Posted on Mar 22, 2015
Since the Vietnam War ended, how many mobilizations lasted for 6 months or more prior to OEF including any humanitarian support missions?
11.6K
17
20
6
6
0
I believe that once Congress backdates all post 9-11 mobilized service over six months and reduces retirement age by the same amount, then I think it is appropriate to lobby for credit for earlier six month mobilizations.
There have been a number of longer mobilizations: Operation Desert Storm, those associated with the breakup of Yugoslavia - Operation Joint Endeavor (OJE) and Operation Joint Guard (OJG).
I don't think any Reserves were mobilized for 6 months in support for Operation Urgent Fury [Grenada - 1983]; Operation Just Cause [1989 - Panama]; and Operation Restore Hope [1992-93].
There have been a number of longer mobilizations: Operation Desert Storm, those associated with the breakup of Yugoslavia - Operation Joint Endeavor (OJE) and Operation Joint Guard (OJG).
I don't think any Reserves were mobilized for 6 months in support for Operation Urgent Fury [Grenada - 1983]; Operation Just Cause [1989 - Panama]; and Operation Restore Hope [1992-93].
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Army Reserve
Army National Guard
Air National Guard
Air Force Reserve
Retirement Army Reserve Army National Guard Air National Guard Air Force Reserve
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
I will be surprised if Congress actually passes that change back dating it to 9-11-01. It would be nice. I would also like to see them clarify language that it should not be 90 day increments in the same fiscal year.
As far as deployments go, I know the National Guard and some Reserve forces have been doing the Sinai MFO Peacekeeping mission. I am not sure when they started those rotations and if it was a result of active duty units deploying for OEF/OIF. I think the active force has taken that mission back. Kosovo is another one I know for sure that took place before 9-11 although that does kind of fall under the breakup of Yugoslavia.
As far as deployments go, I know the National Guard and some Reserve forces have been doing the Sinai MFO Peacekeeping mission. I am not sure when they started those rotations and if it was a result of active duty units deploying for OEF/OIF. I think the active force has taken that mission back. Kosovo is another one I know for sure that took place before 9-11 although that does kind of fall under the breakup of Yugoslavia.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Jon, I concur that it would be nice to see that the statute would be modified so that the retirement credit clock would begin mobilization and end at demobilization for any mobilization beyond 179 days. I understand that legislation had been introduced to remove the same fiscal year requirement for the currently covered mobilizations [Jan 2008 and following]. I don't know if it made it out of committee or not.
I realized there were a few operations in the Yugoslavia breakup - thank you for the reminder.
That is an interesting point about the Sinai MFO Peacekeeping mission - especially in light of the actions between Egypt and ISIS affiliates in that area. Respectfully, Steve Ford
I realized there were a few operations in the Yugoslavia breakup - thank you for the reminder.
That is an interesting point about the Sinai MFO Peacekeeping mission - especially in light of the actions between Egypt and ISIS affiliates in that area. Respectfully, Steve Ford
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Michael thanks for responding. Both resources provide summations of significant operations - especially the pbs.org site. However neither site provides information on mobilizations of reserve personnel and units. The acedmic.evergreen.edu provided a more complete list but had a number of caveats: This guide does not include:
•mobilizations of the National Guard
•offshore shows of naval strength
•reinforcements of embassy personnel
•the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
•military exercises
•non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
•the permanent stationing of armed forces
•covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
•the use of small hostage rescue units
•most uses of proxy troops
•U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
•foreign or domestic disaster assistance
•military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
•civic action programs
•and many other military activities.
•mobilizations of the National Guard
•offshore shows of naval strength
•reinforcements of embassy personnel
•the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
•military exercises
•non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
•the permanent stationing of armed forces
•covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
•the use of small hostage rescue units
•most uses of proxy troops
•U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
•foreign or domestic disaster assistance
•military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
•civic action programs
•and many other military activities.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I'm guessing the first big deployment of Reserve/Guard force was OJE. In Europe 7th ARCOM units were considered forward deployed units and we were assigned/attached to Active duty units, so when they went, we went. It was very interesting being in the Reserve in Europe. I'd do 3-4 Corps exercises a year along with my regular drills. This really upped my retirement points as well. I think the next big deployment was OJG.
Along with those, we'd also get a lot of special TDY's going to NATO partners and the former eastern block countries. Was a good time to be in the Reserve.
