E3 Retirees?

CPO Jon Campbell — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:46:04 -0400

Whenever I get the retiree magazine, I go through the list of people who have recently retired to look for people I know. I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of E3's listed and they appear to be mostly females - about 80% in the most recent list. Are females being medically retired in disproportionate numbers within the first 2 years? Is this a trend in the other services as well?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2014 9:58 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:58:07 -0400

I am one of those females who was discharged early. I was married to someone I thought would be able to support my career, and he couldn't. We had a one-year old son when I got to my duty station, and it proved to be a very difficult situation.
I had no choice but to divorce, and retain custody of my son, as my ex-husband was mentally unbalanced. My son and I were alone, eight hundred miles away from any family, and we were gearing up for the first deployment to Iraq. Of course, my son couldn't go to the field with me, so I could not provide a revised Family Care Plan. Command offered me an Hardship discharge and I had no choice but to take it. The alternative was to send him to his "father" and that was not an option for me.
And along with single parenthood cases, like mine, there are pregnancy cases, as well. I think these issues make up the bulk of early female discharges in every branch.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 12:17 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:17:33 -0400

For the record, there are E-1's that are medically retired. There's not a lot of them, but it happens. I'm not sure what the retirement conditions are of the personnel you're discussing CPO Jon Campbell (i.e. - TDRL to retired, medical boards, IED survivors, etc) so it's really impossible to tell. Additionally, though even rarer, there is 1 I have seen retire at 20 as an E-3. Full AD 20 years, General, under honorable - as a result of either a special court or a general court. I do not recall the exact details and I wouldn't disclose them here in a public forum without the individual's permission, but I have seen it. Would love to see their headstone........

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 11:39 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:39:06 -0400

My dad was retroactively retired as an E3. The cancer that he got was directly linked to asbestos that he inhaled while working for the Navy.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 9:02 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:02:35 -0400

Very good observation and I love how you applied analytical skills to the data and came up with statistics.

Response by MSG Reid Stone made Jan 13 at 2015 8:04 PM

MSG Reid Stone — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:04:05 -0500

Chief Campbell, the word retired is overused and overplayed these days. Not all medical releases are retirements. ETS's are not retirements but many people refer to them as such. Mine was a medical release for Diabetes type 2 and not called a retirement, but I also did have 4 yrs AD 74-78 and active army reserve time from 81-2014 without a break in service with 45 months of MOB time. I won't be a "true" retiree until August 2016 when I reach age 60 and start collecting retirement pay. My father retired from the Navy in 1967 as a BM2, scored in the top 1% on fleet test last 6 yrs in but during those yrs of the VietNam conflict BM promotions were nearly nonexistent. So, he retired as an E5, not much you can do in that case. My time was a mix of peacetime and conflict time and I left as a MSG.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Jan 13 at 2015 8:51 PM

CPO Jon Campbell — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:51:12 -0500

Since I first wrote this, I learned that the Pay and Personnel Center that handles CG retirees and publishes the newsletter that has the list of retirees, re-lists people once they start drawing retirement pay. So when a person retires, their name comes out on the list and then when they qualify for retirement pay (typically at age 60) they are listed again. Active duty and reservists are mixed together so there is no way to tell if a person is gray area or not. They do list NOAA retirees seperately though so they are not confused with military officers. It is very confusing and no meaningful data analysis can be done just using the information that they publish. It is too bad too since publishing the raw data could encourage analysis through crowd sourcing an uncover trends more quickly.

Response by LtCol William Bentley made Nov 1 at 2016 1:41 PM

LtCol William Bentley — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:41:00 -0400

CPO Campbell, through anecdotal and hearsay evidence, including my own experiences in administration over the last 28 years or so, plus my less than pleasant experience with a medical retirement, I think your observations have merit: there are more females retired and discharged in the early years of their careers, proportionally, than men. I'm going to clarify that as "medically retired and discharged," because there are a lot of "heroic" young invincible male servicemembers who get themselves discharged early for foolish actions.

So sticking with your original question about are there more junior female enlisted retirees, i.e., medical retirees, and I would say, "Yes."

There is a chart below that shows this, although I am unsure of the provenance of the statistics. But I don't really doubt it shows the approximate truth of the matter.

A medical retirement, at any grade or age, is a simple function of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System determining that a servicemember is no longer fit to perform the duties of the office to which appointed or enlisted...AND...a final rating by the VA that the specific service-connected medical condition for which the Physical Evaluation Board process was commenced is 30% or above.

The VA may rate dozens of other conditions, and give ratings from "none" to "zero" to "100%," and the combined VA rating may be anything from 30% to 100% (and beyond...), but unless the exact, specific medical condition(s) that were processed by the PEB, and rated by the VA through the IDES, are at least 30% individually (exclusive of all other rated conditions), that servicemember is not subject to medical retirement.

Instead, they are subject to medical discharge, with a severance based on their years of service and the rating of their injury (usually 20% if they are going to be discharged and not "retained" by the PEB decision process). However, such individuals usually have been rated through the IDES by the VA with other injuries/conditions, and their VA total may be much higher than their military "unfitting condition" that actually caused the discharge (or retirement). It is quite possible, and common even, for medically discharged (or medically retired) servicemembers to have a VA rating much higher than their "unfitting condition" rating that actually caused their medical separation/retirement.

My example may be instructive for others:

1. I am now medically retired, and was placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL).

2. I was a member of the Active Reserve, classified under the law as "Full Time Support" (10 USC 12310), with over 24 years of active duty, about 270 additional reserve retirement points (inactive points are added to the total active duty days to achieve a retired pension calculation), and a total of over 28 years of service.

3. I came down with a medical condition that required hospitalization. I was stationed at an Air Force base, and the staff there was very militant about using the full powers of the IDES. Thus, they commenced an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on me within a couple weeks of my hospitalization...

