RE: http://www.military.com/featur...15240,192169,00.html

A good article addressing the pertinent issue of the day. As clearly was in the past, quote in part...
"Reserve and National Guard members today deserve a better "return on investment" for their frequent deployments and long family separations, and that should include improved health benefits and two ways to retire earlier than age 60, said Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, chief of Army Reserve.

In an interview in his Pentagon office Thursday, Stultz shared his thoughts on modernizing reserve compensation so it more suitably rewards members and families who are sacrificing so much during wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He contrasted current missions for an "operational" reserve with those assigned to the Cold War-era "strategic" reserve.

"It was one weekend a month, two weeks in the summertime and we're going to give you some retirement pay when you get to age 60. That's a pretty good return on investment for me as a soldier," Stultz said.

But today "we want you to leave your job, leave your family and risk your life once every five years," or even more frequently until the Army is sized properly for current missions.

"So we have to rethink that [incentive] because I'm not sure if giving retirement at age 60 is an adequate return on investment," Stultz said."

____________________________________________
My response:

Since the overwheming majority of the politicians, never served in a soldier or sailors suit, they need to take care of those who do. It is time the military and naval service obligations go both ways. The service member is obligated and the government should be as well taking care of their devoted members. That is OBLIGATION!

I don't know what army Stultz is in, but I do know that a SFC retiring from the reserve only is not going to receive $3000.00 a month in retirement, maybe a 3 star reserve general might. Let it go back to cover 1990 and all operations since and he will have support. Otherwise forget it.

Amen!! Let's not forget those mobilized before 2008, like those mobilized immediately after 9/11. How about the ODS/S veterans, and Grenada, and other conflicts that have happened in the last 25-30 years. These people contributed their blood, sweat and tears also!

Well the General makes a great speech. Another leader puts his 2 cents in again on this issue.

If the reserves and guard where too big to fail like all of the other issues going on today, I am sure this issue would have had lots of money thrown at it by now.

Since this issue has been talked about now for years does anyone really think anything is going to happen?

At least one good thing is that when you start drawing retirement at 60 you only have to wait two more years to draw early social security.

By my calculations an E-7 getting $3000 / mo in retirement would have 30 years active duty. For a reservist, I figure for 3000 points, it would be around $900/mo for an E-7 at age 60.

Most reservists have or had civilian jobs that were not their military skill related jobs. After they reach their "20 Good Years" and go into the "Retired Reserve Status," waiting for the golden year of 60, most are working minimum wage jobs because they cannot find jobs in their military line of work. The TAP classes don't help with writting resumes for job fields that have classified jobs or work performed because of "National Security" reasons. It does not matter if it is peacetime or wartime. A reservist has served, longer than their active duty counterparts, but still have to wait for their benefits? No wonder the young reservists that join for the college money, don't dress out in uniform, show up for drills, etc. Myself, I volunteered for deployments with ships needing augmentees and had more sea time than most commissioned officers acquire their whole time, along with retirement points. Navy reservists have a high year tenure, where most of the other services sound like they do not! So, why not give a reservist their benefits at retirement, instead of age 60?

I believe alot of folks are missing the point or they just don't care. Ask your senator or congressman how long he has to serve to collect a retirement and how soon he can COLLECT it. One term and immediately.
Also, when the RC Retirement Age was set to 60 after WWII, it was set to match that of the Federal Civil Service. When they reduced the Federal Civil Service to age 55, they left the RC Retirement age at 60. From the Gulf War to this day things have changed dramatically for the Reserves and National Guard Forces. Since we are ordered to deploy from away from home and family and put our lives on the line why in God's name should we be thought of any less than Fed Civ Service workers who for the most part sit in nice safe offices. Therefore, we need to amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for non-regular service from 60 to 55.

> I believe alot of folks are missing the point or they just don't care. Ask your senator or congressman how long he has to serve to collect a retirement and how soon he can COLLECT it. One term and immediately.

Not true. They're under FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System) now (since 1984), same as all federal employees. After 5 years they vest, but that's standard for defined contribution plans with an employer contribution. See http://www.senate.gov/referenc...rces/pdf/RL30631.pdf and http://thomas.loc.gov/home/faqlist.html#11 for more info on the congressional pension system.

Why not give the retirement pay once they get their 20 years. Give them half of what they are supposed to get, with no medical dental benefits and once they reached 55 then they can get the FULL retirement.

Example:
An E-7 who enlisted at age 18, has done the maximum points allowable for 20 years will have 1800 points plus say 3 deployments (365 days each) will have a total of 2895 poits once he reach 20 years. At age 60, his retirement would be $803 (at current pay chart).

