RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01703

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His understanding and provided guidance of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) (Chapter 30) was that he could transfer education benefit to his dependents.  He later learned he had to utilize the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) process under the Post 9/11 GI Bill.  He was unaware of the change and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has removed all evidence of MGIB transferability requirement from the internet.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Mar 12, the applicant retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating the DVA’s website is crystal clear.  There is no option under Chapter 30, MGIB that provides a transfer of benefits to dependents.  However, under Chapter 33, Post 9/11 GI Bill, any member of the Armed Forces who, on or after 1 Aug 09, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, had at least six years of service on the date of election, may transfer unused Post-9/11 benefits to their dependents.  The Department of Defense (DoD) developed a special website to facilitate the transfer of educational benefits.  On 27 Jun 09, the website was operational for the purpose of accepting transfer of benefits applications.  Both the Directive Type Memo (DTM) 09-003:  Post-9/11 GI Bill, dated 22 Jun 09, and AFI 36-2306, The Air Force Education Services Program, state the transfer must be made while the member is serving in the Armed Forces.  Both documents were published on government-hosted websites prior to 1 Aug 09, the effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  Additionally, there is an active duty service commitment (ADSC) associated with the privilege of transferring unused Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to a member’s dependents.  In this case, based upon the applicant’s total active federal military service date (TAFMSD), he would have incurred a three-year ADSC.  Since there is no information in the Right Now Technology (RNT) system of the applicant ever making any inquiries regarding the TEB process, there is no way to be certain he would have fulfilled the required obligation for TEB. 

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 it was his understanding he was entitled to TEB for his dependents through the MGIB.  By comparison of the MGIB and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, they both provide the same transferability to dependents.  He made inquiries regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill when it first came out and was informed that he would incur an additional four-year ADSC, starting August 2009.  Nevertheless, he did not pursue information regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill because he thought his needs would be met through the MGIB.  During his separation briefing, he was never made aware that he could no longer transfer benefits to his dependents through the MGIB, nor that he was eligible to waive the four-year ADSC.  Also when DTM 09-003 was reissued on 10 Sep 10, he was deployed to Afghanistan, so he NEVER saw the memo.  He is not trying to gain any benefit that he did not think he already had through the MGIB.  He would have transferred his MGIB benefits to the Post-9/11 Bill if he would have known that MGIB transferability to dependents went away and/or that his ADSC would have been waived if he transferred to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  He was not provided the proper information pertaining to the GI Bill benefits or transferring his education benefits to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  

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 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, to include 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 he was unaware that he could not transfer the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) (Chapter 30) to his dependents and his deployment interfered with receiving proper guidance in regards to TEB, other than his own assertions, he has presented no evidence to indicate that he was somehow miscounseled by Air Force officials or that there was error on the part of the Air Force.  Ultimately, the transferability feature of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, not the Montgomery GI Bill, was well publicized and the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that an error on the part of the Air Force prevented him from acting to secure this important benefit when he could have done so.  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-2013-01703 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member






The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01703 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 24 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair