Should combat Veterans (those who were physically in theater) be given a prorated pension based on the amount of time they served?

2016-06-02T13:05:40-04:00

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 2 at 2016 1:10 PM

2016-06-02T13:10:00-04:00

They were where it was most dangerous, give a couple percent or so more.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 1:11 PM

2016-06-02T13:11:32-04:00

If they don't make the military a career, they shouldn't expect a pension. They should however be saving for retirement and be able to take that with them if they leave the military before retirement. Preferably a 401K type system with the Army kicking in a decent percentage of matching funds. I would like to see all combat veterans retain Commissary and PX privileges when they get out, not only because it would help them, but also because it would help keep costs down at the PX and Commissary for active duty and retired.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 2 at 2016 1:15 PM

2016-06-02T13:15:52-04:00

Staff I think this is a VERY dangerous question. It will split the community into two, and now we'd be splitting hairs on that. This type of question has been on here before and it did not go over well. We'd have to define "in theater" and have it equal across the services, "combat vets" vs. "non-combat vets". I see it if you did your 20, you get paid, you didn't do your 20 sorry. You were injured, you get paid, you didn't deploy but did your time, you get paid.

Response by SSG Patrick H. made Jun 2 at 2016 1:28 PM

2016-06-02T13:28:46-04:00

No, combat vets while in theater generally get other benefits which are designed to financially compensate them. Tax exemptions, hazard pay, etc. They deserve that compensation for sure. We could even debate if those amounts are enough. However pension should be for those who serve to retirement in my humble opinion.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Jun 2 at 2016 1:41 PM

2016-06-02T13:41:33-04:00

First, a Veteran is a Veteran is a Veteran. Hear the cautions posted. Start dividing us on how, where, and when we served and we will all suffer for it.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jun 2 at 2016 1:45 PM

2016-06-02T13:45:29-04:00

The whole 'combat veteran' is a completely moot point. There is no such distinction as a 'combat veteran' that is what medals are for. 'physically in theater' is also a meaningless point, since many people come and go all the time from the AOR, and being there has NOTHING to do with being in combat. In fact, I could argue that marine troops assigned to embassies in Nigeria, Algeria, etc. face more danger on a daily basis than troops in Afghanistan --should they get a little something too?

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 2 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-06-02T13:50:53-04:00

I think the pension should be based on the normal 20 year retirement. I do think that there should be a new category that allows honorably discharged vets to use on post facilities the way retirees do such as the PX or commissary.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 1:51 PM

2016-06-02T13:51:00-04:00

Pensions are set forth in regulations, and those regulations should be followed.

As to combat versus non-combat service getting different rewards, that is already the case. Combat pay, separation pay and the like already exist and are adequate. In reserves, our retirement benefits don't start until the age of 60, and combat time is deducted from that age allowing a reservist with multiple deployments to start collecting his or her benefits at 59, 58, I even know one colonel who will collect at 55.

Despite those allowances, under current regulations it takes 20 years to earn a pension, and that should not change.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 2 at 2016 1:53 PM

2016-06-02T13:53:27-04:00

We have a hard enough time in "casing the colors". Pay associated with a protracted war is not a good idea - will incentivise troops to become warmongers. Mind as well have a pay per scalp program.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Jun 2 at 2016 1:55 PM

2016-06-02T13:55:01-04:00

I seem to have sparked a debate I didn't consider... combat vet verse non combat. I apologize for that, as I really didn't think about it in that context when I posted the question. Perhaps admin should delete this question...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 1:57 PM

2016-06-02T13:57:41-04:00

I agree with Mr. Swan-This is a "dangerous" topic. For example, I served with SNCOs in the Reserves who never deployed overseas, but had twenty plus years of service. Should I, having not even ten continuous years of service across both active and reserve component, be given a pro-rated pension simply because I deployed twice to "combat zones"? Worse yet, does the guy who joined from the Reserve component five years ago, and got mobilized with my unit, whose convoy engaged the enemy yesterday get one...but I don't because my convoy the next day didn't engage? I've always viewed retirement as the pay-off for making the "long haul", regardless of how that career went...and frankly, it would seem to me that making deployment/combat your aim, rather than relatively "safer" choices...is a sure ticket to not making retirement.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jun 2 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-06-02T14:14:45-04:00

Everyone that signed up had deploying to a hazardous duty location as part of the job description. So if you did, great, you did your job, if you did not, then not.. But none of that is linked to doing the job for a set period.... and receiving compensation at the end of the period.

