Individual Ready Reserve Call-up While Downsizing

1SG Steven Stankovich — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:10 -0500

The other day, a co-worker of mine sent me a link to an article by Andrew Brennan titled “Welcome to the New ‘Back-Door Draft” dated 22 October 2014. I followed the link and it went to the New York Times. The article talked about a new “stop loss” that went into effect from a recent Executive Order signed by the President. At first glance, I thought it wouldn’t be possible. The article talked about initiating a stop loss for Soldiers in the midst of a major downsizing effort. This didn’t make any sense to me. Why wasn’t the media all over this? Why weren’t the Service Department heads all over this?

So I did a little bit of research. The Executive Order that the author was referencing is titled “Ordering the Selective Reserve and Certain Individual Ready Reserve Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty.” The President signed it on 16 October 2014. The Executive Order reads in part that the President has determined “it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation United Assistance, which is providing civilian-led humanitarian assistance and consequence management support related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa.” It doesn’t mention anything about a “stop loss.”

In reporting, as in life, words are important. I understand that authors and newspapers are both in the business of making money and getting the facts straight, so headlines are their selling point. As a service member, any article on a newsstand stating “New Back-Door Draft” would catch my eye. I remember when I attended basic training back in 1990; there were Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call-ups in the barracks next to ours. They were some disgruntled individuals. I also remember serving in Afghanistan with a retired OH-58D Kiowa pilot who was called back into service due to personnel shortages. I also served with many Soldiers in our Squadron in 2004-2005 who were serving under the “stop loss” at that time. Stop loss is painful. Calling up the IRR is also painful. My question is this: why call up select persons from the IRR to serve on active duty in support of Operation United Assistance when we are sending active duty Soldiers home on a daily basis as part of the downsizing, reduction in force, or whatever title you would like to call it? Isn’t that counterproductive? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing effort to make sure that we have enough Soldiers so that we can deploy in support of global missions? Wouldn’t it make more sense to slow the downsizing to ensure that we have a ready force for contingency operations, like Operation United Assistance?

Let me leave you with one more thought to chew on. Theoretically, the Army could relieve someone from active duty - let’s say they didn’t make the cut with retention caps. This Soldier could then be called back up from the IRR to active duty and then deploy. What about someone who gets discharged from active duty through other means? Maybe a Chapter? Could those Soldiers be recalled through the IRR? It just seems to me that we could be ensuring our Force is manned properly using a more efficient way. What do you think?

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 1:58 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:58:21 -0500

I think that is an excellent question. And as you have previously mention, what about soldiers being chaptered out, or dishonorable discharges? I would think there has to be a better way to effectively man our Armed Forces but also ensure that we are ready for any contingency. There are plenty of soldiers being forced out that don't want to leave and yet are willing to do the difficult tasks. Wow! I'm doing a facepalm on this one.

Response by SSG Jason Cherry made Nov 14 at 2014 1:58 PM

SSG Jason Cherry — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:58:33 -0500

I don't think that recalling IRR is a quality way of getting your numbers up, and for that matter, the system for eliminating personnel from service is also terribly flawed.

As for the recall, who can say what sort of position they are in? Disrupting someones life who has done their time, over utilizing personnel who are already serving is disgusting to me. It is more than just inefficient, it is insulting. On top of that, you just pissed off a whole bunch of people and want them to turn around and give you their best? Good luck. A few of them may still possess the pride in service to do it, but essentially, it is a back-door draft and you are going to get draft-like results... people who are grumbling about doing what they are sent to do, and doing it to the minimum expected standard or expectation.

As for eliminations, sweeping eliminations of officers and enlisted don't make any sense from my standpoint. Allow people who want to leave, to end their service. People who want to stay that are qualified, let them stay. I get clearing out stagnation, and misconduct, but some of the cases I have seen go a little bit too far. There also seems to be a big push to med-board people out. Have a long term condition caused by service that inhibits you in any way? You're the already overburdened VA's problem now! Toodles! It disgusts me. There has no be a better way of achieving the drawdown numbers. Less efficient with time, sure, but certainly more efficient in the long run with retaining qualified people.

It seems to me that IRR should be for when our force is so overburdened or the threat of being overburdened is great enough to affect the lives of people who have already served, come back into service.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 14 at 2014 2:01 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:01:00 -0500

Why draw down the force, but then call up IRR? That doesn't make any sense.

