I read an article today in the Navy Times about a proposal to do away with our retirement after 20 years of service. Making retirement available at the age of 60 if you do 20 years and 57 if you do 30 years. Anyone else see this? It didn't get into depth and didn't mention anything about a grandfather clause. Could you imagine?

Nothing suprises me anymore, nothing. And as Forest Gump said, "And that's all I'll say bout that.

Chapwood...............

Ohh geez I hope not!! I am halfway to 20 now... I hope to do more then 20, but still, if I had to wait till I was 60 years old it will be 2040! I did know a guy who passed away last year at age 90 who was a POW in Japan who retired from the Navy in 1956 as a Commander after serving 20 years. He collected 51 years of pension plus combat compensation pay(for being a POW the whole war-captured in philipines).. I think he said it was close to 5k per month.

Government trying to save some money?? by hoping we all croke before age 60 from diabetes or obesity or cancer or something?

Sweeping changes recommended for reserves

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 1, 2008 7:42:41 EST

Active and reserve service members would have to wait until age 57 or longer before drawing retired pay under a controversial recommendation from a congressionally chartered commission.

The proposal would spell the end of the current active-duty plan that provides nondisability retirement immediately after completing a minimum of 20 years of service.

Read the executive summary of the report
The plan comes from the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which went beyond its original charter to review the structure and management of the reserve components by also recommending an overhaul of personnel policies for active members.

Under current retirement rules, an active-duty member is eligible for retired pay immediately after completing a minimum of 20 years of service, which can be as young as 37 for someone who enlisted at age 17. Reservists, however, must wait until age 60 to draw retired pay, although a law signed Jan. 28 by President Bush allows reservists to draw retired pay 90 days earlier than age 60 for every 90 days of mobilization in support of a contingency operation.

Under the commission’s plan, a revamped retired system would grant limited retirement benefits beginning after only 10 years of service, although actual retirement pay would not begin until age 62. Those who serve at least 20 years could receive retirement pay at age 60, and those who serve 30 years at age 57.

Under the plan, service members could begin drawing retirement pay at earlier ages, but the annuity would be reduced 5 percent for each year that a member is under the statutory minimum retirement age, which the commission said would be in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.

For reserve component members, retired pay would continue to be calculated on the number of creditable retirement years, based on earning at least 50 retirement points per creditable year.

The commission concluded that combining the training, promotion and management of active and reserve troops into one integrated manpower system is the only way the nation’s military can become a truly efficient operational force.

“The increasing cost of personnel, and the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified individuals, will, we believe, inevitably require reductions in the size of the active force,” states the 432-page report, released today. “This shrinking active force will necessarily be accompanied by an increased reliance on reserve forces for operations, particularly for homeland missions. The overall effectiveness of those forces will depend on greater integration of the reserves with the active component.”

The commission argued that modifying 20-year retirements would give the services an incentive to retain service members whom they want to keep beyond 10 years but less than 20. Additional pay or bonuses would be needed to keep such troops in beyond 10 years in order to maintain retention rates.

“As part of the reformed retirement system, retention would be encouraged by making service members eligible to receive ‘gate pay’ at pivotal years of service,” the report said. “Such pay would come in the form of a bonus equal to a percentage of annual basic pay at the end of the year of service, at the discretion of the services.”

In addition, the report said Congress should expand current law to permit all service members to receive up to 5 percent of annual basic pay in matching government contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. Service members currently receive no government matching funds for TSP contributions.

“The government’s contribution would vest at 10 years of service, and the Thrift Savings Plan benefit would be portable and thus capable of being rolled over into a civilian 401(k) account,” the report said.

Among the report’s other recommendations:

• The military’s promotion system should be competency-based versus time-based.

• Active and reserve officer personnel management systems should be merged into a single system.

• The number of duty statuses should be reduced from 29 to just two — on active duty or off.

• The Defense Department should implement a combined pay and personnel system to eliminate problems with incorrect pay, low data quality, multiple personnel files and inaccurate accounting of credit for service.

“We need to look at our manpower assets with a totally integrated approach,” said Arnold Punaro, chairman of the commission, which has spent more than a year compiling its report.

The recruiting and job market landscape has shifted in dramatic ways, the commission said, which means the Defense Department “must recruit, train and maintain a technologically advanced force in an era that will be characterized by ever-increasing competition for a shrinking pool of qualified individuals whose expectations about career paths and mobility are changing dramatically.”

“The reserve components’ role in such a new strategy will be key,” the report states.

For active as well as reserve service members, such a system would create a “seamless” transition to and from active duty — “on-ramps” and “off-ramps,” as Navy personnel officials have described the concept. Basing promotions on competency rather than time would keep troops competitive within the system.

The 95 recommendations in the report also include a call for the reserves to be reorganized into two formal categories: operational and strategic reserve forces.

The operational reserve would consist of Selected Reserve units and individual mobilization augmentees who would deploy periodically. The strategic reserve would include Selected Reserve personnel and augmentees not scheduled for rotational active-duty tours and the “most ready, operationally current and willing members of the Individual Ready Reserve.”

