RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02136
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result
of his election to Transfer his Educational Benefits (TEB) under
the provisions of the Post 9/11 GI Bill be removed.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested TEB of his Post 9/11 GI Bill and incurred a four
year ADSC to 15 Feb 16. His circumstances have changed and he
would like to retire before this date. Neither he nor any of
his dependents have used the benefits and he has made other
arrangements for funding his familys education and intends to
use the benefits for himself.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant has an ADSC of 15 Feb 16 which he incurred
following his election for the TEB.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, stating, in part, based on the
information reported in the TEB and counseling notes in Right
Now Technology (RNT) by Total Force Service Center (TFSC)
personnel, the applicant was provided all
instructions/requirements needed prior to the TEB application
approval; specifically, the requirement to sign a Statement of
Understanding (SOU) agreeing to the obligated service incurred
for participating in the transfer of benefits option under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill program.
When a member applies for TEB on the Defense Manpower Data
Center (DMDC) website, upon submitting the request a message
under the members personal information states: "Please note the
following: (1) Do not transfer benefits unless you are willing
to complete the service obligation. While you may revoke your
transfer at any time, a revocation DOES NOT automatically cancel
the associated ADSC, even if benefits have not been used;
(2) AFPC WILL NOT prorate ADSCs for members who have used any
part of their VA educational benefits."
The applicant signed the Statement of Understanding (SOU) and
his TEB benefits were approved on 21 Feb 12. On the SOU Form
4406, it clearly states that the member will incur a service
obligation period of four years.
The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant notes he is aware revoking his TEB does not
necessarily relieve him of the ADSC incurred by the TEB. He is
prepared to serve with pleasure, the full term of his service
obligation; however, he wants to make the Board aware he has
indeed revoked his TEB in full, and neither he nor any of his
dependents have utilized any benefits from the Post 9/11 GI
Bill. He respectfully requests the Board consider this fact
when reviewing his request.
The applicants 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.
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 the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. While the Board notes
the applicant states he has not used any of the benefits, he was
clearly placed on notice in the SOU he signed that revocation of
the TEB would not automatically relieve him of the associated
ADSC. He has not provided sufficient evidence of error or
injustice that would warrant approving his request. 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:
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-2012-02136 in Executive Session on 8 January 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 12.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 31 May 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jun 12.
Panel Chair
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 01506
While you may revoke your transfer at any time, a revocation DOES NOT automatically cancel the associated Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), EVEN IF BENEFITS HAVE NOT BEEN USED. It would be an injustice to force him to serve this ADSC when the SOU specifically states that he may revoke his election at any time and his family and he used absolutely no benefits. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission to include his rebuttal statement, in judging the merits of the case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05053
Post 9/11 GI Bill: Any member of the Armed Forces, active duty or Selected Reserve, officer or enlisted, on or after 1 Aug 09, who is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, has at least six years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election, and agrees to serve a specified additional period in the Armed Forces from the date of election (if applicable), may transfer unused Post 9/11 benefits to their dependents On 18 Feb 11, the applicant acknowledged and electronically signed the Post...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04461
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes his record is in error and unjust because he signed for the GI Bill transfer benefit based on erroneous information that he was provided at the time. Although the applicant states that he was provided erroneous, inaccurate, and misleading information regarding rescinding GI Bill benefits on the Transferability of Educational Benefits (TEB), DPSIT states that this is not a true statement. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02905
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, stating, in part, that based onthe information reported in the TEB and counseling notes inRight Now Technology (RNT) by the Total Force Service Center(TFSC) personnel, the applicant was provided all instructions/requirements needed prior to the TEB applicationapproval; specifically, the requirement to sign a Statement ofUnderstanding (SOU) agreeing to the obligated service incurredfor participating in the TEB option under the Post-9/11 GI...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03407
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03407 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) be approved. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03131
There is no record the member signed his SOU on 18 Feb 10. DPSIT recommends the members date of TEB application be changed to 18 Feb 10 and the ADSC date be adjusted to 17 Feb 11, due to the fact that he did not receive emails instructing him to sign the SOU. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03131 in Executive Session on 11 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02712
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02712 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His transfer of education benefits (TEB) and active duty service commitment (ADSC) for the TEB be revoked. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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...