Military Retirement - Home Brew Forums
Register Now For Free!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Community > General Chit Chat > Military Retirement

Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2008, 04:49 PM   #1
MikeFlynn74's Avatar
Nov 2007
Posts: 3,876
Liked 19 Times on 17 Posts

No retirement pay before age 57?

Panel also recommends combining active, reserve retirement systems
By William H. McMichael - [email protected]
Posted : February 11, 2008
A congressionally chartered commission has called for scrapping the entire military retirement system and making active-duty troops wait until at least age 57 to begin drawing retired pay.
The proposal, which would spell the end of the current active-duty system that pays nondisability retirement immediately after a service member completes a minimum of 20 years of service, is among 95 recommendations in the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which went well beyond its original charter to review the structure and management of the reserve components and delved into personnel policies for active-duty members.
Under current retirement rules, an active-duty member is eligible for retired pay immediately after completing a minimum of 20 years of service, which can be as young as age 37. However, reservists must wait until age 60 to draw retired pay, although a law signed Jan. 28 by President Bush allows reservists to draw retired pay 90 days earlier than age 60 for every 90 days of mobilization in support of a contingency operation.
Under the commission’s plan, a revamped retired system would grant limited retirement benefits starting at 10 years of service, although payments would not begin until age 62. Those who serve at least 20 years could receive payments at age 60; those who serve 30 years could get them at age 57.
Under the plan, troops could begin drawing retirement pay at earlier ages, but the annuity would be reduced 5 percent for each year that a member is under the statutory minimum retirement age.
The commission said that would bring the military in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.
The commission concluded that combining the training, promotion and management of active and reserve troops into one integrated manpower system is the only way the nation’s military can become a truly efficient operational force for the future.
“The increasing cost of personnel, and the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified individuals, will, we believe, inevitably require reductions in the size of the active force,” states the 432-page report, released Jan. 31. “This shrinking active force will necessarily be accompanied by an increased reliance on reserve forces for operations, particularly for homeland missions. The overall effectiveness of those forces will depend on greater integration of the reserves with the active component.”
The commission argued that modifying the 20-year retirements would give the services an incentive to retain troops whom they want to keep for more than 10 years but for less than 20. Additional pay or bonuses would be needed to keep such troops in uniform beyond 10 years to maintain retention rates.
“As part of the reformed retirement system, retention would be encouraged by making service members eligible to receive ‘gate pay’ at pivotal years of service,” the report says. “Such pay would come in the form of a bonus equal to a percentage of annual basic pay at the end of the year of service, at the discretion of the services.”
In addition, the report says Congress should expand current law to permit all service members to receive up to 5 percent of annual basic pay in matching government contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. Service members currently receive no government matching funds for TSP contributions.
“The government’s contribution would vest at 10 years of service, and the Thrift Savings Plan benefit would be portable and thus capable of being rolled over into a civilian 401(k) account,” the report says.
Among the report’s other recommendations:
• The military’s promotion system should be competency-based versus time-based.
• Active and reserve officer personnel management systems should be merged into a single system.
• The number of duty statuses should be reduced from 29 to two — on active duty or off.
• The Defense Department should implement a combined pay and personnel system to eliminate problems with incorrect pay, low data quality, multiple personnel files and inaccurate accounting of credit for service.
• The Guard and reserve should be given the clear lead in Defense Department homeland security missions within U.S. borders.
The recruiting and job market landscape has shifted in dramatic ways, the commission said, which means the Defense Department “must recruit, train and maintain a technologically advanced force in an era that will be characterized by ever-increasing competition for a shrinking pool of qualified individuals whose expectations about career paths and mobility are changing dramatically.”
“We need to look at our manpower assets with a totally integrated approach,” commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said.
For active and reserve service members, such a system would create a “seamless” transition to and from active duty — “on-ramps” and “offramps,” as Navy personnel officials have described the concept. Basing promotions on competency rather than time would keep troops competitive within the system.
The 95 recommendations in the report also include a call for the reserves to be reorganized into two formal categories: operational and strategic reserve forces.
The operational reserve would consist of Selected Reserve units and individual mobilization augmentees who would deploy periodically. The strategic reserve would include Selected Reserve personnel and augmentees not scheduled for rotational active-duty tours and the “most ready, operationally current and willing members of the Individual Ready Reserve,” the report says.
The commission also calls for scrapping the Standby Reserve category and said members who are not “viable mobilization assets should be excluded from the total reserve force.”
The Defense Department would have to consistently provide the support needed to ensure the sustained viability of both forces, and Congress and the Pentagon would determine the missions each would perform.
“There used to be an understanding that if you were ready for the away game, you were ready for the home game,” Punaro said. “Most everyone admits that’s not the case anymore. We need a very ready force at home in peacetime, just like we need a ready force for the overseas mission.”
The reserves were conceived as a strategic force that would be called to active duty only in national emergencies. But they have morphed over the past 18 years, beginning with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and spurred by the military drawdown of the 1990s, into an operational reserve that is now regularly called upon to meet the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It’s clear that if you hadn’t had an operational Guard and reserve, you would have had to go back to the draft, which I think everyone agrees is ... pretty unacceptable,” Punaro said.
Punaro is “very bullish” on the prospects for the commission’s work to receive serious attention.
Half of the 95 recommendations “can be done immediately,” he said. About 40 will require congressional or presidential action, according to the report.

Just awesome- They cant cut the billions in Contract work or the billions in fuel they burn ant the ends of the fiscal year, so lets go for the peoples retirement.
If you find yourself going through hell, keep going- Winston Churchill
Originally Posted by Tenchiro View Post
The successful have nobody to blame but themselves, I really wish they would take some responsibility for their own actions...

Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 09:32 PM   #2
Petey's Avatar
Oct 2006
Lawton, OK
Posts: 141

That'll never make it. All the people hangin out for 20 that i Know would be gone in a heart-beat. Hell the retirement plan is half the reason some people join as it is. If they drop that there would be trouble in every service. And that part about reducing the active force...that guy must be smoking crack, were already strained as hell. I know guys that need to apply for citizenship in Iraq cause they've spent 3 of the last 4 years out there already because of shortfalls. I don't see any of that plan ever taking off.
Primary# 1: Dry Irish Stout
Primary# 2: Munich Helles

Secondary# 1:
Secondary # 2:

On Tap:
Robust Porter
White IPA
Dry Irish Stout

Kegged & Waiting:

Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 09:55 PM   #3
TheJadedDog's Avatar
Aug 2006
People's Republic of Cambridge
Posts: 3,316
Liked 16 Times on 13 Posts

I just love the logic of politicians. This is exactly the wrong thing to cut if you want to reduce military spending (which is one of the only things we justifiably spend money on in the first place). It is unconscionable to me that we would cut any part of the military compensation package.

I've got a better idea, let's cut the funding for Congress' health insurance, payroll, and travel reimbursement.
And now we go AG!

On Tap: Nadda
Primary: Nadda
Planning: Extra Special Bitter

Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:05 PM   #4
homebrewer_99's Avatar
Feb 2005
Atkinson (near the Quad Cities), IL
Posts: 17,796
Liked 136 Times on 102 Posts

Originally Posted by TheJadedDog
...let's cut the funding for Congress' health insurance, payroll, and travel reimbursement.
Congress doesn't pay for health insurance...nor put into a retirement plan...
HB Bill

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 12:48 AM   #5
david_42's Avatar
Oct 2005
Oak Grove, Oregon, USA
Posts: 25,599
Liked 158 Times on 148 Posts

About 90% of the lifers I knew in the service would have bailed in a heartbeat. Only the retirement gravy train kept them onboard.
Remember one unassailable statistic, as explained by the late, great George Carlin: "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"

"I would like to die on Mars, just not on impact." Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 01:05 AM   #6
McKBrew's Avatar
Oct 2006
Hayden, Idaho
Posts: 8,204
Liked 35 Times on 30 Posts

I can guarantee that if they do something like this, the military will have an even tougher time finding willing applicants. If it does happen, I hope that being close to retirement I will be grandfathered otherwise I will be one disgruntled sailor.
Make Beer, Not War.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 03:30 AM   #7
SwAMi75's Avatar
Mar 2005
Midwest City, OK
Posts: 2,478
Liked 7 Times on 7 Posts

Seeing as a good chunk of retirees die before they reach age 60, this would save us a load of money.

It'll never fly.
May you go marching in three-measure time
Dressed up as asses, drunk to the nines
Swing from the rafters, shouting those songs
Gone unsung for far too long

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 04:43 AM   #8
Mar 2007
madison, wi
Posts: 300
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Makes sense if you read the book"Shock doctrine" by Naomi Klein. The "new economy" is all about out-sourcing non essential functions of the U.S. government to private corporations through contracts. This essentially creates a new field of profit exploitation that didn't exist before.

Then, as Friedmanite think-tanker Grover Norquist said "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Say goodbye to government of the people, by the people, for the people...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 04:54 AM   #9
Bearcat Brewmeister
Pour, Drink, Pee, Repeat
Bearcat Brewmeister's Avatar
Feb 2006
Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 696
Liked 23 Times on 9 Posts

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a long time. Why treat the active and reserve components the same? I have an Army Reserve retirement and have no problem with the active retirees getting their retirements right away while I wait until age 60. The active guys put their time in and deserve what they get.

Sounds like they want to reduce the size of the active force and rely more on reservists. They have been doing this for years now and IMHO, they have reached their limit. We have reservists on 2 and 3 tours in Iraq now and because of that, recruiters are now finding it more difficult just to fill the reservist ranks. You can't reduce the active force any further if you are not drawing more reservists.
Kegged: Barrel Aged Imperial Sweet Stout, Rye Ale, Old Ale
Barrel Aged Imperial Sweet Stout On Cherries
Fruitcake Old Ale, RIS
Next Up: White IPA
Projects: Brutus Strut-stand (Done), Freezer Conversion (Done), HERMS (Done), Lager Fermentation Mini-fridge Extension (Done)
Drinking: Great Lakes Edmund Fitzgerald, Fuller's 1845, Founder's Dirty Bastard, New Glarus Moon Man, Fat Head's Hop Juju

Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 05:08 AM   #10
homebrewer_99's Avatar
Feb 2005
Atkinson (near the Quad Cities), IL
Posts: 17,796
Liked 136 Times on 102 Posts

Saner things have been passed by Congress.

One of the latest conspiracy theories I hear was with Operation Desert Storm, etc, is the Govt ignored all voluntary requests for deployment from younger officers because sending the older officers into combat first hoping the would be killed so all they had to pay were insurance claims
versus a lifetime of retirement checks...
HB Bill

Reply With Quote
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy Retirement NAVET General Chit Chat 5 06-28-2009 09:18 AM
Early retirement? Kass_Brauhaus Drunken Ramblings and Mindless Mumbling 12 06-08-2009 03:56 AM
Anyone in the military? Eskimo Spy General Chit Chat 19 07-25-2008 08:10 AM
Retirement Ale budbo Recipes/Ingredients 20 04-22-2006 04:31 PM

Forum Jump