RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02655

	XXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  YES

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits (TEB) to his dependent.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2009 he transferred 36 months of his benefits to his dependent; however, there was some unknown technical difficulty that prevented his request from being received and processed by AFPC.

In Aug 2009 after finishing his C-130 checkride with a fellow officer, he had a conversation with that officer regarding the transfer of Post-9/11 benefits.  The fellow officer said she had submitted her request on-line to transfer her benefits and encouraged him to do the same.  Soon thereafter, he either went online or faxed the request to transfer all of his benefits to his daughter.  He presumed the transfer was complete and in Apr 14, he went on-line to the AFPC website and spoke with an AFPC representative to confirm his benefits; however, he was told that there was no record of the transfer.  He recently spoke with another officer who informed him that there were some issues with the “system” to transfer benefits in 2009, which is likely the reason there is no record in the system.  

He has been committed to the USAF for 23 years, completing 13 deployments.  He had planned on staying in until 28 years, but was forced out with an early retirement. He believes he deserves the privilege to transfer this benefit to his daughter. He has had no desire to pursue further schooling, since he completed his Master’s Degree in 2001.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, validating the date he had the conversation with his fellow officer regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  At the bottom of the form is the fellow officer’s name and contact information who will confirm their conversation.  Additionally he provides two e-mails from two other officers with whom he discussed the GI Bill Benefits.  The first e-mail confirms that a conversation took place, where his fellow officer stated that he was briefed that the on-line system to transfer benefits was having issues when it was first stood up.  The second e-mail also confirms a conversation with another officer, which occurred in 2013 and indicates that the applicant thought that he did in fact transfer his benefits to his daughter.   
  
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the events under review, the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record that he applied for TEB in 2009.

On 29 Apr 14, the Right Now Technology Discussion Thread, shows that the applicant called AFPC in regards to his TEB that he filed in 2010 and was informed that there was no record and he would need to submit a DD Form 149 to the BCMR.

On 30 Apr 14, the Right Now Technology Discussion Thread, states that the applicant submitted an application for TEB.  

On 2 Jun 14, the Right Now Technology Discussion Thread, that his application to transfer his benefits expired because he did not sign a Statement of Understanding (SOU) or he did not acquire the appropriate retainability. 

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 29 May 91.  In accordance with AFI 36-2306, Para A9.18.1.4.4. “For those members eligible for retirement after 
1 Aug 10 and on or before 1 Aug 11, two years of additional service from the date of request is required.”  Based on his TAFMSD, he would have incurred a 2-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) obligation with TEB approval.

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 B.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  There is no record in the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application that the applicant applied for TEB in Aug 09.  Without a signed SOU, Total Force Service Center personnel cannot determine if the applicant accepts the 
2-year ADSC; 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 (AFI 36-2306, Attachment 9, A9.18.l.2, A9.18.l.3 and
A9.18.l.4).  Without a signed Statement of Understanding (SOU), no eligibility can be determined.  By current law and regulation, because there is no evidence the applicant applied for TEB or signed a SOU via MilConnect in Aug 09, a TEB application cannot be approved. 

If the BCMR feels an injustice has occurred and decides to approve the case, the TEB approval date would be 31 Aug 09 with an obligation end/ADSC date of 31 Aug 09.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation, was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


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 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 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.

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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02655 in Executive Session on 11 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX

The following documentary evidence was considered: 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 22 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.