RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05219
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her 
dependents.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 29 Sep 10, she applied to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill 
benefits to her dependents.  The education office and Military 
Personnel Flight (MPF) assisted in adding their children to her 
records. 
Her spouse’s transfer was successful; however, her transfer action 
was not reflected in the system.  
Both applied to have their benefits transferred to their children 
at the same time because her spouse was preparing for retirement 
and no Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) would be incurred.  
Prior to leaving for the Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy 
(SNCOA) she applied to transfer her benefits.  Her spouse 
witnessed her applying on his computer; however, due to a computer 
glitch there is no record of her application other than the emails 
to the education office and MPF requesting assistance on adding 
their kids to her DEERS records. 
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of statements from her spouse, MPF Supt, and 
email communiques.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
SMSgt.  Her Total Federal Active Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 
30 Aug 91.
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 
member’s 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 to serve four additional years in the Air 
Force from the date of request, regardless of the number of months 
transferred, or
o	Has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active 
duty and/or Selected Reserve, NOAA Corps, or PHS) on the date of 
application, is precluded by either Air Force policy (e.g., High 
Year Tenure [HYT]), DoD policy or statute from committing to four 
additional years of service and agrees to serve for the maximum 
amount of time allowed by such policy or statute.
For those members eligible for retirement after 1 August 2010 and 
on or before 1 August 2011, two years of additional service from 
the date of request was required.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  The Department of Defense (DoD) 
issued a regulation, Directive Type Memo (DTM) 09-003 (reissued 
10 Sep 10), that authorized the Military Departments to offer 
service members the option to transfer benefits.  The Air Force, 
in implementing its guidance, developed a communication plan that 
used the Air Force Personnel Center Commander and the Education 
and Training Sections at each installation to serve as 
spokespersons to communicate the Post-9/ 11 GI Bill transfer-to 
dependent program using internal media, internal communication 
tools, and external trade publications.

The applicant’s request is not supported by the evidence that she 
has been a victim of an error or injustice.  Without a signed 
Statement of Understanding (SOU), Total Force Service Center 
(TFSC) personnel have no idea whether the applicant agrees to the 
3 year ADSC that is required with the transfer of benefits.  As of 
the date of this BCMR, the applicant has not reapplied for the 
TEB.  
The applicant states that she never received approval to transfer 
her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents.  However, had 
she contacted the TFSC as directed she would have been told she 
needed to get the required retainability and sign the SOU.  
The applicant’s spouse stated in his letter that both he and his 
spouse applied on 29 Sep 10, to transfer their benefits to their 
children, splitting their benefits three ways across each of their 
children.  They both watched the other complete the TEB; however, 
neither received a confirmation stating the transfer had been 
successful.  The applicant’s spouse successfully transferred his 
benefits to his children as noted on his Submit Transfer Request 
form which reflects 9 months, 10 months, and 9 months to his 
dependents.  Her spouse also received an email confirmation of 
approval from the TFSC on 28 Sep 10.  In addition, her spouse’s 
Service Member History record reflects a transaction date of 
27 Sep 10 with an approval date of 28 Sep 10.
While the letter from the Supt, MPF is correct in stating the 
process of transferring dependents in DEERS, it has no bearing on 
the confirmation of TEB nor indicates that the applicant’s request 
had been processed.
The applicant states she submitted her application for the Post-
9/11 GI Bill through the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) 
website in Sep 10.  However, all documentation proves the 
applicant did not do the TEB as noted on her Submit Transfer 
Request and Service Member History forms.  The applicant states in 
her letter that she “did not think it was odd” that she did not 
have to sign an ADSC for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  Without a signed 
SOU, the AF has no way to determine if the applicant agreed to the 
3 year ADSC.  
Further, the applicant states that it was her intent to transfer 
benefits in Sep 10; however, the applicant never got the 
retainability for the TEB and never signed the SOU.  Without the 
retainability and SOU, the applicant’s intent cannot be 
determined.
If the Board finds there was an injustice to the extent that the 
applicant did not receive adequate counseling as required by law 
and DoD regulation, the Board may approve the applicant’s request.

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


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When she applied to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her 
children the program was new and there were many glitches in the 
process.  There were no step-by-step instructions that are 
available today.  The only guidance they received was to go into 
the system and apply for the transfer.  
DPSIT stated she should have received an email within 72 hours and 
signed the SOU; however, she contends that when she applied in Sep 
10, the site did not have those instructions posted.
Neither her nor her spouse received notification in any form once 
they submitted their applications for transfer.  While DPSIT 
states her spouse received a confirmation email, that statement is 
incorrect.  The system may show he got a message, but he did not 
and will attest to that fact.  Her spouse is a retired Chief 
Master Sergeant with over 29 years of service and his word should 
count for something.  The emails referenced by DPSIT do not 
confirm that an email was sent to her spouse but that the 
transaction was approved by AFPC.  
DPSIT states that all the documentation proves she did not submit 
her application; however, she contends there was a system error.  
She took what she believed to be the proper steps to transfer the 
educational benefits to her children.  She does not have concrete 
proof; however, her intent has been clearly shown.  Specifically, 
the emails between the Supt, MPF, education office, and herself 
are proof of her intent to transfer her benefits to her children.  
In addition, the memo from the Supt, MPF states the sole purpose 
in attempting to fix the DEERS situation was to transfer the 
applicant’s dependents under her records for the purpose of 
transferring educational benefits.  
She did not acquire the retainability for the TEB because she was 
informed that her extension for her promotion was already 
mandatory.  In addition, she was serving in a joint billet and 
knew her Assignment Availability Code (AAC) 50, which denotes 
CONUS Maximum Stabilized Tours, would extend her enlistment until 
the end of 2013.  She has since reenlisted until Nov 16.  She was 
informed by a reenlistment technician that serving until 
2013 would satisfy the service commitment associated with the TEB.  
She has not gone back into the system to transfer her education 
benefits to her children because she believed she had done so in 
2010 and re-accomplishing this transfer would have extended her 
enlistment for an additional 3 years.  
In further support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
her spouse’s Submit Transfer Request form, email communiques and 
Supt, MPF statement.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an error or injustice.  We note the steps the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility indicates were taken to 
inform eligible personnel of this new benefit.  However, based on 
the evidence from the Supt, MPF and the Education and Training 
Section, (spokesperson to communicate the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB 
program) in support of her request, we find it more likely than 
not that the applicant was not properly counseled regarding the 
steps necessary to transfer her benefits to her dependents.  We 
also do not find it reasonable that she would have knowingly 
elected not to pursue use of this important entitlement.  
Therefore, in the interest of justice, we recommend the record be 
corrected as indicated below.  

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 Sep 10, 
she elected to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits 
to her dependents.  


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05219 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 15, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 31 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Letter,SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 14, w/atchs.