View Full Version : Six-Figure Bonuses Retain U.S. Commandos
Ret10Echo
10-12-2007, 06:45
Six-Figure Bonuses Retain U.S. Commandos
October 12, 2007 - 8:37am
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has paid more than $100 million in bonuses to veteran Green Berets and Navy SEALs, reversing the flow of top commandos to the corporate world where security companies such as Blackwater USA are offering big salaries.
The retention effort, started nearly three years ago and overseen by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., has helped preserve a small but elite group of enlisted troops with vast experience fighting the unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Defense Department statistics.
http://wtop.com/?nid=116&pid=0&sid=1265710&page=1#
Dominus_Potior
10-12-2007, 06:47
..........because you guys deserve it, and more.
Team Sergeant
10-12-2007, 11:30
..........because you guys deserve it, and more.
It's also the realization that, at 20 years, you're only working for 50% of your normal salary.;)
The Reaper
10-12-2007, 11:40
And for most ranks, the fogey raises stop shortly after 20 years of service. Up, out, or hit a glass ceiling.
I am not sure that the bonus drives the train. It is a band-aid for retaining more senior (E-7 through E-9) SF personnel over 20. By and large, they are not your team guys. A better question would be what are we doing to retain our younger and mid-career NCOs?
TR
Sounds like some people are tired of seeing SF Staff NCO's get out just to go and get hired by some private security firm.
Throwing money at the situation might not fix the problem in this case.
It's also the realization that, at 20 years, you're only working for 50% of your normal salary.;)
Once you go over 20 you're working for 1/2 pay with a chance to lose it all if some general wants to make brownie points by charging you with murder.
Gee, where have I read about that in the recent past?:mad:
Pete
LongWire
10-12-2007, 16:50
And for most ranks, the fogey raises stop shortly after 20 years of service. Up, out, or hit a glass ceiling.
I am not sure that the bonus drives the train. It is a band-aid for retaining more senior (E-7 through E-9) SF personnel over 20. By and large, they are not your team guys. A better question would be what are we doing to retain our younger and mid-career NCOs?
TR
When given the opportunity I asked General Brown about this about a year and a half ago. He stated that it got eaten up in Congress, and the Bonuses for the Senior guys was hard enough to get, without getting more fat (for other bills), and chopped up through the process.
I agree that the guys in over 10, that are looking at in or out, should be targeted especially, but I would doubt if you will see anything else coming down the pike.
I just hope that the bonus will still be there in another 1 1/2 yrs when I become eligible, especially if we have a party change!!!!!
Also why Ive stated that we need to go back to a 100% retirement w/benefits and start paying extra after 20, as well as being Tax Free for life at 20 yrs.
A man can dream, can't he?
The Reaper
10-12-2007, 18:16
When given the opportunity I asked General Brown about this about a year and a half ago. He stated that it got eaten up in Congress, and the Bonuses for the Senior guys was hard enough to get, without getting more fat (for other bills), and chopped up through the process.
I agree that the guys in over 10, that are looking at in or out, should be targeted especially, but I would doubt if you will see anything else coming down the pike.
I just hope that the bonus will still be there in another 1 1/2 yrs when I become eligible, especially if we have a party change!!!!!
Also why Ive stated that we need to go back to a 100% retirement w/benefits and start paying extra after 20, as well as being Tax Free for life at 20 yrs.
A man can dream, can't he?
Did you ask him how many billion per year SOCOM spends on infil platforms?
How about JSOC and their units? Did you ask him how much they were given in bonuses and specialty pays?
SF is the most cost effective force in SOCOM. Period.
TR
mffjm8509
10-12-2007, 18:43
I agree that the guys in over 10, that are looking at in or out, should be targeted especially, but I would doubt if you will see anything else coming down the pike.
I just hope that the bonus will still be there in another 1 1/2 yrs when I become eligible, especially if we have a party change!!!!!
While I agree with you in concept I don't believe we'll ever see much more dollars targeting those levels.
Believe it or not, there just isn't a problem with guys getting out at that level. Everybody talks about it, but when push comes to shove we as a Regiment dont lose that many guys over the 10 year mark and those individuals are already targeted with the highest bonuses allowed. The Army G1 views bonus money as a "lever" to apply to correct a problem; if there was a problem at those years of service we would quickly throw more money at it. Its just not there.
There WAS a problem with guys retiring to take the high paying contract work at 20-22 years. Thats when we tagged along onto the CSRB program. So far its been effective, with roughly 60% of those eligible taking some portion of the bonus.
I think the CSRB will be around for a long time, at least through the growth of the 4th Battalions so you should be fine in a year or so.
Of course I'm out of the loop by a few months so STU, feel free to jump in and add your .02 on the current incentive situation.
mp
tom kelly
10-12-2007, 19:24
I jusr received the Fall Issue 2007 of "The Drop",and I read the article by Major General(R) James A. Guest Titled "The Long Farewell", In the article he mentions The Capstone Concept of Special Operations being developed for USSOCOM includes the concept "Global Expeditionary Forces," and all indications point to an intent to replace the SF Groups with this new concept."The Capstone Concept referenced in this article is available for download at www.specialforcesassociation.org. Regards,tom kelly
hey tom, where on that site is that concept? I can't find it. anyone??
So true, TR. So true.... AC and RC , SF accomplishes miracles with the funding that it's given. We get peanuts percentage-wise of the total budget.
LongWire
10-13-2007, 01:26
Here's a different link to Capstone...........
http://www.veteransofspecialforces.org/
As far as the Mid term guys go, ask yourself the same in a couple of years when the X-ray's come to reenlist.........just hypothesizing here, but I would imagine if the money is still in contracting, well then why not?
Not saying that this will happen, but I know that when I got to Group I knew it was a career, that was me at 7 yrs........wonder what the kids with 4 in will think? Its a lot different when looking down that long road, your mileage may differ.
As far as the Mid term guys go, ask yourself the same in a couple of years when the X-ray's come to reenlist.........just hypothesizing here, but I would imagine if the money is still in contracting, well then why not?
It's already come. I had a break in service and following 9/11 I tried to come back in under an Infantry contract. Couldn't get it, but got a waiver in on an 18X contract. I was in the second group of 18X's to ship. A couple months ago, I linked up with one of those guys in a school and we talked about who got out and who reenlisted. The best numbers we have been able to come up with is less then 10% reenlisted and half of those where guys with prior service.
There was talk about 2 years ago of a mid-career retention pay that would start for guys when they crossed the 8-year mark and would inclementally rise as a soldiers time in service increased. I was over-12 and it calculated out for me at just over $800/month. IIRC, USASOC was the one behind it and the money was going to be shelled out of their budget, but problems arose when they asked DA to fund half of it.
It's already come. I had a break in service and following 9/11 I tried to come back in under an Infantry contract. Couldn't get it, but got a waiver in on an 18X contract. I was in the second group of 18X's to ship. A couple months ago, I linked up with one of those guys in a school and we talked about who got out and who reenlisted. The best numbers we have been able to come up with is less then 10% reenlisted and half of those where guys with prior service.
I'd be curious to see the official number's for this. Has anyone seen any studies done on it?
The Reaper
10-13-2007, 07:43
I'd be curious to see the official number's for this. Has anyone seen any studies done on it?
My understanding is that the actual reenlistment number so far for 18Xs is about 40%, which while it surprised me, was viewed as acceptable.
TR
Interesting to me would be to know what % of those not re-enlisting end up in the NG SF.
I would think that the AC 18X program would prove beneficial to the NG throug individuals either coming off of Active Duty directly into the Guard or through those former 18X'ers showing up at a NG SF unit after a break in service as they would still be young enough to have many good years left to serve on detachments.
mffjm8509
10-13-2007, 10:44
As far as the Mid term guys go, ask yourself the same in a couple of years when the X-ray's come to reenlist.........just hypothesizing here, but I would imagine if the money is still in contracting, well then why not?
.
While I worked at branch we were using the 75ths model of roughly 50% for retaining first term Soldiers as acceptable. Regardless of Branch they are first term Soldiers and many will choose to go on and do other things after they've served their country and completed the initial enlistment.