I remember as an MI trooper when stop-loss went into effect, and all the MI guys who just joined to pay off college were absolutely livid that they might be sucked into a war they had hoped to avoid. I also remember this incredibly crusty and very angry retired Master Sergeant who chose to live in our barracks when he was reactivated. The dude was in his sixties, had two houses in the civilian world, and some decent tracts of property.

So in mentioning all that, I can't imagine we'd be gaining quality troops, not especially after the military has allegedly cut a lot of good troops who wanted to be there.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 14 at 2014 2:58 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:58:48 -0500

Yes, soldiers have always been able to be recalled from the IRR. It is why there is an IRR. Most people don't look at the fine print when they are enlisting.

Without action from the Selective Service, someone who has been discharged, to include chapters, would not be able to be forced to return to Active Duty.

Those who are retired, could be recalled to Active Duty like the IRR and all those others in a reserve status.

Oh please, oh please call back the Retired Reserve, oh please.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 14 at 2014 3:03 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:03:12 -0500

My biggest issue with this is that the government is handing out pink slips to currently serving soldiers (while they are in country) and are now recalling those who have left service? Usually under good conditions?

I have no problem being recalled from a retired status if a World War III were happening, but with the current situation of sending home quality soldiers who love what they do, to bring back those who have done their time is preposterous.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 14 at 2014 3:13 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:13:20 -0500

Found some more interesting information on this:

EO13680: Call up to support Ebola mission
EO13529: Similar call up to support Haiti
EO12982: Similar call up to support Yugoslavia

This has happened before. I think this one just leaves a bad taste in all our mouths due to the pink slips being given in country at the same time that they are calling up medical personnel to take care of this as voluntolds.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 3:23 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:23:22 -0500

This is what happens when buerocrats run the military instead of experienced military leaders.

Response by PO1 Walter Duncan made Nov 14 at 2014 3:25 PM

PO1 Walter Duncan — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:25:53 -0500

This is the New Dumbest Thing out of the Government. They are serving Pink slips to soldiers in the field while calling up the IRR. Wow , see it opens up job slots and may lower the "Actual Employment" numbers. But, when these guys get back later the same problem will exist, unfortunately it will be election time again. This cannot be a plan, it is too devious and cold for politicians, right?

Response by PO1 Walter Duncan made Nov 14 at 2014 4:15 PM

PO1 Walter Duncan — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:15:35 -0500

They all know this, but the problem is just like the National Guard. The purposes of the IRR and the National Guard are being exploited for purpose they were not intended. This is all about fudging numbers, back in the 80's in when it started and it has got worse since. Trying to maintain an active duty force number. So instead of doing that, the federal government started activating the reserves and National Guard. This way they could reduce the active duty rolls , but they could include the Reserves and NG as Active, so the numbers are the same. Tah Dah. Now, they are going further with the IRR, same game deeper whole.

Problem:

Reserves: There for when a fighting force needs a surge in numbers in case of war/battle/occurrence etc.

National Guard: Here for the protection of homeland from invasion / defense. Also if Reserves begin to run low they can be used to supplement.

Inactive Ready Reserve: To be used only in the case of emergency when the Reserve forces are depleted and National Guard forces are at a critical level. When the IRR is being used the American people should know the next step is Selective Service. Because we are using our last line of defense.

So at this point, why are we giving anyone literally a pink slip?

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Nov 14 at 2014 5:34 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:34:54 -0500

Here is another related headline...

http://www.stripes.com/hagel-calls-up-2-100-from-reserve-national-guard-for-ebola-fight-1.314288

Hagel calls up 2,100 from reserve, National Guard for Ebola fight

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has authorized the mobilization of about 2,100 troops from the Army Reserve and National Guard to deploy to Africa to aid in relief efforts to stem the Ebola outbreak.

Response by SN Jennifer M. made Nov 14 at 2014 6:41 PM

SN Jennifer M. — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:41:14 -0500

I remember when I was IRR I was asked several times if I wanted to go back Active Duty.

