RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02905 

COUNSEL: NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: NO 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred as a resultof his election for Transferability of his Educational Benefits(TEB) under the provisions of the Post 9/11 GI Bill be changedto 8 Oct 14 rather than 10 May 16. 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He requested TEB of his Post 9/11 GI Bill, on 8 Oct 10, for hisdependents. At the time there was no online function that he 
was aware of to accomplish this like there is now. After givingall of his information to his base education office, he believedhe had completed all that was required. 

When he inquired about the status of his TEB, he was informedthat he never signed the education benefits statement of 
understanding (SOU). He was advised that emails were sent to 
him in Oct 10 advising him to sign the form and send it back.
However, he never received the emails or was contacted 
concerning his alleged incomplete transfer request. He has 
since re-accomplished his TEB request and has been approved andwould like his dates changed to reflect when he actually begunthe transfer request in Oct 10. This would mean his four yearobligation date would also change from 10 May 16 back to8 Oct 14. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant has an ADSC of 10 May 16 which he incurredfollowing his election for the TEB. 

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 Billprogram. 

An email was sent on 26 Oct 10, advising him that his 
application for TEB had expired because he did not sign the SOU.
The applicant’s statement that he did not receive the email issuspect. When a member signs up for the TEB through the VirtualMilitary Personnel Flight (vMPF), the first thing it asks themember is to verify their personal information (i.e., emailaddress), then they proceed to the application process. The 
applicant waited until 11 May 12 to contact the TFSC, stating heapplied for TEB in 2010 but never received an email, and askedwhat to do next. 

When a member applies for TEB on the Defense Manpower DataCenter (DMDC) website, upon submitting the request a messageunder the members personal information states: "Please note thefollowing: (1) Do not transfer benefits unless you are willingto complete the service obligation. While you may revoke yourtransfer at any time, a revocation DOES NOT automatically cancelthe associated ADSC, even if benefits have not been used;

(2) AFPC WILL NOT prorate ADSCs for members who have used anypart of their VA educational benefits." 
On 10 May 12, the applicant reinitiated the process of TEBtransfer by going onto the TEB website as noted in the email 
that he received. The applicant signed the SOU and was approvedfor the 10 May 12 date for the start of his ADSC for the Post 
9/11 TEB benefit by the TFSC, that's when they began workingwith his request. 

They found no injustice to the extent that the applicant did notreceive adequate counseling as required by law and Department ofDefense (DoD) regulation. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

While stationed at Seymour Johnson AFB, he attended a squadronbriefing by the base education office in Sep 10 discussing thenew rules associated with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. He was advised 
to stop by the education office on base and would be assistedwith filling out the proper paperwork. In Oct 10, he went to thebase education office to transfer the benefits that he had 
earned for his children. He was assisted with setting up histransfer and the education office representative helped by 
imputing the data into the system. After they were finished, hewas told that he was good to go; however, it was never mentionedhe should be on the lookout for an email advising him to sign an 

2 



SOU. He left the education office thinking his kids had the 
cost for college partially paid. 

He often went on temporary duty (TDY) or deployed multiple timesa week where he wouldn't check his email for days at a time and 
his email box would become full and unfortunately he would notbe able to receive any new emails. He fully understands that anemail was probably sent, saying he needed to sign the SOU to 
finish the transfer process. Unfortunately, he did not know hewas supposed to receive an email advising him to sign the SOU.
It is very possible that his inbox was full when that email(s)
was sent, and therefore he never would have seen it. He was 
under the impression that his role in transferring his benefitswas complete. He agrees that there has been no "injustice"
against him; however, what he disagrees with is that one pieceof paper caused him to incur an additional 17 months of ADSC.
He clearly initiated transferring his benefits to his childrenon 8 Oct 10, with the understanding that his ADSC for his VA 
benefits would run until 8 Oct 14. To him, this was a simplecase of miscommunication due to him probably having a fullinbox. 

After thoroughly reviewing the advisory, he is under the 
impression the advisory simply found it laziness to not checkthe status of his Post 9/11 GI Bill application. Clearly theydo not believe his statement that he did not receive an email 
concerning the SOU, calling it "suspect." He honestly takesthat as a personal attack on his integrity as an officer in theUnited States Air Force. Why would he ignore an obviouslyimportant email concerning his children's future education, andthen lie about it? 

He has issues with the advisory, first, he did not apply for TEBon the DMDC; he did it through the education office on base. 
Second, he would not fall under the prorating his ADSC since hehas not used any part of his Department of Veterans Affairs(DVA) educational benefits. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided byexisting 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 ofthe case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendationof the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopttheir rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Inour view, while we understand the high operations tempo 
3 



environment of today’s Air Force, we are not convinced theapplicant exercised reasonable diligence by ensuring he hadcompleted the necessary documents to guarantee this benefit forhis dependents in a timely manner. Therefore, in view of theabove and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find nobasis 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; theapplication was denied without a personal appearance; and theapplication will only be reconsidered upon the submission ofnewly discovered relevant evidence not considered with thisapplication. 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR DocketNumber BC-2012-02905 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 13, underthe provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 12, w/atch.

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 24 Jul 12, w/atchs.

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 12.

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 12. 

Acting Panel Chair 

4