RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02545
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her
dependents.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In November 2010, she applied to transfer her education benefits
and was informed she needed to extend her service contract in
order to meet the four-year service commitment. She completed
the extension paperwork only to receive an email in February
2013, informing her that she failed to sign the Statement of
Understanding (SOU) in 2010 and would have to reapply and incur
another four-year service commitment. She is unable to further
extend due to her plans to retire in November 2014.
The applicants complete submission 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).
On 22 Jun 11, the applicant applied for an extension of her
enlistment for the purpose of being eligible to transfer
education benefits (TEB).
On 24 Jun 11, the applicants extension of her enlistment was
approved and her active duty service commitment was established
as 30 Nov 14.
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 there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant would have had to go
through the Virtual Military Personnel Flight (VMPF) prior to
reaching the website to submit her transfer request. The
applicant would have also had numerous notifications throughout
the process instructing her on the actions needed to complete
her application. Additionally, the applicant did not have the
required four years of retainability within the window of her
application (29 Nov 10 15 Dec 10). Her extension paperwork
was not completed until 22 Jun 11. In accordance with AFI 36-
2306, Voluntary Education Program, Attachment 9, A9.18.1.2,
members must have six years of service in the Armed Forces and
agree to serve four additional years on the date of request.
The applicant did not satisfy these eligibility requirements
which are why her application was rejected.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, Chapter 33 became effective 1 Aug 09.
Any member of the Armed Forces who, on or after 1 August 2009,
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.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 21 Jun 13 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 applicants 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
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
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-2013-02545 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 13.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 31 May 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-04574
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. However, the Board could find that there was an injustice if the members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04574
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. However, the Board could find that there was an injustice if the members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05014
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05014 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) be reestablished based on the contract she signed in Jun 10 and the remaining Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for the TEB be waived. In Jun 10, when she was approved for the Post 9/11 GI Bill TEB, she incurred a four-year ADSC of 24 Jun 14 (HYT for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02875
The Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB requires: 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, and: * Has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election and agrees to serve 4 additional years in the Armed Forces from the date of election. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05219
Transferability of unused benefits to dependents: Any member of the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on or after 1 August 2009 who meets Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility requirements and at the time of the approval of the members request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance the member meets one of the following: o Has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of application and agrees...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00386
Service members enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program are able to transfer unused educational benefits to their dependent spouse or children. A complete copy of the DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ 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 personal appearance; and that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05062
As a United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) graduate, he was not eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill. He would have requested TEB for Post-9/11 GI Bill had he understood that the eligibility requirements were different. _______________________________________________________________ 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 personal appearance;...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05383
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described 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 there is no evidence of an error or injustice. For the first time in history, service members enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program are able to transfer unused educational benefits to their dependent spouses or children. THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03804
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03804 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records to be corrected to show he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to his dependents while on active duty. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02178 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) to her dependents. In support of the applicants appeal, she provides a copy of AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the...