To join a reserve component, should it be a required to serve X amount of active duty time first?

2015-01-10T16:37:12-05:00

It seems there is a lack of experience or a "different" mentality in the reserves, from what I can only guess is from not being immersed in the military lifestyle every day for longer than basic training. I think a good answer to this is make a two year active duty minimum prerequisite to join any reserve component. Just a thought. Might not be THE way, but it's A way.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jan 10 at 2015 4:40 PM

2015-01-10T16:40:44-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member, I think that would defeat the purpose of the reserve components. The entire idea behind reserve components is that of the citizen soldier. At the very least, it would be very difficult, it not impossible, to recruit service members into any reserve component if an active duty tour were required as well.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 10 at 2015 4:48 PM

2015-01-10T16:48:35-05:00

Interesting question. Keep in mind that the reserves are almost as large as the active duty force, so it would require the majority of active duty folks to transition to reserves after their service, which is not likely to happen voluntarily. So likely there wouldn't be enough people even if this was desired.

Also, some MOS background (infantry, sniper, etc.) might benefit from this more than others. There are a lot of people in the reserve component that are of specialized skills that actually benefit more by having civilian experience.

With that said, the reserve component units stand on their own quite well. I think that the mix of those with and without active duty experience actually has a lot of advantages.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 5:11 PM

2015-01-10T17:11:26-05:00

I like the idea but then you need privates in the National Guard. If you had to rely on the exiting service members as a pool of candidates you would be a limiting factor. The experience would be welcomed as it currently is but there would be too many limiting factors.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 8:01 PM

2015-01-10T20:01:08-05:00

SSgt Butterfield, I beg to differ. I would rather take a squad of reservists on a deployment then a squad of active duty folks. When you take reservists, you have to remember the different types of experiences that you are getting. I work with FBI Agents, Custom and Border Patrol Agents, Correctional Officers, Police Officers, Sheriff's, Firefighters etc..... These are my reservists. So not only are the cops in the Military, they also have other experience from outside that can help out a bad situation at times. With active duty folks, you do things one way The Military Way because that's all of the experience they have. I'd rather have 13 guys with different tools in their ruck sacks than 13 guys with the same tools in their ruck sacks. Just my opinion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 11:59 PM

2015-01-10T23:59:54-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member , are you basing your opinion off of your current unit or have you been to all Reserve and Guard Units within the United States?

I know that when I was in the Florida Guard we crunched a month of training into three days of Drill. We worked a majority of the Drill and trained extremely hard. We also prepared Soldiers who had signed up yet had not shipped to Basic Training.

My second question is, how many units and different specialties have you worked with on active duty? Every individual has their own mentality. Those who wish to learn and grow will while those who only care about marching time shall do that.

My point is this, no matter what you are always going to have those who achieve and others who won't. Good Leadership can bring some of those without personal drive to come up and do better. Mentorship is the key.

Mandating an Active requirement would take away an individuals freedom of choice.

Response by 1SG Pete Marcell made Jan 12 at 2015 10:41 PM

2015-01-12T22:41:06-05:00

In a word...no.

The dual career track experiences that reservist and guardsmen bring often out weights a person who has only been AD.

Who do I know? The MNFI CSM said so. ;)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 11:50 PM

2015-01-12T23:50:11-05:00

I say one full term

Response by 1SG Pete Marcell made Jan 14 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-01-14T14:09:45-05:00

Further thought on this, I'd guess that 50% of a reserve component unit is prior service anyways. Kind if a moot point...

Response by MSgt Dennis Dudley made Jan 17 at 2015 5:40 PM

2015-01-17T17:40:02-05:00

Yes there should be mandatory active duty service first. This gives the person a true sense and respect for military traditions, and appreciation for military discipline and need to follow orders.
I have seen reservists and guardsmen, that have no sense or feeling for the history and the whys of the military.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Jan 18 at 2015 9:14 AM

2015-01-18T09:14:07-05:00

In some specialties this might be appropriate, but in my experience RELADs have a low participation and retention rate. I think that once a person moves from active duty to civilian work it is easier to make a clean break. Being in the reserve is a huge commitment and requires a tremendous amount of time management and dedication for minimal benefits. Often a reservist only breaks even or will go in the hole financially at least in the short term just to stay in the reserve. The real benefit is retirement augmentation and that requires a 20 year commitment and plan.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 12:45 PM

2015-04-08T12:45:07-04:00

Why is the Reserve "mentality" a problem to be solved? Is it not possible that it is a strength instead?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-04-08T12:52:52-04:00

If that were required, folks like me wouldn't have come into the service. Definitely not saying that I'm God's gift to the AFR, but I'm sure my situation isn't unique. I joined the Reserves because I didn't want to give up my civilian career that I'd worked so hard to establish. I had been teaching for five years and I'd earned a Master's Degree in the subject. Plus, I love what I do. The Reserves allows me to have both careers. Ultimately, I will probably amass more than two years of active duty time, but not all at once, at least not for a while.

