RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00924
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of
Educational Benefits (TEB) to his dependent.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unaware of the TEB benefit while going through the
retirement process. He would have been eligible for TEB without
any obligation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 August 2010, the applicant was relieved from active duty
and retired on 1 September 2010, in the grade of master sergeant
under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Vol Retirement: Sufficient
Service for Retirement). He served 20 years, 3 months and
15 days of active duty service.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states the applicants
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 16 May
1990. According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)
application, there is no record the applicant applied for TEB,
nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC)
according to the Right Now Technology regarding TEB (to include
his eligibility for the program). Based on the applicants
TAFMSD, he would have incurred a one year Active Duty Service
Commitment (ADSC) from the date of the TEB request.
There is no record in DMDC the applicant applied for TEB;
therefore, no eligibility for the program could be established,
as the law/regulations cite the date of request as the date on
which the appropriate service obligation would be established.
Without a request, no eligibility can be determined and no TEB
application can be approved. The applicant made no effort to
contact the TFSC or the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to
confirm his ineligibility for the TEB program.
The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states the changes to the Post 9/11 GI Bill in
August of 2009 were not communicated efficiently to all branches
of the service. The terms of this benefit were never discussed
at any out-briefings that he attended prior to his separation
from the Air Force. Never once was he told that he met the new
requirement of service time for the benefit. The DoD changed
the eligibility for benefits in August of 2009 if he had not
met the eligibility requirements - he may have opted to stay on
active duty for whatever amount of time required in order to
secure this benefit. He was deployed for approximately four
months during his last year of active duty, he was the
Production Superintendent for the 1st Fighter Wing - 94th AMU,
Langley Air Force Base with a serious amount of responsibility
for security and safety for this country, and yet somehow, he
was supposed to have found the time to peruse any and all DOD
documents that may or may not have explained this one benefit.
This is absolutely an injustice.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of 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 and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We
note there is no record the applicant applied for TEB or that he
inquired with the TFSC regarding the TEB. 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 an error or an 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-2014-00924 in Executive Session on 20 February 2015,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 February 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 1 April 2014.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 September 2014.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 October 2014, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01697
According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the member applied for TEB at any time, nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) according to the Right Now Technology regarding TEB (to include eligibility for the program). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01946
There is no record in the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application that the member applied for TEB; therefore, no eligibility for the program could be established, as the law/regulations cite the date of request as the date on which the appropriate service obligation would be established (IAW AFI 36-2306, Attachment 9, A9.18.l.2, A9.18.l.3 and A9.18.l.4). APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation, was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Aug 14 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01981
DPSIT states according to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the applicant applied for TEB at any time, nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) according to the Right Now Technology regarding TEB (to include eligibility for the program). 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 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03864
In accordance with AFI 36-2306, For individuals eligible for retirement on 1 August 2009, no additional service is required. Based on his TAFMSD, he would have incurred no active duty service commitment (ADSC) obligation with TEB approval. On 31 May 13, the applicant retired from the Air Force. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01619
The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because in 2010 his daughter was only in the 9th grade, therefore, there were no actions required. Without a request, a TEB application cannot be approved and eligibility cannot be determined. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02565
Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members. According to the DMDC application, there is no record the applicant applied for TEB at any time, nor did he inquire with the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) regarding TEB, until 14 Mar 14. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02521
In reference to the timeliness of the application, the applicant states that he retired on 31 Dec 09 and submitted his application for Correction of Military Records on 5 Jun 2014, the time between those two dates is 4 years, 5 months and 3 days excluding the end date, still within this identified 5-year time period. He understands if there is no record of his TEB request; however, the Air Force has a record of his 23 years of service and who he had listed as his dependents. THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03695
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03695 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits (TEB) to her dependents. Without a request, a TEB application cannot be approved and eligibility cannot be determined. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03038
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03038 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits (TEB) to his dependent. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03051
The narrative reason for his separation was Voluntary Retirement: Sufficient Service for Retirement. 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. Without a request, a TEB application cannot be approved and eligibility cannot be determined. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...