file (BC 2013 05219.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Transferability of unused benefits to dependents: • Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on or after 1 August 2009 who meets Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility requirements and at the time of the approval of the member’s request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance the member meets one of the following: o Has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of application and agrees...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03211

    Original file (BC 2014 03211.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the 17 Jul 13 e-mail from the TFSC stating that his application was rejected; a print-out from the milConnect website showing that he applied for his benefits in Aug 11 and inputted a request to transfer months of his benefits to his dependents; an AF Form 1411, Extension of Enlistment in the Air Force, which validates that he extended in order to qualify for TEB transfer; and an unsigned SOU. While the applicant did complete an extension for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01399

    Original file (BC-2012-01399.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has attempted to submit his TEB Statement of Understanding (SOU) since 11 Jan 11. DPSIT states the notes in RNT seem to indicate the applicant never attempted to follow through with signing the SOU. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04592

    Original file (BC 2013 04592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04592 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) for his Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) be changed to 21 Apr 11, instead of 30 Apr 15. On 20 May 13, more than two years after extending his enlistment for TEB, AFPC notified him that the TEB transfer did not occur because he did not sign the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02362

    Original file (BC 2014 02362.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 6 Mar 13, the applicant requested an extension of his enlistment to 14 Aug 16 (his HYT date) for the purpose of qualifying to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which was approved on 3 Apr 13. While he has since been promoted to master sergeant, at the time he tried to transfer his TEB he was serving in the grade of technical sergeant with a HYT date of 14 Aug 16, thus making him ineligible to serve for an additional four years. Furthermore, in accordance with AFI 36-2306 the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00789

    Original file (BC-2012-00789.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The SOU clearly states the member would 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 DMDC TEB website. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00720

    Original file (BC-2012-00720.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. He believes his ADSC should be 9 June 2015 based on his original intent for the TEB and the fact that he did not receive an email concerning the SOU and an expired TEB application. We note the applicant’s assertion that he suffered an injustice when he did not receive an email concerning the SOU and an expired TEB application; however, he has not provided sufficient evidence to support that he was treated any differently than other...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02149

    Original file (BC 2013 02149.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 Feb 2010, he was sent an email requesting he sign his SOU. 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. __________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00761

    Original file (BC-2012-00761.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member’s ADSC waiver request is not in the best interest of the Air Force. It is in the best interest of the Air Force and his daughter to approve his request, which will allow him to retire upon completion of 20 years of service. _________________________________________________________________ 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...