DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mo
O
Wa 44
O
G
oY
“dG
WW Oo
G -d
O WY
“dA ocd
od -p
Qa, oO
WH
cm Py
H WY
ss Sf
oO
oO
Oo pp
i)
J)
og
oO ©
Gg oO
o wn
MoH
a 3
Wy Oy
W
WO
SI
ca 0
d O
@
wow
rc
ra
i)
a
fit}
cA
submit
s
uh
1
1G
el
tH
@
it |
&
1 ' ©
[G
mo
1 Oo
}
1
s
agar ell
tle
vu
wa
i
©)
! E
ui
oO oO
a
; fa
vo 3
or oO
oO Wa
oO
~ €
JAs La oes
ear
Lee
Bi
=
- @
Ov ec
©
Oo =
m @
G
{J
w w
34
mv
ey
ey 4H
Oo
ct
uv]
gy
OG
wv
og
> ©
-41
Hye
0)
summer
17
neo
qm
Ad G
Gc QQ
Ged
“dao
m Qa
os
“
Vv
eser
importan
pr
47
e
ic
nN
Docket No. NR6441-14
who are retired are not eligible to transfer. Into
the Post-9/1l 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, “I was eligible to transfer to the
Flee. Reserve Pemruary oe 2011. iL was stationed at the Navy
Personnel Command (NPC) at the time the Post 9/11 GI (Bjiii was
enacted and consulted several individuals prior to electing to
transfer to the Fleet Reserve.” Petitioner further claims that
“one of those individuals was a person responsible for the
approval to transfer eligibility for all Navy members at NPC.
This individual | ensured me that this decision would
have no bearing on my ability to transfer benefits.” However,
the Board found that you have provided no proof that you were
misled or given misinformation.
Your application further claims, “I am writing this notice of
Disagreement based on the denial that I received from the
Department of veteran affairs dated 26 August 2013. This letter
states that I had an active duty date obligation end date of
:
January 10, 2012 and that I was discharged with an effective
date of May 31, 2011, and did not complete his obligation and
therefore am not eligible to transfer my Post 9-11 GI Bill to my
spouse.” The Board members concurred with the advisory opinion,
a
and took into consideration, that on 11 January 2010, you
submitted your Trans-er of Education Benefits (TER) request
agreeing ©o =ne serms of -~rans=erabl1.2\ Your TEE request was
approvee with at bligated End Dare NED: of 10 January 201s
twhieh 18 clearly visible 22 -Ne TEE application’ Of, 31
2013 you voluntarily retived, transierring © che Fleet Reserve
pefore the OED of 10 January 2012 you agreed to when you
transferred your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to your dependents
Under these circumstances, the Board found that no relie= 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.
“] understand and agree to remain in the armed Forces for the period required. -
understand that failure to complete that service may Jead to an overpayment py the
Department of veterans Affairs for any payments made. (Service documentation will
Dochet Ne. NR6441-14
New evidence is evidence not previous-y considered by the Boare
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
d, the burden is on
an official naval recor
for a correction of is
the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable materia
eee lo eA
error Ul anjuUscice.
Sincerely,
OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 19 Nov 14
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5036 14
Your application Ciditin, “Se ReGaets soo, T siqned a 1070/613 (Page 13) and also updated the system to transfer my POST 9-11 GI Bill entitlements to my dependents. pr-9> ac transferability request: anda 2, Complete e-ectron-c <= election using TEE.” The Board members furzher founc onlv change which occurred to the program, occurred w portal during affect the databases that contained the have not submitted any proof contrary to the Board members took into consideration, that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5899 14
1 \ o M H " o 3 ; cs c = . et oO ) { 1 v | oO Vv a 'O a ‘ { ct Pa a 13 a os { a J p = se ) w ¢ va OU wW 4 s 4 ud : a 1 1 O 4H Sak oO = cg a 4 Hw OO ms ‘ ul 1) $4 i oO a ee ' q U oO iJ Y a 3 i ~ w ae a y w oO ) \ , ec ; O & /) — eH ri ++ 4 1 } ans QO . oO ¢ 2 yw cof x ci a4 a 1 O-4 Oo x $} G@ O M 2 oO =A YD i io i) ri = O WH © + m4 ~~ = r { > = > = O-d ia Bon © - > za ou mM WO cl » 3 wa w oan it a Hoo @ y Oc e 1 HG El le Za HOW 6 an.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6761 14
)¢ OR i z = ce Py Oo om Pe Hw YU Q) o 4 w cd Oop GQ i St) ~ 3 uO oO O oO Mm o ow Wi @ o iW Oo 1) Ow 3 wm o i @ oH oa rc Q oO wm @ Yo aoa G fx ag Ww o Ho o,nn oD SG wy 2 Hed & OV Qa Oo HS Qo44 Hi E 1 gm O Youn o oH U Ee “cl wv 1 ~ oH ow “ ou vO rd My oy ed ri} 3. 0Ort > WO © oO G am vo 4 ) + co Up ICel beca law ed as an ea r ena 15 4 provi Docket No. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6468 14
{ ) al r a) ¢ a Tm 6d \ > gus oO 4 t cd ie) ) i ) r AUT) oti C { QO -d C ay) ty 43 GS o S es b Docket No. Members who are retired are not eligible to cransfer your education benefits. The Board found that there was not revision to the Post-9/11 GI Bill law or policy in December 2009 as you claim.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11485 14
NGTON, VA 22204-2490 your application o the provisions Cc o A three-member panel Records, sitting ine L e application on 16 December 20 members of the panel will Your allegations of error and in accordance with administrative applicable to the proceedings material considered by the Bo 1 S together with all material su naval record, and applicable ne ae tue a a qa He wage ? we Wat — Wa eoe ame Se LY st te QO SG oO i e in eA} On b- p- a] pe tO Oo 3 Qa OQ RE oom o wy i) 3 -Orcda = Mm mn...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5361 14_Redacted
Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session on 8 October 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, any material submitted in support of your application, and prior case Eile. After careful and conscientious consideration of the enti record, the Board determined the letter from the Depart Veterans Affairs stating you are being treated for s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5881 14
NAVY E DEPARTMENT OF TH a u r £ E 1 4 ‘ 4 i Go 4 Gb ne Bo 4H O ) { ‘ 4 1 Amini SAUL ii) p=) { Oa HOG YO py « n T wv a un) Oo im Oo ore O rp Oo @ on a 1 a a PA dd UO 4 vo cD ~ 2 oO OH S Q Vv G& Ox dh Pp ow OH id ume U2 crorde: oe Ny Rea rant Will comments ished 1 publ ns ulLatio ni er rTeTnd fit crewW1y re actly ad my ) memir a lectio Docket No. NR586i-14 who are retired are not eligible to transfer their education benefits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0126
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0126 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: a. Enlisted as AB 96/05/23 for 4°Yrs. If you need more space, submit additional issues on an attachment.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of dischange to Honora ] e. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before: the Discharge Review Board. CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that'the discharge was consistent . ” For this, you received | a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated and Jun 96. e. On 4 Apr 96, you failed to report to your duty section on time.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00082
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | 3003-00082 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change her reenlistment code. The Board will also review the case to determine whether there are any issues that provide a basis for upgrading your discharge. (Atch 1-2) c. On or about 20 June 2000, without authority, you failed to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty.