It was recently brought to my attention that in order to retire as an officer, you must hold you commission for 10 years. I have done a bit of research and the only doctrine that I can find on the topic is from DOD. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if a previously enlisted O3E who went to OCS as a PO1 w/ 11 years of service voluntarily retired at 20 years would only receive retirement pay based on PO1 in "High 3" system. Does anyone know of any waivers, or exceptions? Does this apply to warrants as well? Finally, what if a member is involuntarily separated, i.e. passed over for promotion or weight program?

You would retire at 20 as a PO1, with your high-three based on your Officer base pay. Keep it up for one more year and you could retire as an LT (or above).

If you are involuntarily separated, you are officially screwed. We've been DISCHARGING CWO3's, CWO4's and even LCDR's for being fat - no retirement, nuthin'... Don't go there!!

To my knowledge, there is no set of waivers or anything for the 10-year-commission thing.

"If you are involuntarily separated, you are officially screwed. We've been DISCHARGING CWO3's, CWO4's and even LCDR's for being fat - no retirement"

B12,
No retirement for being involuntarily seperated UNDER 20 years, correct? And no I have NEVER been over weight in my 24 years and I'm not worried about the change either, I'm just getting the facts striaght.

quote:

If you are involuntarily separated, you are officially screwed. We've been DISCHARGING CWO3's, CWO4's and even LCDR's for being fat - no retirement, nuthin'... Don't go there!!

Are you saying that if a member with over 20 years is kicked out on the fatboy program, they don't get a retirement? That's news to me...

I don't think that's correct.

It is 100% correct.

IF they get kicked out they do not get a retirement. Almost all of the time, they are given the option of ASKING to retire immediately, vice going through the option of getting booted out. We do the same for Alcohol incidents, drug incidents, etc etc.

ANYONE who is discharged, REGARDLESS of retirement eligibilty, gets no retirement benifits. SIMPLE definitions at work here.

In my opinion nothing below a Court Martial offense should result in the lose of retirement. Taking away 20 plus years of service because someone in their 40's is having trouble making weight is dirty pool and if this is happening to good and dedicated Coasties I might have to reconsider future plans. I agree with the weight policy, even the new one, I even agree with releasing someone from active duty if they can't meet the standard, but right is right and wrong is wrong and taking someone's retirement away for not making weight is plain WRONG!!.

quote:

Taking away 20 plus years of service because someone in their 40's is having trouble making weight is dirty pool and if this is happening to good and dedicated Coasties I might have to reconsider future plans.

Reread what Mightyz said.

If you are over 20 years of service and you fail to make weight, you have not met the conditions of employment and can be kicked out. However, what will happen is that instead of being kicked out you will be told the best thing for you to do is retire thus receiving your retirement benefits.

If you choose not to retire to try and make a point and try to stick it to the man, the man will stick it to you by kicking you out anyway and thus no retirement benefits.

DolphinDriver,
My answer was based on exactly what he wrote. However it does seem that you might have taken some liberties by adding and taking away from what he wrote. This is how he started his sentance, "Almost all the time correct me if I'm wrong but that means, they can do it, and that they might have already done just that, yes? So when you wrote, "what will happen" is actually not %100 correct, what your speaking of is a course of action they might take in lieu of SOP. So I stand behind my post, In my opnion (and I'll add to it for clarification) the CG shouldn't have the "option" to take away your retirement for not meeting the weight standard.

quote:

So I stand behind my post, In my opnion (and I'll add to it for clarification) the CG shouldn't have the "option" to take away your retirement for not meeting the weight standard.

I will agree with your statement and certainly respect your opinion but I will ask this. If the CG doesn't have that option, what motivation (besides being a good Coastie) does a person past 20 years have to maintain weight?

For example, you have CDR X who is way overweight and doesn't seem to care. He certainly enjoys his paycheck though. What do you do? You can tell him to retire but he can just say "No, I will take my chances on the next selection board." You can ask him to drop the weight but he can just say "No, I think I am fine, I will just wait until the next selection board so pack sand." Or you can have the standard in place and say, retire or we will process you for separation. I will let others decide what he would say at that point. But I would guess, he would be more inclined to meet the standards.

I suppose you could make the reg to say they will be forced to retire if they fail to meet weight but what motivation is that? "Hmmm. I can make weight or just leave with a 50% paycheck. I was going to retire anyway at some point so I might as well not worry about my weight and see how long it takes for them to kick me out."

If you cannot boot someone for anything after the 20 year mark, there sure isn't much reason for folks to follow the party line, they can just choose to retire when they get around to it.

14 USC 291 - Sec. 291. Voluntary retirement after twenty years' service

Any regular commissioned officer who has completed twenty years' active service in the Coast Guard, Navy, Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, or the Reserve components thereof, including active duty for training, at least ten years of which shall have been active commissioned service, may, upon his own application, in the discretion of the President, be retired from active service.

Dolphin,
I have no problem with kicking them out but using your scenario CDR X has gotten past 20 years and I don't think a weight issue (in my opinion) qualifies as something someone should lose there retirement over.

To answer the original question, the 10 year requirement does not apply to CWOs, it also does not apply to CWO to LT selectees until they integrate. And, it does not currently apply to most DCOs(direct commission oficers), because they are not currently required to integrate into the regular officer corps until their second selection for promotion. Usually, an officer is required to integrate at their first selection for promotion, after which they must continue commissioned service for at least 10 years in order to retire. And while you could request retirement after 9 years of commissioned service, thinking you don't care if you retire as a PO1, in reality, the request would be denied until you did have 10 years commissioned service. For anyone considering getting a commission, you should read 10 USC, 14 USC, PERSMAN, and all the ALCOASTs concerning the topic. A lot of tedious reading, but it's your future...

quote:

Originally posted by CG_Gunner:
Dolphin,
I have no problem with kicking them out but using your scenario CDR X has gotten past 20 years and I don't think a weight issue (in my opinion) qualifies as something someone should lose there retirement over.

