Posted on Nov 14, 2014
Individual Ready Reserve Call-up While Downsizing
33.4K
248
85
20
20
0
The other day, a co-worker of mine sent me a link to an article by Andrew Brennan titled “Welcome to the New ‘Back-Door Draft” dated 22 October 2014. I followed the link and it went to the New York Times. The article talked about a new “stop loss” that went into effect from a recent Executive Order signed by the President. At first glance, I thought it wouldn’t be possible. The article talked about initiating a stop loss for Soldiers in the midst of a major downsizing effort. This didn’t make any sense to me. Why wasn’t the media all over this? Why weren’t the Service Department heads all over this?
So I did a little bit of research. The Executive Order that the author was referencing is titled “Ordering the Selective Reserve and Certain Individual Ready Reserve Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty.” The President signed it on 16 October 2014. The Executive Order reads in part that the President has determined “it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation United Assistance, which is providing civilian-led humanitarian assistance and consequence management support related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa.” It doesn’t mention anything about a “stop loss.”
In reporting, as in life, words are important. I understand that authors and newspapers are both in the business of making money and getting the facts straight, so headlines are their selling point. As a service member, any article on a newsstand stating “New Back-Door Draft” would catch my eye. I remember when I attended basic training back in 1990; there were Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call-ups in the barracks next to ours. They were some disgruntled individuals. I also remember serving in Afghanistan with a retired OH-58D Kiowa pilot who was called back into service due to personnel shortages. I also served with many Soldiers in our Squadron in 2004-2005 who were serving under the “stop loss” at that time. Stop loss is painful. Calling up the IRR is also painful. My question is this: why call up select persons from the IRR to serve on active duty in support of Operation United Assistance when we are sending active duty Soldiers home on a daily basis as part of the downsizing, reduction in force, or whatever title you would like to call it? Isn’t that counterproductive? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing effort to make sure that we have enough Soldiers so that we can deploy in support of global missions? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing to ensure that we have a ready force for contingency operations, like Operation United Assistance?
Let me leave you with one more thought to chew on. Theoretically, the Army could relieve someone from active duty - let’s say they didn’t make the cut with retention caps. This Soldier could then be called back up from the IRR to active duty and then deploy. What about someone who gets discharged from active duty through other means? Maybe a Chapter? Could those Soldiers be recalled through the IRR? It just seems to me that we could be ensuring our Force is manned properly using a more efficient way. What do you think?
So I did a little bit of research. The Executive Order that the author was referencing is titled “Ordering the Selective Reserve and Certain Individual Ready Reserve Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty.” The President signed it on 16 October 2014. The Executive Order reads in part that the President has determined “it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation United Assistance, which is providing civilian-led humanitarian assistance and consequence management support related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa.” It doesn’t mention anything about a “stop loss.”
In reporting, as in life, words are important. I understand that authors and newspapers are both in the business of making money and getting the facts straight, so headlines are their selling point. As a service member, any article on a newsstand stating “New Back-Door Draft” would catch my eye. I remember when I attended basic training back in 1990; there were Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call-ups in the barracks next to ours. They were some disgruntled individuals. I also remember serving in Afghanistan with a retired OH-58D Kiowa pilot who was called back into service due to personnel shortages. I also served with many Soldiers in our Squadron in 2004-2005 who were serving under the “stop loss” at that time. Stop loss is painful. Calling up the IRR is also painful. My question is this: why call up select persons from the IRR to serve on active duty in support of Operation United Assistance when we are sending active duty Soldiers home on a daily basis as part of the downsizing, reduction in force, or whatever title you would like to call it? Isn’t that counterproductive? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing effort to make sure that we have enough Soldiers so that we can deploy in support of global missions? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing to ensure that we have a ready force for contingency operations, like Operation United Assistance?
Let me leave you with one more thought to chew on. Theoretically, the Army could relieve someone from active duty - let’s say they didn’t make the cut with retention caps. This Soldier could then be called back up from the IRR to active duty and then deploy. What about someone who gets discharged from active duty through other means? Maybe a Chapter? Could those Soldiers be recalled through the IRR? It just seems to me that we could be ensuring our Force is manned properly using a more efficient way. What do you think?
Downsizing
Military Industry
Army Reserve
Command Post
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 24
22
22
0
Yes, soldiers have always been able to be recalled from the IRR. It is why there is an IRR. Most people don't look at the fine print when they are enlisting.
Without action from the Selective Service, someone who has been discharged, to include chapters, would not be able to be forced to return to Active Duty.
