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
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05847
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 applicants 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
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 members 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
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
________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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...