RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186331,00.html

The fed/states governments will never allow the Reserves/NGs to have a decent retirement. That will cut into there quick and easy retirement plan!!! The Reserves and Nat Guards should be allowed to collect their retirement just like the active duty personnel do. But the politicians from both political parties have drag their feet for over 30 years on this subject. Like I say the politicians don't like the idea a simplified retirement plan but they make sure their is!!!

After WWII they set the Reserve Component Retirement Age to 60, to match up with the Federal Civil Service. In the 70s, when they lowered the Federal Civil Service Age to 55, they left the Reserve Component high and dry.


One of the arguments for many years was that if they lowered the Reserve Component Retirement Age the Active Component would lose the ability 'recall' NCO (who can serve to age 60).

Another argument brought up in the early 90s by the Active Component was that it would be 'unfair' for Reserve Component personnel to be able to retire after just 20 years (like them). This ignored the fact that the average Retirement Pay percentage for the Reserve Component was between 8 and 12 percent, not 50 percent like the Active Component after 20 years. It also ignored the fact that that 8 to 12 percent was so high because it included ALL Reserve Component Retirees (20 to 40 years of service).

A little bit of math as an example:
1) Active Duty 20 year Retirement is based on 7300 days of service.
2) Each year of Service = 2.5%
3) Active Duty 20 year Retirement = 50%

4) Reserve Component retirement requires 20 years of service with a minimum of 50 points per year, or 1000 days of service. (1200 points at 60 point per year)
5) Each Year of Service = 0.34% (0.41%)
6) Reserve Component 20 year Retirement = 6.8% (8.2%)
7) The Reserve Component CAN be higher, but it tends to requires 'Active Duty' points (days), as they capped Inactive Points at 60 per year for many years.


The Active people need to watch and support this effort as well.

The commission on Military benifits lead by Dr Chu last year recommended making the Active Duty Retirement Age match that of the Reserve Components.


As for those that got theirs and consider this whining, remember, the bean counters want to cut the Active Duty Retirement costs as well.
They are looking at this through increasing the cost of 'benifits', reducing services, cutting programs, increasing cost to Active Duty personnel, jacking up (tripling and more) retiree 'co-pays', premiums, and fees.

OBTW
Total Service Time: 33 Years 10 Months 15 Days
Retirement Points: > 7300
Enlisted Service: 3 years
Enlisted Reserve: 2.4 years
Active Commissioned Service: 10.5 years
Reserved Commissioned Service: 18 years
- includes 2 1/2 years Mobilized

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

I think they should lower the retirement age. I am a reservist with over 20 years of service; 10 of which were on active duty. We are achieving a seamless force with active duty and reserves, which means we have outgrown the "weekend warrior" image. In addition, reservists bring something to the table that our active duty counterparts lack - a "civilian" perspective from additional education, training, and work experience. Since leaving active duty, I went to college and earned a bachelor's degree and a master's degree while working full time and continuing to serve "part-time." I also put my civilian career on hold to go back on active duty for four months of training. I think that our political leaders need to recognize the contributions and sacrifices of reservists who are serving on the front lines with our active duty brothers and sisters.

As stated in the article the Reserve/National
Guard issue was on the table several time during G.W.Bush leadership. But It was shot down every time until the end, when the post 911 activation was added, but the start date of 1 Jan 2008 screwed those of us who serveed prior to this date. There were several other bills/admenments on the table for veterans that was denied when the Wall Street thieves went to "DC" with their hands out. Veterans and Warriors were pushed to the back of the line. The Vet service organization need to step up and push back when this kind of stuff occurs. I know that they don't have the " Dollars" one needs to get the attention of some politico's but we must screen and support those candidates who support Vets.

If Congress wants, they can reduce the retirement age of 60 to something less. I was recalled to AD in 2002 for OEF. The so called new lower age limit of 3 months for every 3 months on active duty only applies to those who were recalled on or after a certain date, thus I DO NOT QUALIFY, since my recall was before the Jan date.

