The Pentagon just cut the Navy and Marines' maternity leave by 6 weeks

The Air Force was getting read to expand their policy to match the Navy/USMC. SecNav had instituted the new policy last year. Previous to that there was a "singular" policy. If the USAF had matched the USN/USMC, it would ave "forced" the Army to follow suit.

Let's look at Force Structure for a moment. 400~K Army, 300~K Air Force, 300~K Navy, 200~K Marines. 15% Women (Average), 7% in Marines, 20%~ Air Force.

Overall this will be a HUGE net gain in Maternity leave (and Paternity Permissive TAD). In reality the number of Marines affected will be Null (we just don't have a lot). The Sailors will be more, but that will average out with USAF. The Army's gain will significantly overshadow any loss. That's just from a raw numbers perspective.

Now, this sounds cold (it's me remember, analytical guy). If we make the assumption that each Service Member that takes advantage of this will have 1.5 children over an 8~ year period, that means a loss of 6~ months per child + 18 weeks (down to 12 weeks now). So that's 9 months + 4.5 Months or 1.25 years out of 8 years. This will likely occur during the 20-30 year age bracket or junior enlisted/officer years, so we lose an additional 2 years~ of training time. We're getting close to that 1/3 of MSO time and coming close to 1/2 or even 4 year mark.

We must start looking at this as "Incentive" concept, if only because of retention issues. Cost of training a Warfighter is significant. Although Pregnancy and Family Planning is a NATURAL part of life, the "Needs of the Force" must be weighed against the "Needs of the Service Member." As you said "makes it seem that it's an award of privilege vs a right." But more specifically it is a "benefit" which must be tracked, just like Housing, Clothing, Medical, etc.

Your third paragraph isn't cold by any means. I could see it happening the way you break it down in fact. I'd like to see the data on this as it goes on, but as it's moving on, I'll probably care less and less being the force I knew isn't solid like it used to be. Everything in every branch is more fluid and the dynamics are changing at a rate I've never seen before.
Your fourth paragraph is interesting for the commands. What are they going to do to implement this? What about religions where large families are the norm? Your third and fourth paragraphs come into play big time. They cannot make a policy that goes against the "spirit" of the law, but they can "tighten" it. This would be interesting when the metrics are finally shown in regards to this.

Cpl Jeff N.
The services are competing for employees against the tech industry and other parts of the economy. And the competition increases as the unemployment rate drops.

The current maternity leave program is far better than most employers in the private sector offer. Most that join the military would do so out of a desire to serve their country not amass benefits and job skills (although some of that might happen in the course of events). The concept of service to country is being lost in the pursuit of benefits and compensation for the individual.

TSgt Brian A. It is interesting you would look at it that way. Anyone joining the Armed Forces (voluntarily) should know/expect to be deployed at some point and perhaps many times over an enlistment/career. So no one makes them, they sign up for it. That goes with the territory. You act as though a deployment in the military would be unexpected or a hardship. It is part of the job in many cases.

If you go to work at a job in the private sector that has a large travel component, guess what, you could be traveling weekly. Mother or not, you have to go if you want the job.