DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR3895-14
4 Dec 14
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552 «
‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 December 2014. 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,
régulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by HOMC memo 7220 MPO of 22 Sep 14, a
copy of which is attached.
“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 making this determination, the Board
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act (Post-9/11 GI
Bill, Public Law 110-252) 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 selective
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
Docket No. NR3895-14
who are retired are not eligible to transfer. Information about
the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been readily and publicly available,
and you could have used available resources to educate yourself
on your educational benefits.
Your application claims, essentially, that “In 2010, converted
and transferred my Post 9/11 GI Bill to my dependents. Shortly
thereafter, I received an approval letter from my branch of
service. I retired on 30 April 2012...1 submitted paperwork to
the VA to receive a Certificate of Eligibility for my daughter.
It was denied. According to my approval letter from my service,
my obligation date is May of 2025, which would give me 33 years
of service. I called MMEA this morning (February 10, 2014) to
have this error corrected.” You further state that “Because of
what's at stake, had I known this, I would have not retired when
1 did, and would have simply remained on Active Duty and
additional year.” The Board agreed with the advisory and the
correction they made to correct your obligated end date from 1
May 2025 to 10/11 July 2013 as it should have when your Transfer
of Education Benefits (TEB) was originally approved.
The Board further found that on 10 March 2011 you submitted your
retirement paperwork; then on 8 April 2011 you signed a Post-
9/11 GI Bill Statement of Understanding acknowledging that if “TI
am eligible for retirement on or after August 1, 2011 and before
August 1, 2012, 3 years of additional service is required.”
Regardless of the mistake that was made with your obligated end
date, when you submitted your retirement paperwork and signed
the Post-9/11 GI Bill Statement of Understanding
acknowledgement, you knew or should have known that you had a
threé:year obligation that you had to meetin order to —
successfully transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your
dependents.
Under these circumstances, the Board found that no relief is
warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will he 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
evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, it
is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity
attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying
Docket No. NR3895-14
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,
Js
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: HOMC memo 7220 MPO of 22 Sep 14
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3219 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by HOMC Memo 7220 MPO of 18 Jul 14, 4 copy of which is attached. Members who are retired ar the benefits. Your application claims, that “I was erroneously denied the ability to convey pest 211 educational penefits Lu my children.” You sise claim that “At sometime between April and June 2010, I made the attempt to transfer my educational benefits to my two oldest children...I was told by the Staff Non-Commissioned Officer in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR876 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2014. Because of a civil court case Secretary of the Navy was directed to reconsider his decision made in the Records (BCNR) to consider your case regarding your forced retirement per the FY09 Colonel SRB. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3753 14
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 | NR1068 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by HQMC Memo 4920 MPO of 29 May 14, copy of which 4s attached and was previously sent you, to which you failed to respond. However, the DoD 1341.13 specifically states that ‘an individual may not add family members after retirement or separation from Military Services, uscG, NOAA Corps, or PHS, but may modify the number of months of transferred entitlement or revoke transfer of entitlement after retirement or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2358 14
This is in reference to your application fo naval record A three-member panel of the Board e session, mber 2014. accordance with administrative Records, sitting in executiv application on 30 Septe injustice were reviewed in regulations and procedures appl Board. ‘3.E, Members may check TES periodically for status of their application.” There is no evidence that you entered the TEB website to transfer your benefits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5905 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 November 2013. 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. You claim that in August 2009 while you were still on active duty, you transferred your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your dependents.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5402 14
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 | NR1626 14
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2014. This is an important feature of the law because the transferability Docket Ne.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3138 14
This is an important feature of the law because the transferability Docket No. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board tprior to making#its decision in this case. Consequently, when -appiying 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 | NR5167 14
I was medically separated with 100% service connected disability.” You further claim that “I attended Tap and Tamps in Camp Pendleton and was told that I could transfer my benefits anytime I wanted even after leaving the armed forces.” The Board found you have provided no proof to back up your claim that you were given misleading information on when you could transfer your ‘benefits. considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a...