20 and out? Good policy or wasting talent?

MSgt Aaron Brite
Since the National Guard is a different beast from the federal military services, I would have to say that it's a "wast of talented experienced personnel."

I work for the ANG as a contractor and the way some of these long-time AGR guys explain it to me is that it's like any other civilian job. The longer one stays, the more valuable they become to the company. Of course we know this isn't always true and some people (just like they do in the federal military) hang on as long as they can strictly for the paycheck.

I would suggest some type of continuation board for members who are eligible for retirement, if there isn't already a program like that. You pass the board, you can stay past 20. You don't pass (because you're not pulling your weight), drop your papers and get your blue (or red for retired reserves) ID card.

Forcing out at 20 doesn't make a whole lot of sense economically or talent-wise. Considering for every year someone stays in after 20, that is one less year their retirement is paid, it is actually a benefit to keep them economically. The extra 2.5% of their pay per year after is easily offset by each year of not paying the 50%.

Now aside from cost, as long as the member is still motivated and working hard, keeping them around benefits the overall knowledge of the service, and skill sets they can share with others.

In my own opinion, it is wasteful of experience to automatically retire personnel at 20. A good Commander is already using purposeful force management to ensure that there is a proper balance between solid SNCOs and the career progression of the troops. At 20 years, the Commander is signing retention letters, so the good ones are either cutting it, or being shown the way into retirement.