Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4117 13
Original file (NR4117 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 §, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 4001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JET

Docket No. NR4117-13

16 Dec 13

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 use 1552.

BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your

application on 1é December 2013. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative

regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this

Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,

regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by CNPC Memo 1780 PERS-314 dtd 17 Sep

13, a copy of which is attached.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Fducation Assistance Act (Post-9/11 GI
Bill, Public Law 410-252) was signed into law on 30 June 2008
and became effective on 1 August 2009. General descriptions of
the essential components of the new law were widely available
beginning in summer 2008 and specific implementing guidance was
published in the summer of 2009. Under the governing
regulations, to be eligible to transfer benefits, a member must
be on active duty or in the selected reserve at the time of the
election to transfer. This is an important feature of the law
because the transferability provisions are intended as an
incentive vice a benefit. Members who are retired are not
eligible to transfer such benefits.

Evidence shows that you failed to take the steps necessary to
transfer benefits. Your application claims, essentially, that
your failure should be excused since you will have completed

five years of additional service since initially submitting your

request to transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your
Docket No. NR4117-13

dependents on 20 October 2009. When you initially attempted to
transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your dependents on
20 October 2009, your request was rejected because you did not
have enough obligated service time listed in your Electronic
Service Record (ESR). You have stated that you on 17 December
Z010 you agreed to serve an additional four years and, upon your
retirement on 31 December. 2014, you will have served a total of
an additional five years. However, when you agreed to extend
you did not immediately attempt to resubmit your request to
transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. When you next
attempted to transfer your Post-93/11 on 17 January 2013, you
then had less than two years remaining on your contract so your
request to transfer was again rejected. According to Commander,
Navy Personnel Command (PERS-314) you now have an approved
retirement date of 31 December 2014, and are therefore
ineligible for transferability of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Had
you followed up on your application after it was rejected in
October 2009, you would have been able to complete any actions
necessary to effect the transfer of benefits.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

 

Enclosure: CNPC Memo 1780 PERS-314 dtd 17 Sep 13

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR307 14

    Original file (NR307 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the screen shot of the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) application you printed prior to submitting your application clearly shows two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7632 13

    Original file (NR7632 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. This is an important feature of the law because the transferability Docket No. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7359 14

    Original file (NR7359 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that in 2011 as you claim, you initially submitted a request to transfer your ‘Post-9/11 GI Bill to your dependents. The Board also determined that NAVADMIN 203/09 published in June 2009 provided the procedures members are required to follow to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to their family members. If request is disapproved, member must take corrective action and reapply.” Furthermore, the Board members took into consideration, that on 29 January 2014 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR773 14

    Original file (NR773 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Members who are retired are not ¢€ the benefits. Because my retirement date followed 50 closely behind the 1 memo (2270un2002) , the memo was release of the Post 9/11 GI Bil not well known at my command and key points of the memo were not ement.” However, the Board disseminated to me before my retir formation about the Post-9/11 found that whether as you claim in GI Bill was not disseminated to you or the command before your retirement, information about the Post-9/1i GI Billi has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4914 14

    Original file (NR4914 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In August 2011, NAVADMIN 235/11 changed this requirement and established a deadline for transfer of eligibility of August 1, 2013. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Beginning 1 August 2013, DoD Policy requires that all service members who wish to transfer their education benefits to a family member obligate for an additional four years of service regardless of their time in service or retirement date.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8068 14

    Original file (NR8068 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board has determined, -however, that regardless of who was with you when you claim to have :made the transfer of benefits, there is no evidence of you having ever “transferred your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your dependents. Furthermore, the Board found that even there was evidence to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2389 14

    Original file (NR2389 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Members who are retired are not eligible to transfer. You also stated in your application that you “submitted a retirement request of 1 August 2014."

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5637 14

    Original file (NR5637 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2476 14

    Original file (NR2476 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNPC Memo 1780 PERS-314 o— 1 Jul 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden igs on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1676-13

    Original file (NR1676-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNPC Memo 1780 PERS-314 dtd 7 May 13, a copy of which is attached. Information was published in NAVADMINS 187/09 & 203/09 detailing the actions members were required to take to transfer their benefits to their dependents.