Along with those, we'd also get a lot of special TDY's going to NATO partners and the former eastern block countries. Was a good time to be in the Reserve.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Mikel, were all of those deployments limited to 179 days or less or were any 6 months or longer?
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
LTC Stephen Ford, OJE was Dec 95 - Sep 96. OJG was Mar 2001 - Sep 2001. The Corps exercises ran from two weeks to a month long.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a financial planner with as much civilian time helping military members with make good financial decisions as I have in the Guard, and a long-suffering Eagles fan, I have a slightly different opinion: be careful what you wish for.
The greatest running back in Eagles history was recently traded ostensibly because he was too expensive. In an era where the federal government does not have enough money to pay for its fiscal promises, this is an important lesson.
In the sequestration/continuing resolution era, any "win" we get in terms of earlier pension, is likely to cost us something else. The actuaries have not allocated for pensions starting at 60 and lasting for upwards of 30 years, so if is starts earlier, will they simply reduce the monthly amount (probably)? Or maybe they will reduce missions and jobs to pay for increases in retiree costs (bye bye A-10).
While we all want money sooner, but we'd be better off with more benefits later. The civilian world is heading towards single-digit percentages of individuals covered by pensions. Even as someone who is in shouting distance of qualifying to be the one in six people will ever qualify for a military pension, I recognize that anything else that I get will likely be assessed to the other five.
Assuming we can get more money to fix personnel costs, it would be better spent improving the VA medical system for retirees and tri-care availability for Guard and Reserve members of all ages. As someone with many octogenarian clients, trust me, your 80 year old self will thank the 58 year old self for waiting a few extra years if it means more money in your later years.
The greatest running back in Eagles history was recently traded ostensibly because he was too expensive. In an era where the federal government does not have enough money to pay for its fiscal promises, this is an important lesson.
In the sequestration/continuing resolution era, any "win" we get in terms of earlier pension, is likely to cost us something else. The actuaries have not allocated for pensions starting at 60 and lasting for upwards of 30 years, so if is starts earlier, will they simply reduce the monthly amount (probably)? Or maybe they will reduce missions and jobs to pay for increases in retiree costs (bye bye A-10).
While we all want money sooner, but we'd be better off with more benefits later. The civilian world is heading towards single-digit percentages of individuals covered by pensions. Even as someone who is in shouting distance of qualifying to be the one in six people will ever qualify for a military pension, I recognize that anything else that I get will likely be assessed to the other five.
Assuming we can get more money to fix personnel costs, it would be better spent improving the VA medical system for retirees and tri-care availability for Guard and Reserve members of all ages. As someone with many octogenarian clients, trust me, your 80 year old self will thank the 58 year old self for waiting a few extra years if it means more money in your later years.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Sean, thank you for sharing your views. It is interesting that you use "early pension" to describe the military retirement process when many enlisted retire at 38 years of age and officers retire at 42 years of age.
The amount of appropriated funds required to cover "early" retirement for retirement credit for mobilizations of 6 months or longer is POM dust. The Federal government has more than enough to do what "it" is deems important - deficit spending enables the proverbial can to be kicked down the road.
Unfortunately, the VA like many federal agencies, wastes money in addition to using money wisely. They just announced a standardized application process which will benefit the VA personnel and systems but imposes an added burden on the older vets.
I have been treated by the VA Medical System for many years and am thankful for the care I receive because of the people involved. Unfortunately well thought out process changes and implementation occurs rarely if ever in the Federal government and never from the top down.
As far as deferred gratification, the Social Security system is a great example.
Generally the way Congress implements changes to retirement and benefits is beginning changes at those entering service - rarely if ever are changes made to the benefits of those who have been serving 10 or more years already.
My financial investments are doing fairly well and I expect the Federal government will be around long enough to begin my military retirement [52% of LTC salary]. My primary concern has been and continues to be for the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who have served without getting recognized or credited for their mobilized time, when others mobilized after a politically convenient point bin time do receive credit.
The amount of appropriated funds required to cover "early" retirement for retirement credit for mobilizations of 6 months or longer is POM dust. The Federal government has more than enough to do what "it" is deems important - deficit spending enables the proverbial can to be kicked down the road.
Unfortunately, the VA like many federal agencies, wastes money in addition to using money wisely. They just announced a standardized application process which will benefit the VA personnel and systems but imposes an added burden on the older vets.