Those who are retired, could be recalled to Active Duty like the IRR and all those others in a reserve status.
Oh please, oh please call back the Retired Reserve, oh please.
Without action from the Selective Service, someone who has been discharged, to include chapters, would not be able to be forced to return to Active Duty.
Those who are retired, could be recalled to Active Duty like the IRR and all those others in a reserve status.
Oh please, oh please call back the Retired Reserve, oh please.
(22)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
As a member of the Retired Reserve, I don't think they'll ever want me. Too many 11Bs out there, unless they need someone to pack mules and shoe horses!!
(2)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SGM Mikel Dawson ,
I know I feel better knowing you are in the wings if we ever need ramp up the size of the military and not as a grunt on the line...of course if we need animals shod, we know where to turn too.
I know I feel better knowing you are in the wings if we ever need ramp up the size of the military and not as a grunt on the line...of course if we need animals shod, we know where to turn too.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SP5 Jeffrey Hurd
If one is completely out...no remaining reserve obligation...a former service member would have the same...or less...obligation for call up than the average citizen without an act of Congress. Additionally, it would take Federal action to reinstitute a call up of the Selective Service.
If one is completely out...no remaining reserve obligation...a former service member would have the same...or less...obligation for call up than the average citizen without an act of Congress. Additionally, it would take Federal action to reinstitute a call up of the Selective Service.
(1)
(0)
19
19
0
I've read through a few of the responses, and I think one thing that is missing here is the bottom line. Right or wrong, it comes down to funding. An Active Duty Soldier earns a full-time salary, BAQ, BAS, TriCare, Life Insurance, ect. The point is an AC service member costs more than a Reserve service member. Once the AC service member has fulfilled their deployment requirement, they come home, go back to work and continue getting paid, benefits, etc. A Reserve service member can be called up, trained, sent to the deployment location, then when they complete the requirement, they are put back into the Reserve with a part-time paycheck, no Tri-Care, SGLI payable only when they are on Reserve duty, no BAQ, no BAS except when drilling, etc. Reserve service members are simply cheeper to maintain.
So, whether we agree with it or not, it is more cost effective to reduce the AC ranks and call up RC forces only when needed. As far as calling up IRR or Retiries is concerned, the fact of the matter is, when we sign up for the military, we swear to an obligation of service whenever and where ever we are needed. That means, if we are AC, Reserve, IRR, retired, it doesn't matter, we still have an obligation. If our country needs us, we have sworn an oath that we will answer that call, and by swearing to that, we accept the fact that it may disrupt our personal life, or civilian jobs, or education, and everything else. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we do have to accept the fact that we did raise our right hands and we did tell our country we would be there for it's citizens.
One final thought, as a Reserve Soldier myself, I know 9/11 changed the type of Soldiers that enlisted after 9/11. Over the last 13 years the Army Reserve has gone from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve and many of the Soldiers who enlisted during that time want to be a part of that operational reserve. They do not want to go back to the strategic reserve we once were. So although you may have some disgruntled service members who may not agree to being called up, many continue to look for opportunities to deploy. Even I looked for one last opportunity before I retired, but it was not to be. I can live with that.
So, whether we agree with it or not, it is more cost effective to reduce the AC ranks and call up RC forces only when needed. As far as calling up IRR or Retiries is concerned, the fact of the matter is, when we sign up for the military, we swear to an obligation of service whenever and where ever we are needed. That means, if we are AC, Reserve, IRR, retired, it doesn't matter, we still have an obligation. If our country needs us, we have sworn an oath that we will answer that call, and by swearing to that, we accept the fact that it may disrupt our personal life, or civilian jobs, or education, and everything else. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we do have to accept the fact that we did raise our right hands and we did tell our country we would be there for it's citizens.
One final thought, as a Reserve Soldier myself, I know 9/11 changed the type of Soldiers that enlisted after 9/11. Over the last 13 years the Army Reserve has gone from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve and many of the Soldiers who enlisted during that time want to be a part of that operational reserve. They do not want to go back to the strategic reserve we once were. So although you may have some disgruntled service members who may not agree to being called up, many continue to look for opportunities to deploy. Even I looked for one last opportunity before I retired, but it was not to be. I can live with that.
(19)
(0)
SFC(P) Tobias M.
If the unit only does a muta 4 then yes its only 4 days a month. We have units that do muta 10's so there is ten days of pay. O do understand what you are saying here. What I am saying is they are getting paid everyday as it is now your going to add 3000 more guard and RC SM to active pay. I don't see the savings. I see more pay going out the window. Don't get me wrong, I love being in the guard but where is that savings really at when we deploy?
