"Army National Guard Considers Increasing Annual Training Days"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:34:27 -0500

From: Military.com

The head of the Army National Guard is looking to see if training one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer is enough to ensure Guard troops are ready for future fights.

Army Maj. Gen. Timothy Kadavy, who took over as director for the Army National Guard in March, is assessing the readiness needs of the Guard at the request of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.

"The chief of staff has challenged our current thoughts on training and readiness," Kadavy told an audience at a Nov. 18 Institute of Land Warfare breakfast sponsored by the Association of the United States Army.

As part of the assessment, Kadavy is examining if the current minimum of 39 annual training days is the right number to maintain readiness. That minimum number of training days, he said, was established in the 1900s and may no longer be relevant.

Kadavy will also determine if Guard units are getting the right number of annual rotations to the Army's Combat Training Centers.

"Everything we do must be looked at through the lens of readiness," Kadavy said. "Do we need to rethink how we use the Reserve component of today's Army?"

Kadavy also said he is considering ways to ensure that the training Guard units do takes advantage of the lessons that were learned when units were routinely mobilizing and deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.

"My concern is if we don't continue to do that at some level, we will lose that muscle memory for any reduced mobilization period by almost 50 percent for certain types of units and capabilities," he said. "We need to continue to exercise to some degree those lessons learned and learn new lessons and continue to progress."

Under the Army's rotational readiness model a portion of our National Guard is always available for combat missions, for support to civil authorities, humanitarian assistance and theater security.

But the Army will need to continue to keep Guard units equipped at the level they were they were regularly deploying alongside active units, Kadavy said.
"We are the benefactors of a tremendous investment in equipment by the Army and by Congress in support of operations over the last 15 years,"he said. "But modernization is fleeting."

Kadavy recently met with commanders of the Guard’s seven armored brigade combat teams.

Commanders are concerned that "because of the decrease in mobilizations and the opportunities to modernize because of mobilization, there is this ever-growing gap that they see between their active component brothers in ABCTs and where they are today."

"There must be a strategy to help us maintain our equipment and our interoperability within the Army," Kadavy said.

"I liken it to an example of digital and analog -- the two don’t work together. And if you have one component in a digital world and one component in an analog world, how do you talk to each other and how do you operate effectively as a team on the battlefield?

"Readiness should be looked at as a measure of investment and not simply as a measurement of cost."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/21/army-national-guard-is-looking-at-increasing-annual-training-day.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

Army National Guard Considers Increasing Annual Training Days

Army Maj. Gen. Timothy Kadavy, who took over as director for the Army National Guard, is assessing the Guard's readiness needs.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 4:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:41:46 -0500

It has always been more difficult to try and keep up with the administrative requirements, much less the training requirements in 39-55 days that our AD counterparts get all year to accomplish. The challenges will be include getting employers and colleges on board as well as overcoming the entitlement rationale of the less resilient part of the military population.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 4:41 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:41:53 -0500

Stop considering it and do it. Same for the USAR.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 23 at 2015 5:22 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:22:43 -0500

training in peace time as you fight in the war. More training can never be a bad thing

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 11:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 23:47:16 -0500

Every drill becomes a muta 6 and add a week to AT, that alone would help tremendously.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 11:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 23:56:37 -0500

There’s no debate that more training is a good thing, but here’s the problem. Part time soldiers have to balance military with civilian jobs. I know whenever we have a MUTA 6 or greater it really causes problems with my job. If they increase the requirements I can see retention suffering greatly. They really need to tweek the yearly requirements that take up so much time. Cut out many of the briefings.

Rape is bad, we know. Do SHARPS briefs really make an impact? It’s a CYA thing from big Army usually because some higher up made the news for letting his hormones get the better of him.

Resiliency once a quarter. Really? Maybe if we didn’t coddle the younger generations they'd cope with adversity better.

PMCS’ing vehicles that likely never moved in the last month. Most AGR’s I know have it easy enough that they should do this during the month.

I’m big on PT, but by the time it’s performed and personal hygiene is completed that's a good chunk of the morning. PT once or twice a month is not going to make an impact. They need to do it on their own.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 4:34 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:34:21 -0500

It is always great to increase training days, however this could cause a negative downturn economically for soldiers and their families. With the increase in training comes less time away from your civilian career. Yes laws do require employers to keep you, however if this is the case the NG or USAR need to offer more AGR or tech positions. Retention rates could fall dramatically if not given the opportunity to obtain full time employment within. Right now leaders are averaging from 80 to 100 training days a year.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Nov 27 at 2015 4:48 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:48:34 -0500

I think it is a great idea because it will lead to a more prepared ARNG. Problem is, where is that money coming from.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Nov 27 at 2015 4:55 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:55:40 -0500

Similar discussions have been on here before. It is easy for the active duty to say add more training to maintain readiness. They don't have to deal with employers questioning why an employee will be gone for another XX days out of the year. Adding more days when the President says we are not at war will raise issues and I would think employers will be more reluctant to hire members of the Guard or Reserve if this is the new norm. I also think that pressures from employers will cause Soldiers to relook their commitment to the reserve components. There is no way that any USAR or NG unit will be at the same level of proficiency as their active duty counterparts. I commanded an active duty Bradley equipped Infantry company and it was a full time effort to stay proficient - time in UCOFTs, gunnery drills, squad/platoon/company level training, etc. One area I believe RC units can improve in is how they use their IDT weekends. Having spent 17 years in USAR units, I spent a lot of wasted time on weekends sitting around or doing the mandatory training that had nothing to do with our unit mission but was something quantitative. Doing an APFT took at least one quarter of a weekend and that is when we could do the weigh in on the same day as the APFT. One recommendation I would have it to have quarterly drills or more MUTA8s to lump the days together. I think we would get more done there. Also, it may ease the burden on an employer if they know a person will not be gone every month. I think we have to be smarter and that does not necessarily mean adding more training days across the board for everyone.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 8:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 20:09:58 -0500

Keep in mind most soldiers only have a finite amount of vacation time to cover AT and drills that fall during their scheduled work time. Tacking on more time without getting rid of some of the repetitive and needless admin classes is going to really be costing the soldier. Not to mention the effect on the employer. It may make employers even more reluctant to hire Guardsmen/reservists. These unintended consequences need to be kept in mind when making decisions.

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Nov 27 at 2015 8:34 PM

SSG Brian Kresge — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 20:34:36 -0500

I'm in a NG brigade that accepted the yoke of longer weekend MUTAs, 3 week ATs already, since 2005. And it has been hell on any citizen soldier that has a full time, professional civilian job. It's hell on college students. It's hell on everyone except for those with often more accommodating state jobs, like prison guards, police officers, game wardens, AGR, Guard technicians -- all of whom suddenly suffer from attention deficit disorder whenever an m-day soldier with a real job says, "no, I can't just drop everything and go to a week-long event with little or no notice." But that has been the expectation for over a decade now.
It's hard to muster the enthusiasm when many of us walk away from existing MUTA 6s and 8s feeling like our time was thoroughly wasted. It's hard to muster enthusiasm when you spend three weeks justifying the existence of Camp Shelby or Camp Atterbury to do things you could well usually do at your home state training facility. Is this the goal, to give Camp Atterbury renewed purpose now that it's no longer a thriving mobilization platform? Put up a FOB or a BSB on one of their training sites instead of the state equivalent camp? Start cycling us through JRTC or NTC instead? Good gravy, I remember as a young PFC visiting Atterbury as part of a contingent from the 101st to help evaluate the Indiana Guard for their AT in the 1990s, and thinking what a hole it was. Let it return to being a hole! I digress.
And even if you think you're coming closer to having us hit assessed unit proficiency in the Guard by merely throwing more days at it, you're going to savage your officer and non-commissioned officer ranks. I am not lonely in the fact that I pay more in state taxes than I receive in Guard pay per year. I serve because I love serving, and I've been extremely lucky with employers supportive of that. But they can't afford to lose you for three or four weeks over the summer. They can't afford the encroachment if MUTA 6s and 8s become the norm. And if we have to choose between the two, most of us will choose the civilian job. I just wish it felt like that part of it *mattered* to the powers that be. The "citizen" component of being a citizen soldier.
Enough other people have raised the wastes of time in terms of mandatory training. I'd also like to mention the constant preparation for this or that IG, COMET, or whatever inspection. I work 50-60 hours a week in my civilian employment. Try calling the AGR folks after 1630 on a workday one time. The often holier-than-thou, at risk of making obscene blanket statements, AGR folks seem to make very little headway on any single task that would be meaningful to m-day when they arrive on Friday or Saturday morning. It's clear that many tasks simply wait for m-day, and drills become a soul crushing exercise in fulfilling various admin functions. I've been in a different MOS slot for two years now, and after reclassing finally at Fort Lee this past summer, I've realized that the ENTIRE time I've been in this slot, I have *yet* to perform any MOS related duties.
I know this General invariably must make his mark, but this is the wrong avenue to pursue. Eliminate the waste and abuse of our precious time first, *then* get back to us about extending the amount of time we have to give up with every confidence that they will simply abuse that time, too. Otherwise I think many of us will demanding not General under Honorable, but rather Honorable discharges to get from out from under yet more leadership that doesn't see the forest for the trees.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 9:04 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:04:36 -0500

