RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02820
XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
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 August 2009 he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits allocating 30 months of benefits to his wife, 1 month to each of his three children, and retaining 3 months of benefits for himself. When he went through TAP in Feb 13 he verified that his TEB had properly transferred. However, recently he attempted to reallocate 29 months to his daughter, but when he went to the
E-benefit Website he found that the VA system did not properly carry over his initial transfer.
In support of his appeal, the applicant states that his hard copy education records were destroyed when the Shaw AFB Education Center converted to a virtual center. Therefore the hard copy record of his visit and the online registration to transfer benefits are not available.
The applicants complete submission 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 master sergeant (E-7).
According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, the applicant did not apply for TEB until 1 Jul 14.
The applicants Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 19 Sep 90. In accordance with AFI 36-2306, Para A9.18.1.4.4. 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 is required. Based on his TAFMSD, he would have incurred a 2-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) obligation with TEB approval.
According to his DD FM 214, Certificate of Release from Active Duty, the applicant retired from the Regular Air Force effective 30 Sep 14. 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. There is no record in the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application that the member applied for TEB in Aug 09; 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). Without a request, a TEB application cannot be approved. The applicant provides no documentation/evidence of an attempted application for TEB.
If the BCMR feels an injustice has occurred and decides to approve the case, the most reasonable estimate with regard to the TEB approval date would be 1 Aug 09.
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 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 applicants 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-2014-02820 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 1 Jul 14.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 22 Aug 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
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 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 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 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 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 02655
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. The fellow officer said she had submitted her request on-line to transfer her benefits and encouraged him to do the same. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03195
According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) application, there is no record the member applied for TEB at any time. 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. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
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 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...
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...