Gunner;
I guess I should have made my point better. DD did a better job describing it than I did.

You are obviously experienced enough to remember when HYT was enacted. Several people at the E-8 level were DISCHARGED at ~28 years becuase they REFUSED to put in t a retirement letter, NOT becuse they were past their PGP. Every year, we boot several ENLISTED Active duty folks at th 17-20 year level for weight! (We do not boot Os or Reservists with 18 years or more of AD for this as THAT is against the law, only AD enlisted).

I agree that weight SHOULDN'T be something someone looses their retirement over. But if they are as ignorant as those folks who were past PGPs when we put in HYT and REFUSED to act on the issue, then so be it. Remember, we can NOT force a person to retire. A person must ASK for permission to retire. If they are given the option of asking to retire of face discharge, and they choose not to take what's behind door number 1, I have NO ISSUE with given them door #2!

(By the way, my opinion may seemed warped to some, but I have made a personal commitment to not consider myself as having earned my own retirement check until sometime after I have given a short speech at my retirement ceremony. I have see way to many folks on the ROAD program and I have not intention of ever trying that program)

Mighty,
Quote, "You are obviously experienced enough to remember when HYT was enacted"

Is that your way of calling me old?

We have agreed in many areas but your statement of, "(By the way, my opinion may seemed warped to some, but I have made a personal commitment to not consider myself as having earned my own retirement check until sometime after I have given a short speech at my retirement ceremony. I both agree and disagree, I agree that your opinion is warped. And disagree that you haven't earned your retirement. The time we have spent in the Guard and the scarifice we all have made has earned us our retirement, all the way up to and including today. For me that's 24 yrs 3 mths 19 1/2 days and you could add 4 mths of DEP if you want. I will earn everyday from here on out till I decide to retire or until the Coast Guard makes that decision for me. I guess for me it comes down to this, if someone can't meet the standards, new or old, within whatever time the Coast Guard gives them, then yes send them on their way, but with what they have earned to that point. Put them on the program, moniter them closely if they aren't trying, bye bye, but I worry about the Coastie who does everything they can and for whatever reason can't lose that last pound or get under the body fat %, it's to high a price if even one of that type of Coastie loses their retirement.

Well, gee, I guess if I was in the 8th grade when you went to bootcamp, yeah I am calling you OLD!

We really do not disagree on the original point. As I tried to explain above, the only time a weight issue would end in anything other than a retirement for a person over 20 is when the person was told to put in a retirement request so that it could be processed and they refuse to do so. Effectively saying "screw you, I am over 20, what ya gonnna do if I don't put one in." Well, I have no issue with them finding out what is on the other end of "or else what?"

Of course, I am a skinny guy and a bit of an SOB, but it wouldn't break my heart if we didn't even have a 'probation' period for retirement eligible folks. Meet either the poundage or body fat, or we will throw you a wonderful retirement party within 90 days, including the argest plate of twinkies and ho-ho's you have ever seen!

Well, Mightyz90_93, you do have a point but it has NEVER been demonstrated that weight and the performance of most USCG missions are related. I AM older than you are since I was on VADM Yost's personal staff when he introduced the weight standard idea. Later, as Commandant, he made it stick. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it law. Oh, have you taken a look at ADM Thad Allen lately. I remember Thad as a trim LCDR back on GOVIS. Now, not so trim. So, yes, I guess you're slim, as you say, but I am wholly convinced you are an SOB, as you say. Bye the bye, ADM Yost is also the guy who banned Coastie beards, the traditional insignia of a true seaman. I admired and respected the man but his silly prejudices drove me around the bend. Sort of like you.

CDR;
Thank you for your service and the history info!
I would surely back you up that it would be very difficult to compare weight and performance. My attitude or view on the subject falls under your statement that "doesn't make it right, it just makes it law" together with my point above that we don't owe anybody over 20 another single day. I plan to keep that attitude in 140 days when I hit 20. The current program is not hard to follow. A body fat percentage of 27% and 37% for most of the folks in the retirement eligible age catagories is fairly liberal. I am not sure what the standards was when you left, but right now, there is no actual weight standard, there is only a body fat standard. The only purpose the scale that we have people step on is to determine who needs to have their body fat checked. You can weigh a ton (literally) as long as you BF % at 27% (37% for women) or less.

I don't think I have a prejudice on this subject - except for meeting published standards. If the standards were 60% body fat, then that would be my line in the sand.

Ok, when I was in OCS I was also advanced to E-7. Upon completing OCS I had 9 years of AD. When selected to LT, I remember being required to sign a document resigning to the permanent grade of of E-7 and accepting the permanent commissioned of LT. But for pay purposes, I was an O3E and not an O3. So, I retired as an O3E and my retirement pay is based on the high 36 months which were all as O3E pay. My ID card says LT/O3 (not O3E). Only place O-E is displayed is in my LES block "Pay Grade" which reads exactly O3E. I hope this helps clarify anything.

quote:

...only AD enlisted...

Masterchief, FWIW enlisted reservists with 17 - 20 years of creditable service can be booted too.

As you note - a reservist with 18 or more years of ACTIVE DUTY service is "protected" - but I believe they have to be on active duty.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nekron99,