The commission also calls for eliminating today’s Standby Reserve category and said members who are not “viable mobilization assets should be excluded from the total reserve force.”

The Defense Department would have to consistently provide the support needed to ensure the sustained viability of both forces, and Congress and the Pentagon would determine the missions each would perform.

“There used to be an understanding that if you were ready for the away game, you were ready for the home game,” Punaro said. “Most everyone admits that’s not the case anymore. We need a very ready force at home in peacetime, just like we need a ready force for the overseas mission.”

The reserves were conceived as a strategic force that would only be called to active duty in national emergencies. But they have morphed over the past 18 years, beginning with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and spurred by the military drawdown of the 1990s, into an operational reserve that now regularly is called upon to meet the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It’s clear that if you hadn’t had an operational Guard and Reserve, you’d have had to go back to the draft, which I think everyone agrees is … pretty unacceptable,” Punaro said.

The commission concluded that the reserves will play a “growing role” as an operational force in the coming years and that properly organizing and supporting citizen-soldiers is “well worth further investment to secure our nation’s future.”

The commission also called on Congress to mandate that the Guard and reserve “have the lead role in and form the backbone of Defense Department operations” within U.S. boundaries; that the department should ensure such forces “are manned, trained and equipped to the highest levels of readiness”; and that the department should develop protocols to allow state governors to direct federal military assets responding to an emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina.

“The homeland threat is real, and the Guard and Reserve has a significant operational advantage over the active component because they’re located in 3,000 communities around the country — plus, they have the crossover skills needed,” Punaro said.

“Because you don’t need that every day, it’s an economic bargain for the taxpayers to have that capability forward-deployed in the communities.”

The commission also made a number of suggestions that would improve benefits for reservists. It asked Congress to allow reservists who have been activated for a specified period of time to use their Montgomery GI Bill benefits after their discharge if they remain subject to recall and supply the Defense Department with accurate contact information. Current law does not allow reservists to use the benefit if they transfer from the Selected Reserve to the Individual Ready Reserve.

Punaro said he is “very bullish” on the prospects for the commission’s work to receive serious attention.

He said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “very, very concerned and supportive of all these homeland missions. Half of the 95 [recommendations] can be done immediately.”

Forty will require congressional or presidential action, according to the report.

In the short term, Punaro said, U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for command and control of the military’s homeland defense efforts, needs to meet with the Homeland Security Department to discuss requirements needed to respond to DHS’s 15 National Planning Scenarios.

“There hasn’t been enough progress on this,” Punaro said.

DoD should also identify the reserve forces that would be given the mission of catastrophic response, and then properly staff, equip and train them.

“There’s nothing keeping anyone from getting started on those immediately,” Punaro said.

What is sad about this, is that so many have laid their lives on the line, still are, everyday and this is the damned thanks we all get. The one true perk military people get. Early retirement. Shameful. I mean really? The nerve.

Something smells a foul about this topic. The reason I say this is that I have known several reservist that have completed 20 years of reserve time knowing full well that their retirement benefits doesnt start till 60.Other than recent years for deployments during war, they only do two days a month and two weeks a year. How is it fair to the ACTIVE DUTY "every damned day" for 20 to 30 years to make them "wait" the same period for the same retirement benefits? That's simply ridiculous!

Well kiss my a$$ and call me Sally, that's not going to work for me. Sorry. I'm thowing the bull$hit flag on this call and contact my congressman ASAP.



Chapwood.........

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chapwood,

Can you imagine the amount of people who would get off active duty for reserves?

if you got the same retirement for going reserves as you do for active duty, but a fraction of the time spent to obtain it.

I could get into the reserves, and get another job, work 20 or 30 years and collect that retirement at the same time I can get my military retirement.

Just some thoughts. I know not to go off the deep end and think it will happen. I think there would be heck to pay if they decided to go to this plan.

Kind of bearing a new version of the "bonus Army"(WW1 Vets who protested the promised certificates, but demanded immediate cash payment)

Don't worry Chapwood. I found the grandfather talk. Were gonna be ok!

