Do you think the differences in retirement systems for active and reserve are fair and equitable? i.e. gray-area wait, points, etc

2014-11-25T12:44:16-05:00

Response by SSG Peter Ludlum made Nov 25 at 2014 4:28 PM

2014-11-25T16:28:52-05:00

Long ago it was fair, but in today's world the Guard and Reserve have deployed the same or in most cases more times. I think it may be time to offer A deduction from age 60 for every 6 months in hostile fire zones. This would max out at age 53. The only medical benefit for service connected injuries is the already over burdened and corrupt VA system that is killing our young troops at alarming rates. As we draw down our active forces the Guard and Reserve missions will increase.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 25 at 2014 4:45 PM

2014-11-25T16:45:56-05:00

In order to proper answer the question of are the retirement systems for active and reserve fair and equitable, I would need to understand both systems which I do not. A sub question is if the retirement systems are fair and equitable within their respective components (active and Guard/Reserve). Some data points.
- About 330 million Americans and about less than 1% of Americans serve in the military.
- Only about 15% of Active Army Soldiers serve until retirement.
- An active Soldier can retire at 20 years with 50% basic pay (not total compensation). Each additional year earns an additional increase of 2.5% (ie 30 years is 75%: 10 years x 2.5% = 25% increase above 50%).
- A LTC who retires at 20 years earns more than a MSG who retires at 20 years due to difference in base pay for each even though each earned 50% retirement.
- Is a 20 year or nothing system fair and equitable for a Soldier who serves 17 years and then is forced out due to reduced force size and not due to any personal misconduct?
- What is the reserve retired system (basic facts)?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 4:58 PM

2014-11-25T16:58:54-05:00

I think they are generally fair, but I like SSG Peter Ludlum's idea to give Guard and Reserve special credit for deployments.

I was an active duty guy, so I'm biased in that direction. When I served my 30 years of active duty, I could not (not easily, at least) pursue another career. Guard and Reserve personnel train about 40 days a year (I think?) and do have a second (actually, a first) career, so overall I think the retirement systems are generally fair.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 26 at 2014 8:06 AM

2014-11-26T08:06:28-05:00

I don't have issue with it and Tricare has been fantastic as a primary health insurance. CW5 Private RallyPoint Member we serve 48 drill periods - 4 per month (2 days) or split as needed for training, plus our 2 weeks title 32 active duty as a unit or for individual schools not to mention ADSW - additional title 32 for planning, ADVONs, etc. For me, it was more like 1 weekend & 2 days ADSW a month and 5 weeks AD a year. 75 points is a "good" year for NG and reserves towards retirement and every school and AD day above that gives you more points. A deployment year you could earn you 500+ points which increases your retirement pay. I had 7 years with at least 150 points or more.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 9:56 AM

2014-11-26T09:56:31-05:00

Something to toss into the pot. Many times I have had to deal with National Guard members who had never deployed and thus were not eligible for VA benefits. Just doing the minimum in the Reserves/Guard won't get you anywhere - but then I think we all know that. I think the issue of parity is a gross misnomer. I did both reserves and AD - but not Guard. Training was and probably is still a function of money available - ergo it's possible to have a big year and max out on points in one year and barely make a "good" year the next. However, with parity comes risk and immersion. As MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca mentioned with increased rank comes increased focus and "time for the flag" - but there still remains some possibility for a career for the Guard/Reservist as a civilian. On AD, I had two shore commands - which SHOULD have been rather peaceful and uneventful - one out of two ain't bad I guess. In the one shore command I was actually able to be "human"... I had some time off (read: greater than 10 hours a week) and for a short time actually had a part-time job. For the rest of my 23 years - not so much. While onboard ship - the ship was my life. Whether I was underweigh or on the pier getting ready to get underweigh it was a constant sprint. Though while at the pier I will confess to working only 12 hour days (not counting duty days). At sea....meh...18 hour minimum and 20 hours the average day, 7 days a week.

So, do I think the Guard/Reservist that didn't spend 20+ years on AD (or a day for day equivalent) should get paid full benefits and retirement the day they retire? Ahhhhhh.....NO.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Nov 26 at 2014 10:08 AM

2014-11-26T10:08:48-05:00

[approaching this from the O perspective, since that's what I am, similar for E]
I have an equity objection to the grey area for reservists. I understand why it makes financial sense for DOD to do it the way they do... but it would make the same financial sense if applied to Active troops.

The result is that a reserve forces officer can be forced into "retirement" at as early as 47-49, and not be able to draw retirement PAY for another 11-13 years. (Note: Yes, 90 day for 90 reduction for title 10 tours ISO contingency ops since 2008) Often necessitating a "bridge" job to make up the difference in income streams.

I also think that the 28 years of commissioned service cap should be looked at with fresh eyes. First, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to force people out when they are really hitting their professional/executive prime in terms of knowledge, skills, and experience. Second, from the reserve standpoint, 28 years of reserve service is NOT the same as 28 years of active service, especially as promotions come slower. However, the prime objection is the forced brain drain. It worked for an industrial-age Army, but I don't think it works for an information-age one.
(Or I just happen to know that my MRD is less than 4 years away.....)

That said, I don't think the current environment is one where there will be a lot of sympathy for fundamental changes to the personnel system, however potentially beneficial.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Apr 19 at 2021 10:30 AM

2021-04-19T10:30:41-04:00

Without the Reserve the Active Component would be unable to complete their missions and deployments. I.E. the Army Reserve has 90% of medical units, lawyers, water purification, petroleum units etc...Hope that helps!! Hooah!

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Apr 21 at 2021 11:36 AM

2021-04-21T11:36:45-04:00

Not sure if fair but the Reserve Components are being called upon too often to support the AC but the Reserve Component has the Soldiers/Units that are required to support the ACs needs!!

Response by SPC Edward Banning made Apr 21 at 2021 11:43 AM

2021-04-21T11:43:06-04:00

Definately not