Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6468 14
Original file (NR6468 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

 

 

ul

2
z

FE
oO
1

FOR CO

or

BOAT

 

 

 
 

 

G
f
C
4
{
t

J

 

 

 

 

uw

 

1

    

43 nm oO
\ we) 3
Gg eASD
W Oo
© UO HARE
oH E wu
Q og
G oO
43 H
now don Hi
oo a wv Od
dit WO Ss Qu
Oo yp > E
yw G 4 oOo v0
os S
moi d OU
Set
d oy ra 43
Tm 1 iu)
My Oo 4
OH W Aa ov
HH O >
H
Uv

 
 

= c .
{ ) 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. NR6468-14

benefit. Members who are retired are not eligible to cransfer
your education benefits.

Rvidence shows that you Failed to take the steps necessary to
transfer benefits. Your application claims, “I believe the
veteran Affairs (VA) record to be in error and uniust due the
revision to tne Fosu-9/i2 Gx Bid nenefitc, Transfer of
Entitlement (TOE) to dependents, revision in December 2009. I
strongly feel that my TOE should be grandfathered into the
policy based on eligibility at the time of retirement and not
subject to the policy change after September 2009." The Board
found that there was not revision to the Post-9/11 GI Bill law
or policy in December 2009 as you claim. Members cannot be
grandfathered into the Post-9/11 as there are procedures members

must follow as outlined in the NAVADMIN 203/09 published 11 July
2009.

Furthermore, the Board found that per the guidelines as put
forth in NAVADMIN 203/092, there is no evidence that you entered
the TEB website to transfer your benefits. 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. Under these circumstances, the

Board found that no relief is warranted. xccordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnisned upon request.
“ct is regretztec That che cixvcumstances Of your case
“nat zavorable action cannot De Taler. You ere She:
che Board reconsiaer +25 gecision upor submiss-on o-

© q # the Board

New evidence is eviden x
prior to making its decision in this case. in this
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

 

iF

1 parT II - Process to Transfer Pest-9/11 Gi Bill, Reserve Education Assistance
Program (REAP) Chapter 1607, and Montgomery G1 Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) Chapter
1606 Entitlements.

1. Ensure spouse/child(ren) is/are enrolled in DEERS prior to makinc ¢lection to
transfer entitlement.

2. Ensure additional service obligation (officer anda enlisted) is properly documented
in electronic service record (ESR) prior to initiating transferability request.

3. Complete electronic transfer election using TEB.
Docket No. NR6468-14

trate the existence of probable material

DT / Y
Cert (SMe 1/
ROBERT J. O’ NEILL

Executive Director

the applicant to demons
error or injustice.

CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 3 Nov 14

Enclosure:

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5899 14

    Original file (NR5899 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | NR5036 14

    Original file (NR5036 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR6633 14

    Original file (NR6633 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    d. Petitioner's application claims that on 20 January 2010 he signed a Page 13 (see enclosure (1)) agreeing “to complete four more years in the armed forces from the date that I request transferability of Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to my dependents." However, Petitioner claims that the Page 13 never made it into his Electronic Service Record (ESR) when he originally signed it in January 2010. b. Petitioner successfully submitted an online TEB request to transfer his Post-9/11 GI...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7986 14

    Original file (NR7986 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 eligibility to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: a. Petitioner successfully submitted an online TEB request to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10088-09

    Original file (10088-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 September 2009 representatives from BUPERS-262G advised Petitioner by phone that under the law and regulations implementing the Post 9/11 GI Bill, he was not eligible to Docket No. Although a regrettable error was made in originally approving Petitioner’s application to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents, Petitioner is, in fact, not eligible under the law. Prior to 31 August 2009, Petitioner made a timely request to transfer Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11738-09

    Original file (11738-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 September 2009 representatives from BUPERS-262G mailed Petitioner a letter advising him that under the law and regulations implementing the Post 9/11 GI Bill, he was not eligible to transfer benefits to his dependents because he was not on active duty on 1 August 2009. In it, Petitioner seeks to have the record changed to show that (1) he was released from active duty after 1 August 2009 in order to establish eligibility to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and (2) that his request...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13339-09

    Original file (13339-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. 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 eligibility to transfer Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits to his dependents. Prior to 31 August 2009, Petitioner made a timely request to transfer Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6441 14

    Original file (NR6441 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 letter states that I had an active duty date obligation...

  • 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 | 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...