RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04980
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Tranfer of her
Post-9/11 Educational Benefits (TEB) be corrected to reflect
26 Jan 14, instead of 25 Sep 15.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She submitted the proper extension documentation for approval on
27 Jan 11 for an ADSC to end on 26 Jan 14. She was at a
deployed location when she applied for TEB and after the
personnel received her required extension of military service,
she was told that her TEB would be processed and there was
nothing else to do. However, when she reviewed her record in
the MilConnect system, she noticed that the TEB option was still
available; she executed the option on 26 Sep 12, which resulted
in her ADSC being established as 25 Sep 25.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of master sergeant (E-7).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force which is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating the applicant applied
for TEB on two occasions (19 Nov 10 and 29 Dec 10), but never
returned the required Statement of Understanding (SOU)
acknowledging and accepting the ADSC for TEB. While the
applicant did complete an extension for TEB, it was not in
conjunction with an approved TEB application from the Total
Force Service Center (TFSC). On 26 Sep 12, the applicant re-
applied and subsequently returned the SOU as required, which
resulted in her ADSC being established as 25 Sep 15.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation, with attachments
is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 10 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(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 an 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 that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
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-2012-04980 in Executive Session on 12 Aug 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 12.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 14 Nov 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04006
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: ARPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. By the time she completed the process to extend on active duty, signed the SOU, and received approval for TEB she had an outstanding...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00189
Under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) website, it notifies the applicants that their transfer request is not final until the SOU is digitally signed in the Virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF). On 12 Oct 10, an email was sent to the applicant informing her that her application for TEB had expired because she did not sign the SOU. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05876
The applicants first TEB application clearly stated the service member must use the vMPF to complete the TEB SOU. It also stated if the service member did not meet the retainability requirements and failed to sign the TEB SOU within 14 days, the application would be rejected. He was provided a TEB extension until 16 Nov 11; however, he failed to sign the TEB SOU.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05452
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He submitted his original TEB paperwork with a signed Statement of Understanding (SOU) on 24 Nov 09 but for some reason, it did not go through at that time. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05521
In order to transfer the benefits now he would incur a 4 year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC). On 25 Oct 12, an email was sent to the applicant requesting him to sign the SOU; however, he never signed the SOU or attempted to follow-up by contacting the Total Force Serve Center (TFSC) to see if his application was complete. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00790
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 indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Without a signed SOU, the TFSC personnel cannot determine if the member accepts the four-year active duty service commitment (ADSC). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02823
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02823 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 11 Mar 11 application for transfer of her Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits to her dependents be approved with an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date of 10 May 15. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial as there is no evidence the applicant signed the SOU in Mar 11. THE BOARD DETERMINES...
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-2012-00789
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...