Response by CW4 Gregory Damms made Apr 8 at 2015 1:05 PM

2015-04-08T13:05:57-04:00

I spent 35 years Active, Reserve and National Guard before retiring in 2006. You are correct that there is a "different" mentality in the Reserves and more so in the Guard because the mission is different. They are not preparing for combat every day so priorities, training and attitudes change. It is not a lack of experience as it is a different way of looking at the mission.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Apr 8 at 2015 1:32 PM

2015-04-08T13:32:53-04:00

For most individuals it always help to have some active duty experience, however some of the best member have came out of the reserves. There should be no requirement to serve anything other than the one week end a month and two weeks per year! Its not broken so dont fix it!

Response by SFC Brian Simson made Apr 8 at 2015 1:42 PM

2015-04-08T13:42:16-04:00

AD lifestyle has a huge safety net...RC does not. AD folks who don't thing the RC doesn't measure up need go be put on indefinite deployment without RC backing them up in their bubble of superiority .

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Apr 8 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-04-08T14:09:23-04:00

No. There are a lot of people who prefer staying in the Guard or Reserve and have no interest in going on active duty except for basic and then annual training. Also many people are going to school full time and can't take the time out for 4 years of active duty. And there are active duty people who have no interest in joining the reserves.

Response by SPC Anthony Forgione made Apr 8 at 2015 2:19 PM

2015-04-08T14:19:36-04:00

I think it's a great idea. Speaking from experience with over nine years in a Infantry Guard Unit. I think one year or two would be extremely beneficial. The experience and knowledge of AD soldiers could only benefit the unit. The way I understand this discussion it's not about the Guards ability to fight rather the professionalism and customs,appearance of the individual soldier. The Guard soldiers I served with all wanted to be the best at everything, and never be out classed by any unit Guard or Active. I think many Guardsmen would be willing to do a few years AD.

Response by SMSgt Gordon Lau made Apr 8 at 2015 2:29 PM

2015-04-08T14:29:50-04:00

I agree. It will help give members some experience.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 2:48 PM

2015-04-08T14:48:28-04:00

"Immersed in the military lifestyle" is a fairly subjective phrase. Do Reserve component Soldiers have a more relaxed demeanor? Yes. Does this affect their performance during a deployment? I would argue that it does not.

My first question when receiving a new Soldier in the unit is whether she or he can do their job to or above standard. Proficiency is built at the unit level, whether Active, Guard, or Reserve. I have had excellent Soldiers who have spent their entire careers in the Guard and Soldiers just off Active duty that I wished I could give back, and vice-versa.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 2:56 PM

2015-04-08T14:56:37-04:00

I've been in the Army National Guard for 14 years, 10 of those as ADOS/AGR/Deployed status. First of all, I don't see an issue of a 'different mentality' as mentioned. We all go through the same training, the same requirement, and same deployments. We have the same standards as well, the ONLY difference is full-time vs. Part-time. I know many Soldiers who have never been part of Active Army who lack nothing in comparison. I would actually argue that it takes an immense amount of responsibility, accountability and self control to lead the two lives Reservists lead.

Response by CH (LTC) Jim Howard made Apr 8 at 2015 3:08 PM

2015-04-08T15:08:14-04:00

Most of the officers I served with in the Reserves had significant active duty service. I am also impressed with the professionalism of many of our younger reserve soldiers. Many have had multiple combat tours while deplyed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is not as great as some would have us believe.

Response by SFC Ronnie Seaton Jr made Apr 8 at 2015 3:21 PM

2015-04-08T15:21:24-04:00

No the Minute Men were founded on a reserve based force.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 3:28 PM

2015-04-08T15:28:36-04:00

I don't see that as necessary. I think the problem is that we are required to do all of the same mandatory briefings, classroom stuff, and whatnot. That leaves very little time for training in the essentials. I think whathe should be done are more correspondence type courses for mandatory classroom "death by powerpoint" things so when we arrive at drill, we're ready to "fight." Another big hole in the system is that AWTs and battle drills are required every 3 years! Wrong answer, they should be AT LEAST an annual requirement and should be combined seamlessly with our MOS training. What war are we going to be fighting where only our MOS is necessary? None, AWTs and BDs are needed no matter what MOS you are. Even 70 years ago drill and annual training resembled basic training in that it was constant training and field work. We should go back to that.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 3:32 PM

2015-04-08T15:32:51-04:00

I joined straight as a reservist back in 2004. In my MOS prior active duty experience is a plus but not required. Im still learning every day new things and its been 11 years already. I can take from what i currently do in my civilian occupation ( heavy aircraft maintainance) and apply it to my military field and viceversa. Its has only helped me to grow in both areas. So short answer is no. Dont need to have active duty time required to be a reservist.

Response by SGT Scott Cox made Apr 8 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-04-08T15:57:34-04:00

If a person is disciplined enough on active duty he or she should carry over to reserve duty. Sometimes the grass is not greener on the other side.

Response by Cadet PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 3:59 PM

2015-04-08T15:59:11-04:00

I think its great to have citizen members of our armed forces. Most reservist go for college benefits so the majority of them are trained in basic and are educated men and women. Also it is a bit of a broad statement due to different units different leadership and different mindset.

Response by CPT Patrick M. made Apr 8 at 2015 4:01 PM

2015-04-08T16:01:33-04:00

Got to say no. First is the retention and recruiting hurdles although that isn't your point. Making AD a requirement would put a lot of people out of contention right off the bat. But to go to your point, I think you're trying to discuss the military bearing and military mentality within the ranks.

Frankly, I'm one of those guys that don't have the military mentality during drill weekend. I've got about 15 years of experience, 3-5 years of which are in AD. But every time I go to a school, deployment, or extended AD period, I'm still the laid back guy I am in the civilian world. I set myself apart from the clean cut hooah-hooah guys (and gals) I'm surrounded by. However, I never loose my military bearing or professionalism.

In the civilian world (which pays my bills), I'm a professional business man. I make decisions and network with people WITHOUT having the military authoritative right to give them the open hand point to get things done. Come drill weekend, I'm working with those same people. It works for us. It works for a lot of people. Drives the AD guys crazy come MOB station. But objectives are met, meetings are held, MDMP happens (although maybe even quicker and with good banter).

But like I say at work all the time... what's the so-what? What's the objective? Is it to have a bunch of guys able to line up and march everywhere they go? Or is it to have a problem solving, enemy butt-kicking, OPORD writing, trench digging, rifle shooting cohesive team that saves the world? My squad of firefighter, business owner, IT guy, pest control, pilot, and truck driver guys can do all of that.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 4:13 PM

2015-04-08T16:13:40-04:00

I would have to say NO. I spent 10 year AD before I went to the NG for a year and then to the reserves. I had a lot of biases when I first transitioned and it is very difficult to shut off the military mind, but when I depolyed with the reserve unit I realised that they do know their job and so have the discipline to perform. Like many others have said the m-day or TPU soliders bring their civilian experience to the work place also. Now are they all the best disciplined soldier no but I do know I had more issues from my AC soldiers than I have ever had from my traditional reservist. I am now AGR and have been for 6 years and I love it. The reservist have the experience and deployments needed to perform the same if not better than the AC counterparts. As for the mentality some are just more laid back and as long as the mission is getting accomplished there is nothing wrong with that leadership style.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 4:44 PM

2015-04-08T16:44:40-04:00

I've spent 7 years in the Army National Guard. I started as an Intel Analyst. I went on to deploy with 20th SFG. I went to Airborne School after the deployment. I later transferred to an Infantry unit. I got reclassed to Infantry. I graduated Army Sniper School and became a team leader in the Sniper Section. I'm back in Intel right now. I must be undisciplined. I must have no respect for superiors or traditions. Yup, I should've gone active duty first.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 5:07 PM

2015-04-08T17:07:34-04:00

I'm not quite sure a mandatory Active Duty period would do much in regards to discipline or experience. Many Reservists and Guard have deployed numerous times.

Disciplinary problems and lack of experience aren't exclusive to the reserve components. Actually, the most lazy soldiers I have ever had the displeasure to meet were in my AD unit. I'd take one reserve component SM over three of those guys any day.

I think the problem lies in the lack of enforcement of standards. It's a leadership fail, no matter what the status. Throughout my career, I have known soldiers who have never served in a traditional "full-time" unit, but they knew their stuff and I'd bet my retirement on the fact that no AD soldier would know the difference.

That PVT, right out of Basic and AIT won't know either, so we have a choice to teach him or her how to be one of those soldiers.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 5:24 PM

2015-04-08T17:24:45-04:00

As someone who did 3 years Active Army before switching to the Guard and now has 13 years in total, I don't agree. I left Active Army in no small part because of some of the ridiculous rules and out of touch things they pushed. I actually work full time for the Guard now and love it. Guess what, this is going to blow some people's minds, but I do PT five days a week . . . by myself, when I want, and wearing whatever I want. Heck, I even take my dogs running with me off leash in the park for my PT when the weather is nice. You have to remember that it takes all types and if the organization doesn't seem like a good fit for you personally that doesn't mean the organization needs to change.

Response by SGT David Commini made Apr 8 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-04-08T17:43:28-04:00

No active duty should not be required. As others have mentioned, the experience you can pull from is an amazing tool. For instance, when my unit was deployed back in 03 they were some of the first ones to have wooden floors and electricity in their tents. Other units asked how they did all of this by themselves because they were only MPs, then it was revealed that many had civilian jobs as electricians and carpenters.

Response by SGT William Hardy made Apr 8 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-04-08T17:43:46-04:00

I was a troop in the 11th ACR in Fulda in the 80's then finished my career in the National Guard while in the Guard I deployed to OEF and OIF the bulk of the troops had never been active duty and served with distinction the idea that a guardsman or reservist should be active first is ludicrous the Guard and Reserves on average have a higher education and maturity level and handle any situation they are placed in

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 8 at 2015 5:45 PM

2015-04-08T17:45:59-04:00

SGT Garrett Butterfield,

So you take a unit in Western Nebraska and make it a Truck Company. You have Farmers, Ranchers, kids that have grown up around heavy equipment. Most of them own guns and have hunted for many years, I leaned to shoot a .22 when I was 5 from my father, he to served in the Army. Then add in teachers, law enforcement, carpenters, a computer technician, you have a very broad base of skill sets to draw from.

This changes the picture a little does it not. I have served on both sides of the fence, yes when I was active I thought the RC's to be a bunch of rag bags. Well they don't have a lot of time to practice D & C and other Garrison dog and pony shows. They train to get the job done.

Just due to the culture that people have in rural places like I am from are more capable than you think, many of the civilians can shoot as good as or better than most soldiers. I have seen guys drop a coyote at 300 yards on a dead run. My second deer was taken at about 400 yards running away from me, I think I was 16 at the time. My Father could shoot a fence post at a quarter mile with open sites (No Scope).

There is a rifle range not far from where I live where they have 1000 yard range and people from all over the area come to compete.

Things I leaned to do on active duty when not doing my MOS. Buffing floors, mowing grass, raking leaves, police calls, stand in line, painting, and what ever other detail some one could come up with.

Response by PO3 Alfred Moessner made Apr 8 at 2015 5:50 PM

2015-04-08T17:50:38-04:00

If I had my way we would have mandatory military service for all 18 year old physically able to serve. Male and female. Two years active duty, two years active reserves and four inactive status.

Response by SPC Daniel Killam made Apr 8 at 2015 5:52 PM

2015-04-08T17:52:25-04:00

No, not at all. TRADOC must ensure that the individual entering service has the tools necessary to meet the standard. I have met many soldiers who, by my measure, should simply never have joined the military, regardless of active or reserve component.
Requiring active service prior to eligibility for reserve component creates a path toward conscription, undermines the standing strength of the reserve component itself (from an administrative pov), and also creates an avenue for a sort of forced retirement. Think about it. You have PVT snuffy in your platoon and he's a dirtbag. he serves his 4, then wants to go to pldc (or whatever bs warrior training you call it now). You think "HELL no! Send him to the reserves or kick him out." He takes option A because he wants a 20 year letter.
Your question is not born of practicality, but one of personal preference, and that is NOT how our military makes decisions.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 5:59 PM

2015-04-08T17:59:10-04:00

PO1 Clark mentioned what was called for a time ARI or Active Reserve Integration, the whole one team one fight thing. Sadly, even after pretty serious integration during the last 13 years, it remains a hit or miss wrt what the mindset of the AD member will be. I just finished an exercise in Korea where junior officers were mouthing off about reservists, not realizing that four of the CDRs around them were such beasts. And a couple of those had more active time than 3 or 4 of these JOs combined! They were too junior to have been in Iraq or AFG, so I can only surmise the attitude came from somewhere else, or a total lack of understanding.

That said, to the original point, could new accessions use a bit more time at the front end? Now that IAs are winding down, probably. We have a slew of DIRCOMs in the Navy (direct commission, i.e., the Commissioning Fairy visits and waves a wand...boom! you're an Ensign!) They could use either active duty "MOS" schools for the experience, or a few months of some sort of extended active training to just get focused, snap in. Like, learn not to call O6s "dude" and simple stuff like that! ;-)

Response by SSG Eric Eck made Apr 8 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-04-08T18:01:14-04:00

It's not a bad idea, but it's not a good idea either. This would make reserve units smaller and harder to fill, just because some people who would only want to be in a reserve unit might change their mind after being active and stay there instead. Then there are some people who would not legally be able to go active for one reason or another but can still join a reserve unit, they would be left out of serving. I have known people in such situations that made good part time soldiers then after being in for awhile were able to transfer to an active unit.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 8 at 2015 6:20 PM

2015-04-08T18:20:53-04:00

To a point I agree. There are the RC attitude that I don't have to listen, or do it that way because I'm the "Guard". I have been both sides. they think because they are in the guard that the Regs don't apply to them or that they are coming off orders what are you going to do to me. I'll go home and it will all go away! I think that a small active stint would do the trick to some extent but then would revert back to the same old same ole!

Response by LTC Brian Croteau made Apr 8 at 2015 7:40 PM

2015-04-08T19:40:26-04:00

Fully agree w/ SMSgt posting. Reservists bring civilian skills that only-ever-been-active-duty folks can't hope to replicate. I commanded a USAR Supply Company, under a Supply & Services Bn HQ. The Bn Cdr was VP Technical Services for California Portland Cement & a PhD p/t prof at a college, the XO was a City Planner, the S3 a Support Functions manager for a manufacturing company the SP4 Legal Clerk had just graduated law school & passed the bar exam... And so it goes. The active-duty CPT who was my unit evaluator was blown away.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 7:45 PM

2015-04-08T19:45:41-04:00

While a great idea that would be practically impossible. I could see each Guardsman or Reservist spending 6 months to a year with an active component unit after IET but who would pay for it?

I am one of many in the Guard who have significant active duty experience and use what I learned "growing up" on active duty to be a better officer in the Guard. I would also add that the experience gained by Guardsmen and reservists since 9/11 has certainly made it a better force. But I will add that there are many great Soldiers, NCOs and Officers in the reserve component who never served with the regular Army.

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Apr 8 at 2015 9:07 PM

2015-04-08T21:07:11-04:00

Having spent time in a guard unit comprised mostly of members who joined straight out of high school with NO other work experience or active duty time, even the full time personnel, I fully agree with your proposal. A minimum of 1 or 2 yearsnof active duty with time outsidenof the countey would be a great improvement for some troops. While few units may be this bad and many possessing far more mature troops to begin with, I fail to see how aan AD requirement with available waivers for "experienced troops" would be detrimental.

Response by SGT Stephen Johnson made Apr 8 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-04-08T21:14:38-04:00

That's not a good idea because you will not get the people experienced in certain areas. The medical corp for example, doctors and nurses will not take 2 years out of their lives, especially at military pay, serve active duty to be reservist. But this could work if they are recruited out of high school, send them to Basic and AIT, then pay for their college education, then have them serve for 4 or more years. I change my mind. This could work.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-04-08T21:40:26-04:00

Reserves bring a wealth of experience to the force; many jobs have civilian acquired skills ( ie first responders, medical, engineers) some are former active duty; others not. Of course many reservists/guard members get active duty anyway many times in combat. Also if an active tour were required, it would be hard to get the enlistment/appointment quotas needed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 11:32 PM

2015-04-08T23:32:41-04:00

I have been NG for over 13 years and my experience has been wonderful. N G soldiers bring common sense to any mission.