Whether or not there are contracting jobs available to mid term Soldiers getting out is only a concern if the numbers choosing to ETS is larger than the retention/recruiting/production models can predict and personnel strength drops to a point where it becomes a problem. With current high personnel strengths the only thing we could use to justify continued SRB payments at the current high levels was the programmed growth of the 4th Battalions. From the G1s point of view there isn't a problem as long as SWCS an produce entry level operators, we continue to promote 100% of eligible SSG to SFC, and we don't have a mass loss of SFCs.
Once we near the end of our growth, if our strengths are balanced as predicted by SWCS Proponency then I think you'll see these large bonuses going away and regular SRB levels dropping to the 1/1.5 levels of the mid 1990s. Just my opinion, but we cant use the growth as justification forever.
mp
LongWire
10-13-2007, 10:59
as long as SWCS an produce entry level operators,
From what my sources are telling me, this Is Not a Problem..........I'm hearing that they wont let guys quit!!!!!
:mad::mad:
The Reaper
10-13-2007, 12:51
From what my sources are telling me, this Is Not a Problem..........I'm hearing that they wont let guys quit!!!!!
:mad::mad:
That rumor has been circulating (along with the dropping of standards) since I have been in SF.
It seems that everyone went through the last hard class, whenever it was.
TR
Needle D
10-13-2007, 12:59
From the G1s point of view there isn't a problem as long as SWCS and produce entry level operators,
Does the 3-5 years team time, multiple shooting schools, JCETs and multiple combat rotations that the mid-level NCOs have not make them worth more than someone that is just arriving from SWC?
Of course they are worth more if you compare one new Q course Graduate to one team guy with experience.
I don't think that that is the point however.
Unless there is a mass exodus, every time one mid-term guy leaves there is someone who is "almost as experienced" stepping up to fill his shoes, and one "new" guy arriving to fill the resulting vacancy. Therefore, no compelling reason throw additional $$ at keeping mid-termers in.
Now, if there was a mass exodus of mid-term guys and/or a problem with producing enough "new" guys then $$ would need to be applied to incentivise mid-termers to stay until more "new guys" could be produced and seasoned.
mffjm8509
10-13-2007, 14:18
Does the 3-5 years team time, multiple shooting schools, JCETs and multiple combat rotations that the mid-level NCOs have not make them worth more than someone that is just arriving from SWC?
I think you're confusing the importance of maintaining quality guys in the Regiment and what Big Army is willing to pay for. Of course a guy with the quals and experience you mention has more to offer than an entry level SF guy. But to the DA G1 it doest make them worthy of higher bonuses. They don't really pay much attention to the stuff you're bringing up, only end strength by MOS. I would use special skill sets as a qualifier to show that our guys have marketable skills outside of the military and to contrast cost to train vs. cost to retain and that helps, but with high overall MOS strengths is was getting harder and harder to justify high SRBs. Thats why we threw in the programmed growth to boost our position.
Like I said before, the Army G1 uses money as a lever to correct a retention problem, not to reward guys for good performance, or for combat deployments. They have X amount of dollars to use each quarter when allocating SRB funds and honestly SF hasn't historically had a lot of guys leaving the force early.
mp
LongWire
10-13-2007, 14:32
That rumor has been circulating (along with the dropping of standards) since I have been in SF.
It seems that everyone went through the last hard class, whenever it was.
TR
Yeah, I've been hearing that since before I went to Ranger School when I was a Pvt.
My point specifically is that I know guys in the instruction house, and they are telling me that the 18B course right now is the highest attrition course down there. And that doesn't sound right to me.
And the word around SF when they came out with SFAS was that pre SFAS you had to be smart to get through the Q course. After SFAS you were a Jedi Knight and you passed the course no matter what - so long as you had made it past SFAS.
As an attendie in 74, secondary in 77, instructor at O & I in 88 and 1SG in a Training company Jan 89 to Jul 90 I can say that it never was a snap for the snuffies - and never will be. That's why it is SF.
Just my 2 cents.
Pete
MN_student
02-23-2010, 19:14
Speaking of trying to keep guys with 20yrs who are in a critical skill MOS...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_3pxwWYvGSkJ:www.armyreenlistment.com/Messages/MILPER/CSRB_10_025_20100120.pdf+MILPER+message+number+10-025&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbSnXuL-TGK-WaO__IJAtCaNsppqBA
Apologies if this is already on the forum somewhere.