I have been treated by the VA Medical System for many years and am thankful for the care I receive because of the people involved. Unfortunately well thought out process changes and implementation occurs rarely if ever in the Federal government and never from the top down.
As far as deferred gratification, the Social Security system is a great example.
Generally the way Congress implements changes to retirement and benefits is beginning changes at those entering service - rarely if ever are changes made to the benefits of those who have been serving 10 or more years already.
My financial investments are doing fairly well and I expect the Federal government will be around long enough to begin my military retirement [52% of LTC salary]. My primary concern has been and continues to be for the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who have served without getting recognized or credited for their mobilized time, when others mobilized after a politically convenient point bin time do receive credit.
(0)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
I believe this is an important topic, Sir. My perspective is simply one side, and probably not the right side for everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it in this format.
Without a doubt, age 60 should be considered early retirement for most of us. While not all of us have the health to work at 70, we are no longer an agrarian or manufacturing society. All of these benefits were instituted when people lived to be what is now considered "Full Retirement Age"--about 67 for most people. While it's commonly thought that most of us will live to be 76 we have to look at the details a little further. Most of us who live long enough to collect pension will probably live at least 10 years longer than that, and roughly 1/3 of us living to age 90. The popularly referenced age 76 average reflects all people, including those who we lose as infants, teenagers and younger adults.
While the commission on military compensation change will not impact me, I see the benefit in helping the other 5 out of 6 of us who will not qualify for retirement who will have to deal with the impacts of deficit spending for longer than retired Colonels, or even Captains who are closer to retirement than enlistment.
While it's politically popular to expect the government will balance the budget on someone else's back, I'm willing to wait till 60. Creating additional expenses for the government exacerbates the problem of deficit spending. The government is always going to have waste. I believe that every freshman representative that ever goes to DC continues to go there to try because they believe that they can fix it, but I am not holding my breath.
I don't like deficit spending. For me that is a strong enough belief that I'm willing to wait to collect my pension, because I don't want to exacerbate the issue. I knew what the pension offer was when I signed up.
I hope that the economy improves such that increased revenues allow the government to afford the projections of current benefits. Once we get there, I'll gladly support the NGAUS efforts to get our share.
Without a doubt, age 60 should be considered early retirement for most of us. While not all of us have the health to work at 70, we are no longer an agrarian or manufacturing society. All of these benefits were instituted when people lived to be what is now considered "Full Retirement Age"--about 67 for most people. While it's commonly thought that most of us will live to be 76 we have to look at the details a little further. Most of us who live long enough to collect pension will probably live at least 10 years longer than that, and roughly 1/3 of us living to age 90. The popularly referenced age 76 average reflects all people, including those who we lose as infants, teenagers and younger adults.
While the commission on military compensation change will not impact me, I see the benefit in helping the other 5 out of 6 of us who will not qualify for retirement who will have to deal with the impacts of deficit spending for longer than retired Colonels, or even Captains who are closer to retirement than enlistment.
While it's politically popular to expect the government will balance the budget on someone else's back, I'm willing to wait till 60. Creating additional expenses for the government exacerbates the problem of deficit spending. The government is always going to have waste. I believe that every freshman representative that ever goes to DC continues to go there to try because they believe that they can fix it, but I am not holding my breath.
I don't like deficit spending. For me that is a strong enough belief that I'm willing to wait to collect my pension, because I don't want to exacerbate the issue. I knew what the pension offer was when I signed up.
I hope that the economy improves such that increased revenues allow the government to afford the projections of current benefits. Once we get there, I'll gladly support the NGAUS efforts to get our share.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Ever wonder about the Spec Ops and SF both active and reserve what their mobilizations were?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SGM Mikel Dawson
CA units are a big one in the the Reserves. If you want to deploy a lot in the Reserve, get into a CA unit.
(1)
(0)
SSG Leonard Johnson
Maybe a couple you think I was trying to be derogatory? I wasn't. I was just wondering if there was any reservists on the USS Pueblo :-) and could it be counted? People do know what the USS Pueblo was right? As a matter fact here's a good board question.
Prior to Desert Storm, when was the last time the code of conduct was used? :-)
Prior to Desert Storm, when was the last time the code of conduct was used? :-)
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Leonard, I knew you were and are being respectful. The Pueblo incident was an incident where a US ship was "captured" in international waters, brought to a certain country, our service members were interrogated, material and software "examined," etc. If my memory is correct all service members were eventually repatriated but the ship was not.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google