Army Reverses Separations for Prior Service Officers (Meeting 15YR Mark)

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:57:48 -0500

Good news for some. I was reading prior that several Senators were pushing to help those who were separated in not having the 8yrs commission time, but met the 15 year mark. I bet the few who were in this boat will be surprised to receive the notification that they will remain in. Hopefully, they will continue to improve the OSB process (or scrap it entirely).

From the ArmyTimes:

"About 160 officers who were selected for separation from the Army can now remain on active duty or separate with retirement benefits, the service announced Thursday."

"As many as 44 prior-enlisted officers were improperly considered by the separation boards, and because they were selected, they would have been forced to retire at their highest enlisted rank."

"The 44 officers in question were selected for early retirement even though they did not meet the minimum commissioned service threshold. McHugh voided their separations from service, and the officers have been notified that they may remain in the Army. They may still submit a voluntary request to retire at their previously held enlisted grade, or wait until they have the necessary years of active commissioned service required to retire as officers."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/officer/2014/12/18/army-reverses-forced-separation-for-160-officers/20598633/

Army reverses forced separation for 160 officers

About 160 officers who were selected for separation from the Army can now remain on active duty or retire with full benefits, the service announced

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 6:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:26:27 -0500

That is fair. More enlisted would want to come to officer side. Next, I would only hope that the service allow officers with 15 years AFS to retire voluntarily.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 6:36 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:36:16 -0500

It's good to see the Army right a wrong. Good for those 160 officers!

Response by CPT Eric Diaz made Dec 18 at 2014 9:11 PM

CPT Eric Diaz — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:11:26 -0500

Yeah I read this today to. My faith in humanity has been somewhat restored. When I saw how some officers were getting booted in such a disrespectful I was crestfallen. I understand the necessity of downsizing, its what always happens after war, but the way they did to some was down right dirty. This at least shows that the system can be turned around and mistakes rectified.

Response by LCDR Doug Nordman made Dec 19 at 2014 11:22 AM

LCDR Doug Nordman — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:22:04 -0500

When we were discussing this back in July, I wrote two posts:
http://the-military-guide.com/2014/07/24/ask-readers-law-allows-officer-retired-enlisted-pay/
http://the-military-guide.com/2014/08/05/leaked-statistics-army-officer-separation-board/

Dave Philipps, a NYT reporter, picked up on the issue and contacted me asking to interview the affected officers. I e-mailed a half-dozen people and he wrote a couple of articles for the print edition and their blog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us/cuts-in-military-mean-job-losses-for-career-staff.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw

And it looks like Congress finally got moving on all of those inquiry letters that servicemembers & families had sent them. But I wonder how much of this decision was initiated by the Army and Congress, or if it was really just their chance to get off the pages of the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/army-restores-full-benefits-for-captains-being-forced-out.html

If you're one of the affected officers who has not already contacted me, I'd love to share your reaction and your advice in a blog post.

Statistics From The Army Officer Separation Board - Military Guide

. [January 2015 update: this inequity has been resolved. The Army O-3s affected by the 2014 Officer Separation Board will remain eligible for officer pensions instead of reverting to an enlisted pension. This happened because people spoke up and drew attention to the problem. If you have a similar issue, let us know how …