RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,173279,00.html

Making a system complex does not make it good.

I am a retired AF E7 and for the past 18 years of work have taken a medical plan with my employer. Gasp!! For a short period of time last year I was unemployed, but rather than pay the paltry annual charge to enroll in TRICARE PRIME, we elected to wait out any medical care until I was employed again.

Go ahead, say it, because it does sound stupid. However, the paltry amount that TRICARE would have cost is in no way actuarily sound. In other words it cannot possibly contribute enough to a pool of insurance funds to pay for unknown costs of an couple approaching senior citizen status. So why pay anything at all?!?

We could have gone to the base facility weekly for this complaint or that or get medications and for that period of time run up costs in the thousands (potentially) yet all we had to do was pay a few hundred dollars for the privilege. Instead, we agreed it made no sense and at the time, the few hundred was much more important for food at the commissary.

So again I ask what's the point of paying anything at all and having the additional accounting and billing functions that go along with the TRICARE "privilege"?

As for the rest of the report - namely the complexity of a new retirement system - it makes as much sense as the time "they" made the decision to change pay day from the end of the month to the first of the month. Oh, it worked well and saved money - exactly once!!

I think is Retired General has fallen and can not get up. Once again trying to take away from the vets in the name of saving money. Save money by doing away with 30 month committee's. Under this plan a 39 yr reitee if they took the immeadiate payment would lose 90%. Leave well enough alone and leave the VETERANS PROGRAMS ALONE save money elsewhere.

I don't know why DOD has these boards the results are pre ordained, Shaft the retires.

Just make sure you all write your Senators and Congressmen. We as retirees have to make our wishes known and that be NOW!!! I'm under Tricare-for-Life and that is probably next. We pay enough for Medicare and that too is going up.

What this General fails to mention is that the younger retiree generally (pardon the pun) has lower health care costs than the the older retiree. How is a higher premium fair for someone that may not use the system as much as another?

You have to love these constant panels that the Department of Defense commission, made up of Executives, MBAs, Generals, and all those that save money on the backs of the workers, and in this case the enlisted force. Last year, the Tricare issued came up, supported by the JCS, but voted down by the legislators. General Pace, was all for that raise in Tricare fees - of course, his retired pay is so much, someone would have had to tell him that he had an increase in Tricare fees because the raise was negligible compared to his pay. I wonder the effect of that raise on retired E5s, 6s, 7s, 8s, and even 9s. Look at the proposals for a new retired pay system. Imagine coming out at 48 years of age and having to wait till your late 50s or early 60s to receive retired pay. Of course, a military man who retired at 48 would move right to the top of any company. You would no doubt be a GS 17 if you got a government job. Ludicrous!!!!! Of course, ranking officers, many of them yes men, wouldn't complain - they have built up there nest egg and General Officers are already at full pay retirement age. How many of us retirees would stay in todays military under these proposals. Sounds like these people that are going to save our country so much money are the CEOs of major companies that are making hundreds of millions yearly and who have parachute retirement plans that make the average person sick and a bit jealous. Thank God, I'm 74 and wouldn't be affected by these bloodsuckers of Dr. Chu, who has been the leader of these changes for the betterment of the troops.

Why oh why do they love to screw with retiree's? All because of the money issue, I wish those people on the board would actually come down and see how lots of veterans live and that we are people and not just a bunch of numbers on a sheet!!!!!

What these so called experts forget is what we as enlisted people have given up in order to serve our country. Who hires an old infintry soldier to fill a senior ex job, no, we start at the bottom and have to work our way up, if we can get hired at all, since we are most likely injured. We then have to support a family on min salary, and if not for the retirement we have could not make it. These people do not take into consideration the many sacrafices we have made over the period of our service, that is why we have the 20 year retirement.
And you are so right RichardSI, Chu is the man who leads this attack on us

I was shot down 4 times in Viet Nam. How many times did the Gen. get shot down?

What makes this General so smart, because shes a women? I don't think so. Take a look at her Bio. She didn't serve a day overseas much less any in combat. And I bet she gets her insurance free.

