Posted on Dec 16, 2015
12
12
0
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
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
Posted in these groups: 
Army National Guard
Retention
Army National Guard Retention
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
7
7
0
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?
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?
(7)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
A very good point. At a time when Soldiers are sometimes told 2-3 weeks out that "drill was cancelled due to lack of funding" and "there is no budget, so we can't cut any school orders for the first quarter of the fiscal year", it seems to be a stretch to expect Soldiers to sign up for more commitment across the board. It needs to be seen as somewhat mutual (even though the Army will never love you....).
As I said in a different thread on this topic, and SSG Joe LeChuga said above, it couldn't be a one size fits all. I, and many I know, would have jumped at the chance. Many would have to quit because of the impact on the job that actually pays the bills and family life.
As I said in a different thread on this topic, and SSG Joe LeChuga said above, it couldn't be a one size fits all. I, and many I know, would have jumped at the chance. Many would have to quit because of the impact on the job that actually pays the bills and family life.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yep, our funds have continued to be cut. Pretty soon all funds will go to the active component while we are asked to be a ready Army for free, besides leaving us jobless. Despite all of the veterans initiatives for jobs, it seems that only the "disabled" can get any of them.( which are, most of the time active component that decided they wanted to retire early on our dime anyway- disability checks coming in)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Alvin B.
All excellent points, especially with regard to a civilian employer's willingness to retain or hire an employee with a longer training commitment.
As to the USAR vice NG mix, that would probably require realignment of units and unit capabilities. Things may have changed since I served, at that time the USAR predominately provided combat support resources whereas the NG contained over 80% of the Army's combat power.
We are collectively in this position due to political direction at the highest levels and a decision to save funds by abandoning the traditional "strategic reserve bench strength of the reserve components, choosing instead to operationalize the reserve components. This approach also supports the reemerging argument for removing NG units from state control to full federal control a la the USAR.
As to the USAR vice NG mix, that would probably require realignment of units and unit capabilities. Things may have changed since I served, at that time the USAR predominately provided combat support resources whereas the NG contained over 80% of the Army's combat power.
We are collectively in this position due to political direction at the highest levels and a decision to save funds by abandoning the traditional "strategic reserve bench strength of the reserve components, choosing instead to operationalize the reserve components. This approach also supports the reemerging argument for removing NG units from state control to full federal control a la the USAR.
(1)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
You bring up some good points as well in terms of realignment of units and looking at what the does the NG for both it's state and federal missions vs. what the USAR has. One can argue logical points for shifting combat arms to the USAR since a logistics unit will be more valuable in a state disaster than an armor company. That debate already started with big Army looking to realign aviation assets between NG and active units. I think that any argument for removing state control over NG is all theoretical because state's will never give that up. This issue will get interesting and one that could affect what I do as a recruiting operations officer for an Army ROTC Program.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
SPC Kenneth Morgan - I am not sure how wide-ranging it will be across the reserve components. I believe it will be mostly on those units that on deck for deployment/contingency operations and I think that will include both Reserve and Guard. I can't see the USAR not doing this if the Guard does it since that comes down to budgeting and they don't want to be left out.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC Kenneth Morgan
Most of the support for this increased tempo comes from full timers in the Guard, who don't have to worry about holding down a civilian job.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
I think the law is tough enough. The problem is enforcing it. There are plenty of ways that a company can take adverse actions against a RC Soldier without tying it directly to military service. I think what will happen is that employers will be less likely to hire a RC Soldier because of increased time requirements unless that person can provide something that very few others can. I fully agree with you that it will be hard to recruit and retain Soldiers when they realize how this can impact their jobs.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kenneth Morgan
Among the worst offenders toward discrimination against Reserve component a members was the US Departments of Defense and Veteran's affairs
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Alvin B.
I agree, many units do have more drill days. The ANG has units that far exceed what the ARNG is proposing in terms of drill days. Clearly implementation, while challenging is not impossible. However, While improving readiness and shortening mobilization time, I believe it may have a long term negative impact on unit retention and community support for these units. There is also the political dynamic with regard to state level requirements for these units as additional federal optempo may mean reduced availablility for state missions.
As to the other services, it remains to be seen, as this is an Army thing for the moment, and the Navy and Marines do not have National Guard components.
As to the other services, it remains to be seen, as this is an Army thing for the moment, and the Navy and Marines do not have National Guard components.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
I can't see it changing requirements for a good year, unless the DoD wants to make that case that the "lesser" Soldiers, who can't commit to a doubling of their duty aren't "really" Soldiers. If they do that, you would see an exodus from the ranks.
I grew up in an E-BDE, and there were issues with both burnout and major conflicts with civilian careers for many. I personally quit a civilian job due in part (there were other reasons too) ARNG duty conflicts.
I grew up in an E-BDE, and there were issues with both burnout and major conflicts with civilian careers for many. I personally quit a civilian job due in part (there were other reasons too) ARNG duty conflicts.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ Alvin B. - While the USN and USMC are with out an NG component, the DoD is the proponent agency to determine the criteria and requirements for RC service member retirement. If you change it for the ARNG and ANG, you'll probably have to change it for all. An additional consequence of this course of action is the possible reduction in missioning for the USAR. With ARNG forces operating at a higher readiness level, you might see most USAR forces not utilized as much. Not sure how the DA would react to that.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Alvin B.
There are differences in the Guard and Reserve missions today. Reserves are under federal control, ARNG are not most if the time. As to a realignment. The majority of the Army combat units are ARNG with the majority of USAR being Support. The specifics will come down to which units and states are first in the gate on this.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Personally I'm ok with it but the SEVERLY RESTRICTED retirement system will need a hell of a review.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google