AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00836 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
    
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. His date of separation be changed from 31 Jul 09 to 31 Aug 09. 
 
2. He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to 
his dependent. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. A severe injustice happened when his request to be extended on 
active  duty  was  denied.    Specifically,  as  an  Air  Force  colonel 
his  duty  assignments  were  worked  through  a  process  that  was 
called the Colonel’s Gameplan.  He received the outline of this 
gameplan; however, after discussion with his family, he made the 
decision not to submit retirement papers before the deadline of 
Jan  09.    Instead,  he  decided  to  continue  to  serve  in  the  Air 
Force.  He had the desire to be stationed in the Washington DC 
area; however, he knew that if he received orders outside of the 
area  that  he  would  have  to  consider  the  7-day  option  due  to 
having children in high school. 
 
2.  He  received  an  assignment  notification  to  Travis  AFB,  CA; 
however, after consideration, he refused the assignment under the 
7-day option.  His retirement date was set, by regulation, to 1 
Aug 09.  Subsequently, he received an e-mail from the Colonel’s 
Group regarding the option of extending his retirement date from 
1 Aug 09 to 1 Sep 09 in order to qualify for the TEB.  In an e-
mail  he  received  it  stated,  “Due  to  the  ambiguity  of  initial 
guidance surrounding the Post 911 GI Bill and the Transferability 
Benefit option, we are offering you the opportunity to request a 
1-month extension of your retirement date to retire effective 1 
Sep  09  to  become  eligible  for  the  Post  911  Transferability 
Benefit  Option.”    He  submitted  a  request  for  an  extension,  but 
received  an  e-mail  from  the  Colonel’s  Group  stating  that  his 
application  was  not  approved  because  he  applied  for  retirement 
under the 7-day option. 
 
3.  He  submitted  an  appeal  to  the  Air  Force’s  Deputy  Chief  of 
Staff for Manpower and Personnel, which outlined the reasons the 
denial was a severe inequity and requested the denial decision be 
reversed.  He was referred to the next most senior officer on the 
 
 

Deputy Chief’s staff; however, he was told that his appeal would 
not be granted because he was retiring under the 7-day option. 
 
4.  The  deadline  to  make  the  decision  to  retire  before  the 
gameplan  made  it  impossible  for  any  service  member  to  make  a 
truly  informed  decision,  as  the  rules  for  the  TEB  were  not 
finalized until after the gameplan was complete.   
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides an excerpt from 
the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  Post-9/11  GI  Bill 
Federal  Register;  Final  Rule,  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  from  the 
Under  Secretary  of  Defense,  copies  of  e-mail  communications,  a 
memorandum  from  the  applicant,  and  a  copy  of  the  New  GI  Bill 
Overview. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 31 Jul 09 in 
the grade of colonel (0-6). 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are at Exhibit B and C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AF/DPO recommends denial stating the Secretary of the Air Force 
provided  guidance  when  implementing  the  new  Post-9/11  GI  Bill 
that  would  not  consider  requests  of  previously  approved 
retirement dates before issuance of the 22 Jun 09 Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense Directive-type Memorandum (OUSD DTM).  
Those officers with approved retirement dates after the OUSD DTM 
of  22 Jun  09,  but  before  30  Aug  09  would  be  allowed  to  adjust 
their retirements to meet the requirement of being on active duty 
on 1 Aug 09; however, this did not apply to retirements in lieu 
of assignment.  The applicant’s deliberate decision to retire in 
lieu  of  assignment  and  the  corresponding  AFI-driven  retirement 
date,  which  was  based  on  the  needs  of  the  Air  Force,  did  not 
provide a basis for an extension.   
 
Further,  the  applicant  compares  himself  to  an  individual  with 
exactly the same service record and the same retirement date, who 
elected  a  normal  retirement  versus  a  7-day  option  retirement.  
This  comparison  is  not  valid  because  by  exercising  the  7-day 
option and declining an assignment, the applicant was no longer 
serving the needs of the Air Force; therefore, he did not meet 
the criteria to extend his separation date.   
 