If Congress can let illegals get benefits, why can't they give to those who have given so much in the name of freedom......those who serve and sacrifice are always forgotten. I have 4 years active duty and 26 plus reserve. Short changed again.
GHH

Yes, I agree. Reservists have no incentive to sign up for additional tours without getting insurance or early pay benefits. My husband, who is just now approaching his 60th year, has waited almost as long to get his retirement benefits and insurance as he was in the military. We could especially have used the Tricare benefits to help us financially, even if we had to pay the premiums ourselves, because they would be less expensive than paying the healthcare plan through his current employer. If the military personnel are willing to pay for the premium, why would it be hurting the military to allow for this benefit?

It's time to change this system. What about those of use who served in Desert Shield in 90 and 91?. We have been getting the runaround on this for quite a while. Time to change it from 60 to 55. It seems that we need more support from our servcie organizations.

I totally agree some enhancements are in order. I question the fairness of limiting all enhancements to post 9/11. I am a retired reservest. 21 years both active and reserve, Vietnam and Persian Gulf vet. I retired in 1992. There should be a provision in any legislation that would compensate veterans like me that didn't recieve anything prior to age 60. I realize I'm not Citi Bank but fair is fair.

As a combat Vietnam veteran and recalled for OJI and just started drawing retirement, I get nothing from this new benefit. Figure out a way to increase my retirement to match current ng/res retiree increases and I will be for your increase. Otherwise leave it alone so everyone will receive the same retirement benefit past and present. My past service is just as deserving as the present and I certainly received less pay and perks compared to now. The ng/res were called up, but that time is pretty much over and they will now go back to the usually weekend activities. Many ng/res were never even called up or some that were served in the US not actually fighting.

I applaud members of Congress who see DOD's opposition to treating Reserve and Guard members on a par with active duty as only a cost, rather than as equity. I retired from Army Reserve with 30 years. Over that time I saw the inequity of fellow Soldiers retiring and having to wait for the retirement check and no insurance consideration. Many were veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Why should they have had to wait until age 60? Today, the same applies to those who have served in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. The change to an earlier pay draw date giving credit for active duty since Jan 2008 is a step in the right direction, but full credit should be given for all active duty a retiree has done, particularly in combat.

The continuing push to make Tricare Prime more costly for retirees also hits Reserve and Guard more than active duty retirees. (Given the assurances we all got that health care would be free after retirement, we should not have to pay at all!) The proposals for a premium based on rank does not consider that Reserve/Guard retiree checks are much smaller than active duty retirees. Some proposals would take the majority of the retirement check for those without much active duty time.

Congress needs to take a close look at the entire subject and come up with a fair solution that recognizes the service of all retirees. They cannot rely on DOD to handle that, since the bureaucratic budgeteers are only looking at ways to preserve their budgets, not at equity for all retirees who were subject to potential harm for years.

I agree with everyone that says the retirement should be lowered to 55 for Army Reserve and National Guard. Look at us who joined very young and I have 29 years in. If I can stay in until I am 60 I will but it is so stupid that we cannot afford some kind of benefit to retire at 55. What is up with that that federal can retire at 55 but we cannot. I am really not physically able to do a complete PT test but I am profiled and do the minimum pushups and situps to pass. In today's economy I need the extra Army Reserve monies but how grateful I would be if I could be retired at 55. I am 54 and still have to wait 5 1/2 years to retire. So, very, very stupid. So many National Guard and Army Reserve are deploying over and over again and the government can spend millions on equipment but cannot take care of the soldiers that have given time, energy and commitment to our United States of America? Come on politicians...help us! We need your help now!

It's about time Guard and Reserve leaders started to support the troops. Under the prior administration, it was shoot the messenger if the message wasn't in line with the administrations philosophy. All we got in that scenario was "yes men" and "boot lickers" who didn't want to displease the boss or hurt their careers.

Congress did a major disservice to all when they passed legislation that distinguished between those who served before a certain date as ineligible and those who served afterwards under the exact same circumstances as eligible. There should be no cutoff date on who is or is not eligible, only a single basis to determine what active duty time qualifies for early retirement.

