RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04840 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his 
son. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He repeatedly questioned a Charleston Air Force Base Education 
Office employee each month from December 2008 until June 2009 in 
regards to the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB). He was 
routinely informed that there was not any new information; 
however, the individual told him that she believed individuals 
would be grandfathered to July 2008. He later learned the main 
stipulation to transferring educational benefits was to be on 
active duty on or after 1 August 2009. 

 

He was on active duty when the Post-9/11 GI Bill was proposed, 
signed into law, and when the Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 
09-003: Post-9/11 GI Bill relating policies and procedures 
became effective. Had he known the TEB requirements when he 
retired on 1 July 2009, he would have postponed his retirement 
date until 1 August 2009 to ensure he met the eligibility 
requirements of the TEB. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired on 1 July 2009 in the grade of master 
sergeant (E-7). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating the member’s effective 
date of retirement was prior to the start of the Program for the 
TEB. In accordance with Title 38 USC, Chapter 33, § 3319(f)(1), 
the transfer of such entitlement can only be done while serving 
as a member of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed. 
Specifically, any member of the Armed Forces who, on or after 1 
August 2009, eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, had at least 
six years of service on the date of election and agreed to serve 
(if applicable) a specified additional period from the date of 
election, may transfer unused Post-9/11 GI Benefits to their 
dependents. Service Secretaries were required, as of 22 June 
2009, to provide and document counseling regarding these 
benefits. The Air Force issued AFI 36-2306_AFGMI on 23 July 
2009, which required pre-separation counseling be documented on 
DD Form 2648. Additionally, there were various news articles 
about the Post-9/11 GI Bill; most noted the requirement to be on 
duty on the 1 August 2009 effective date of the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill to be eligible to transfer benefits. However, the Air 
Force did not seek out members who were already on terminal 
leave, or had already completed separation counseling. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his argument that prior to his 
retirement there was no clear instructions on how to proceed 
with the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB). It was his 
understanding that members would be grandfathered back to July 
2008, since that was the date when the bill was signed. He was 
never made aware, received additional counseling, or was 
informed of the main stipulation to TEB, although he made 
monthly inquires from November 2008, through 30 June 2009. 
Although, his retirement date was 1 July 2009, the guidance for 
the education offices to brief members on the TEB requirements 
were not made available until 22 June 2009 and he was still on 
active duty at that time. If he were properly notified in time, 
he could have cancelled his retirement orders and extended for 
30 days. He does not believe notification through news articles 
is sufficient notice. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include the 
his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant 
contends that he would have taken action to extend his service 
to qualify for the transfer of education benefits, other than 
his own assertions, he has presented no evidence that his 
predicament was the result of an error on the part of the Air 
Force or that he has been treated differently than those 
similarly situated. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04840 in Executive Session on 12 August 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04840 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 October 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 23 October 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 November 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 November 2012, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair