Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR773 14
Original file (NR773 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
(01S. GUUREHOUSE ROAL, SULT E 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JET
Docket No. NRO773-14
12 Nov 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 12 November 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,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 14 Feb
14, CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 2 Jun 14 and CNPC memo 1780 PERS-
314 of 25 Aug 14, copies of which are 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 such benefits.
This is an important feature of the law because the
Docket No. NRO773-14

an incentive vice a

transferability provisions are intended as
ligible to transfer

penefit. Members who are retired are not ¢€
the benefits.

ailed to take the steps necessary to
lication claims, that “I started my

housing humting/jos hunting om 3Aug2009, my terminal leave
started on 24Aug2009, and my retirement date was 31Nov2009.
Because my retirement date followed 50 closely behind the

1 memo (2270un2002) , the memo was

release of the Post 9/11 GI Bil
not well known at my command and key points of the memo were not
ement.” However, the Board

disseminated to me before my retir
formation about the Post-9/11

found that whether as you claim in
GI Bill was not disseminated to you or the command before your

retirement, information about the Post-9/1i GI Billi has been

readily and publicly available, and you could have used
available resources to educate yourself on your educational

benefits.

Fvidence shows that you £
transfer benefits. Your app

‘per OSD DTM 09-003 of 22 jun 09,

attachment 1, paragraph 3.b., it was the responsibility of the
Secretary of the Navy to vensure” that all eligible active duty
members were aware of the Post 9/11 GI Bill.” The Navy ensured

this by publishing NAVADMIN 187/09 and NAVADMIN 203/09, and even
i information in the remarks section of

the October 2003 Leave and EFarnings Statement,

you interested in transferring your Post~-

benefits to your family members?
details."

Petitioner also claims that

 

process of transferring the Post-9/11
dents was widely available, and though
job hunting then terminal leave, you

Information regarding the
GI Bill benefits to depen

you were on house hunting,
were not barred from using those resources.

the Board found that no relief is
has been denied. The

1 will be furnished

Under these circumstances, (
warranted. Accordingly, your application
names and votes of the members of the pane

upon request.
sidered your request for a personal
found that the issues in the case were

hat a personal appearance would not

s understanding of the issues
t for a personal appearance hag been

The Board members also con
appearance; however, they
adequately documented and t
materially add to the Board’
involved. Thus, your reques

denied.
Docket No. NRO773-14

It is regretted that the circumstances. of your case are sucn
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 considere

prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, it

is important to keep in mind thet a presumption of regularity

attaches to ali 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

Enclosures: 1. CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 14 Feb 14
2. CNPC memo 1780 PERS~-314 of 2 Jun 14
3. CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 25 Aug 14

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4914 14

    Original file (NR4914 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In August 2011, NAVADMIN 235/11 changed this requirement and established a deadline for transfer of eligibility of August 1, 2013. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Beginning 1 August 2013, DoD Policy requires that all service members who wish to transfer their education benefits to a family member obligate for an additional four years of service regardless of their time in service or retirement date.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR307 14

    Original file (NR307 14.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 August 2014. 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. However, the screen shot of the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) application you printed prior to submitting your application clearly shows two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2476 14

    Original file (NR2476 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 CNPC Memo 1780 PERS-314 o— 1 Jul 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden igs on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 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 | NR6879 14

    Original file (NR6879 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NR6879-14 application claims, “I was not informed of the two year requirement to transfer my GI Bill would take effect at the time of transfer.” In reviewing your record, however, the Board concurred with NAVADMIN 203/09 states “For those eligible for retirement on or after 1 August 2011 and before 1 August 2012, three years of additional service is required.” Therefore since you did not have an additional three years of remaining service, you were ineligible to transfer your Post-9/1i1 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 | 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...