In my opinion, time spent on active duty at any time (other than annual training) should be considered eligible time without regard to when it was served, with only a 30 or 90 consecutive day requirement for it to qualify. Keep the 20 years of satisfactory service requirement as the first prerequisite to being able to retire early to prevent abuse (so the person who first joins just before age 40 will be required to stay until they finish 20 good years just before age 60) and perhaps inlcude a "not earlier than age" such as 50.

In addition, those who are in the gray area should be able to purchase Tricare Reserve Select at the same price as those still drilling, not at the full benefit cost as has been proposed. All sorts of reasons for people to retire not related to no longer wanting to serve. In my case I was required to retire 3 years subsequent to a promotion and would sure like to have the option to purchase TriCare Reserve Select right now. People also wouldn't have to hang on to their drill positions simply to mainitain ability to purchase the coverage and commands wouldn't have to find ways to keep people longer than necessary to allow them to qualify to purchase the coverage (commands sometimes act like "good ol boys" networks for those with special circumstances).

Total time served: 31 years, 4 months (I don't count the days).

SFC Mac/CI
These Bill's sat on the last admin desk Bush it was said it had to much fat. I can tell you most of us just feel the military is hoping you die before they have to start paying. Just pay us to start work on they fine points later.
AIG got billions but when it comes to the men and women who served this country nothing can be done.

most of my guys spent more time in the air guard; then active duty. they are young guys. but they were sent to the **** holes of the world. they are combat rescue. others my live , they have and lost their lives to help some people who needed help. when someone says the guard is not in not the ****;think again; we are all in the **** together.(no matter what service)

Too much old school in me, I say that if someone wants retirement equivalent to that of the active duty (as I have), then they should have gone active duty. You knew what the program was when you signed up for the Guard/Reserve. Yes, yes, yes, I know how important these two elements are and their history; however!!

If they won't give it to all of us who completed more than 20 years, then no one should get it. I have combat time in Vietnam, 11 years on active duty and 12 years in the Guard. I can just hear the politicians saying to each other "Lets all just forget about the Vietnam veterans like we always have. Their war didn't mean anything anyway!"

First of all I want to thank you for your service. Second, I do not think there is a reservist who expects to receive the same retirement benefits if they have not earned them. The reservist retirement is calculated on how much they work during their reserve career plus what ever active service they had.
I think if you ask any reservist what there are asking for is a 20 year retirement no matter how many points they have. I have 4800 points, (isn’t active retirement points at 7200?), 3 VA claims for a 50% total disability and 28 years and still working. I am still working because of no retirement till 60. I would like to know the percentage of disabled, 28 year active duty personnel who are still in service. It is really interesting how many active duty airmen can not wait to get out and go into the reserves. Then I see them right beside me asking for the same thing.
Greg

quote:

Originally posted by T3800555:
Too much old school in me, I say that if someone wants retirement equivalent to that of the active duty (as I have), then they should have gone active duty. You knew what the program was when you signed up for the Guard/Reserve. Yes, yes, yes, I know how important these two elements are and their history; however!!

If we give up, it is just another win for the government. That is why so many situations do not get fixed, nobody fights for what they think is right.

quote:

Originally posted by Capn_Kenny:
If they won't give it to all of us who completed more than 20 years, then no one should get it. I have combat time in Vietnam, 11 years on active duty and 12 years in the Guard. I can just hear the politicians saying to each other "Lets all just forget about the Vietnam veterans like we always have. Their war didn't mean anything anyway!"

I served 8 years active and 17 years reserve with the Navy. was forced to retire 1999 due to HYT, i was 46and would have stayed in but....
I've 5 more years to wait and i will tell you being a grey area retiree sucks.

Although it is good that the discussion continues, I have little hope for any significant modifications to the current system. Given the state of our stressed military, and it will only get worse, we need change at the speed of war and not another 30 years worth of well intentioned disussions. Good intentions don't cut it here-not anymore. If Congress and the Administration love the Military as they claim they do, it's time to take the gratitude beyond rhetoric and 'show us the money'. That will help a whole lot towards personnel strength concerns and I am sure a significant improvement in morale.