If he retired at 20 years, he is only 38 yo. Why not give him 50% ($401) of his retired pay now with no medical and detal benefits and once he reached 60 or 55, give him his FULL retired pay and benefits. At least he can really say that he is retired at 20 years. Compare this figures with that with an active duty and you can tell that the reservists are still a long shot shot of getting the benefits they deserve.

To all Reserve and National Guard personnel, thanks for serving. Now, to the "real" issue. I reviewed many responses regarding reserve benefits and a majority focus on the unfairness between "active" duty and "reserve" duty.

Well, let's see now. Active duty personnel are "FULL TIME" employees, not "PART TIME" employees as in the case of reserve and National Guard personnel. There is a huge disparity between the two groups because active duty personnel will be away from home, on deployment or training, at least half of their military career. Reserve and guard personnel on the other hand will only be deployed once every five years, unless they volunteer, and only participate in minimal training events according to the applicable regulations.

It was also mentioned that "most reservists have or had civilian jobs that were not their military skill related jobs. After they reach their "20 Good Years" and go into the "Retired Reserve Status," waiting for the golden year of 60, most are working minimum wage jobs because they cannot find jobs in their military line of work." What a revelation!! You're either a "DUD" or a "SLACKER" if you waited twenty years to get a decent civilian job. After all, you have plenty of time between drill and AT. It's not "rocket science" to enlist for a job that has a civilian equivalent. I don't think you'll hear much whining from personnel in the "combat arms" because they volunteered for that field.

I agree that limited medical and dental benefits should be available for personnel who actively participate in weekend drill and annual training events. However, it should only be available to their families during AT or deployments. I do not support early retirement for reserve and guard personnel simply because they serve a couple of "active duty equivalent years" during their career.

I despise most politicians, especially those who have never served in the Armed Forces. However, we know their military/non-military record when they run for office. But we elect them anyways, knowing darn well their predisposition concerning military personnel and benefits.

The bottom line is "YOU VOLUNTEERED" for reserve/guard duty!!! If you want the same benefits as active duty personnel, then sign-up for a full time commitment with full time benefits.

quote:

The bottom line is "YOU VOLUNTEERED" for reserve/guard duty!!! If you want the same benefits as active duty personnel, then sign-up for a full time commitment with full time benefits.

Both active duty and reserves/guard are volunteers. So what the reserves are saying is they should have fair share of the retirement system that in their opinion is a broken system. As of today, I think the reserves are deployed longer than their active duty counterparts.

Won't get called out on the carpet for helping a soldier??? News to me! Just last week I was threatened with disciplinary action for trying to do just that. I guess rank does have its privileges. Oh, and it certainly helps to play golf and drink with those you are trying to convince.

to 3 letter.

Do you know anything about the reserves??? I dont think so and most people who arnt part of the reserves do not and shouldn't have the right to speak on this matter. I have held a full time job since I joined the army reserves back in 2002. Yes I volunteered for the army when i signed up, but when I have worked a total of 4 years active duty on and off and on off again and have to switch from my employers health care to tricare everytime. We to deserve the same benifits that an active duty soldier has. Not only do we have to hold a job that can be flexable with us and the armys scheduale, which is hard to find with so many people needing jobs, we have to make sure that when that paper comes for us to leave again, that all the civilian stuff we have is taken care of.Then to top it all off we have two weeks to make sure our family has medical dental and everything else they dont get during our 2-3 month break in service. Everyone thinks the reserves is a two day a month and two weeks out of the year job its not at all. While I have to put in my 8-10 hours on my civilian job, I come home call my soldiers, make sure training is coordinated for and usually go to the office on base to work a little there, in the end results in me getting home around 9ish after leaving the house at three am. Active duty soldiers are "FULL TIME", but thats all they do wake up go from base houseing to work on base then at four or five back home weekends off usually. I know i've done both sides. You have your field and NTC training you have to go to, but when they recieve the orders to go the medical and family readiness is there already taken care of not needing anything to change. Yes the family is missing their loved ones, but the admin and health stuff for the families behind an active duty soldier is a much easier transition, why not help the reserves be that way too.
Again I have to say if you havent been in the reserves then you know nothing about the operations and preperations that come with being a reserve soldier. To say that a reservist only serves a couple of years active duty is idiotic we serve beside and along with all active components in the military, if this law passes not only will my family be more taken care of but most importantly MY SOLDIERS FAMILIES will too. Obviously you dont know the in and outs of the reserves 4 years is more than half of my current contract and right now i am serving on 179 days then two days off and guess what back on 179 days and when the reserves activate you its 179 days on not weekends off or anything its 179 days on so am i considerd "FULL TIME" to say that i am part time is stupid and ignorant.

In the end we have to look at who this is taking care of the soldiers we serve with and their families anything to help out is good who are you to say anything about helping, its just the old mentallity of the millitary "seperateed not together, but when you go to iraq or afgan and the reserve soldier beside you pulls you out of the way of something horrible or stands beside you while in a fire fight, then look at him and tell him "hey you dont deserve the same rights that i have" you only do this two days a month and two weeks a year.

Hey 8766746,

I understand your frustration. It's nothing personal, just business. Some reserve personnel do serve more active duty time than others. However, if you're serving back-to-back 179-day mobilizations, then you're obviously on AGR or volunteered for the mobilization.

"Not only do we have to hold a job that can be flexable with us and the armys scheduale, which is hard to find with so many people needing jobs, we have to make sure that when that paper comes for us to leave again, that all the civilian stuff we have is taken care of. While I have to put in my 8-10 hours on my civilian job, I come home call my soldiers, make sure training is coordinated for and usually go to the office on base to work a little there, in the end results in me getting home around 9ish after leaving the house at three am."

The best I can make of this rambling is that you are on 179-day mobilization orders and you also work at a civilian job during the day. So, what you're saying is that you're collecting a paycheck from DOD and also from your civilian employer. I'm somewhat confused about your status now. Are you on active duty or not? You also want us to believe that you receive an alert notification and are expected to deploy within days. Hogwash!! All routine deployment orders are published well in advance of any deployment for reserve or active duty units. If you're working daily from 0300-2100, then you need a block of instruction on time-management.

"Active duty soldiers are "FULL TIME", but thats all they do wake up go from base houseing to work on base then at four or five back home weekends off usually."

I'm not sure what unit you were stationed with or where, but it obviously wasn't in a combat division.

"To say that a reservist only serves a couple of years active duty is idiotic we serve beside and along with all active components in the military."

I suggest you compute how many active duty days a reservist actually completes during their tenure. I'm sure you'll discover that the answer is "NOT MANY". As for serving alongside active duty soldiers, I concede that a "small number" of reservists do augment some active duty units. However, that's the exception and not the norm.

One final note. If you're going to "lead Soldiers" please spend some of your "active duty" time at the education center. I suggest you focus on "writing skills".

I don't think they should give retired guard and reservists retired pay. Heck, they shouldn't give active duty retirees pay either. No, save that money and give it to the idiots that put our economy in a shambles. To hell with the guys and gals that put their lives on the line, sacrificed time with family, destroyed relationships due to PTSD, in some cases took huge cuts in pay, may have lost their job, ..... Yes they volunteered, but you don't feel at least a little obligation to compensate then JUSTLY for their sacrifices? I did eight years active duty, went to college, oh yeah, I was one of the few who fell in to the VEAP program...after Vietnam they reduced the GI Bill. You put in one dollar, the DOD put in two for a maximum total benefit, including your contribution, of $8,400. One semester of school cost me $7,000. The whole time I was in school I stayed in the guard. Eventually I did 23 years with deployments to Turkey, Kuwait, Iceland, Afghanistan. When I got activated my pay was reduced in half. Given all that, in today's dollars, my retired pay would be around $800. I was an E-6. In the Air guard, if I wanted to stay in my career field, that was the highest I could go. They have rank slots for each position and for me, that was it. I could have retrained, but that meant going back to a tech school and taking half pay again, probably for six to ten months (if there is a slot available with a higher rank...BIG IF). You can only do that so much before you go bankrupt. I'm tired of generals not knowing all of the information and making decisions...scares me as to what life threating decisions they are making. I know that they won't make it retro-active; they've been talking about this for twenty years...kept people in the Air Guard because they had high hopes it would change. Not sure they would have stayed the twenty for the retirement. Some without much active duty will only get about $300 a month WHEN THEY TURN SIXTY!!! So, congressmen and women, high ranking generals, and everyone else who doesn't truly care about the enlisted guard and reservist, keep leading these guys on. I'm sure you will be successful in convincing them that this will be a benefit that they will stay in for, only to get shafted with the rest of us.

Absolutely agree with 2123603. I was active duty for 10 years and went Guard in search of greener pastures. Well, they were certainly greener and I did get to do what I had always wanted to do in the military, but the cost was high from a rank/retirement standpoint. In hindsight it was the worst career decision of my life. Guard and Reserves have gotten the shaft since the beginning of time and I don't believe that will ever change. To this day, regardless of what anyone tries to convince you of, the Guard and Reserves are looked upon as part timers and don't deserve anywhere near the same benefits as active duty. This attitude persists even to the retailer level where they will give military discounts on goods to 'active duty' or those on orders. Fortunately, most retailers don't know beans about this and just see ID card and give you the discount. Others though do know and it doesn't matter what duty you've served. You could have just come off 10 consecutive tours in the sandbox and if you aren't on orders or AD you ain't getting your 10% off that burger and fries.