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Nov 14 at 2014 6:56 PM

LTC Hillary Luton — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:56:59 -0500

I've read through a few of the responses, and I think one thing that is missing here is the bottom line. Right or wrong, it comes down to funding. An Active Duty Soldier earns a full-time salary, BAQ, BAS, TriCare, Life Insurance, ect. The point is an AC service member costs more than a Reserve service member. Once the AC service member has fulfilled their deployment requirement, they come home, go back to work and continue getting paid, benefits, etc. A Reserve service member can be called up, trained, sent to the deployment location, then when they complete the requirement, they are put back into the Reserve with a part-time paycheck, no Tri-Care, SGLI payable only when they are on Reserve duty, no BAQ, no BAS except when drilling, etc. Reserve service members are simply cheeper to maintain.

So, whether we agree with it or not, it is more cost effective to reduce the AC ranks and call up RC forces only when needed. As far as calling up IRR or Retiries is concerned, the fact of the matter is, when we sign up for the military, we swear to an obligation of service whenever and where ever we are needed. That means, if we are AC, Reserve, IRR, retired, it doesn't matter, we still have an obligation. If our country needs us, we have sworn an oath that we will answer that call, and by swearing to that, we accept the fact that it may disrupt our personal life, or civilian jobs, or education, and everything else. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we do have to accept the fact that we did raise our right hands and we did tell our country we would be there for it's citizens.

One final thought, as a Reserve Soldier myself, I know 9/11 changed the type of Soldiers that enlisted after 9/11. Over the last 13 years the Army Reserve has gone from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve and many of the Soldiers who enlisted during that time want to be a part of that operational reserve. They do not want to go back to the strategic reserve we once were. So although you may have some disgruntled service members who may not agree to being called up, many continue to look for opportunities to deploy. Even I looked for one last opportunity before I retired, but it was not to be. I can live with that.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 7:06 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:06:12 -0500

Description of Individual Ready Reserve from Wikipedia.

The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) is a category of the Ready Reserve of the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces of the United States composed of former active duty or reserve military personnel and is authorized under 10 U.S.C. ch. 1005.
By law, IRR members are required to retain possession of their service uniforms, retain their military identification card, and notify their service branch if they move and change their address.

Upon being called up, service members will usually be screened for their medical and personal status in order to qualify or disqualify them for activation. During the process, IRR members who seek to delay, defer, or exempt their activations have the opportunity to present their case to the mobilization authority for a decision.

An enlisted service member's IRR service ends after the completion of their mandatory service obligation (MSO), usually 8 years.

"Presidential Reserve Callup Authority" (PRCA) is a provision of a public law (US Code, Title 10 (DOD), section 12304) that provides the President a means to activate, without a declaration of national emergency, not more than 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and the Individual Ready Reserve (of whom not more than 30,000 may be members of the Individual Ready Reserve), for not more than 400 days to meet the support requirements of any operational mission. Members called under this provision may not be used for disaster relief or to suppress insurrection. This authority has particular utility when used in circumstances in which the escalatory national or international signals of partial or full mobilization would be undesirable. Forces available under this authority can provide a tailored, limited-scope, deterrent or operational response, or may be used as a precursor to any subsequent mobilization.

When the nation is under a presidentially declared state of national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act the President has even broader authority, allowing him to activate not more than 1,000,000 members of the Ready Reserve with no further limitation. The United States has been in a state of national emergency since November 14, 1979.

Also there is the Retired Reserve it consists of all Reserve officers and enlisted personnel who receive retired pay on the basis of active duty and/or reserve service; all Reserve officers and enlisted personnel who are otherwise eligible for retired pay but have not reached age 60 (grey area retired), who have not elected discharge, and are not voluntary members of the Ready or Standby Reserve; and other retired reservists under certain conditions.

Response by TSgt Donnie Meaders made Nov 14 at 2014 9:08 PM

TSgt Donnie Meaders — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:08:18 -0500

To me, if this is true, it is just another example of the current president skirting the Constitution and established rules/policy without getting the proper approvals from the checks and balances triad. We already have folks on active duty that can do the job, let them do it.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Nov 14 at 2014 9:14 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:14:39 -0500

It depends. Are they calling up Infantrymen and Cav Scouts. Or are the calling up Pilots, Surgeons, and other very low density skills?

There is a point at which a Soldier is a Soldier is a Soldier, and a point where that isn't true. My guess is that they are calling up individuals with specific skill sets that would be expensive and/or time consuming to recreate.

(edit: that is not a dig at infantry or fav. It's just a fact that some skills are lower density and high demand)

Response by CDR Mike Kovack made Nov 16 at 2014 6:26 AM

CDR Mike Kovack — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:26:40 -0500

Any IRR call ups to deal with the Ebola situation would be extremely specific and limited to certain medical specialties. They would not pertain to the vast majority of military being down sized. Most infantrymen are not going to be useful in implementing public health guidelines in a contagious area.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 7:28 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:28:50 -0500

Just a thought. From what I'm seeing there's a lot of downsizing in the higher ranks. The people we need are the lower enlisted to do the work not the supervisors that sit behind a desk. I guess I should say that's the issue we're having here. Our shop is only slotted for one Master Sergeant, yet we have 3 assigned. We're slotted for two Technical Sergeant's yet we have 3 assigned and up till last month had 5 before their jobs were put to the chopping block.

Making rank is all well and good cause that means a pay raise and more responsibility but we need more of the younger troops to be out doing the work but we can't get them because all the higher ups count against our manning when it comes time for PCS's.

I may be way off but that's the problem I'm seeing.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Nov 16 at 2014 1:11 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:11:26 -0500

I saw this very thing happen in the early 90's. This sort of thing makes no sense from a small perspective but if you look at the big picture one begins (or should) to understand. Why Down size and then recall prior military back, why not just keep what we have and call it a day?? Some will point out that its due to Over stocked MOS's and the recall is selectively calling certain shortage MOS's back . This is helping by placing seasoned vets where they can be used most effectively and not have to waste money and man power training/cross training new soldiers. In 2003 I received such a letter and declined it in a very colorful and imaginative way, never heard anything about the decline and went on my merry way in life.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 8:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:30:23 -0500

It helps to read the fine print in your enlistment contract. To my understanding, no matter how long your enlistment is for, you also have an 8 year obligation in the IRR, which is served concurrently with any time spent on Active Duty. To put it simply: Soldier A enlists for 2 years. When he ETSs, he still has a 6 year window in which he can be recalled under the IRR. Soldier B serves 4 years, he has a 4 year obligation. Soldier C serves 10 years, and can NOT be recalled under IRR because they have already passed that 8 year time frame.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Nov 26 at 2014 12:06 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:06:38 -0500

The issue would be the quality of people you would be getting. In 2003, I was mobilized before the Iraq War. When I got to my duty unit, there was a USMC Captain who had been recalled from the IRR because he was a Military Intelligence Officer. He only had a few months left on his military service obligation and was building his finance services business in southern California. He has to turn all of that over to someone else and understandably so, had a bad attitude during the time we worked together. He did a few tasks each day but was not going to go overboard at all. So with the IRR, you have no idea who you will get. I think allowing them to volunteer for positions like on Army's Tour of Duty site is a much better way to get them.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Dec 6 at 2014 4:30 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:30:31 -0500

Yes, in general the military could use it resources better than recalling IRR troops back and have to spend time and money to retrain these people for this mission. On the other hand, are the troops they are releasing, do any of them have the MOS for this mission? If so then yes, it seems quite silly for them to continue to release these troops in reduction of force, while calling back IRR soldiers to fill the needs.

Yes, most service members forget or simply don't understand the fact that once they sign up, they are committed for life. Regardless how you leave the military, there is always way to get you back in uniform if need be. Even when they Chapter or dishonoring discharging someone, all it takes is a review board to change the discharge to Honorable, and they fall in-line for IRR recall. If it someone had said it stop-gap measure it would made front page news.

I think there is way more to this than meets the eye. I from my point of view think it is big mistake to reduce the military at this time. It was mistake not to increase the military in the time frame of 2003-2012. It was the only time in our Nation history where we were actively at War, and didn't economically increase spending to increase the military so it could accomplish its mission including buying the hardware needed.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Dec 16 at 2014 9:33 AM

CSM David Heidke — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:33:51 -0500

Three words... Full Court Press

Response by SGM Ron Crump made Jan 1 at 2015 8:17 PM

SGM Ron Crump — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 20:17:28 -0500

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2015 10:04 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:04:04 -0500

wow slick