Posted on Jun 12, 2015
Minimum Years Commissioned Service to Qualify for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer: Your Thoughts?
19.1K
7
6
0
0
0
Yesterday, on the HRC Facebook page, HRC posted this:
"A chart of FY15 Officer Separation Board (OSB) and (Enhanced) Selective Early Retirement Board (ESERB), CPT, Army Competitive Category convene dates and considered year groups is in https://www.hrc.army.mil/Milper/15-176"
....as a result, there were some comments (to that HRC post) which talked about how those individuals didn't think that there should be a minimum commissioned service required to qualify for voluntary retirement as an officer.
One individual alluded to starting a petition (As a side question, IF a petition was started, would you sign it?). She said:
"It's actually 10 yrs waived to 8 years. We should all petition they get rid of this policy considering your time served matters whether it was 3 yrs, 5 yrs, 8 yrs... Whatever. It's despicable they would erase your years as a commissioned officer."
(HERE is the memo, temporarily waving from 10 years, to 8 years, set to expire by 30 September 2018, by the way:)
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2014_17.pdf
....I was wondering what everyone thought of this?
I can see both sides....
It does seem a bit odd to me that, if you don't hit 8 years commissioned service, it is essentially as if you never were a commissioned officer to begin with.
What does everyone think?
--Should this requirement be reduced (even further, from where it is currently waived temporarily to 8 years)?
--Should this requirement be increased? If so, to what?
--Should it be removed entirely?
...My apologies to SSG Robert Burns, if this thread is too similar to the thread you started HERE:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/minimum-active-commissioned-service-for-an-officer-to-retire-reduced-from-10-years-to-8-until-sept-2018
"A chart of FY15 Officer Separation Board (OSB) and (Enhanced) Selective Early Retirement Board (ESERB), CPT, Army Competitive Category convene dates and considered year groups is in https://www.hrc.army.mil/Milper/15-176"
....as a result, there were some comments (to that HRC post) which talked about how those individuals didn't think that there should be a minimum commissioned service required to qualify for voluntary retirement as an officer.
One individual alluded to starting a petition (As a side question, IF a petition was started, would you sign it?). She said:
"It's actually 10 yrs waived to 8 years. We should all petition they get rid of this policy considering your time served matters whether it was 3 yrs, 5 yrs, 8 yrs... Whatever. It's despicable they would erase your years as a commissioned officer."
(HERE is the memo, temporarily waving from 10 years, to 8 years, set to expire by 30 September 2018, by the way:)
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2014_17.pdf
....I was wondering what everyone thought of this?
I can see both sides....
It does seem a bit odd to me that, if you don't hit 8 years commissioned service, it is essentially as if you never were a commissioned officer to begin with.
What does everyone think?
--Should this requirement be reduced (even further, from where it is currently waived temporarily to 8 years)?
--Should this requirement be increased? If so, to what?
--Should it be removed entirely?
...My apologies to SSG Robert Burns, if this thread is too similar to the thread you started HERE:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/minimum-active-commissioned-service-for-an-officer-to-retire-reduced-from-10-years-to-8-until-sept-2018
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Hmmm...the only thing I would say is that if they commissioned over and have already completed their 20 years or more, then they should retire with the current rank and pay that they are with.
They've already completed over 20 years of federal service and no matter if it is enlisted or officer, it's still military service.
If lawmakers can get elected, serve their minimum time in office and retire with a nice pension, after a couple of years...then why can't military members, if they've already completed 20 or more years of service?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
They've already completed over 20 years of federal service and no matter if it is enlisted or officer, it's still military service.
If lawmakers can get elected, serve their minimum time in office and retire with a nice pension, after a couple of years...then why can't military members, if they've already completed 20 or more years of service?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I guess a question I have is HOW did Congress (or whoever decides this), decide on "10 years" specifically? Anyone know the rationale/reason?
Because of the underlying belief that officers should be career Soldiers?