It's the country club attitude that's existed throughout the military officer ranks since before Christ that has gotten us to where we are. If you're enlisted you can think all day that O next to you is your buddy, but if the O has to choose between his career and doing the right thing when it comes to your enlisted scum butt, you may as well bend over and take what's coming.

3_Letter_Agency -

"Not only do we have to hold a job that can be flexable with us and the armys scheduale, which is hard to find with so many people needing jobs, we have to make sure that when that paper comes for us to leave again, that all the civilian stuff we have is taken care of. While I have to put in my 8-10 hours on my civilian job, I come home call my soldiers, make sure training is coordinated for and usually go to the office on base to work a little there, in the end results in me getting home around 9ish after leaving the house at three am."

For a reserve leader - fully understand. weekend coming up, needs to ensure everything is good to go. Nothing to do with 179 activation. It's called working two jobs. That's what reservists do. That also answers your comment on FULL-TIME - active duty have one job to do. Reservists have two - and have to meet the same physical and training standards as the active duty.

I suggest you compute how many active duty days a reservist actually completes during their tenure. I'm sure you'll discover that the answer is "NOT MANY". As for serving alongside active duty soldiers, I concede that a "small number" of reservists do augment some active duty units. However, that's the exception and not the norm.

Try one year active out of every five (new standard for reservists). That's a minimum of four years out of a 20 year career. Minimum.

Maybe you should also spend some time at an education center - learning about "reading skills" and "total force"

To 3_letter:

We can go back and forth and back and forth all day on stuff, but the main focus is the soldiers,we serve the same military. Nothing makes us different in combat we fight,die,and struggle the same as active duty personnel do. We are one team that it not separate one "The Military"so who really needs to learn how to lead soldiers you or me? I’ve had active duty personnel under my team for a couple missions they were considered the same( US soldiers)in my eyes, in yours I don’t think so. About "combat units” I have been in and deployed a couple times overseas, don’t think you have by your comments. The main focus of this is taking care of soldiers and their families, the reserves might not be everyday on base, but we do the same amount of deployments and for just as long. We have to take time out of our civilian jobs to go to schools and everything else the army needs from soldiers and leaders. We deserve the same rights just because the government doesn't pay us to live on base and work on base we still fill a vital role in the Military.
Truly what is the difference?
Active duty soldiers work in a job may it be MP, infantry, engineer and deploy as that same job.
Reserves work a number of different civilian jobs from law care, business owners, students, teachers, policeman, managers, we usually deploy as something different than what we do daily, so not only do we have to know what we are doing in the civilian word we have to know our army job also so we can function in garrison, combat or wherever the army needs us.

"The best I can make of this rambling is that you are on 179-day mobilization orders and you also work at a civilian job during the day. So, what you're saying is that you're collecting a paycheck from DOD and also from your civilian employer. I'm somewhat confused about your status now. Are you on active duty or not? You also want us to believe that you receive an alert notification and are expected to deploy within days. Hogwash!! All routine deployment orders are published well in advance of any deployment for reserve or active duty units. If you're working daily from 0300-2100, then you need a block of instruction on time-management."
To reply to this:
I have a very important civilian job and cannot leave it right now, so yes i am mobilized during the day with the army and continuing my job at night so the business will still be there when I come off orders. I am currently deployed for 179 to help my higher HQ. Not volunteer status, to be honest I make morein my civilian job, but they asked so I did. Active duty we called it moonlighting, and it’s not days before we get mobilized we have to worry about. It’s the days after we get activated, the days between when we show up to our mob site, which is usually far away from home, and the day we leave for country. That time frame is all we have to get our families to the mob site have them signed in to Tricare and dental insurance and get ID cards to be able to get other benefits. Because as of now our families only get these benefits when we are activated not before then, but if they did away with that it would be easier on the families of the reserves and when have to leave your civilian job the company usually won’t keep your insurance so you have to switch to Tricare. In the end, once everyone in the military that thinks like you are gone and retired this army will be better for all. I hope that when you go to a civilian interview to get a job after you complete your time with the military that the owner or person that hires is a reservist lol.

btw as of 2002 when i signed for the "TWO DAYS OUT OF THE MONTH AND TWO WEEKS OUT OF THE YEAR" I have served on active status for four years and one month on my first contract that is way over half of my six year contract. Compute the schools, extended AT orders and deployments along with the two days and two weeks and most reservist are in the same boat. Now that they passed the one year every five years that will go up too it will be just another deployment on top of the others we will have to do.

I think 3 letter agency has never been or has never served in the military. He is most likely a DOD civilian working on a desk job.