Are you aware that the Army intends to double the number of required training days for some National Guard units?

MAJ Alvin B. — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:42:34 -0500

What will be the impact on recruiting and retention if National Guard members must drill for 60 to 100 days each year?

The U.S. Army's top officer is planning to more than double the number of required annual training days for some National Guard units to reinforce the service's shrinking active force.

The service's current strategy of reducing the active force from 490,000 to 450,000 by 2018 is forcing leaders to depend on the National Guard to assist with potential future contingency missions, according to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/14/army-plans-to-double-training-days-for-guard-units-chief-says.html

Army Plans to Double Training Days for Guard Units, Chief Says

The U.S. Army's top officer is planning to more than double the number of required annual training days for some National Guard units to reinforce the service's shrinking active force.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 5:52 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:52:28 -0500

I read it was being talked about, but never saw anything that went beyond just talkng. Guard needs to go back to Citizen Soldiers, IMHO.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 5:55 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:55:18 -0500

There is one company in my state that has an uptempo training schedule. Two ATs a year, and I belive it was double the number of MUTAs as well. The program started last year, I thought about volunteering for it, but one of the downsides was a two year commitment, which is a long time if it doesn't end up working well for a guy.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 6:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:01:46 -0500

Could be done depending on how those additional UTAs are used. We did additional time for a year or two prior to an Iraq deployment.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 16 at 2015 6:02 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:02:55 -0500

It will probably hurt guard recruiting and retention. With frequent deployments and training many guard members already have trouble with getting and keeping a decent civilian job.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 6:36 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:36:27 -0500

The only feasible way I can see that happening is with two weekends a month, with those extra weekends being MUTA 6's

Response by SSG Joe LeChuga made Dec 16 at 2015 6:54 PM

SSG Joe LeChuga — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:54:27 -0500

When I was with the Army National Guard aviation units, many (if not all) of the aviators and flight crews came in during the month outside of Drill Weekend to get their flight hours in. Doing extra time is nothing new in the Guard, especially if you're in a leadership position. Also, many Guardsmen did 2 ATs a year. Some because they went to a school for one AT and they also wanted to go to AT with the unit. Sometimes because (like myself and my medics) they were needed to support other units during their AT, and so we did 2 ATs that year. Not that unusual.
Now to make it a requirement, that may cause (as the Major says) "...new challenges for the Army, as well as the soldiers, families, businesses and communities..." Some soldiers have a hard time meeting their Guard duty requirements because of their civilian job. That is nothing to gloss over. Remember, it is THAT job that is the main income source for that trooper & his family. The Guard is his Part-Time job. And though it is true this part-time job comes with many requirements and restrictions that other part-time jobs do not have, it also has benefits to this soldier (whether it is the use of military facilities, specialized training or the camaraderie of fellow soldiers) that other jobs also do not have.
So the soldier must strike up a balance between the two. Add to that obligations to family and for some community/church and you have a very tight schedule with little room to move or add to.
Now after saying all this, I do believe it can be done. However, I do not think it should be implemented Guard-wide for every unit. That is a recipe for disaster. The Guard would lose good soldiers and recruitment would suffer. But if it was put in place in selected uptempo units with enough pre-notification, then there would be enough time to fill the unit with motivated personnel who are eager to volunteer in a unit requiring the extra time. It can be done. Just not everywhere.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 8:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:26:51 -0500

Sir, we must look with a critical eye at the verbiage used by media outlets such as the Army Times (which is owned by the same corporation as USA Today) and military.com. At the end of the day, they use sensational headlines to garner attention in the hopes of increasing ad revenues.

When you drill down into the statements made by the service chief, "maybe", "assess", etc. do not make for a done deal. One of the biggest things to be "assessed" is the feasibility of such a plan. In this time of continuing resolutions and lack of Oval Office support for the military, where's the money going to come from to double the very training budget they are trying to slash?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 12:06 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:06:57 -0500

Allowing guard troops to stay in active component housing and giving them bas could be used to offset possible civilian employment difficulties. A large proponent of a persons income goes to housing, utilities and food. Allowing extra training opportunities by becoming a IMA based force compared to a tpu based one would also allow quicker integration between components.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 8:44 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:44:34 -0500

The concept of increasing the number of days for some units is nothing new. They did this with the enhanced readiness brigades (E- Brigades) pre 9/11, and also with units in last part of their training cycle in ARFORGEN.

I did the math, and depending how they fund/source the days (i.e. doubling IDT days vs additional AT days) and the degree of flexibility that the ARNG's chains of command would have in executing it makes it a challenging proposition. If you make every month a UTA 6, and add a week of AT that accounts for an additional 31 M-Days. You could easily authorize 15 more AT days for troop for schools, vice unit AT time, and that'll help with DMOSQ, NCOES, and ASI training, no sweat.

It might make more sense to authorize and partially fund and additional 50+ IDT or AT days, but funding it in an increasingly budget constrained environment will be hard to do. Also, what about the other services? Will the ANG get a similar requirement? Or the MARRES, USNR, USAR, etc? And how will this additional hunk of time affect requirements for retirement? How much will you have to do for a "good retirement year?" There's going to have to be some legislation analysis to make this a reality, and then you need to get it through Congress.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 12:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:02:20 -0500

What? How will we keep our Soldiers? The Army already treats is second class in terms of benefits. Once a month is hard enough for ARNG soldiers who are valuable members of our civilian workforce! What are the benefits for the ARNG, you can't just take, there has to be some give here.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 5:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:27:54 -0500

This will be hell on the SM civilian job schedule. If the SM is on a weekend rotation at their civilian job you are now taking two weeks worth of pay away a month. Maybe the military pay makes up for it maybe it doesn't either way it is going to be a budgetary hardship. And what employer is going to hire someone that will be missing that much work time? They have schedules to do also.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 6:32 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:32:25 -0500

If the top "Brass" in DC and the Pentagon want to double the AT days for us Guardsmen then they should also increase our pay scale.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 7:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:40:36 -0500

If this happens, USERRA is gonna get a run for their money.....! :)

Response by SGT Brian Oxley made Dec 18 at 2015 8:28 AM

SGT Brian Oxley — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:28:21 -0500

I don't believe it's the right way because the States have a small budget, Second you have soldiers spending hours and hours on a computer for a class thats pointless when what we should be doing is training our future soldiers with hands on training as we did back 20 , 30 years ago.
A soldier has a MOS and their not doing anything with it , 12W should be building things, take them apart and rebuild it again.
12B should be in the field doing training over and over again on how to be more professional at that job.
What we have is States telling her soldiers is we don't have the funds.
Training soldiers for a hundred days out of the year is just tossing money down the drain when the Guards don't even have the funds.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 11:31 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:31:53 -0500

If they are to increase training days then they should also strengthen the laws that deal with employers firing soldiers due to Guard commitments. I no longer have this problem because I work for the Corps of Engineers as a DA Civilian. However, a lot of people in the Guard have this problem. It will be very hard to recruit and retain soldiers who lose their civilian job due to their Guard commitments.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 8:57 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:57:04 -0500

I think upping our drill days would be great as sometimes I feel like we (S2) finally just start becoming productive in whatever task we're working on by the end of drill. It takes time to set things out, a lot of us end up getting tasked for other things going on during drill weekend. But, if something were implemented where it was upped closer to 100 drill days, then that's ridiculous, we signed up for the NG, not active duty. We have full time jobs that we are committed to, that doesn't mean I'm any less committed to my Nation and State for the Guard but it does mean that I signed up with the understanding that I wouldn't have to take almost a 1/3 of the year off for drilling. Not to mention by adding that many drill days would mean that many would be consecutive, so on top of extra drill pay, many soldiers would be receiving a percentage of BAH as well.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 8:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:33:53 -0500

Personally I'm ok with it but the SEVERLY RESTRICTED retirement system will need a hell of a review.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 19 at 2015 6:15 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:15:26 -0500

I know this has been discussed in several other forums on here. IMHO, what we have here is an active duty component who does not understand the Reserve components. It is easy for them to say the ARNG (and probably USAR too) need more training in order to be ready when needed. Senior Army leaders have not had to worry about a civilian employer since probably high school. Increasing the training days for all NG units will be costly and I think would have a drastic impact on readiness in terms of retention. Employers will question why an increased commitment when we are supposed to be winding down our combat operations. They will be less likely to hire a person if they know they are in the NG because they know that person will be gone for about a third of the year. If a Soldier gets pressure from his work, they will have to decide if it is worth it. In terms of recruitment, I think it will be more difficult to explain to a person what they will be doing. Will this mean more weekends? Will it mean more time away from families? To make this work, I recommend two things. First, look at what RC units can do with their current training time. I know in the USAR, I spent a lot of wasted time on weekends. If we used time more wisely, we could do more effective training. I think this could include 6 MUTA8s vs. 12 MUTA4s. Secondly, I don't think could apply across the board so it should only apply to select units based on the ARFORGEN cycle or perhaps type of unit (Aviation, CBRNE, etc.). I do believe that Army leadership needs to make it clear that they do not have the active manpower to perform their mission and hopefully we can stop the personnel drain.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 12:19 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 00:19:45 -0500

