DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01366 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His transfer of Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits date of 5 
May 11 be changed to 1 Aug 09. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  not  notified  or  briefed  on  the  Transfer  of  Educational 
Benefits (TEB) until May 11.  Upon his return from his overseas 
assignment  he  received  the  briefing  and  signed  up.    He  is 
retiring  due  to  health  reasons  and  is  not  able  to  fulfill  his 
active duty service commitment (ADSC); however, he really needs 
this benefit for his dependents. 
 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of email 
threads  and  service  information  concerning  his  education 
benefits. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant was relieved from active duty, on 31 Aug 12, with 
a  reason  for  separation  of  Voluntary  Retirement:  Sufficient 
Service for Retirement.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, stating, in part, the application 
is  not  supported  with  evidence  that  the  applicant  was  a  victim 
of an error or injustice.  He states that he was not notified or 
briefed  of  his  entitlement  all  the  time  he  was  stationed  in 
Japan.    However,  he  never  made  attempts  to  ask  questions  even 
though he was taking courses from the Education Center.  During 
his assignment to Japan, the applicant had ample opportunity to 
inquire, but failed to do so.  There is no justification for the 
adjustment of his ADSC. 
 
The  Air  Force,  in  implementing  its  guidance,  developed  a 
communication  plan  that  used  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center 

Commander  and  the  Education  and  Training  Section  at  each 
installation to serve as spokespersons to communicate the Post-
9/11 GI Bill transfer-to-dependent program using internal media, 
internal  communication  tools,  and  external  trade  publications.  
There were various news articles about the Post-9/11 GI Bill to 
be eligible to transfer benefits.   
 
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.  Had those members 
sought clarification from an educational counselor, read the DoD 
or  Air  Force  guidance  that  was  very  clear  on  that  point,  or 
taken  other  measures  to  make  timely  decisions  before  their 
separation  or  retirement,  they  could  have  initiated  a  timely 
transfer of benefits. 
 
The  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA),  the  DoD  and  the 
Military  Services  widely  publicized  the  Post-9/11  GI  Bill  and 
the  transferability  feature.    DoD  developed  a  special  website, 
hosted by Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), to facilitate the 
transfer  of  educational  benefits.    The  website  system  was 
operational  on  27  June  2009  for  the  purpose  of  accepting 
transfer  of  benefits  applications.    The  DTM  and  Air  Force 
Instruction state the transfer must be made while the member is 
serving  in  the  Armed  Forces.    Both  documents  were  published  on 
government-hosted websites prior to 1 Aug 09, the effective date 
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.   
 
The  complete  AFPC/DPSIT  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant notes had the briefing occurred a year and a half 
earlier,  he  would  have  applied  then  and  feels  that  he  has  met 
the  retention  goals  because  he  has  put  in  a  full  three  years 
since  Aug  09.    Just  because  he  was  taking  courses  at  the 
education  office,  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  being  briefed  on 
the policy.  He had taken courses since 2005 and may have gone 
in the education office a total of five times to out-process and 
to discuss his courses. 
 
The applicant’s complete response 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.    After  a 
 

2

thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record,  we  do  not  find 
persuasive  evidence  that  his  Post  911  GI  Bill  Transfer  of 
educational  benefits  date  is  in  error.    While  the  applicant 
believes  he  was  not  properly  briefed  on  the  requirements  to 
transfer  his  educational  benefits  to  his  dependent  while 
assigned  to  Japan,  he  has  not  provided  sufficient  evidence  to 
supports  his  contentions.    In  our  view,  to  deliberately  change 
his  TEB  effective  date  without  sufficient  evidence  would  be 
improper and afford him rights not available to others similarly 
situated.  As such, 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.  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  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-01366  in  Executive  Session  on  13  November  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 9 May 12, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 12. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair 

 

3