 

2 

Additionally,  the  applicant’s  justification  was  not  IAW  the 
governing instructions.  Specifically, a military member can only 
request withdrawal of retirement or change in month of approved 
retirement date for three reasons:   
   
  1) A severe hardship not common to the Air Force members. 
  2) The best interest of the Air Force. 
  3) To accept an active duty promotion that requires member to 
serve past the original retirement date. 
 
The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial stating that the 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.   
 
Further,  based  on  AFPC/DPO’s  disapproval  recommendation  and  the 
fact that the law states a member must be eligible for benefits 
effective 1 Aug 09, DPSIT cannot support this request because the 
applicant does not meet the requirements of the TEB program. 
 
The AFPC/DPSIT complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
1.  The  DPO  evaluation  states  that  the  governing  instructions 
allows  for  extension  of  retirement  dates  under  limited 
circumstances.    Requests  are  normally  only  approved  based  on 
hardship,  the  best  interest  of  the  Air  Force  or  based  on 
promotion.  The instructions also state specifically that under 
normal circumstances, “To request withdrawal or change month of 
retirement,  the  member  must  submit  written  justification.”    A 
request  is  initiated  by  the  member;  the  burden  of  proof  to 
support  the  request  also  rests  on  the  members.    The  Air  Force 
took  a  highly  unusual  step  of  reaching  out  to  service  members, 
offering  the  extension  without  a  burden  of  proof.    One  must 
assume  that  the  Air  Force  was  either  conceding  the  burden  of 
proof,  or  that  by  offering  the  extension  they  were  waiving  the 
AFI due to the highly unusual circumstances.   
 

 

3 

2. While the instruction does state that extensions under the 7-
day  option  are  not  usually  granted,  it  is  not  prohibited.  
Further, DPO sent him an e-mail offering the extension option.   
 
3. In his initial application he drew direct comparison to others 
with  the  same  retirement  date  and  service  records  to  highlight 
the  injustice;  however,  DPO  stated,  “This  comparison  is  not  a 
valid one, in that by exercising the 7-day option and declining 
assignment, the applicant was no longer serving the needs of the 
Air Force and therefore did not meet the criteria to extend the 
date  of  separation  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2110,  Table  2.1, 
rule 1.”  In researching the referenced AFI for his rebuttal, he 
found  the  quoted  reference  dealt  with  assignment  availability 
codes  for  Operation  Bootstrap  and  not  retirement  extensions.  
Without  a  correct  reference,  he  can  only  comment  that  he  was 
serving the Air Force honorably as he did for over 26 years and 
defending  our  country  no  differently  than  members  who  were 
granted the extension. 
 
4.  The  actions  of  DPO  to  seek  out  and  offer  this  extension  to 
service members, including him, could only be justified because 
they  were  deemed  to  have  been  in  the  best  interest  of  the  Air 
Force or that in this instance the AFI did not apply.  Finally, 
he did not prohibit the extension as suggested by DPO. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
______________________________________________________________ 
 
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 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.  
While  we  note  the  applicant  drew  comparison  to  others  with  the 
same  retirement  date  to  highlight  the  injustice,  the 
circumstances in those cases differ from the applicant.  Based on 
our review of the evidence of record, the applicant’s retirement 
was  based  on  the  7-day  option  rule  and  appears  to  have  been 
appropriately  executed.    Although  the  applicant  was  initially 
offered the opportunity to extend rather than retire, it appears 

 

4 

this  was  in  error  as  it  was  overlooked  that  the  applicant’s 
retirement  was  due  to  the  7-day  option  rule.        Furthermore, 
there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  he  has  been  treated  any 
differently than others similarily situated who have been retired 
under the same rule.  Therefore, 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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00836 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AF/DPO, dated 12 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 17 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 May 12, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

5