4. The MEB determined that my medical condition met the requirements to be reviewed by the full Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), so it was worked up as a package and forwarded up the PEB chain in the Department of the Navy for a decision at the Bureau of Naval Medicine (BUMED).

5. The PEB was charged with making a decision on the single "count of the indictment" against me: the charge of having an "unfitting condition that prevents the performance of the office to which appointed."

6. In the process of working up the PEB package, of course, all my other potentially qualifying medical ailments were summarized and included, so that the VA (which does all the ratings under the IDES system) could consider them and rate them a the same time as they considered and rated my actual "unfitting condition."

7. The VA determined that my "unfitting condition" was rated at 60%, all by itself, and that was a final rating unlikely to change. This, alone, warranted either medical separation or retirement. And since the condition was not considered likely to improve within the next 5 years (it was actually considered "life-long" in the exact wording of the PEB decision), I was not eligible for transfer to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).

8. The VA also rated about 20-30 other major and minor ailments, and determined that some of them were "none, not service-connected, etc." some were "0%," and others were rated from "10%" up to "30%" individually. The "VA math" then put the total at 90%.

9. But the total VA rating is not the determining factor. It is of course considered in the context of the rest of the PEB's decision factors, but the truly determinative factor, what really mattered to the PEB when those 3 Navy doctors sat around and decided the fate of my continued career was the original and sole count of the indictment: was the condition for which the PEB was convened "unfitting" to the level that I was no longer able to perform the duties of the office to which appointed -- the answer was "YES," he is unfit and no longer able to perform the duties of the office to which appointed, with a post-script that further explained, "Our decision was based upon the accepted medical standards of treatment and progression of this disease process, and we must note that it is NOT the condition itself that is unfitting, but the requirement for life-long medication therapy that renders the subject officer unfit for continued world-wide Naval service ashore and at sea."

10. So the decision was communicated to me, that I was rated "unfit" with a 60% condition, and with all the other VA-rated conditions thrown into the mix, I was rated 90% disabled.

9. This left 3 choices:

a. Appeal the decision of the PEB. A time-consuming process, that would only delay the inevitable because how can you fight a requirement to use medication for life, and claim to remain "fit" for all duties? Discussions with lawyers and other doctors convinced me that this would only be a delaying tactic without success in the long run.

b. Accept the decision of the PEB, as rendered, but ask my Service HQ for an extension on my pending retirement date of up to 2 years or so using "Limited Duty." The USMC frowns on this tactic, and calls it the derogatory term "laminated light duty chit." Meaning you are still there, but can't do everything that is required of you and can't deploy, go to war, etc... My bosses made it clear that was not going to be a good decision on my part...they wanted a "full up round," someone who was ready and able to do anything, go anywhere, etc., without having to spend half of every week going to various doctor appointments.

c. Simply accept the PEB, and move out smartly into medical retirement.

10. I chose "C." and had a retirement ceremony within 30 days of my notification by the PEB of their decision, and was completely retired and no longer on active duty within 120 days. A painful decision, but necessary.

But how does this apply to the original question?

A. if more young female servicemembers are being retired at junior grades, that is simply the reality that the PEB process is rating their injuries at the 30% or greater level. You cannot be retired unless the PEB determines this, and it only applies to the specific conditions that are put before the PEB for decision...not the ancillary and non-unfitting conditions that the VA may rate simultaneously with the unfitting condition itself).

B. It is quite possible that many of the younger servicemembers, male and female, are in fact being retired to the TDRL, not the PDRL, because it is possible at their tender young ages and strong(er) bodies they may recover sufficiently to resume a military career. Under the TDRL, regardless of the years of service, the retiree is entitled to all normal retired benefits, and receives exactly 50% of their high-3 pay as their pension. This may not seem like much for an E-3 pay, but it certainly beats a severance and "scram, beat it." But each year, every member of the TDRL must be reexamined to determine of their condition is getting worse, better, or staying the same. A member of the TDRL may be transferred to the PDRL if the medical conditions warrant, returned to a full duty status, or remain on the TDRL up to 5 years before a final decision must be made. At the 5 year mark, if there is doubt that the member can return to full duty, then the default is to retire permanently to the PDRL. While on the TDRL, of course, the retiree is also entitled to any VA ratings and payments that include the "unfitting condition" rating, so it's quite possible that the total ratings greatly exceed 30% and boost their "take home pay" from their 50% TDRL pension.

C. And lastly, the elephant in the room: are the young females being medically retired (or separated) at a higher rate because the military services are breaking them in mind and/or body? Are they entering the military physically and/or mentally unprepared? Is nearly 15 years of unrelenting deployments and combat operational tempo a factor, whereby realistic training and real-world deployment situations somehow push the young females beyond breaking? Will opening up virtually all military jobs and billets accelerate this trend toward more and earlier females being retired or medically separated?

My purely anecdotal answer is: Maybe. More research is needed, and that is something far beyond the scope of this forum, and will probably not be answered satisfactorily for years to come.

Response by SFC Giovanni Bennett made Apr 3 at 2017 8:03 AM

SFC Giovanni Bennett — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:03:57 -0400

I agree with the folks that said Retiring as an E-3 was due to medical reasons. But definitely not a 20 Year Retiree or an early 15 Year retiree. A Soldier in my unit was denied reenlistment do to the fact he had 8+ years of service and didn't promote higher than an E-4.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made May 1 at 2017 3:27 AM

CPT Tom Monahan — Mon, 01 May 2017 03:27:13 -0400

I wouldn't be surprised that there is an increase for combat wounded and PTSD PDRL and TDRL medical retirements. Also, they may be getting a PTSD or physical disability medical retirement for being raped or other wise a victim of a violent act.