Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5730 14
Original file (NR5730 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JET
Docket No. NR5730-14
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 CNRFC ltr 5420 Ser N1/1071 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. NR5730-14

who are retired are not eligible to transfer their education
benefits.

Your application claims that “I was never told about the Post _
911 GI Bill. I would like to be considered for the Post 911 GI
Bill, and be able to transfer this to my sons...” You further
claim that “My former unit did not inform me of the Post 911 GI
Bill, so I did not know to request to transfer it to my son.”
The Board found that you transferred to the Voluntary Training
Unit (VTU) which is a part of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
on 28 October 2010. Members may only transfer their Post-9/11
GI Bill benefits if they are on active duty or a part of the
Selective Reserve (SELRES). The Board found that while you were
a member of the SELRES and before transferring to the VIU you
failed to transfer your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your
dependents. The Board further found that you have since been
transferred to the Retired Reserve on 31 December 2010. ~

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 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.

Sincergly,

  

ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure: CNRFC memo 5420 Ser N1/1071 of 21 Oct 14

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2082 14

    Original file (NR2082 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC memo 5420 Ser N1/1169 of 20 Nov 14, a copy of which is attached. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9235 13

    Original file (NR9235 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. Therefore I signed on for four years into the Navy Reserves to meet this stipulation.” you further claim that after your wife applied for and was accepted at a university, that “It has now come to my attention, as I tried to transfer my benefits and got denied, that I was wrongfully informed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9487 13

    Original file (NR9487 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC Memo 5420 Ser N1/126 of 7 Feb 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3933 14

    Original file (NR3933 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “tn addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion Furnished by CNRFC ltr 5420 Ser wi/osss5 of 25 Aug 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. The Board found 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5317 14

    Original file (NR5317 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 30 Oct 14, a copy of which is attached. All other dependents have “zero” for number of months and do not have a transfer begin or end date.“ The Board further found 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9375 14

    Original file (NR9375 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the benefits. NR9375-14 daughter's cane the application but is appears that her name was dropped.” e Board concurs with the advisory opinion that a review of your record shows that you initially designated 18 months to your son, but later went back and modified it to 16 months.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5148 14

    Original file (NR5148 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 CNRFC ltr 5420 Ser | N1/1263 dtd 22 Dec.14, a copy of which is attached. NR5148-14 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11287 14

    Original file (NR11287 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by CNRFC letter 5420 Ser N1/0194 dated 4 March 2015 and CNRFC letter 5420 Ser N1/0562 dated 16 May 2014, copies of which are attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. NR11287-14 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 | CY2013 | NR5258 13

    Original file (NR5258 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    NR5258-13 22 Nov 13 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: {a} Title 10 U.&.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to establish entitlement to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits to his dependents. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsalman, and Mr. Exnicios, reviewed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2891-13

    Original file (NR2891-13.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 October 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC Memo 5420 Ser N1/0846 dtd 24 Jul 13, a copy of which is attached.