DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR5167-14
20 Jan 15
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 20 January 2015. 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 HQMC memo 7220 MPO of 21 Oct 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. NRS167-14
who are retired are not eligible to transfer their education
‘benefits.
Your application claims, “I was given less than a month noticed
that I was being separated for the Marine Corps in Feb 2013. 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. The Board further found that though you were
medically discharged, you did not have the minimum service
requirements to transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill to your
dependents. You did not have 10 years of service prior to your
medical discharge. Therefore, in the Board’s view, you are not
entitled to transfer benefits and no change to your record is
warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the pane] 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
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
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,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: HQMC memo 7220 MPO of 21 Oct 14
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | NR3895 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by HOMC memo 7220 MPO of 22 Sep 14, a copy of which is attached. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 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.
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 | 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 | 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.