If combat vets serving and separating at less than 20 deserve pension payments, then do those that served and did not deploy need to return part of thier pay having not fulfilled all of the possible job description duties?

Hey I think you're on to something here... I served 51 months in a combat zone.. All those that are serving or have served and did not serve in a combat zone, please send 1 month's pay for each year you served but did not deploy to a combat zone to me at USAA checking Acct# 762391923-05

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jun 2 at 2016 2:49 PM

2016-06-02T14:49:20-04:00

That's a fine line to walk. So, do the cooks who make the food for 'combat' veterans (you know, so they can eat and keep fighting) deserve that partial? Or how about the supply guys that ensure that the 'combat' vets have bullets to fire...to keep fighting? Or what about the medics who patch the 'combat' guys up so they can either recover or keep fighting? Do THEY get that partial pension, too? What about the intel weenies who warn a unit off an area, thereby saving their lives from an ambush. Do they get it?

I really, really dislike the distinction between 'combat' vets and VETERANS. Everyone who wore the uniform wrote the same blank check that 'combat' vets did, and were ready to answer that call if called upon to do so. They shouldn't be left out simply because Uncle Sam had other plans for them.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 3:43 PM

2016-06-02T15:43:35-04:00

In some states the state actually pays some vets a pension.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 3:46 PM

2016-06-02T15:46:04-04:00

for guard and reserve members, they already do in a way. you still have to do your 20, but for every month you spend in theater they knock a month of your retirement eligibility age. started in '07 or '08. I can start drawing my retirement at 59 instead of 60

Response by SFC William Farrell made Jun 2 at 2016 4:32 PM

2016-06-02T16:32:21-04:00

So what you are attempting to do SSG Pete Fleming is to elevate combat veterans over other veterans and thats just not right. A veteran is a veteran regardless of whether they have combat time under their belt. While I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, I do not consider myself any different than other veterans who served during that time period or other periods. What is on your mind when you are even contemplating something like this?

Response by CPO Byron Sargent made Jun 2 at 2016 4:38 PM

2016-06-02T16:38:43-04:00

I believe that service members should have put the 20 years or in the case of reserve members their equivalent, in order to receive any retirement other than Medical.

Response by SrA Brandon Jordan made Jun 2 at 2016 5:25 PM

2016-06-02T17:25:44-04:00

The men and women tasked with combat should be compensated as long as their discharge is honorable. Anyone who goes through those extreme circumstances should be treated a little special.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 2 at 2016 8:33 PM

2016-06-02T20:33:42-04:00

I'm yet to hear of any veteran who could choose when the USA sent troops to war or could choose who could go and who would stay on duty elsewhere.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 2 at 2016 9:01 PM

2016-06-02T21:01:52-04:00

Maybe give them the double miles for being deployed.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 10:00 PM

2016-06-02T22:00:03-04:00

TSP tip: money you put into TSP while deployed is tax free. The interest gain on that will also be tax free as well. That money you take out after retirement will also be tax free.

