RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01648 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be allowed to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill educational 
benefits to his dependents. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received a briefing conducted by the Elmendorf AFB Education 
office in the spring of 2009 explaining the new (at the time) 
Post 9/11 GI Bill. He asked specifically whether he was 
eligible to transfer the benefit to his family and was told that 
he was and to apply when he was ready to use it. At no time was 
he briefed, nor did he receive any instructions, that he must 
apply prior to his separation. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 31 Aug 09 retirement. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was relieved from active duty, on 31 Aug 09, with 
a reason for separation of Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service 
or Time in Grade. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, noting the applicant was given 
adequate information and failed to follow through with the 
requirement to transfer benefits while on active duty. 
Elmendorf AFB was given a mass briefing from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) on 7 May 09. The Base Education Office 
also had follow up briefings afterwards. The guidance for the 


education personnel was the use of the Directive Type Memo (DTM) 
which came out on 22 Jun 09. The applicant had ample time from 
his pre-separation briefing and the time of his retirement on 
1 Sep 09 to sign up for the benefit to transfer to his 
dependents. His failure to act in a timely manner is not a 
basis for approval on the part of the Air Force. The Law 
specifically states: 

 

Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under 
Section 3321 an individual approved to transfer entitlement to 
educational assistance under this section may transfer such 
entitlement only while serving as a member of the armed forces 
when the transfer is executed. 

 

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 take 
other measures to make timely decisions before their separation 
or retirement, they could have initiated a timely transfer of 
benefits. 

 

The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant indicates that, on 7 May 09, he attended the first 
(and only) mass briefing concerning the Post 9/11 GI Bill. An 
official from the DVA delivered the briefing. Throughout the 
briefing and during the question and answer phase she stated 
numerous times that "... all of the rules pertaining to the Post 
9/11 GI Bill have not been worked out" and that "... further 
instructions will be forthcoming." After the briefing she made 
herself available for individual questions, at which time he 
specifically asked if he was eligible to transfer his benefit to 
his family members. He asked this because he already had an 
approved retirement date and was not able to meet the active 
duty service commitment due to high year of tenure (HYT). She 
reaffirmed what she stated during the briefing that those who 
were up against HYT would still be allowed to transfer the 
benefit to their family members without an additional service 
commitment. At that time nothing was said about having to apply 
for the transfer while still on active duty for individuals in 
his situation. He left the briefing with the understanding that 
he was good-to-go in terms of eligibility and transferability, 
and would get the benefit when it came time to use it. Two 
weeks after the briefing, on Friday, 21 May 09, he completed his 
final out-processing of the base and the Air Force. At no time 
during his pre-separation briefing or his final out-processing 


did anyone counsel him on the requirement to apply for 
transferability prior to his official retirement date of 1 Sep 
09. 

 

On Monday, 24 May 09, he began 30 days of permissive TDY and 
subsequently began terminal leave on 23 Jun 09 until his 
official retirement date of 1 Sep 09. During this period, 
24 May – 1 Sep 09, he did not receive any correspondences or 
additional information from the Air Force or the DVA concerning 
the Post 9/11 GI Bill. DPSIT alluded to the fact that no such 
efforts were made. 

 

His understanding that being on active duty on the effective 
date of the law, 1 Aug 09, was sufficient to "vest" him with the 
right to transfer benefits at some time in the future was a 
result of the briefing he received on 7 May 09 and his 
subsequent discussion of his situation with the representative 
from the VA. He did not seek further clarification because she 
assured him that he was eligible. Additionally, he was on 
Permissive TDY /Terminal Leave when the Base Education Office 
had follow up briefings using the Directive Type Memo that came 
out 22 Jun 09. Furthermore, the Air Force did not contact him 
after completing his pre-separation counseling and the 
subsequent start of his Permissive TDY /Terminal Leave. 

 

The fact that he should have applied for the transfer while 
still on active duty came as a total surprise. His plan, from 
the time he learned that he was eligible for the Post 9/11 GI 
Bill and that he could transfer it to his family, was to use it 
for his son. His son has applied and been accepted at a college 
in Iowa and their plan was to fund the majority of his education 
using his GI Bill. Denial of this benefit would place an 
unplanned financial burden on his family and had he been 
informed of the requirement to apply for the transfer while on 
active duty he would have. 

 

The complete applicant’s response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. While we note 
the steps the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
indicates were taken to inform eligible personnel of this new 
benefit, it appears that through no fault of the applicant he 
was not properly counseled regarding the steps necessary to 


transfer his benefits to his dependents. We do not find it 
reasonable that he would have knowingly elected not to pursue 
use of this important entitlement. As such, in the interest of 
justice we find the evidence is sufficient to grant the 
requested relief. Therefore, we recommend the record be 
corrected as indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 
31 August 2009, he elected to transfer his Post 9/11 GI Bill 
Educational Benefits. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01648 in Executive Session on 8 January 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 21 May 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair