AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01734 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) date for the Post 9/11 
GI Bill be adjusted to 6 Jun 2011. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  never  notified  via  email  the  TEB  Statement  of 
Understanding (SOU) was in his virtual Military Personnel Flight 
(vMPF) record awaiting his signature to start his ADSC. 
 
He was never notified via email that his application for TEB was 
denied. 
 
On 10 Jun 2011, he submitted his request to transfer Post 9/11 
GI Bill Benefits to his wife. 
 
His wife called the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and was 
told he had not signed the required forms and her benefits were 
denied.    Until  6  Apr  2012,  he  thought  the  transfer  had  been 
accomplished and his ADSC had started. 
 
He never received an email or any other notification; therefore, 
he was not aware the TEB SOU was in his vMPF until he called the 
Total Force Service Center (TFSC) on 9 Apr 2012. 
 
He  knew  there  was  a  four  year  ADSC  with  the  transfer  but  was 
completely  unaware  there  was  a  form  to  sign  at  the  time  of 
submission  for  approval.    He  thought  it  started  with  the 
transfer  approval  itself.    He  never  saw  the  incident  emails 
until the TFSC representative assisted him. 
 
The  applicant  provides  no  documentation  in  support  of  his 
request.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 

2 

 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is serving in the Regular Air Force in the rank of 
lieutenant colonel (Lt Col, O-5). 
 
Post 9/11 GI Bill:  Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty 
or  Selected  Reserve,  officer  or  enlisted)  on  or  after  1  Aug 
2009, who is eligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill, and:  
  •  Has  at  least  six  years  of  service  in  the  Armed  Forces  on 
the  date  of  election  and  agrees  to  serve  four  additional 
years in the Armed Forces from the date of election.  
  •  Has  at  least  10  years  of  service  in  the  Armed  Forces 
(active  duty  and/or  selected  reserve)  on  the  date  of 
election,  is  precluded  by  either  standard  policy  (service 
or  DoD)  or  statute  from  committing  to  four  additional 
years,  and  agrees  to  serve  for  the  maximum  amount  of  time 
allowed by such policy or statute, or  
  •  Is  or  becomes  retirement  eligible  during  the  period  from 
1 Aug  2009,  through  1  Aug  2013.   A  service  member  is 
considered  to  be  retirement  eligible  if  he  or  she  has 
completed 20 years of active duty or 20 qualifying years of 
reserve service.  

•  For those individuals eligible for retirement on 1 Aug 

2009, no additional service is required.  

•  For those individuals who have an approved retirement 
date  after  1  Aug  2009,  and  before  1  Jul  2010,  no 
additional service is required.  

•  For  those  individuals  eligible  for  retirement  after 
1 Aug  2009,  and  before  1  Aug  2010,  one  year  of 
additional  service  after  approval  of  transfer  is 
required.  

•  For  those  individuals  eligible  for  retirement  on  or 
after 1 Aug 2010, and before 1 Aug 2011, two years of 
additional  service  after  approval  of  transfer  are 
required.  

•  For  those  individuals  eligible  for  retirement  on  or 
after  1  Aug  2011,  and  before  1  Aug  2012,  three  years 
of  additional  service  after  approval  of  transfer 
required.  

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  DPSIT states 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 2009, 
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  applicant  was  given  adequate  information  and 
failed  to  follow  through  with  the  requirement  to  transfer 
benefits while on active duty. 
 
The  applicant’s  submission  is  not  supported  with  evidence  that 
he  was  a  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    It  appears  the 
applicant never made the attempt to follow through with signing 
the SOU.  He was sent an email on 13 Jun 2011 requesting he sign 
and return the SOU.  On 6 Jul 2011, he was sent an email stating 
that  his  application  for  TEB  had  expired  because  he  never 
submitted the signed SOU.  He states that he never received an 
email  from  the  TFSC;  however  the  first  process  in  the  transfer 
of benefits is that members verify their email address.  This is 
to  ensure  they  receive  email  from  the  TFSC  verifying  that  they 
have  received  their  application  for  TEB.    He  states  that  he 
submitted  his  request  to  transfer  benefits  to  his  wife  on 
10 June 2011.  On the Submit Transfer Request it states in bold 
letters: "Your transfer request is not final until you digitally 
sign AF Form 4406 in virtual MPF."  He did indicate the transfer 
of  28  months,  but  failed  to  acknowledge  the  TEB  and  therefore 
failed to sign the SOU.  He received a confirmation, but failed 
to follow through with the signing of a SOU. 
 
The  complete  DPSIT  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at  Exhibit 
B. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He  whole-heartedly  rejects  what  he  considers  the  implied 
accusation that he lied or made false statements about the fact 
that  he  did  not  receive  email  notifications.    He  has  served 
17 years  of  service  in  the  United  States  Air  Force  and  as  an 
officer takes integrity very seriously.  He made it clear in his 
application  that  he  did  not  (emphasis)  receive  any  email 
notifications  concerning  his  application.    He  reviewed  the 
record  of  emails  supposedly  sent  and  vehemently  asserts  he  did 
not receive these emails. 
 
He  was  not  subjected  to  an  injustice  due  to  "not  receiving 
adequate counseling," as the opinion states.  He is not claiming 

 

 

 

4 

decision 

before 

or 

separation 

"inadequate counseling."  This was a failure of the notification 
system.    Whether  called  an  error  or  an  injustice,  the  system 
broke down, and he feels it failed to properly notify him that 
he had a form ready to sign, and that his application was being 
cancelled. 
 
He would have readily signed the SOU or corrected it if he knew 
there was a problem.  He was not aware there was a problem until 
9 Apr 2012, after his wife attempted to renew her benefit and it 
was  rejected.    He  contacted  the  TFSC  help  line  and  was  told 
there was a problem  This occurred ten months after he submitted 
the initial request to transfer benefits. 
 
He  emphatically  rebuts  the  statement  that  he  did  not  make  a 
timely 
retirement.  He 
specifically attempted to transfer his benefits on 10 Jun 2011, 
just 10 days after returning from his honeymoon.  He was told by 
a  fellow  officer  before  he  was  married  that  there  was  a  four 
year  commitment  to  transfer  benefits.    Since  he  was  retirement 
eligible on 12 June 2015, applying 10 June 2011, allowed him to 
serve his full 4-year commitment.  He could not have applied any 
earlier  than  he  did.    Saying  he  did  not  plan  early  enough  is 
absolutely ludicrous. 
 
He  refers  to  the  evaluation  statement  that  "On  the  Submit 
Transfer  Request  your  transfer  is  not  final  till  you  digitally 
sign AF Form 4406 in virtual MPF."  He admits that the form does 
reflect  this  and  that  he  missed  it.    Inadequate  counseling  is 
not the issue.  The failure of notification is the issue.  Even 
if  he  had  seen  the  aforementioned  statement  on  the  SOU,  it  is 
unlikely  he  would  have  remembered  to  look  for  an  email  that 
never showed up. 
 
The advisory states it is advertised across the force, however, 
it does not mean it is understood by the force.  They deal with 
this  everyday  so  it  is  common  knowledge  to  them.    Airmen  find 
themselves in an Air Force that does more online without direct 
face-to-face  contact  for  service  issues  and  live  and  work  in  a 
"self-service"  environment.    They  may  miss  some  of  the  details 
required.  It is in these instances that protections such as the 
notifications should be in place.  AFPC says they are in place.  
However  in  this  instance,  the  system  did  not  work  and  failed 
him. 
 
His complete response 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. 

 

4 

 
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  do  not  find  his  assertions  sufficiently 
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force 
office of primary responsibility (OPR). In this respect, we note 
the applicant’s states the notification system failed to advise 
him of the status of his TEB request.  However, after a careful 
review  of  the  available  evidence,  it  is  our  view  the  applicant 
failed to exercise reasonable diligence to ensure his request to 
transfer his benefits was finalized.  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  failed  to  sustain  his  burden 
of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary  or  a 
showing  the  applicant  was  treated  differently  from  others 
similarly  situated,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in the 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-2012-01734 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 2012. 
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 21 May 2012, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 2012. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jun 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair