Posted on Mar 5, 2015
Do you think reserve/NG troops mobilized after 9/11 should have their retirement age reduced?
32.2K
320
174
33
33
0
I am hopeful that Congress will modify the law so those of us Reserve/NG military members who were mobilized between 9/11/2001 and 1/29/2008 will be able to have our retirement age reduced by 6 months for each 6 months of qualifying service
Current law is posted at:
https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/REDUCED%20AGE%20RETIREMENT
All Reserve and National Guard personnel who are mobilized on or after 1/29/2008 will have their retirement age reduced by 90 days for each 90 days of credited mobilized service.
Disclaimer: I turn 60 next year and will draw 52% of a LTC salary based on time served. I am hopeful that those who were mobilized for OIF and OEF early on will get their credit.
My only mobilization was for over 2 years because the military wanted to keep me on active duty for the maximum allowable time. I had to sign waivers at mobilization and for each extension because I had over 16 years active federal service when they initially mobilized me. I ended up with just less than 19 years active federal service. The Army kept bring me back up to three times a year for short tours. Each time I signed a waiver so that I wouldn't invoke my right to stay on until I hit 20.
Current law is posted at:
https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/REDUCED%20AGE%20RETIREMENT
All Reserve and National Guard personnel who are mobilized on or after 1/29/2008 will have their retirement age reduced by 90 days for each 90 days of credited mobilized service.
Disclaimer: I turn 60 next year and will draw 52% of a LTC salary based on time served. I am hopeful that those who were mobilized for OIF and OEF early on will get their credit.
My only mobilization was for over 2 years because the military wanted to keep me on active duty for the maximum allowable time. I had to sign waivers at mobilization and for each extension because I had over 16 years active federal service when they initially mobilized me. I ended up with just less than 19 years active federal service. The Army kept bring me back up to three times a year for short tours. Each time I signed a waiver so that I wouldn't invoke my right to stay on until I hit 20.
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Retirement
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 52
18
17
1
This is another aspect of what divides us, which we create amongst the components. If they fight the same fight, same place, same time,...honor their service accordingly. Don't make reservists feel less than the same oath they take as any other component does. Want the "team" mentality that we all speak so highly about? Practice what you preach. No component is better than the other, we all contribute to reach a common goal. If we treat each other differently, others will emulate that. Come together, do what's right for your brothers and sisters in arms and advocate for reservists to retire early. Speak your military values...honor, respect, selfless, courage, and duty
(18)
(1)
CW3 Kevin Storm
SFC Erich Orrick - SFC Orrick having served on both sides of your debate, I will say non combat Guard units can easily out perform their active counterparts. Why you may ask. Having been in a Maintenance Company a few years ago, it didn't take us much to out wrench active units. Real mechanics know how to trouble shoot and repair items, not just swap parts. Would you compare a plastic surgeon in the military to one in the civilian world? How about dentists? Cardiologists? Trauma surgeons? Truck drivers? Engineers? I could go on and on, because the Army plays at it 99% of the time where as some one who has to earn their paycheck from it does it right the first time.
(0)
(0)
COL Mo Fenner
You are all right. There are both kinds of units. In the guard or the USAR, soldiers vote with their feet. There is nothing binding them to a specific unit/ If they are a dirtbag, they will gravitate toward units that tolerate dirtbags. The converse is also true. In 1995, we deployed as 2nd unit into BH theater (before we knew it wasn't really dangerous). It was several weeks before the Group Commander knew that we were an USAR unit. Some of the later units were so fouled up, it was obvious that they were not active duty, but the unit with the majority of discipline problems and most obvious mission failures... was an active duty unit. That changed by the way when that unit got a new Cdr and CSM.
(1)
(0)
CMSgt Donald Felch
Very few of the proposed adjustments ask for complete equity, but only for earlier receipt. A traditional Guard or Reserve member earns retirement points based upon their active/paid service. Even if earlier receipt (prior to age 60) became the law, the calculations you loosely attempted wouldnbe factored inntonthe monthly annuity payments. Credit for active service over and above a traditional year is an idea whose time has come. It is the right thing to do. Let's advocate with our lawmakers to allownearlier receipt for extra years of service. SFC Erich Orrick -
(0)
(0)
SFC Erich Orrick
You missed the point. It's not the same time. 20 years in RC is not equal to 20 AC. How is 2 days equal 30 per month. If they served 20 actual years in the RC I have no issue but why would anyone go AC if you got the same venues for a fraction of the time. Wake up.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
No, simply it's part of what you sign up for when you enter the National Guard or Reserve. By the same token should all single servicemembers get Family Separation Allowance from boot camp until EAS/retirement? No, because it's what we sign up for.
(13)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
There are a lot of things that has changed that we originally did not sign up for. And we have all had to make those changes. Before 9/11/01, those who signed up for the reserve signed up for one weekend a month, 15 days out of the year to be prepared to be mobilized when the balloon went up. Since 9/11/01, the Reserve and Guard has transformed into what had been called an operational reserve. Many units have a deployable dwell of 1 to 5. Much of the support needed is now in the reserve component. Congress did not have to reduce the retirement age to draw pay for deployments, but not sure why they started at 2009 and not going back to 9/11/01. I think this is a fair question and should be considered. Medical care what it is today is not what I signed up for when I came into service as an example of change.
(1)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
Lt Col (Join to see) - The only operational reserve is the Marine reserve, and has been since before 2001. In peace time the reserve is able to meet their 48 "drills" and keep the promise of "one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer". However, the whole purpose of the reserve is to augment the active force. Getting called up in time of war should not come as a surprise, extra credit for doing exactly what you exist for just doesn't seem right. Reserves already enjoy a retirement and promotion system that equates a little over a month of service to a full year of service.
(0)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Gunny…I am very disappointed in the attitude you just expressed. You do not know what sacrifices the individual reservist makes and the hardships that are placed on their families with each mobilization and deployment. Your glib “in time of peace” statement to LTC Swaim belies the fact we have been at war since 9/11 and most likely see more war now that ISIS has expanded the operational area.
The dirty little secret of our current national defense policy is operationally the “active component” cannot even start a mission (much less succeed) without some reserve component fighting side by side or in support of the operation. As a retired USAR HRO and operational and strategic human resource analyst and planner, that meant (and means) that I had to ask many a reservist with critical skills to do multiple tours into combat regions. Many did go gladly but even if they came back “unharmed” they paid prices we can never repay.
Keep in mind, you are not just mobilizing/deploying an individual; you are impacting a family, a business owner, and a valued community asset. For the “self employed” reservists, you are also putting them at risk in terms of current and future financial stability. In terms of support while mobilized/deployed the individual reservist and family get squat in terms of support and comfort when compared to his/her active component counterpart. In part that is because of geographic dispersion inherent in the reserves and extreme distance from most posts or bases, BUT in part it is because of the cultural insensitivity of their active component brethren. It can safely be said to be the same across all reserve service branches; be it Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Reserve Navy and Marine, or Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard.
What we are saying is it is time to rethink those “contracts” and maybe make them reflect current realities.
The dirty little secret of our current national defense policy is operationally the “active component” cannot even start a mission (much less succeed) without some reserve component fighting side by side or in support of the operation. As a retired USAR HRO and operational and strategic human resource analyst and planner, that meant (and means) that I had to ask many a reservist with critical skills to do multiple tours into combat regions. Many did go gladly but even if they came back “unharmed” they paid prices we can never repay.
Keep in mind, you are not just mobilizing/deploying an individual; you are impacting a family, a business owner, and a valued community asset. For the “self employed” reservists, you are also putting them at risk in terms of current and future financial stability. In terms of support while mobilized/deployed the individual reservist and family get squat in terms of support and comfort when compared to his/her active component counterpart. In part that is because of geographic dispersion inherent in the reserves and extreme distance from most posts or bases, BUT in part it is because of the cultural insensitivity of their active component brethren. It can safely be said to be the same across all reserve service branches; be it Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Reserve Navy and Marine, or Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard.
What we are saying is it is time to rethink those “contracts” and maybe make them reflect current realities.
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
would love to see it, as I have been active the last 17 years, but would be willing to switch to Guard/Reserve...but I dont want to wait until around 60 years to draw retirement.
But...with all of the money crunch going on, I doubt you will see much support...and it just isnt very high vis (and less support for the service member as wars supposedly wind down).
But...with all of the money crunch going on, I doubt you will see much support...and it just isnt very high vis (and less support for the service member as wars supposedly wind down).
(10)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. - That is true. Maybe we should cut veterans benefits also like letting them use the commissary or healthcare.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
CPT (Join to see) - I didn't realize veterans could use military healthcare. I know they can use the VA system if service-connect disabled.
I wasn't aware that veterans had access to the commissary. That "benefit" could be on the chopping block although it might hurt DECA more than the veterans.
I wasn't aware that veterans had access to the commissary. That "benefit" could be on the chopping block although it might hurt DECA more than the veterans.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. - My father in law is a Retired Marine and has an ID and base privileges. Combat veterans also have the ability to use the VA. Lets not try to cut anything from service members. We all know there are other groups out there that should lose funding
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
CPT (Join to see) - "We" are not advocating cutting benefits for the military or veterans for that matter. The vote for sequestration has been the latest "tool" for pushing the nation to cut the Defense budget including "benefits." Only the civilian focused entitlements were generally exempted fro sequestration: Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Efficiency of resources is generally alien to the Federal government. No Federal department is willing to give up funding on its own. A balanced budget amendment might help but unless good people are elected to Congress in sufficient numbers expect business as usual.
Efficiency of resources is generally alien to the Federal government. No Federal department is willing to give up funding on its own. A balanced budget amendment might help but unless good people are elected to Congress in sufficient numbers expect business as usual.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google