WASHINGTON
A commission urged Congress on Thursday to overhaul military pay and benefits, suggesting that most retiring troops sacrifice part of their pensions unless they agree to wait until age 60 to begin collecting their monthly retirement checks.
In a wide-ranging report, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve also urged the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to put new emphasis on the military’s role in responding to domestic terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The United States “does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available” to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, the report asserted. It called the deficiency “an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk.”
The report said that repeated use of Guard and reserve forces, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, have left many reserve units near the breaking point.
“There is no reasonable alternative” to continued reliance on the reserves, it added, but that force must be more integrated into the active military to reduce the strain on both.
The commission’s proposal on military retirement would alter one of the military’s signature benefit programs. It drew immediate criticism from a prominent retiree group, the Military Officers Association of America.
“I don’t see that going through,” said Steve Strobridge, the group’s director of government relations.
Generations of troops have been entitled to begin drawing retirement pay after 20 years of active service, regardless of their age. The benefit has permitted hundreds of thousands of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to embark on second careers while in their 40s and 50s, using their military pensions to supplement their civilian salaries.
But the commission, which was dominated by former service members, said the system works against reservists and National Guard members, whose eligibility is computed differently. Reservists and Guard members cannot collect pension checks until they turn 60, and three-fourths of them do not serve long enough to qualify for any retirement benefit, the panel noted.
Even among active-duty troops, only 47 percent of officers and 15 percent of enlistees reach the 20-year mark.
The commission urged that retirement benefits be provided to those who leave the military after as few as 10 years, active or reserve, and that the active force and reserve operate under the same set of rules for eligibility.
The proposal would allow those with 10 years of service to begin drawing pension checks at age 62; those with 20 years, at age 60; and those with 30 years, at age 57. Retirees could make earlier withdrawals but would pay a penalty for the privilege.
The panel also pushed for periodic bonuses to those who make a career of the military. Members tempted to retire after 10 years, for example, might be offered bonuses to induce them to remain in uniform for an additional period. The bonuses could be varied depending on the members’ job assignments, giving the military an additional tool to hold experienced troops with needed skills.
The report did not put a price tag on the commission’s retirement recommendations, which were a relatively small part of the commission’s work. And while Strobridge expressed reservations about those proposals, he said the Military Officers Association of America was pleased by much of the rest of the report.
The commission urged a variety of changes in the military’s system of health benefits. Among those were a proposal that reservists be allowed to enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the health insurance program for federal civilian workers.
Patricia Lewis, a commission member who spent more than 28 years as a Navy civilian employee and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, said the military needs to make its benefits more “portable” to adjust to the needs of a changing work force.
The commission believes future troops should be able to move from the active force to the reserves, then to the civilian world and back to the military without losing benefits, Lewis said.
“We don’t want to cram anything down anybody’s throat,” she added.
The report calls for its recommendations to be phased in over a five-year period, with those who enlist during that stretch allowed to choose between the old and new systems. Those already on duty would be permitted to stay in their current retirement plan and begin collecting benefits when they retire, regardless of age.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Police and Firefighters Retirement
The comment regarding police and firefighters being able to retire with a straight 20 years is not correct for the majority of us. Most cities in Hampton Roads use the Virginia Retirement System. We have to have 25 years of service at 50 years old to get our full benefit, a little of 50%. I was hired at 21, so I had to put in 29 years, not 20. I unfortunately had to retire early due to a job-related injury.
We all wish we had a straight 20 year retirement, I know of many that have the time, just waiting to turn 50.
Some departments did have a twenty year retirement, but changed to VRS about 10 years ago.
Privileged class, indeed
I agree - we should all follow the same rules. Everyone should have to pass a semiannual physical fitness test and maintain a certain body fat percentage. Their employer should require them to move to Korea or Alaska or the middle of the Mohave Desert (Ft. Irwin) on a whim. They should spend extended periods of time away from their families (in the Army that means 15 months at a time). They should get used to the occasional mortar round landing by their office or quarters. They should worry about road side bombs. If they get injured, they should have to deal with the Veteran’s Administration. The commission is NOT recommending increasing benefits – it wants to severely curtail them. If you think the military is a privileged class in our society, I suggest you visit the Walter Reid recovery ward. Or Arlington National Cemetery.
If Ms Lewis
Wants to clean up retirements then she should start with Civil Service. When I retired from the Navy, if you did 20 years you got 50 percent and for each year thereafter you got 2-1/2 percent more up to 30 years when you would receive 75 percent. In Civil Service a person could do 40 years in Civil Service and receive over 80 percent of their salary at retirement. I know, as I seen several do that when I was stationed at the Naval Supply Center, NORVA 3 times during my Navy career. When an officer or enlisted in the military does more than 30 years, and I know of some who did over 36 years, they still only got 75 percent and they were only working for 25 percent of their base pay as they were already entitled to 75 percent. So Ms Lewis, clean up Civil Service retirement before you even think of touching the military retirements. Also, when I was in the reserves before going to active military status, the reserves and National Guard would have to wait until they were 60 years old before they could draw their retirement pay for 20-30 years of service.
No reserves and National Guard are getting reenlistment bonus pay.
20 and OUT Same as cops and firemen!!
Police officers and firefighters also get the 20 and out benefit. It's one of the FEW perks for doing this miserable job for 20 years and being able to retire and not have to eat dog food 3 times a week. If you take this perk from the military, it will only be a matter of time until it is taken from the PDs and FFs too. Military folks make less than HALF of what they would make for their skills in the private sector and to rob them of the perk that keeps them there is wrong! Even with this light at the end of the tunnel, only 15% of enlisted and less than half of the officers go the whole 20 years. They are playing YOU BET YOUR LIFE for all of us for no money to speak of and lousy working conditions, leave their pensions alone!!
You Don't Know What You Are Talking About!
Please tell Ms. Lewis that where in her long experience as a civil service employee has she earned the right to speak for the "troops and sailors"? Bouncing back and forth as a civilian looking for a higher GS paygrade is one thing, but moving back and forth between active and the reserves will do one thing - that is drive everyone out of the armed forces. No one is going to stay in the armed forces for a career suffering the hardships, reduced funding for moves, and family separation without knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I loved the Navy and did nearly 27 years, but it was hard on me and my family. I am now enjoying the benefits of being retired Navy.
Fix the reserve retirement system - it is outdated, but keep your cotton picking hands off of the current retired system for active service members. When you've served your time in the military, talk to me about making changes and then you'll be credible!
Will there be a grandfather clause?
And what about those of us that are already retired? Will they do the same with the pay as they did with medical? When the new tricare came around and replaced champus, those that had retired before that, were now in the same stew pot as newly retirees and now paying for it.
When is it enough?
Just another step to making the military a privileged class in our society. While the civilian population must wait until at least 55 to collect retirement, and 59.5 without IRS penalty, this commission thinks the mlitary should be exempt. One comment even said they'll leave if we don't do this. It's time we stopped looking at our military as more than equal citizens. Either they follow the same rules as the people (their bosses, BTW) or we continue the slide to a military autocracy.
Breaking an already overworked military
I’ve been in the Army for 23 years (Airborne, Ranger, Drill Sergeant, 1SG, CSM), prior to that I spent 3 years in the Army NG. I have served since I was 17 years old. I have been deployed to Desert Storm, Uphold Democracy, Iris Gold, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. I have spent years away from my family living in deserts and jungles being shot at, mortared, and nearly blown up by a missile attack. I will treasure all of my experiences in the military; however it’s been a hard life. The near mention of cutting military retirement shows how little representation we have in Congress; there are fewer and fewer people with military experience and a growing number of professional politicians who are sheltered from reality.
Acitve Duty Pensions
I agree with the assessment of Guard and Reserve status and the need to repair the damage done, however even the suggestion of delaying Active Duty military pensions of those service members who have given 20 or more years of faithful and honorable service is outright offensive. There are very well grounded reasons that military pensions are paid at the completion of 20 years of ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE. The sacrifice made by the Active Duty Career Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman are far greater than probably any other occupation in our society. These people who serve the American people even in peace time do so in unbelievably hazardous environments, under tremendous stress, and often away from there families for months or years at a time. While I have a very deep appreciation for the role and job our Reservist and Guardsmen do and the sacrifice they and their families make, there is a HUGE difference between a 20 year career as a reservist and Active Duty. A Reservist in peacetime does a weekend a month and two weeks a year drilling, the Active Duty Member is deployed for months at a time, (in the Navy usually 6-10 months out of every 18-24 months) and those times when they ar
Are they that stupid?
"The panel also pushed for periodic bonuses to those who make a career of the military. Members tempted to retire after 10 years, for example, might be offered bonuses to induce them to remain in uniform for an additional period. The bonuses could be varied depending on the members’ job assignments, giving the military an additional tool to hold experienced troops with needed skills."
For a panel that is supposed to be "dominated by former military" they sure are out of touch. This "bonus" they are talking about is exactly what the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) is for. Enticing members to stay longer by giving them bonuses based on their specialty, rating, manning, and years of reenlistment. Currently some of thsoe bonuses are reaching $60,000.00 for the highly desired and undermanned specialties. Focus people, FOCUS!!
The commission makes these
The commission makes these suggestions based solely on the fact that the Army has had to make greater use of the guard and reserves duing this Iraq conflict. With their different retirement plan they appear to be getting the short end of the stick. I don't think they've taken into account the increase recruiting and training costs associated with there being a greater turn over in the military. I don't think the military could funtion at it's current level of efficiency if it suffered a 40% or more turnover every year.
The military tinkered with retirement before where it reduced the retirement benefits of folks coming in who decided to do 20 years from 50% to 40%. It didn't last very long. The lesson learned then was tinkering with retirement has long term effects.
Get real
The commission doesn’t consider the negative consequences of delaying retirement. The only reason most career service members choose to stick around for 20 years is because of the retirement benefit. If the government delayed paying it until age 60 or later there would be almost no career enlisted force. Starting a second career at age 38 is difficult and your salary is not nearly as high as someone who had been doing it for 20 years. The military retirement offsets this pay differential. It’s not as if enlisted members retire after 20 years and sit around the house for the rest of their lives – they cannot because half of an enlisted member's base pay at 20 years is not enough to live on, requiring a second career. On active duty, a married 20-year E-7 (chief petty officer) in Norfolk brings home approximately $5696, not including any specialty pays to which he might be entitled. Using "high three," that same service member's retirement check would be for approximately $1840. Good luck living on that.