DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, Suite 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204
JET
Docket No. NR7986-14
6 Apr 15
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Toe: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) NAVADMIN 187/09 of 26 Jun 09
(3) NAVADMIN 203/09 of 11 Jul 09
(4) OSD DTM 09-003 of 22 Jun 09
(5) CNPC memo 1780 PERS-314 of 16 Jan 15
1. 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.
2. The Board, consisting ot a and ay.
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on
6 April 2015 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the
corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. 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. The bill provides financial
support for education and housing for service members with at least 90
days of service on or after 11 September 2001. The act also includes
a provision for qualifying service members to transfer educational
benefits to dependents. General descriptions of the essential
components of the new law were widely available beginning in summer
2008 but specific implementing guidance was not published until summer
2009
—e —————
Docket No. NR7986-14
c. The Navy's guidance implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill was
published by NAVADMIN 187/09, released on 26 June 2009, and NAVADMIN
203/09, released 11 July 2009. Under the guidance, “active duty
sailors that separate, retire, transfer to the Fleet Reserve or who
are discharged prior to 1 August 2009 are not eligible to elect
transferability." See enclosures (2) and (3).
d. Petitioner’s application claims that “On August 11, 2010, I
requested that my Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits be transferred. I was
led to believe that my benefits would be approved once I reenlisted
and would be informed if disapproved for any reason. I made this
request of transfer with the full intent of serving four additional
years and have done so, reenlisted on 24 May 2011 for four years.”
His application further claims “While I was attending TAPS, I noticed
that my claim had been rejected. I understood that I had to serve
four years after my request to receive benefits, and I have done
this.” The Board found that when Petitioner reenlisted, it was nine
months after his initial submission of the Transferability of
Educational Benefits (TEB).
e. In correspondence attached as enclosure (5), Commander Navy
Personnel Command (PERS-314) has recommended the request be denied.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Directive Type Memorandum (DTM)
09-003 of 22 June 2009 provided policies and procedures for Navy
members to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlements to eligible family
members. See enclosure (4). | Petitionet% resubmitted hissTEB request
on 11 April 2014; however, his request was again rejected for
insufficient obligated service. Petitioner submitted a request for
retirement and was approved for retirement on 31 May 2015. Since
Petitioner has an approved retirement date of 31 May 2015, Petitioner
cannot commit to serve the required four additional years of obligated
service.
CONCLUSION
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, on
balance, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants
favorable action. The Board carefully weighed the observations made
in enclosure (5) regarding Petitioner’s responsibility. The Board
found that had Petitioner not failed to log back into the TEB web site
to verify that his dependents were properly enrolled, he would have
realized that the transfer of benefits to his dependents was not
properly executed as he had expected. He could have then taken the
necessary steps to correct the problem. The Board further took into
consideration that per the DTM 09-003 of 22 June 2009, the service
obligation requirement starts from the date the request is approved.
That although Petitioner reenlisted on 24 May 2011, eight months after
his initial TEB submission, Petitioner did not resubmit his TEB
request within that time frame. The following factors militated in
favor of relief: That even though the record is clear that there is no
error, the Board felt that there was an injustice to the Petitioner.
2
Docket No. NR7986-14
Petitioner requested to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits on
11 August 2010, making the request with the full intent of serving
four more years. Petitioner reenlisted on 24 May 2011 for four more
years and served the four years of additional service, despite not
resubmitting his TEB request. The Board felt that under these
circumstances a measure of relief is warranted.
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, on or about
“25 May 2011”.
b. Upon completion of the above changes, COMNAVPERSCOM
(PERS-314) will execute an approved Transferability of Educational
Benefits (TEB) application reflecting the transfer information.
c. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board
for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was present at the
Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
Bia The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
bye!
Reviewed and Approved/Degapspresved :
lib 4/2)»
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6633 14
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 | NR773 14
Members who are retired are not ¢€ the benefits. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11738-09
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 | 10088-09
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 | 13339-09
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 | NR7359 14
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 | CY2009 | 09522-09
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 show that she transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents prior to her retirement on 1 September 2009. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 1 February 2010 and, pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09894-09
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 show that she transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her dependents prior to her retirement on 1 September 2009. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 1 Pebruary 2010 and, pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4914 14
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
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...