I guess my challenge with this is that IF that is the rationale, it seems to be at direct odds with everything that is going on with OSBs.
...the "10 years" implies wanting officers to be career Soldiers, yet, even when officers have every intent to be a career Soldier, due to the needs of the Army, they are being cut/separated.
I just can't wrap my head around why this isn't be revisited now.
The waiver to 8 years (from 10 years) is a start...but, unless I am missunderstanding everything going, it would seem appropriate that this policy be modified/changed to meet the current context of drawdown/force shaping/etc.
Only thing I can see is the cost savings of having Soldiers not qualify for commissioned officer pensions.
After a decade of war, you have some officers that likely saw multiple tours/deployments, yet still won't qualify.
What about the officer who had 3-4 combat tours, yet still fell short of even 8 years commissioned service. (I can't name one specifically right now, but I have no doubt they are out there.)
Because of the context here with the drawdown it would seem appropriate, at least to me--a lowely 1LT--to either completely remove this requirement or drastically reduced it (3-5 years?).
Thoughts?
Because of the underlying belief that officers should be career Soldiers?
I guess my challenge with this is that IF that is the rationale, it seems to be at direct odds with everything that is going on with OSBs.
...the "10 years" implies wanting officers to be career Soldiers, yet, even when officers have every intent to be a career Soldier, due to the needs of the Army, they are being cut/separated.
I just can't wrap my head around why this isn't be revisited now.
The waiver to 8 years (from 10 years) is a start...but, unless I am missunderstanding everything going, it would seem appropriate that this policy be modified/changed to meet the current context of drawdown/force shaping/etc.
Only thing I can see is the cost savings of having Soldiers not qualify for commissioned officer pensions.
After a decade of war, you have some officers that likely saw multiple tours/deployments, yet still won't qualify.
What about the officer who had 3-4 combat tours, yet still fell short of even 8 years commissioned service. (I can't name one specifically right now, but I have no doubt they are out there.)
Because of the context here with the drawdown it would seem appropriate, at least to me--a lowely 1LT--to either completely remove this requirement or drastically reduced it (3-5 years?).
Thoughts?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I would never sign such a petition. That is not how change should be driven in the military.
I have mixed thoughts on the rule as it stands. They really center around the word "voluntary".
The rule is spot on for truly voluntary retirement. If someone goes E-->O, they should do so with the purpose of making it a career, not just padding the retirement. The Army needs good Officers, it doesn't need to pad people's retirements.
Where I have an issue is with the "voluntary or else" retirements. Despite the formalism, I have trouble saying that someone who has retired due to being selected by the OSB or SERB has voluntarily retired. I believe that these should be viewed as involuntary retirements, not due to own misconduct. Note: Someone may have made the OSB or SERB because of misconduct, but they weren't separated for that misconduct - else they would have never gotten to the board.
I have mixed thoughts on the rule as it stands. They really center around the word "voluntary".
The rule is spot on for truly voluntary retirement. If someone goes E-->O, they should do so with the purpose of making it a career, not just padding the retirement. The Army needs good Officers, it doesn't need to pad people's retirements.
Where I have an issue is with the "voluntary or else" retirements. Despite the formalism, I have trouble saying that someone who has retired due to being selected by the OSB or SERB has voluntarily retired. I believe that these should be viewed as involuntary retirements, not due to own misconduct. Note: Someone may have made the OSB or SERB because of misconduct, but they weren't separated for that misconduct - else they would have never gotten to the board.
(2)
(0)
MSG Felipe De Leon Brown
Fully agree with your views. There were several RIFs during my active service time including my being RIFed in '92 (wasn't on the E9 list). Many of the Enlisted were offered early exit from active duty, took the separation pay and knew that they would not receive any retirement pay. I personally feel that it should be the same for the Officer Corps. Insofar as members of Congress (both the Senate and the House) are concerned, they should not have the right to expect any pension unless the have served for at least 20 years nor should they receive any pay raises for more than 20 years.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google