(0)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
SFC(P) Tobias M. That is true. There are units that do 10 MUTAs in a month; however, it is extremely rare to do that repeatedly. OK, let me see if I can do the math for you. If you reduce the AC ranks by 80,000, which is what is projected, you potentially decrease the budget by $4.88 Billion in one year. At the same time you are reducing RC by much fewer numbers and will be looked upon to help support mobilizations, or even buy time if the AC needs to regrow numbers. So, over a 10 year period, should this hold, this savings would equal, say $48.8 Billion. If you have 80,000 RC Soldiers and you have to use some of them to deploy periodically, you still have a significant savings over time because not all 80,000 will be on AC orders all of the time. Maybe only 3,000 will be on orders at any given time and even if you're doing MUTA 10s, you still will not spend $48.8 Billions as you would if these were AC Soldiers. There is a savings.
(2)
(0)
SFC(P) Tobias M.
"LTC Hillary Luton I see what you are saying now. I do see the savings now. Thank you very much. I like using this forum as a learning experience.
(0)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
SFC(P) Tobias M. We all have something to learn. My last assignment was as the Executive Communications Chief for the Chief of the Army Reserve. Since my team was responsible for writing all of the talking points for the senior leaders as well as speeches, Congressional testimony, press releases, etc. I had to know this stuff. Give me a couple more months and I will be completely clueless again. :-)
(1)
(0)
15
15
0
Found some more interesting information on this:
EO13680: Call up to support Ebola mission
EO13529: Similar call up to support Haiti
EO12982: Similar call up to support Yugoslavia
This has happened before. I think this one just leaves a bad taste in all our mouths due to the pink slips being given in country at the same time that they are calling up medical personnel to take care of this as voluntolds.
EO13680: Call up to support Ebola mission
EO13529: Similar call up to support Haiti
EO12982: Similar call up to support Yugoslavia
This has happened before. I think this one just leaves a bad taste in all our mouths due to the pink slips being given in country at the same time that they are calling up medical personnel to take care of this as voluntolds.
(15)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
COL Michael Grubbs: Sir, I think we not only have to look at the up front cost aspects of call ups, but also the savings on the back end. Active Duty Soldiers in successive deployments means more costs on the back side. If you keep the reserves in rotation everyone will need less downtime overall.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SFC (Join to see) this is not the reserves or National Guard in rotation, it is the inactive ready reserve. Those who have (for the most part) gotten out, but not given up their commission (in the case of Officers). They are being called back from their retirement to serve instead of using soldiers who are currently actively (or reservists) serving.
(0)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
CPT Zachary Brooks - Sir, if there are any calls for a foreign army trainer, I"ll put my hand up for that mission. Been there, done that, ready for more.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Regardless if it individual being called up, is Inactive Ready Reservist, Reservist, or National Guardsman. The insane Deployment schedule of the Active Army alone over the last 13 years alone. The Question still needs to be asked and answer. Why the hell are we cutting our Military at this point of time? Even after ISIS blew up in Iraq, with all the mix information coming out of Russia and Ukraine. This Administration doesn't have a clue. Much like the previous Administration who idea to increase the 'Size' of the Army was to create deactivate 10 Artillery Brigade HQ, Support Brigade/Commands, and the Armor/Mechanized Divisional Engineer Brigades. Then take the individual Battalions that were in these Brigades and attached them to the combat brigades. Each Divisions gained a 4th Brigade. In the process each of the 3 Brigades unless the Brigade was organized as Striker Brigade would lose one combat Battalion. Then it would gain under-strength Artillery Battalion, Cavalry Squadron, Forward Support Battalion, Support Battalion, Engineer Battalion(Heavy Brigade). All in the name of increasing the Army, and then on the deployment cycles, these Brigades would have be reinforced with extra Combat Battalion that they lost. So how did that make sense stripping the original 3 Brigades of them, and the Striker Brigades never lost their 3rd combat battalion! Someone was trying to do some creating accounting, and hoping that the people who were crunching the numbers wouldn't notice. You know what, no one was the wiser.
Now after we pulled out of Iraq, all of these 4th Brigade have been eliminated, and all the Army Divisions are back to original Triangle formation. Instead of their Squared Unit of Action/Brigade Combat Team system that didn't really fit the needs.
Now after we pulled out of Iraq, all of these 4th Brigade have been eliminated, and all the Army Divisions are back to original Triangle formation. Instead of their Squared Unit of Action/Brigade Combat Team system that didn't really fit the needs.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google