Pentagon Advisory Board: Military Retirement System Broken

[J8127]

http://www.stripes.com/news/military-retirement-system-broken-board-says-1.113754

The 25-member group of civilian business leaders suggests that the Defense Department look at changing the current system, even hinting at raising the number of years troops must serve before being eligible for retirement pay.

The current system “encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years," committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month.

Making troops serve longer before receiving pay does not sit well with some servicemembers.

“No rational person would put up with 20 years of the hardships that you’re forced to endure if it wasn’t for the brass ring at the end of it all called instant retirement,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Ethan Gurney, an electronics technician based in Naples.



My stance on this is while I know we face cutbacks and need to clean up wasteful spending, I do not think a soldier's paycheck or benefits should be part of it, there are too many other sources with much more potential for savings than screwing the people who serve.

This seems like something that probably comes up every couple of years, can anyone confirm/deny that?

[bost1751]

This is not the first attempt to change the system. Aapproximately 20 years there was a plan or idea to reduce the percentage from 50% at 20 years to 37%, I think, at 20 years and a graduale increase up to the 30 year mark. As you see, that did not make the grade. What is not considered in all of these brain storms on "fixing" the fretirement plan is the military guy was paid below his civilian counterpart for all of those years.

[The Reaper]

Military service is hard on people physically and mentally. Not too many professions on the civilian side can repeatedly order you to do something that is likely to leave you dead or seriously injured several times per day, especially for the pay offered, demand that you work any hours desired, in toxic/unhealthy environments, without the ability to say I quit except at very brief irreglular intervals. Take away the relatively early retirement and you have retention issues. Currently, most people who make it to 10 years stay till 20. Move that to 57, and the kid is 28, they would likely not see that as relevant and stay to collect it, especially in a time of war.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the last time they screwed with the retirement system may recall they had to change it back after only a few years due to retention issues. There are currently three active duty retirement systems.

The military instituted an up or out program that pretty much forces people out at certain years of service in order to create a younger force and afford promotion opportunities.

We don't want another Civil War era Winfield Scott running our wars. A commander in his 70s and squad leaders in their 50s may not be the best for the way we fight.

An E-6 had to retire at 20 years of service. An O-5 had to retire at 26 until recently. It may be 30 now. Up or out. Most military only get a few looks for promotion at any given grade before they are done, and they will finish their careers after many years in the same grade, never to be promoted again. Maybe 5% or less of a specific Year Group make it to Colonel or CSM.

They have already waived many of the Retention Control Points and the Qualitative Management Program to allow members to serve longer once they have stagnated in their grades. There are issues with 50 year old buck sergeants.

Families may get tired, after 20 years, of seeing Daddy gone for more than half the time, putting his life on the line as well. We have been at war for almost nine years now, I know SF guys with six and seven combat tours already.

Let's say that you are stuck as a broken-down, busted-up E-6 coming up on 20, making $32,000 per year, no chance of promotion, unhappy with his job as well as his boss, and under the new system, need another 20 to retire. Mama has told you that after 42 months of combat in six years, she is leaving with the kids if you go again. What do you think you would have to pay him as a bonus to get him to remain?

The people running this story seem to be missing a lot of salient points, and that there is a cost to having a professional all-volunteer military.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[1stindoor]

.... there is a cost to having a professional all-volunteer military.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Your entire post is well put. Sadly it's one that most of our "civilian" leaders fail to understand. I was raised a military brat, I remember all too well the Carter years...we were living paycheck to paycheck back then.

I enlisted in Jan of '86...right before the big change to the retirement system...that they had to fix a few years later.

[craigepo]

The military retirement system is of a type known as a "defined benefits" plan, in that the person puts in X years/X dollars, they get a specified return at retirement.

Such retirement plans are beginning to come under fire. In Missouri, the judicial retirement plan is a defined benefits package. The legislature just made it tougher to vest a judicial retirement, and also made it tougher to roll-over other retirements into the judicial plan.

When you hear a politician say the term "defined benefits", get ready; they are looking to do some cutting. What some politicians don't realize is that this type of retirement was often put into place to recruit qualified people into jobs that the government is generally not able to pay comparably to the civillian sector.