Additional Post-9/11 GI Bill Service Obligation to Transfer Benefits Meets Involuntary Separation: Your Thoughts?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:13:08 -0400

Generally, an individual who served a minimum of 90 days on active duty after September 11, 2001, is eligible for educational assistance under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Active duty is defined as active duty served as a member of the Armed Forces or as a result of a call or order to active duty from a Reserve Component (RC). Reserve Component Soldiers who are mobilized under contingency operations in accordance with section 688, 12301(a), 12301(d), 12301(g), 12302, or 12304 of Title 10 USC are eligible for Post 9/11 benefits.

...I would register a guess that many RallyPoint members have some % of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits they have earned.

Now, for those who opt to transfer those benefits (to their spouse or child), the Soldier must agree to an additional 4 years service obligation.

With almost 14 years service now, and every intent to serve 20 years, recently, I transferred my benefits to my now 2-year old son.

With the drawdown, however, involuntary separations are becoming a very real thing.

Because of this, this would at least appear to be quickly becoming an increasingly relevant issue.

Promotion boards are becoming increasingly competitive. No longer are people getting promoted with P-fiche filed GOMORs/Article-15/Sub-par OERs--like they once were. What was once around a 100% selection rate to CPT, and near (but not quite 100%) to higher officer ranks, appears to be drastically reducing with the drawdown to Pre-WWII levels. Last year, the FY14 RC CPT APL board saw something around an 83% selection rate, that I was told.

Likewise, recently, I stumbled across THIS:
http://boards.law.af.mil/AF/BCMR/CY2014/BC%202014%2001562.txt

There is alot to this, however, here is a basic summary:
--This AF Major transferred his benefits to his spouse, with every intent to serve 20 years to be retirement eligible.
--He agreed to 4 additional years of service.
--He was passed over twice for Major, apparently, through no fault of his own (No derogatory information, etc). In this competitive environment, one can be a great officer and still not be promoted if he is "not-quite-as-great" as his peers. Theoretically, an officer could have (3) x ACOM OERs and (1) x COM OER, and all his peers could have all (4) x ACOM OERs, and not withstanding a ton of other variables, he likely would not be promoted. (I know, that may not "realistically" happen, but it is the kind of competitive environment we are looking at nowadays.)
--After appealing, it was decided that he must pay back over $24,000 that his wife had used of his benefits, as an "overpayment" in benefits.

What does everyone think of this?

To me, something just doesn't seem quite right here.

I can't help but wonder if there was some other kind of viable solution for him to complete his 4 year obligation (so as to not have to repay those monies back), though involuntarily separated. Perhaps being allowed to serve that 4 year obligation as an enlisted Soldier?

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 18 at 2015 4:44 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:44:55 -0400

I'm bothered by the "no fault of his own"statement. I'm guessing the Major knew he might not be promoted after the first pass. Historically the second look selection rate is very small. The two strikes and you're out is well known to all AF O-3s and above. His performance apparently didn't rate a Definitely Promote, so he knew he might not be promoted. He should have been prepared for the hit.

Additionally it appears he might have made the transfer after his first pass over. Can't speak to his motives for this, but it looks like he might have been trying to force the Service to allow him to stay in after his second pass.

The Major should look into enlisting to complete both his service commitment. Not sure this is still permitted, but it was in the 1980s.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 8:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:05:10 -0400

I think it is scummy and inappropriate for the powers that be to have determined that those who earn benefits should be able to extend them to immediate family and then take advantage of the quid pro quo opportunity to get something in return. It is a saddening stipulation that communicates the foul and too often given message that even when willing to give in return for your sacrifice, it comes with additional price tag. Nothing says "You are appreciated" more than that. What really sucks is how much things like this just really cheapen both the sanctity of one's service and the value the Nation (perceptively) places on it. I could see expecting a second term from first-term enlistees, but someone who is in their third term (mid-career) or over ten years because they have re-enlisted or obligated at least 6 years beyond their first term should just be able to transfer their GI Bill to their spouse or children. I believe they have committed more than enough. But I guess we all know that it is not about the benefits at all and more just a marketing tool to improve the numbers of the service. Here I had hoped the purpose was to better the lives and opportunities of the Veteran, and thereby continue the investment in our society of those citizen volunteers who take off the uniform and still seek success rather than working go-nowhere jobs or not at all.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 8:11 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:11:14 -0400

After reading this AF MAJ's case, I also stumbled upon THIS...

NOTE: This petition wasn't started by the MAJ mentioned in the case I initially posted, but, rather an AF CPT, who was in a similar situation--although, it doesn't appear like he had to repay the benefits because, after transferring them, they weren't actually utilized by his daughters (like the MAJ's benefits were utilized by his wife). Similar situation, but I just didn't want there to be confusion here.

The text is very interesting. It speaks to his own personal situation, but it also, I feel, does a very effective job at speaking to all servicemembers who are or could ever find themselves in a position like he is in.

Folks, I think this all is quickly becoming VERY relevant, especially in light of the draw down.