Here is thye Bio of the woman who is ramroding the Tri-Care cuts, Don't see any hard ship or remote tours , let alone any time in combat zones. I may be wrong.
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAN D. "DENNY" EAKLE

BRIGADIER GENERAL JAN D. "DENNY" EAKLE




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bio Tools
Printable bio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Retired Dec. 1, 2005.

Brig. Gen. Jan D. "Denny" Eakle is Deputy Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Arlington, Va. DFAS is the world’s largest finance and accounting operation with annual responsibilities of paying more than five million people, processing contractor invoices and making travel payments worth millions, and disbursing more than $400 billion.

General Eakle was commissioned in 1975 after completing the Air Force ROTC program at Baylor University. She earned a master's degree from Baylor before entering active duty in 1976. The general has served as a personnel policy analyst, Chief of Advertising Research and Analysis with the Office of Accession Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and led the Enlisted Accession Policy and Compensation branches on the Air Staff. She also served with U.S. Strategic Command as Executive to the Commander in Chief and as Chief of Staff.

General Eakle's commands include the 3541st Recruiting Squadron, Lackland AFB, Texas, the 62nd Support Group, McChord AFB, Wash., and the 377th Air Base Wing, Kirtland AFB, N.M. Prior to her current position, General Eakle was Vice Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, Utah.

EDUCATION
1975 Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics, Baylor University, Waco, Texas
1976 Master of Science degree in mathematics, Baylor University, Waco
1982 Doctor of philosophy in operations research, University of Texas, Austin
1998 National Defense Fellow, National Foreign Affairs Training Center, Arlington, Va.

ASSIGNMENTS
1. September 1976 - August 1979, math model analyst designer, Air Force Military Personnel Center, Randolph AFB, Texas
2. August 1979 - August 1982, student, School of Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
3. August 1982 - September 1985, Air Staff policy analyst, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
4. September 1985 - July 1988, Chief, Advertising Research and Analysis Branch, Office of Accession Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
5. July 1988 - June 1991, Commander, 3541st U.S. Air Force Recruiting Squadron, Lackland AFB, Texas
6. July 1991 - October 1992, Chief, Enlisted Accession Policy Team, and Chief, Compensation Branch, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
7. November 1992 - July 1993, member, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Operations Group, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
8. July 1993 - March 1995, assistant executive to the Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
9. April 1995 - July 1997, Commander, 62nd Support Group, McChord AFB, Wash.
10. July 1997 - June 1998, National Defense Fellow, National Foreign Affairs Training Center, Department of State, Arlington, Va.
11. August 1998 - September 2000, executive assistant to the Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Neb.
12. September 2000 - January 2002, Commander, 377th Air Base Wing, Kirtland AFB, N.M.
13. January 2002 - December 2003, Vice Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, Utah
14. December 2003 - present, Deputy Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Arlington, Va.

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
National Defense Service Medal

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Second Lieutenant May 16, 1975
First Lieutenant March 7, 1978
Captain March 7, 1980
Major May 1, 1986
Lieutenant Colonel July 1, 1991
Colonel Feb. 1, 1995
Brigadier General March 1, 2002

Look here all you money counting SOB's ! You keep talking about how some retired officer earning over $80K+ a year should pay a little more for Tricare.......well if I made $80K+ a year I dont think I'd mind BUT how about those of us poor underpaid enlisted retirees ? We are having it hard enuff as is today. Trust me when I say its not easy living on $10-$11K a year TOTAL ! Try paying rent, utilities, food cost, add in the car and fuel, etc ....then tell us again how we need to be paying more for something we were told would be free after 20. Raise the cost for dependents, they did not serve but for us retired veterans....this is BS !

I agree, what's next. I am sure they would wish we would die before we could collect a NICKEL of our military retirement. The new retirement program sounds very similar to the current SOCIAL SECURITY program. You reach retirement age and withn 5-years you're dead. The funds you paid in over those many years go right back into the coffer. Even the curent medical program we have sucks, however, it is better than what is available to me my current job. I am a retired E-7, if I had to wait until age 60 I and my family would be in real trouble. Politicans and and most general officers do not care about the enlisted force. I have met and worked with some great officers, unfortunately, the number is far and few.

BOHICA - There never is a study that does not attempt to shaft the retirees. This BG does not have a clue.....

This sound just what some clerk might think up.

