Bridging the pay gap and DOD cost reduction. Thoughts?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:11:54 -0400

As we continue to evolve our army maybe it's time to consider some real changes. To often we (Soldiers) tell ourselves that something is right because that's the way it has always been. There are a few changes I would like to get some senior enlisted and field grade thoughts on.

1. An E-9 with 20 years makes less than an O-4 with twelve years. Do you think targeted pay raises are due again to bridge the gaps between enlisted and commissioned ranks? (Not since 2007 have Defense Department officials or lawmakers worked to amend the pay charts to halt the growing pay gap. The gap grows every year the military receives a pay raise across the ranks.)

2. With growing budgetary constraints we have to consider ways of cutting cost across the DOD. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already proposed a change to dual military couples BAH, but let's take this one step further. What are your thoughts on eliminating BAH for single O-1 through O-3 until they take a company command or it's equivalent? There would obviously be some associated cost with having to build Officers quarters, but without any means at my level to run the exact numbers I would be willing to bet that the DOD would save a substantial amount of money.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 12:25 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:25:43 -0400

1) Until we create a rank structure that eliminates officer and enlisted ranks, there should be a pay differential between officers and enlisted. Officers are generally put in charge of enlisted and NCO ranks; generally have higher levels of education attainment; and generally are given higher levels of responsibility; and thus should be paid more. Do I agree with the current rank structure---yes and no. Could we establish a rank structure where everyone is free to compete for jobs vs. the current NCO v. officer structure? Sure. (One could argue this system already exists, and that if NCOs want to make more money, they could compete for OCS).

2) Run the numbers. Pre-command lts and captains account for something like six or seven percent of the Army; unmarried ones account for something like three percent. Probably not as large of a cost savings as you imagine. If we went with your suggestion, we'd have to apply this to all ranks, just to be fair, so let's say no BAH for single enlisted until they complete their PSG time. Ridiculous, you say? I'd agree, just like the idea of not paying BAH to single officers is ridiculous. Oh, and likely illegal, as even the Services aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. So, to implement your idea, we'd need to apply it to all ranks and all marital statuses. So, no BAH for anyone until they reached a certain time in service or rank or accomplishment. There's some cost savings there!

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 22 at 2015 12:30 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:30:32 -0400

I think there always will (and should) be a gap between Officer and Enlisted sides of the house. However, I think the gap is a bit too wide at the moment. I'm not in favor of equalizing, but I do think that the lower enlisted could use a few more $$ in their pockets. I'd support no raises for O-4 and up for three years with increased raises for E-1 - E-5 for the same time period and see where we stand.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 22 at 2015 1:53 AM

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:53:49 -0400

SSG Private RallyPoint Member - Staff; Possibly someone should look at the Officer/Enlisted ratios.

Air Force 1/4.1
Army 1/4.5
Navy 1/4.9
Marines 1/8.1

It would be possible to "restructure" the military if you worked from the bottom up so that a Squad consisted of 16 people (ranks E-1 - E-5), a Platoon consisted of three Squads plus a Command squad (highest ranks E-5 and O-1) a company consisted of three Platoons plus two Command squads (highest ranks E-7 and O-3), a battalion consisted of five Companies plus four Command squads (highest ranks E-9 and O-5), etc..

Unfortunately, to do that would require that the military recruit and retain VERY competent and dedicated people - those simply looking for three hots and a cot or for Uncle Sugar to pay for their vocational training simply would not fit in.

If you extend that schema all the way up, you could end up with around 450,000 people organized into six "regular" and six "reserve" Brigades [Brigades consisting of three Infantry Regiments, one Armor Regiment, one Artillery Regiment, one Engineer Regiment, and one Support/Logistics/Maintenance Regiment] - each of which would have roughly the combat power of a WWII army group.

With slight modifications the same can be done for the Air Force and Navy.

Once you have cut the "administration overhead" there would be lots of money for increased pay and benefits - just using the pay and benefits pool currently available.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 2:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:10:40 -0400

I know that there are plenty of other ways to cut spending bit unfortunately I don't think that this "hurry up and spend 200k by Friday or we won't get the same funding next year" mentality will ever go away.

Response by COL John Hudson made Nov 1 at 2015 9:51 AM

COL John Hudson — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:51:09 -0500

We work in a system that rewards effort, education, and experience. Anyone may compete and the rewards, both monetary and property oriented, are substantial. Comparing rank structure against potential gain provides motivation to improve one's self in order to move forward.

I read a paper once while grading such at the Army's Senior Service School (War College) titled, "The Professional Private." Gist of the paper was a man happy in his function as a garbage grinder. Not many wanted that position, but he did...proud of his efforts and ability to process waste better than any other and comfortable with his station in life. However, the military's stance on "up or out" doomed him to be promoted beyond his desire and/or ability.

Consider, if we had a system ideology of 'professional privates' throughout the ranks, our military structure would be deadlocked across the board...no one being able to move up until and unless the present office holder retired or some dreadful event took him away, thereby providing an opening for others. The present system recognizes this conundrum and offers a career ladder for all ranks to progress forward while tasking each participant to demonstrate he/she has earned the right to do so.

I was paid the princely sum of $71 a month as a Pvt. E1 in 1966 and believed I had a fortune (prior to the Army, I earned less than $30 a month as a paperboy and hauling hay for local farmers). The Army provided three hots and a cot and I couldn't fathom how in the world I would spend so much money! A Private E-1 with less than four months in today's Army is paid $1,430.00 a month...an incredible increase over my day! My opinion is the system in place today properly identifies positional responsibility and rewards it appropriately. Opportunity to move forward is provided equally to all ranks. No changes are necessary.

Response by COL Lawanda J. Holliman made Dec 3 at 2015 6:44 PM

COL Lawanda J. Holliman — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 18:44:54 -0500

I would quote Warren Buffet from the youth video he does helping children understand money and business. "The more you learn, the more you earn. "

Even in civilian careers, employee with degrees earn on average a higher salary than those without. So, what I like about the service is that, anyone can do a great job and change the career path, be it warrant or officer candidate school.

On the BAH, I do not see an elimination for amyone as something which should be considered. We already have enough homeless veterans. I would cringe at the thought of dealing with the possibility of having homeless active duty service members. How much confidence would our Nation have in our military if these folkes were struggling with basic needs. Members of the military have shelter, food and uniforms (equipment to carry out missions).

Then to boot, you can continue to advance personally (education) and professionally (promotions).