Is 39 training days good enough for the National Guard and Reserves?

CW3 (Join to see) - we already are. my soldiers are sick of taking online training that they have to do at home but are not being paid for. so at the unit soldiers are playing catch up and it is a priority over every thing else

I agree the system needs to find a happy medium. From what I understand the Reserves get aid for 60 hrs of this type of training a year. Which is a positive step for the M-Day Soldiers who are working for free. I still think that there needs to be a realistic look at what should be required and the true impact of the courses have had on the force. In other words, lets trim the fat.

I'll just say this. 1. The USAR does not provide enough TRAINING time. 2. The SR levels are more concerned about metrics or measures of performance. 3. the leadership wanted to be "OPERATIONAL" but they didn't provide the means to be such.

Well what about more government roles for these soldiers that would allow them the flexibility they need?

The truth of that has made me often consider that reservist protections should be unshakable and should be far, far stronger than what USERRA currently provides. We live in an age where the civilian population is spared most all costs of war, even taxes. Employers should absolutely be forced to accommodate reservists so that when reservists get pulled for endless deployments and train ups to deployments the employers can become at least ONE sector of civil society with some skin in the game. As it is, only families have any costs that can't be deferred and they do not make for a powerful lobby or voting block. To boot, reserve duty should be a protected status when it comes to seeking employment, so that troops don't get discriminated against at the outset. If we can't spread the risk of war to the society then we bear all of it, while everyone else goes to the mall.

I feel part of the problem is many civilian employers think that being in the reserves/guard is a one weekend a month and 2 weeks out of the year. This is was is advertised. The general public needs to be educated that in reality this is not the case especially when you get into a leadership position. I understand that civilian employers have a mission to accomplish also and it is a slippery slope sometimes.

MAJ (Join to see) - I have to agree. In 2001, when my Air Guard unit was called up, we were gone for 2 years. Many of our unit members lost their jobs in the process. USERRA is nearly useless if the employer is smart and says the right words. I have also seen folks, including myself, lose out on jobs/promotions because the employer was worried about losing employees who are Guard/Reserve to long deployments. The balance between your civilian job and military job is a tough issue that needs to be better addressed.

It's especially bad in employment at will states, where you can be terminated without any stated reason, at any time. Actually, it's much better for the employer NOT to state a reason, because that gives the employee something to attack.

And COL Vincent Stoneking that "fast tasker" wasn't on the training schedule that state busted your beans on for not being in 90 days prior to execution. Oh but that's OK because this was a top down ordered change and not something you decided to freelance on your own. After all your ONLY a battalion commander :-). How I don't miss the BS!!

What is most important is the real army needs to give a fuck. I saw during Operation Desert Shield/Storm is the army did not give a God Dam Fuck how the national guard of the 155th Ar Brigade(the 3rd brigade of the !st Cav Div)was trained. I saw 2 fat fucks E-6's watching our battalion training to go to war. They were left behind dregs when the ctive elements of the 1dt cav went to Irag. Their help to train the national guard , was sleeping off hangovers and talking about how good it was (downrange) I.E. the bar scene in downtown Killeen Texas.

Overall it just went to show the active army did not give a shit about the national guard reserve elements, and it the first Iraq war had been serious , alot of people would have been killed out of ignorance , for not knowing their jobs. Not just guard but active elements if it had been a serious war. The Army , which I has just got of active duty as a 19K , one year before, did not give a dam if those boys were trained to their jobs. It(Desert Storm) killed alot of Georgia Guardsmen, who trained at NTC before our rotation of the 155th. The Georgia national guard unit took the 2nd most casualties of that whole affair. 14 killed(7 accidents 7 heatstrokes)IIRC of 48th Brigade , and they never left the states.

Sir,

I just responded with a similar post prior to reading your comment and couldn't agree more.

MAJ (Join to see) - My apologies Sir, also- I had just typed a huge post(before this one) and the edit monster or something ate it. As well I am not sure what was going on with my life last year to be so mad and my posting of the time reflect that.

Anyway no to your earlier accusation, I was not insulting National Guard units by saying they were untrained for Desert Storm /Shield. Them being untrained was not their fault , it was the Army's fault . for not providing enough quality assets(read competent NCO trainers or enough of them ) 2 overweight E-6 's for an armor Company for 2 months(which they spent sleeping off hangovers) was not enough .

Now I believe 39 days a year might be enough for most rear echelon units , but for combats units no, biut nothing short of full time(constant) is really enough for that. But what should occur Is the army simply care more, send double the trainers , send good ones, and as extend that pre-deployment training period to at least 4 months -6 would be optimal , but probably too much including the deployment period themselves. It is that regular army expertise by providing motivated training NCO's and officer's is what i think needs to be stressed during that 4-6 pre-deployment training.

The lack of training for guard units causing low performance and causalities and other "bad stuff" is nothing new and certainly no insult, Who is responsible for their organization and training? the regular Army . Some examples of this are the 9th Infantry Division after D-Day, The 28th Infantry Div at Hurtgen Forrest, and the 48th Inf Brigade prior to and during Desert Shield Storm. They lost 14 people at NTC in one extended rotation , basically they failed the first, and IMO their morale only got worse being force to repeat it and the army after a few more week to simply pas them ,to allow our Brigade the 155th to do our rotation training . A unit that losing 7 people to heatstroke and 7 more to accidents had issues that the army should have cared more about IMO.

here is something else. , I will note my Armor Company pre-Desert storm had been a truck company 1-2 years prior and by the time we were activated for Desert Storm spending actually the time I suggested , 4 months LOL however that was because the unit in front of us caused about a 1 month delay. Anyway we roll in the field at Hood for 2-3 months (in ice and snowtraining for the Desert LOL) and then Irwin for 45 days adding about 2 weeks because of the 48th not clearing. The we rolled back to Camp Shelby MS, for a month Apr -MAy 90 I was prior service 4 regular army tanks , It was telling that after that 5 months of hell and training , the battalion had a battalion wide SMCT for all tank crews (56 ) and all HQ S1-S4 sections, along whatever attached Brigade sections. The Tank crew I was assigned to , for this test (an E-7, E-5 anther E-4 and me ) was the only crew to pass all tests 1st run) I made that happen , and all we received AAM's(my 10th or something) , The E-7 who had been an NG truck driver siince the end of Vietnam and by that time had 6 months on tanks gave me a thank you and made sure my life was pretty easy that last month we were "active duty" . All in all I certainly wish I had been active duty(regular army) in Desert Storm, at least they got to see the Super Bowl in Suadi and missed all the overseas, hazardous duty, whatever TDY pay. First two months I sepnt jumping from tank to tank in emergency to stop people form putting tranmsiioon fluid in the motor and engine oil in the transmission.Yea, I knew a "little" of how untrained my tank company was, Where was the Army? What wasn't overseas was sleeping ing last night's hangover the proceeding afternoon or simply was not considered needed by the army. Hey we only lost two tank engines to that error becuase i could not be everywhere, so big deal. IIRC in that Tank company 75-80 men, 2 of us were prior service 4year active duty MOS- tankers .Well I hope this might help from my prior "grumpiness" . Here is an Army report on ME and the NG in Desert Storm , LOL , no, but my experience is a microcosm of this report , and I can almost see where I affected this report and Desert Storm/Shield itself , funny that.

As well it describes some of the 'influx' issues at he time that affected national guard readiness(change of MOS, SOPs, Org.etc0 . I really cannot convey a lot in singular forum posts about my POV and how i derive my conclusions, there is more to my opinions than it seems

ARMY TRAINING
Replacement Brigadesv
Were More Proficient
Than Guard Roundout
Brigades
https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/217240.pdf

39 days comes from 24 for drills (48 UTAs) and 15 days AT - the number 'Big Army' uses when disparaging the ARNG / USAR inside the Pentagon.

Of course they need more UTA's, but the MUTA for drill includes some personal preparatory time. Service Members can get UTA credit (for retirement-without pay) for attending administrative nights, but you have to have someone complete the necessary paperwork.

My unit has never had a mission less than 3 weeks for AT.

MAJ (Join to see) - I would agree, where other factors are equal, but the question wasn't whether some units make better use of their time than others. The question was whether 39 days is sufficient time to ensure that a unit maintains or improves its readiness from one training year to the next.

Good point CPT T N... and you may be right. It's what we (the Nation) have decided we can afford ($$s) and that maintains the balance between citizen--Soldier, but you ask the right Q -- is that enough?? The best units can maintain and even improve, some, over a short period of time but it would be interesting to study that Q over 10-20 years...

MAJ John Adams - I would think that it would be very much a matter of type of unit. 39 days is an arbitrary fact, completely divorced from an assessment of required training. Meaning, we don't get 39 days because that's what it takes, we get it because that's what's available on the calendar. It also matters at what echelon the training is happening. Collective training is more time consuming than individual training. When the one-weekend a month + AT rule came into existence the average American was fitter, his equipment simpler, and his relationship with the operational force weaker. Now we have an RC that is physically weaker, our equipment is significantly more complex, and we have a much more dependent relationship with the operational force. But we still get 39 days. Needless to say, if a unit needs 39, 45, 50, or 55 days is in no small part influenced by the leadership.

MAJ (Join to see) - Yep. It was sub-marginal for a cavalry headquarters troop in the early 1980's, and we didn't the number of time-sucking requirements that are in place now. And we had at least a half dozen MUTA5 a year. It's pretty much all about budget, then and now.

1LT Eric Rosa Isn't NCOES/OES supposed to be a different budget than AT to allow for attendance?

SFC (Join to see) - No, divisions/ brigades receive one training budget. Budget officers & staff estimate the amounts of money required to fund schools, AT exercises, additional operations. Combine this with freeze on logistics money for parts, maintenance and transportation every year there is a continuing resolution, and you see the overall equation resulting in less time training. The total funding pools for maintenance and logistics to NGB are down a huge percent from what they were in say 2008

FYI, there are four pots of money:
AT - Obvious, but also includes some schools
ADT-S = ATARRS schools
ADT/ADOS = Special duty or beyond 29 days AT (I receive none in my budget)
OMAR = Pays for AGR, civilian salaries, vehicle parts and most expenses
You cannot mix between any of these without going back to Congress to "re-color" the money.

General, if there are clear divisions for which pots of money are used to fund AT, verse ATTRS, it would seem reasonable that soldiers could attend both NCOES/MOS-Q schools in the same year. Is there something else at work preventing soldiers from completing both (we are applying the assumption that the soldier has volunteered to complete both periods of training, and soldiers other interests do not conflict).

That is good you noticed that. I think these things go unnoticed too often. I have been pretty fortunate in my units to have good commanders.

As you have stated, those in the medical profession that mirror their Military MOS are usually in a good position to maintain their quals and experience/expertise. However while your medical skills are up to date, oftentimes your military skill set is not. I have Doctors and Nurses in my unit that are borderline genius in their medical field, but cannot do the simplest Army tasks; Common Military Courtesies, Drill and Ceremony, basic paperwork, basic rifle/pistol marksmanship. For us medics, it is even worse. As a medic I have been in the reserves for 10 years with 2 mobilizations and not been a medic yet. We do not train as medics, we do not go to Annual Training as medics, and during battle assemblies the majority of time is spent on mandatory training and the occasional power point. We have no equipment, we have no resources and we have limited slots/funding for additional training. For those of us dedicated to the position, we have to seek out our own training to maintain our qualifications. 39 Days is barely enough to complete the required training that is forced upon us. We are losing medics at a high rate as once they complete AIT, they rarely get an opportunity to utilize or improve their skills. There is no incentive to re-enlist.

I agree with you on most points, 39 days should be enough to teach the MDs and RNs, common tasks, but due to inefficiencies in training and funding we do no learn Common Military Courtesies, Drill and Ceremony, basic paperwork, basic rifle/pistol marksmanship at a level above a very basic level.
You are also correct about medics not receiving required training. The Army should really look at improving reserve training. The raw material is there, it just needs to be molded into a lean mean fighting force.