Well let me start by saying that I have only taken the time to reply to one or two posts in the several years I have been a member of the forum. After reading the recommendations made surrounding proposed retirement and Tricare changes irks me beyond belief and compels me to respond.

One other writer hit the nail on the head: According to this plan, if you retire with 20 years of service; say at age 38, and then lose 5% for every year of age below age 57, you will only receive 5% retirement pay. While this panel claims that the goal is to provide retirement incentives for remaining in uniform for 26 - 30 years, I remember the days in the Army (before I retired in 1993) where we had the G-1 mandating and driving a qualitative management program (QMP) to force out soldiers who did not make a certain rank by a pre-determined number of years of service. In essence, you have service members who could not remain in uniform for 30 years of service if they wanted to. There are also programs to eliminate service members based on weight control, physical profiles that effected their ability to remain in a particular MOS (and if re-classed, affected their ability to be promoted in their new MOS). I am not advocating that these were bad programs necessarily, but certainly speed bumps in the road through the course of a career that caused service members not to remain in uniform for as long as they intended. So here we have one panel saying "remain in service longer" while we have regulations and programs in place that eliminate many service members sooner than they might like.

It seems that this G.O. has absolutely no clue of the hardships that the average military service member and their families endure during the course of a 20 - 30 year career. In a country of more than 300 million citizens, fewer than 1% ever wear the uniform.

It also seems that our exalted congressmen and women can always find the dollars to feed programs to help people who in many cases have little or no desire to work; people who fake disabilities; those addicted to illegal drugs and other similar issues, while ignoring patriots who selflessly served their country. In my humble opinion this committee and others in our government need to wake up and rethink these "dollar saving" programs that may look good on some officer's OER, but in the long run has a terrible effect on morale and force retention.

One question for the G.O.: How do you think this proposed retirement and Tricare revision will affect future recruiting and retention efforts? I for one can tell you that if I were a young E-4, or E-5 with four to eight years of service and this was the retirement plan that I had to look forward to, I would ETS rather than reenlist. There are many Fortune 100 & 500 companies, as well as many privately held companies that offer retirement packages in addition to the ability to contribute to a 401K that provide for a more generous retirement than that proposed. Although, there may also be a an age 55 restriction on receipt of such pensions, the amount is more lucrative than that provided in my 20 year pension. You should also consider and compare local government civil service pensions (police/fire) which also provide immediate incentives after 20 or 25 years of service, which again, normally provide higher pensions than those offered to service members.

One other thing to consider is the "employability" of the average enlisted service member upon retirement. I can tell you first hand that while the EEOC says that age discrimination is unlawful, it is a very difficult thing to prove. I was fortunate to land a job with a Fortune 500 company and did well. I can, however, tell you that in the years since I retired I have sat in on many job interviews with prospective employees and heard others on the hiring team make references to the applicant's age. A service member leaving the service brings a lot to the table - we all know that. The problem is that most of our civilian counterparts; the 99% who did not wear the uniform - the ones running these big companys, didn't read the same ACAP handbook that we did which reminds us of how great we are. Our retirees need their retirement because most will have to start at the bottom when they retire to prove themselves all over again and work their way through the ranks. Maybe the G.O. can retire on 100K a year at age 56 or so. Unfortunately, the paltry 18K I get a year (before taxes) barely covers household expenses.

I sometimes understand how someone who never wore the uniform could misunderstand what we do and the sacrifices we make. For a G.O. to want to whittle away servicemember's benefits defies comprehension. We have (per capita) one of the smallest armed forces in the world, yet we are the most highly trained, most effective and most lethal. Go ahead and reduce our benefits some more and see where we are and how well we are able to accomplish our respective missions in ten years.

If anything, we should be growing the force and improving benefits.

Mark Nevins
First Sergeant, Ret.

General Eakle does not even get it. A professional student with no hard or remote assignments. Leave things alone or grandfather it and do not change the contract I made with America with my Back to Back Remotes and hardship assignments. Change it and watch it effect the Vol force. I retired and used Company Healthcare and paid for it, not Tricare for 16 years, now I get screwed

Everyone posting on this subject should email every military member they know, active and retired, and send a letter to their senators and representatives with the link provided. Enough is enough.