G. An Integrated Retirement System
Today’s non-disability retirement systems for both the active and reserve components were designed shortly after World War II for a Cold War–era force that relied on a draft. At that time very few inductees remained in uniform past their initial term of service, and the retirement benefit was intended to meet the needs of the relatively small proportion
of service members who served a full 20-year career. The military offers very generous retirement benefits immediately upon separation to career service members in the active component, a comparable benefit received at age 60 by career service members in the reserve components, and no retirement benefits at all for non-disabled service members who serve for less than 20 years. Thus the increasingly integrated active and reserve components
have two separate retirement systems. They are based almost entirely on the age when a service member receives his or her retirement annuity, with 20-year “cliff” vesting that excludes 85 percent of active duty enlisted personnel and 53 percent of officers from receiving any non-disability retirement benefits. Only 24 percent of reservists serve long enough to be eligible for 20-year retirement. Numerous studies
undertaken since the inception of the all-volunteer force have recommended major modifications to the system, such as earlier vesting and deferred receipt of the annuity. The commission that recommended the creation of the all-volunteer force, the Gates Commission, in fact suggested that for such a force, earlier vesting was more appropriate than 20-year cliff vesting. Reliance on deferred benefits, such as retirement pay, is costly and an inefficient force management tool. As discussed elsewhere in this report, manpower is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Under the current system, many service members retire soon after they reach the 20-year point.
As the Gates Commission noted in its 1970 report, many of those who retire early are individuals with the best salary and employment opportunities in the civilian sector and thus are “precisely the individuals the services would like to retain longer.” The current system should be modified toto the Federal Employee Retirement System, and retention incentives at critical career points. Such
a change would improve force management and provide greater equity, particularly to enlisted
members who seldom become eligible for any non-disability benefits. In addition, a single system for both active and reserve component members would foster a continuum of service, as envisioned in other changes recommended by the Commission. All current service members should be grandfatheredIn short, the military retirement system, for both the active and reserve components, is in need of
deep, systemic reform.

YNGRL,

Good work! I was freaking out there for awhile.

Chapwood...

Good job yngrl!

This pops up almost every year. That commsions job has been to find POTENTIAL ways of saving money. Gets killed every time.

I think most people can easily see the difference in the current two systems. Reserves & Guard are a vital part of the military. They do a great service. They give great sacrifices. That said, 20 years in the reserves is not the same as 20 years AD. The retirement system should not be the same. If a reservist were to push for this, they would risk loosing serious amounts of drill pay! Right now, as an incentive, reserve drill basic pay equals 2-6 time AD basic pay. If you do the math in favor of the Reserve, they get 1/30 of a AD members monthly pay for each 4 hour drill. That means ONE DAYS AD base pay for 4 hours. If you call an AD 'day' 8 hours, that is twice the pay, and up to 6 times if you consider an AD day 24 hours.

The way to save money is to stop supporting all the low lifes in this country that thinks the world owes them a living. Get a damned job like the rest of us. I, like many of you have dedicated my entire working life since I was 18 in this organiztion. All gloves are off, be damned the nice approach, when ones lively hood is in jeapordy. This issue makes me so mad it makes me foam at the mouth like a mad dog.

Chapwood.........

Chap;
Between reading here and the fact that your SFM sits next to me, I am starting to wonder what subject wouldn't make you foam at the mouth!

Liberty...

Well, instead of making these changes for all AD, why not just do away with the reserves completely and add a 1/4 of how many reservist we have to the AD forces. In otherwords, chunk the reserve component and strengthen the AD component by a smaller margin of members then what we have as reservist now. After all, being on AD, this is our "Career" not just a part time job. Now that would save some cash, ya think?

Reservist show up on a weekend, knock out a couple hours and then monday morning, go back to their "Career". Ok, yea i know, alot are forward deployed, but I ask, Why? Increase our AD compliment and we should be golden.

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, not sure, but what was the actual purpose of the reserve components? I mean, when they were first put into place? Does the same need hold true now?

oh and another note, Retention on AD is going to BLOW about 10 years into a plan like this.

As Mightyz indicated, this is a recurrent drill that has been around for a long time. Uncle Sam struggles w/ meeting recruiting demands, can you imagine if something like this was to be put in place? It is no different than talks about instituting the mandatory draft. This by the way, the only reason why lawmakers talk about the mandatory draft is because they can’t recruit. Don't waste brain cells on this.

CC78;
A Reserve & Guard Force is an absolute requirement to support the National Security Strategy. The ability to immediately increase the size and strength of our military force with trained and ready people is paramount to our sucess.

When I read this thread I almost had a heart attack. I'm glad I read YNGRL's research. If the government decides to propose a change, it should grand father everyone who already signed the enlistment and did their time.

But what is a bigger mis-justice in my mind is the distribution of SRB's. In 1987, I remember asking my MKC on the boat if I could get a bonus for becoming a MK. He laughed first, then said there would never be a SRB for MK or BM's. Well, that changed...But not for me. By the time the CG was offering bonuses, I had too much time in service. But now I'm at 21yrs, looking at my future path and it seems to me that the Coast Guard would want to do whatever they could to protect their investment of time, education and experience by offering incentives to guys with over 20. Since there isn't any incentive to stay other than the benefits I now enjoy (and there are definite benefits), I'm looking at every angle to get the best out of my future.

I saw another thread where a guy was getting $20K to re-up. I have a suggestion, wouldn't it be nice to be offered an incentive to obligate service for every full tour of duty beyond 20 and up to 30 years? As long as retention is so dificult, I know I would consider it very positively vice retirement and, of course, having to start a new job.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
This pops up almost every year. That commsions job has been to find POTENTIAL ways of saving money.

Hmmm well maybe we could freeze the congress mens raises..and let them retire at age 103 ...that would save a dollar or two would,nt it ?