Not sure if it is unit dependent, but most of my drills are MUTA 6. AT is usually 3 weeks. APFTs are done at 5am "technically" before drill starts. We put all the BS mandatory training all in one weekend. We pack A LOT into drills. Not to mention, we jump about 8 of those months. So, it can be done.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2015 9:07 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:07:47 -0500

The last two years my state hasn't even allowed us to drill in September as scheduled due to funding. Where is the money coming from for these extra drill days? Are we going to lose even more money for resident courses?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Nov 27 at 2015 11:54 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:54:12 -0500

My entire career was Reserve. Yes we want units to be as ready as possible, but what was the real intent of the Reserve forces? Reserve forces will never be Active Duty and it seems like the powers to be want Reserve forces to fill in what AD is cutting back. Reserve forces were meant as just that, a force of pretty well trained soldiers who with very little up training can be put on the line. Being self-employed sometimes it was difficult to meet the demands. When I came back from Iraq, it took over two years to get my business built back to fully support my family again.
Sometimes I wonder if the question is quality of training verses quantity of training? There are some MOSs who need extra time because of the type of job, but there are those who can do good with the current schedule. But the big question with all the cut backs is: WHO PAYS?

Response by SSG Thomas Gallegos made Nov 28 at 2015 10:40 AM

SSG Thomas Gallegos — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:40:56 -0500

Without reading this article, is there any opposition from those in Congress? As those that have been in the service and understand manning and preparation we would know what is needed.
The biggest thing to me is understanding how tapped out Reserve and National Guard units have been throughout the last decade. I think its a great idea but I see a lot of "Red Tape" here.

Response by SSG Thomas Gallegos made Nov 28 at 2015 10:42 AM

SSG Thomas Gallegos — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:42:42 -0500

Having been in both components do we have the Leaders and NCOs who will train these Soldiers?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2017 12:17 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 00:17:35 -0400

I'm very concerned as reservists how it would effect both us and the National Guard. It's already a tough balance as is civilian and soldier careers.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 3 at 2017 6:57 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 06:57:24 -0400

IMHO, it would give the personnel a better advantage than their predocessors.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made May 29 at 2019 9:27 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Wed, 29 May 2019 21:27:17 -0400

Been hearing the same thing for many years and to increase training days you must increase Reserve Components budget. Maybe cutting some of the NG General Officer ‘Paid’Billets Big Time and redistributing the funds to Compo 2 and 3 there would be more funds to increase training days and thus hopefully increase Readiness. No promises though!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2021 11:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 May 2021 23:21:49 -0400

This will cause retention to plummet. We’re talking about part time, citizen Soldiers who are trying to balance their military service, their full time job, and their family life. No, you can’t fire a Soldier for taking off time for military service, but I sure saw plenty of them fired for other reasons someone wouldn’t normally be fired for.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made May 2 at 2021 7:20 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Sun, 02 May 2021 07:20:06 -0400

While I am sure it has been assessed in the past, I hope they take a hard look, one, I am not sure that the administration is ready for that added cost, while it may be needed it will come at a heavy cost. Not only in salary, but retirement benefits. There will also be a turn over cost, which may in the long run offset sone other. Don’t get me wrong I think it is absolutely the right thing to do, it will probably be the heaviest lift for the Army in many, many years. I will end by stating Family life balance has been shaken by recent changes in selecting of Senior NCOs and the assignments for active duty, imagine how this rocks the lives of long serving members of the Guard.