AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01346 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  allowed  to  accomplish  a  Post  9/11  GI  Bill  transfer  of 
education benefits (TEB) to his dependent daughter. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
On  several  occasions  before  he  retired,  he  tried  to  get 
information  about  transferring  his  Post  9/11  GI  Bill  education 
benefits  to  his  daughter.    He  was  told  that  as  long  as  he  had 
his GI Bill eligibility he could transfer education benefits at 
any  point,  retired  or  not.    He  applied  on  his  own  to  DMDC  web 
site to transfer 100% of the education benefits to his daughter.  
Apparently  the  application  was  never  processed  and  now  he  is 
being  denied  his  combat  earned  GI  Bill  TEB  based  on  a  mis-
communication by the Air National Guard (ANG) and Department of 
Defense (DoD).   
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty,  retirement  order,  his  Post  9/11  GI  Bill  certificate  of 
eligibility,  eyewitness  certification  letter,  his  congressional 
appeal  and  instructions  on  how  to  accomplish  a  TEB  (released 
after his retirement).  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According to documents provided by the applicant, he is a former 
Air  National  Guard  commissioned  officer.    He  was  progressively 
promoted  to  the  grade  of  Lieutenant  Colonel,  (O-5),  with  an 
effective date of rank and pay grade of 13 September 2001.   
 
Effective 13 May 2010, the applicant was assigned to the Retired 
Reserve section awaiting pay at age 60 (29 November 2020).   
 
 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
NGB/A1Y states they contacted the retention office Manager (ROM) 
of the applicant’s former unit and the ROM states that when the 
applicant  started  his  retirement  out-processing  actions,  he 
presented  the  applicant  with  a  unit  specific  “application  for 
separation” form.  One portion of this form asks “has the person 
been briefed on Post 9/11 TEB eligibility?”  The ROM affirms the 
applicant  declined  to  take  the  form  around  the  base  to  the 
appropriate  offices.    The  ROM  also  remembers  asking  the 
applicant about his Post 9/11 TEB and the applicant replying “he 
was  all  set.”    The  ROM  did  not  pursue  the  subject  further  to 
ensure  the  applicant  was  aware  of  the  requirements  to  transfer 
the education benefits before he retired. 
 
If  the  Board  finds  there  was  an  injustice,  A1Y  recommends 
approval. 
 
 
The complete NGB/A1Y evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
NGB/A1PS states they concur with the NGB/A1Y advisory. 
 
The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
In  an  undated  letter  the  applicant  responds  that  he  is 
submitting  the  letter  to  provide  further  explanation  of  his 
request  to  accomplish  the  Post  9/11  TEB.    He  indicates  he  is 
pleased  to  note  the  National  Guard  Bureau  recommended  approval 
of  his  request  as  his  daughter  wishes  to  attend  college  soon.  
He thinks it is critically important for the Board to understand 
that there are many more National Guard members who were either 
given partial, false or rapidly evolving information on when and 
how to file for TEB.   
 
In his case, he actually went online to accomplish the TEB and 
even  showed  a  fellow  guardsman  how  to  accomplish  his  TEB,  but 
apparently  the  transfer  did  not  go  through.    This  situation 
persists  today  which  is  why  the  NGB  Chief  of  Retention,  now 
recommends all ANG members print the screen at each step of the 
of the TEB online process. 
 
The  ROM’s  statement  that  he  said  he  was  “all  set  with  his  GI 
Bill TEB” is correct.  He followed all the information available 
for  the  TEB  process  and  thought  it  was  complete.    The  ROM  is 
also  correct  in  that  he  failed  to  brief  him  about  the 
requirement  to  transfer  the  education  benefits  before  he 
retired.    His  last  time  at  the  unit  before  his  retirement  was 
May 2010.  The ROM was not present at the base at that time.   
 

 

2 

He  always  intended  to  transfer  his  Post  9/11  GI  Bill  education 
benefits  to  his  children.    To  withhold  his  TEB  based  on  an 
acknowledged technical glitch is completely unacceptable.  He is 
finding  fellow  retired  guardsmen  who  are  in  the  same  boat  and 
are  finding  out  as  their  children  are  preparing  to  attend 
college  that  their  TEB  was  never  processed.    He  has  two 
eyewitnesses  who  saw  him  apply.    He  respectfully  requests  the 
Board approve the NGB recommendation.   
 
The applicant’s complete 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  note  the 
Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  recommends  approval 
if  the  Board  finds  an  injustice.    However,  based  on  the 
applicant's complete submission, we find no evidence of an error 
or  injustice.    We  took  note  that  the  retention  office  manager 
remembers  asking  the  applicant  about  his  Post  9/11  TEB  and  the 
applicant  replied  that  “he  was  all  set.”    In  doing  so,  he  did 
not  avail  himself  to  fully  understand  the  Post  9/11  GI  Bill 
requirements.    We  also  took  note  of  the  applicant’s  contention 
that many more National Guard members are either given partial, 
false  or  rapidly  evolving  information  on  when  and  how  to  file 
for  TEB.    However,  in  this  instance,  it  is  not  the  case.    The 
applicant  has  not  provided  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was 
denied the opportunity to transfer benefits to his dependent or 
that he was miscounseled.  Therefore, we find the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, 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  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  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  in  Executive 
Session on 8 January 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 

3 

 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
 
 
  Member 

 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01346 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 March 2012, with atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1Y, dated 8 June 2012. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 11 June 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 June 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated. 
 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

4