20 and out? Good policy or wasting talent?

MSgt Aaron Brite — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:01:52 -0400

Some state National Guard commands have a 20 years and out policy. This policy forces traditional guard members and Active Guard Reserve (AGR) personnel to retire when they have achieved the ability to retire. Do you see this as a way to ensure a steady flow of people through the ranks or a waste iof talented experienced personnel?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 10:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:20:01 -0400

Why do we have efficiency reports? After 20 years let the efficiency reports help make the decision.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 29 at 2015 10:22 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:22:07 -0400

Some folks need more that 20 years to maximize their talent.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jul 30 at 2015 1:35 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:35:46 -0400

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.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2015 2:58 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:58:01 -0400

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.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 1 at 2015 6:54 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 06:54:49 -0400

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.