If you all have the time, please take a moment to also read this:
https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-jeff-miller-recognize-post-9-11-gi-bill-transfer-of-education-benefits-teb-eligibility-for-service-members-involuntarily-separated-for-non-selection-for-promotion

U.S. House of Representatives, Jeff Miller: Recognize Post 9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education...

Doing the right thing should not require an exception to policy. In 2009, the GI Bill was adapted to allow service members who have served honorably the ability to transfer education benefits ( TEB ) to their spouse and children. These benefits are funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), but the VA defers to the Department of Defense for eligibility criteria...criteria that has a giant loophole that hurts our service members and...

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 19 at 2015 8:18 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:18:19 -0400

I believe you have two questions going on here, feedback on transferring the GI bill and feedback on the situation involving the Major the transferred the GI Bill.

1. Feedback on transferring the GI Bill: I look at it like this, your successful completion of your initial enlistment secures the benefit for you as an individual, volunteering to serve longer allows you more options as to who you will share that benefit with.

2. Feedback on the Major that transferred the GI Bill: I don't know why he waited so long to transfer the benefits, seems like he knew the writing was on the wall - that he had not either performed as well as he described (three ACOMs and one COM) or that his ACOM (Above Center of Mass evaluations) were marked as such but not supported with future assignment opportunities. I believe there could be a skeleton that walks out of the closet, if you shake long enough. I had a very close friend that took very unpopular action against a senior officer and received bad paper on his evaluation as a Company Commander - he was a 16 year in service CPT when he was sent home, he went to the reserve component and made the sacrifice to move (himself) so that he could serve in an active reserve capacity until he had completed a total of 18 years of service and then applied for sanctuary....since the active and reserve records are not consolidated, he was promoted to Major in the reserve component and granted sanctuary back into the active component and retired at 20 years of service. My point is that while there is a speedbump in the way, there is almost always an exception to policy or a way to make the mission happen if the individual is still willing to lace the boots up.

General feedback: for those in the window that can transfer the benefit, I was told by a wise (very senior) career counselor that he recommends transferring at a minimum one-month of GI Bill benefits to each one of your dependents so in the event that something happens to you they will receive shares of the GI Bill benefit.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 19 at 2015 11:21 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:21:15 -0400

So, I'm confused, but hopefully someone smarter on post-9/11 GI Bill can square me away. My understanding was that you had to agree to an additional 4 years of service, but that if it was cut short NOT due to your action/because of a Service decision, that the transfer was still valid. Based on this thread, it sounds like my understanding is 100% wrong?

Not really that big of a deal in my case (I checked, and have less than a month of benefit left...), but I would hate to steer anyone wrong, especially with the drawdowns accelerating.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 6:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:26:13 -0400

Today, my state's ARNG Education Services Center posted their April 2015 newsletter to their Facebook page.

In it, they wrote:

"Soldiers who are separated by a force-shaping board (including the Qualitative Retention Board (QRB) for M-Day Soldiers) will be able to keep their approved TEB, even if the service obligation is not complete on their separation date."

I've seen this verbiage in other places, as well.

I think it is great that this is mentioned, however, I do think that the Army needs to do a better job of clearly articulating the difference in mechanisms being utilized to separate and their subsequent impact on Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit transfer. As we saw with the AF MAJ, especially...especially....in a period of serious drawdown, I think it is important that Soldiers know that involuntary separation, due to twice non-select for promotion, (at least it would appear by the AF MAJ's 2014 case determination) will result in the benefits not being retained...or, having to be paid back as an "overpayment" in benefits (because of the inherent inability to 'follow through' with their additional 4 year service obligation, required to transfer the benefits in the first place).

Some may read that line and think it also applies to being involuntary separated due to twice non-select. It's not until you really start digging that it actually makes more sense.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 27 at 2015 1:24 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:24:15 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I saw this. It's a strong cautionary tale. Thanks for promoting it, and thanks for commenting on the other urgent GI bill issue thread:
https://www.rallypoint.com/command-post/will-the-gi-bill-be-there-for-you-impacts-of-section-702-of-the-veterans-access-choice-and-accountability-act?urlhash=622647

Will the GI bill be there for you? (Impacts of Section 702 of the “Veterans Access, Choice, and...

Section 702 of the “Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act” has made substantial changes that are going to have a significant impact on many Veterans relying on the Post 9/11 GI bill. 1. Public schools are required to grant in-state tuition and fee status to all Veterans who served greater than ninety days on active duty after 9/11 and are within three years of their effective separation date, or to their spouses or children using...

Response by SP5 Archie Aragon made May 17 at 2016 2:31 PM

SP5 Archie Aragon — Tue, 17 May 2016 14:31:07 -0400

how is this new rule applied to anyone who got out before it was applied? I was never told that my benefits couldn't be transferred , today I tried to transfer my 33 months left to my 18 yr old and was told I couldn't because I had to do it while I was still active, and that rule took effect in 2008-9, I was already out so how could I do that?