MAJ Alvin B. I think this is a good idea Guard and Reserve Units have difficulty in compressing all the training tasks and maintenance into two days per month. I know even adding one day for a Friday departure to a training sight is difficult for some and I wonder what it will do to retention numbers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 11:23 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:23:51 -0500

I think senior leaders need to to play part of "Undercover Boss" and see what really happens at many drill weekends and the paper work online requirements required that take up much of the time. It often seems only real training that happens is at AT and few drill weekends. The military is awful at efficiency many members hanging around while a few need to do certain things. I am not saying the Army should act more like a fortune 500 company (but in reality it is just very large business... different discussion for that). If I was consultant I would do test phase and pay members hourly just for a month to see how much time and money is wasted on labor hours not used properly or not used at all. Guarantee if we pay members hourly guarantee leadership would use the time much more efficiently. This goes for active duty and reserve components. The problem is that for so long we have thought of the military as this indefensible amount of free labor if it is a duty day we can keep you how long the "mission takes". Would any company anywhere, have 30% - 70% of their work force " hang out" while others who can only take care of matters NCOERS, packets, admin agenda etc can take care of. I will take away the first variable and although an important one that most leaders automatically refer to... well it is great opportunity for "hip pocket" training. Not what is their responses? The Army like any other business is constantly trying to manage resources (money and time). Unfortunately, everyone senior leaders and private snuffy are quick to say we just need more of both to make things happen. I say yes but to an extent. Invest in in research, do case studies what makes one Company better prepared than another. What are they doing with their time? Money? How do they reward and discipline? Now take that information and infuse it and become more efficient and streamline, from the bottom up. I know some companies have super MUTA where they have more 8 day drills where training can be completed and then muta drills then next drill for paperwork.

Reserve components can be an amazing asset becasue of what a solider can bring from their civilian lives. I think the lines need to be blurred more when it comes to rank in the reserve component because of this experience. I think its great if CPT/1SG has risen through the ranks but if someone decides to join the military later and life and doesn't have military experience but has wealth of knowledge consulting, managing and owning a business, managing assets and people, then that should be incorporated. I have seen some amazing reservists with very impressive resumes on the civilians not being used to their potential because of rank.

To circle this around. Should we increase days? Yes but not without making the time we currently have more efficient. It will demotivate solider to all time to have come in more and just do more the horrible and wait thing for much of the drill weekend. Offer pay to do online training at home, we work training schedules, loosen admin demands on reserve forces. Make it flexible to have soldiers to come int the armory to make do additional online training's and paperwork. Lets work smarter not harder is what I say.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2017 10:31 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:31:01 -0400

Remember, you never trade up. You just trade. We will trade one problem for another. Retaining talent. You'll keep the unemployed soldiers paid, but the ones with great jobs or talents may decide to not re-enlist. Many become Contractors. Get rid of ALL online training and leave it up to subordinate commands to educate/discipline. Get rid of the PHA completely, does not reflect readiness. Do a MUTA 6 for 8 months out of the year and 21 days of AT maximum. And let commands put out RST's and 1380s for RMA's as needed. Empower and trust subordinate leaders.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2018 10:06 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:06:41 -0400

A lot of units are already in that 60-100 day band of training days (I know I’ve been there for a while now, actually).That’s not including schools, which seem to be getting longer and longer. It’s not hard to spend 4-6 months on orders or MUTAs anymore. Personally, I don’t mind because I like going to drill. The problem is retention. I have soldiers that just can’t do it anymore. USERA protects them, but it’s a huge burden on civilian employers. My troops all have jobs where their presence is needed too. I know this is the deal, but the job they do the rest of the month is what puts food on the table and they can’t go in multiple directions all the time. It’s getting harder for me to convince these guys it’s worth signing up for over and over again. They want a deployment and I don’t think they’re going to get it now. If the quality of training is there, the weekend a month/two weeks is sufficient. It seems now we get bogged down in online training, tasks that only apply to a certain part of a unit or even last minute FRAGOs that make it impossible to plan for training during white times. I’ve watched the Guard go from a bunch of fat beer-drinking weekend warriors before 9/11, to one hell of a fighting force that I’d go to war with again in a second. But there needs to be balance.