IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    4 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011135 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests approval to transfer her educational benefits under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to her dependent daughter.

2.  She states:

	a.  she retired from the Army in October 2010 and she was unaware that she was required to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill to her dependent prior to retiring.

	b.  her daughter, C.M. was attending college, but she can't financially support her without utilizing this benefit.

	c.  she intentionally left 12 months of benefits unused because she knew her daughter would need it to complete her degree.

	d.  she believes that prior to a Soldier retiring from the military he or she should be provided this information.  

3.  She provides no additional documents.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant retired on 31 October 2010 in the rank of sergeant first class upon completion of sufficient years of service.
2.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Education Incentives Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY, who states:

	a.  Public Law 110-252 establishes legal limitations on the transferability of unused Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.  The law limits eligibility to transfer unused benefits to those members of the Armed Forces who are serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009.

	b.  The applicant is not eligible to transfer her education benefits to her dependent under the provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill because she did not provide evidence showing she attempted to transfer them to her dependent daughter, C.M., prior to leaving military service.  She also did not provide evidence showing she was given false information by a reliable source about the rules of transferring education benefits.  The applicant transferred education benefits to her dependent child, B.M.D., while she was still in military service.

   c.  The TEB online database shows the applicant had two eligible dependents enrolled in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System.  She was eligible to transfer B.M.D. (child) and C.M.M. (child).  The applicant transferred education benefits to B.M.D. but not to C.M.M.  She claims she didn't complete the requirements in the TEB online database for C.M.M. because she was not aware of the requirement to transfer at least one month to C.M.M. prior to leaving service.
   
	d.  The applicant's last day in the service was 31 October 2010, which was not within 90 days after the program's implementation.

   e.  The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request.

3.  On 6 September 2012, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  On 21 September 2012, she submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion stating:

	a.  she wasn't aware that she was required to transfer to her daughter, C.M. prior to retiring from the military.  

	b.  she transferred benefits to her other daughter, B.D., prior to her retiring.  B.D. was attending college and using the benefits while she was serving on active duty.  If she was aware of the Public Law 110-252, there would not have been a reason why she wouldn't have transferred at least one month to C.M.

	c.  At the time of her retirement, C.M. was using her father's (ex-husband), benefits.  Her ex-husband is a member of the Selected Reserve, he has 30 years of service, and he was planning on retiring; however, he extended his contract to extend his benefits to C.M.  Her ex-husband transferred all of his benefits to C.M. and she was transferring one year to C.M. so she could obtain a degree.

	d.  She has been unemployed for the past year and not allowing her to transfer these benefits will cause an extreme hardship.  

4.  On 22 June 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) established the criteria for eligibility and transfer of unused educational benefits to eligible family members.  The policy states an eligible individual is any member of the Armed Forces on or after 1 August 2009 who, at the time of the approval of the individual's request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and:

	a.  has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election and agrees to serve 4 additional years in the Armed Forces from the date of election; or

	b.  has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on the date of election, is precluded by either standard policy (service or DOD) or statute from committing to 4 additional years, and agrees to serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute; or

	c.  is or becomes retirement eligible during the period 1 August 2009 through 1 August 2013.  A service member is considered to be retirement eligible if he or she has completed 20 years of active duty or 20 qualifying years of Reserve service.

5.  The policy further states the Secretaries of the Military Departments will provide active duty participants and members of the Reserve Components with qualifying active duty service individual pre-separation or release from active duty counseling on the benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and document accordingly and maintain records for individuals who receive supplemental educational assistance under Public Law 110-252, section 3316.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's statements in regard to her entitlement to TEB under the 
Post-9/11 GI Bill to her dependent daughter are acknowledged.


2.  The evidence of record shows she was fully eligible to transfer her educational benefits under the TEB prior to her retirement on 31 October 2010, but did not do so.

3.  Even though she contends she was unaware that she was required to transfer her Post-9/11 GI Bill to her dependent daughter prior to her retirement, the DOD, the VA, and the Army conducted a massive public campaign plan that generated major communications through military, public, and social media venues.  The information was published well in advance with emphasis on the criteria.  While there may have been some confusion during the early stages (the first 90 days) after the implementation, the applicant did not retire until 1 full year after the program was implemented.

4.  Since the applicant did not transfer her educational benefits before she retired on 31 October 2010 and she is ineligible to transfer her benefits by law.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _ X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011135





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011135



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1