Response by SrA Roy Cooper made Jun 3 at 2016 12:33 AM

2016-06-03T00:33:18-04:00

I don't know, what do you tell those who worked flight lines sending equipment and supplies to those in theater? Those that had to pull 12 hour shifts or 24 hour shift seeing that the job was getting done. I can't say what is happening today. But in the beginning of Dessert Storm and Dessert Shield, the ramps at Pope AFB were constantly moving. The fire department had what was called the "Scat Crew" (if memory serves me correctly a P-13 fire truck, a pickup with a big dry chemical extinguisher and a big Halon 1311 extinguisher) and a "Hot Crew" (on a P-19 Crash Fire Truck). Both of these trucks were kept on the move from start of the every shift to end of every shift. Between "Hot ICT's", "AirEvacs", "Hot Fuels", "Mass Aircraft Movements". Everytime you turned around, these two trucks wereally being called out. Some days we didn't even come into the station. They brought bag lunches to us. There were weeks that we were lucky if we got 15 to 20 hours of sleep a week. But all we seem to get is in "support of" typed on our dd form 214. And every time I turn around some one else wants to up one more on those that get sent overseas. Yes, there are men and women dying over there. They signed the same contract as those who have orders to supply those that have orders to go over. I do not make light of this. My best friend, who went over to Dessert Storm was shot and Killed, less than one hour after returning home. He was killed by his fiance's boyfriend. It that credit is not given to those who bust their butts suppling those over there for 6 to 8 months 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Only to find out, to some over there it was almost like club med. That they didn't have to work hardly at all. There is no ribbon medal or license plate for "In Support of". You were either there or you weren't. Then turn around you have to start cleaning the equipment that comes back from over there. But when you start have the same symptoms as those that were over there. It takes like 30 acts of Congress to prove it came from the equipment that went over and came back that you had to clean. So even though you didn't go over there you still got contaminated by the equipment.
So, again ask me that question.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2016 3:07 AM

2016-06-03T03:07:22-04:00

No. I knew when I joined that I would have to serve 20 years to receive a pension. I served four years, so I did not earn a pension. Combat status does not enter into the equation for pensions.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 6:17 PM

2016-06-07T18:17:26-04:00

You knew what you were getting (or not) when you joined. If you didn't like it, you didn't have to sign.

Response by CW4 Leonard White made Jun 7 at 2016 6:23 PM

2016-06-07T18:23:30-04:00

If you're good enough, fortune enough, to do 20+ you should get retirement pay. No I don't think anyone should get "a little" extra in retirement pay for time spent in a combat zone, when you're deployed you're pay is tax free plus you get "hazard duty paid" (which you can save like I did).

Starting this year, every new soldier is eligible for TSP with the government providing a "matching" fund. It's the same TSP as GS (government) workers get. I knew when I joined the Army that I had to do a minimum of 20 years to get a "retirement." If you want a retirement you need to "manage" you career to be if value to your service so you can make it to 20.

Response by CPL David Salazar made Jun 7 at 2016 6:24 PM

2016-06-07T18:24:58-04:00

VA pays pension benefits to qualifying Veterans that served in theater. Granted, the dollar amount is significantly higher for service connected disability than it is for pension, but you don't need service connected disabilities to qualify for pension. Pretty much, this is already a thing.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 6:42 PM

2016-06-07T18:42:55-04:00

I was a cook and deserve X%
I was a sniper and deserve Y%
I was S1 and dserve z%...

We all served, we get what we signed up for. Don't ask for shit after you decided to walk away...

Response by Cpl Michael Cain made Jun 7 at 2016 8:16 PM

2016-06-07T20:16:00-04:00

I think that combat veterans should be tax exempt for life.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 7 at 2016 8:43 PM

2016-06-07T20:43:09-04:00

DO CHICKENS HAVE LIPS??

Response by SGT John Wesley made Jun 7 at 2016 8:56 PM

2016-06-07T20:56:24-04:00

Do your 20+, you are compensated while serving in a hostile environment. Pitting Combat vets against all other Vets does us all a disservice. We all took the oath.

Response by SSG Joseph Henderson made Jun 8 at 2016 12:16 AM

2016-06-08T00:16:55-04:00

All veterans signed that blank check. We went where we were told and did what we were told. No ones service to the country was better then the next guys. Our mission was to fight and win as a team.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 12:53 AM

2016-06-08T00:53:43-04:00

ALL veterans should have prorated pensions. This all-or-nothing for 20 years is really a crappy way to go about it. I'm working for a state Department of Corrections now, and we're invested In our pensions at 8 years, and it builds up until maxing out at 25 years.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 4:48 AM

2016-06-08T04:48:59-04:00

Everyone has their place and the moment you put it on paper who's more important and your in for a shit storm

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2016 4:17 PM

2016-12-21T16:17:01-05:00

I have said it before, but, I guess it bares repeating. In the military one very often has little or no control of one's assignments. As long as one performed his/her assignment and did not do things to make sure he/she did not get sent to the fighting, then that one serviced with honor. He/she deserves respect for his/her service.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2016 4:44 PM

2016-12-21T16:44:19-05:00

Some states do provide a pension to vets of that state.