Response by SSG Bill Ploof made Apr 8 at 2015 11:41 PM

2015-04-08T23:41:56-04:00

I would have to disagree with this. I am a retired National Guard member. I spent over 30 years in the Guard in a Artillery unit. During my time I was not called to active duty but during that time I saw some well trained soldiers in this unit. After I retired the unit I served in was called in to service in Afghanistan. Some of them did not make it home. I would never have considered them any less a soldier then someone who was full time active duty. I currently have a son who is a Captain in Germany and a daughter who is a LT in the National Guard. I consider them both good soldiers in the Army.. There is times that a person cannot serve full time but can still serve their Country

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 12:03 AM

2015-04-09T00:03:28-04:00

Reserves not as much as most are assigned to active duty bases.
Plus those that are stand alone like Westover are amazing best mechanics I have deployed with. Guard yes hands done.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 1:22 AM

2015-04-09T01:22:14-04:00

First of all, what experience do you have in the reserves? Or did you mean this post for reserve and national guard?

I don't feel you have truly been exposed to what the Reserves has to offer. On drill weekends a month of active duty training has to be shoved into 2-4 days. Leadership has a lot to do with motivation, urgency, and training. Different units have different priorities and mission functions. If you are not comfortable in your current unit put in a request to transfer - try another unit out. There are some very high speed, capable, and competent units out there.

I've been in the Reserves almost 12 years and have worked with some great people. I have served in a few units that were a little more relaxed on customs and courtesies, but they made up for it in skill sets.

A rule to be active duty prior to reserve/guard membership would significantly reduce our forces. The reserve/guard purpose is a on-call/backup for active duty; in a way preventing the draft. These individuals that serve a Citizen Soldiers are provided the same initial training as active duty and are on standby in the even more troops are needed. The added benefit is education and hands on experience in a vast variety of jobs. 1 reservist/guardsman may be the equivalent of 2-4 different active duty jobs.

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Apr 9 at 2015 1:38 AM

2015-04-09T01:38:35-04:00

If it is just boot camp then more more time in active service should be required. but from what I have seen in the past and now the tine spend in boot camp followed by training in speciality fillowed with 3 to 6 months practical experience should be enough militry "lifestyle" for a reservists to swap from civilian back to military and back again.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 9:22 AM

2015-04-09T09:22:08-04:00

There is a different culture in the Reserve components. As a member of the National Guard, we do not "live" the active duty lifestyle. We are civilians with a military ethos. Just like Active Component, we have a wide range of focus and dedication from each individual soldier because we have to juggle full-time civilian jobs, college and other demands while being available 24/7 for service requirements all at the same time. Our families may be spread out for many miles making it difficult when we are deployed to help support each other emotionally like active component can. Reserve components bring more real world experience with them to the fight than active component because we have more life experience, multiple skillsets, prior active component soldiers, as well as experience multi-tasking. The demographic for Active component are younger soldiers right out of High School and College who may or may not have any skills outside ofnwhat they will learn in AIT. We work better with local civilian populations since we live as civilians for the majority of our time. We have demonstrated through OIF, OEF and past conflicts, that we are fully capable to carry out our missions with less real time training. If anything, it is the Reserve component soldiers who are more adept at an ever changing combat environment and capable of doing more with less. We may not appear as real soldiers in the etes of many active duty soldiers because of the active mentality but Inassure you we can perform at or above the level of many active component units.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 10:09 AM

2015-04-09T10:09:46-04:00

[edit] Other people are providing much better thought out answers than I have, so here's take two.

That logic is somewhat flawed, the national guard and the reserves have both deployed many soldiers and units who have acted admirably in theater. It can be quite challenging to maintain a unit wide RL1 status in the National Guard when you are faced with the same requirements as Active Duty, but only have around 40 days a year to meet them. Because of that, and because of the multitude of civilian backgrounds, Guardsmen are bringing a lot to the table in terms of outside of the box solutions and additional support you might not think of. There is nothing that Active Duty first program like that will bring to the table that isn't already here.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 11:55 AM

2015-04-09T11:55:32-04:00

At this point I would say no that one should not be required to serve in an active duty capacity prior to joining a reserve unit. That's the point of basic training. Having said that however, I was in the National Guard while in Army ROTC in nursing school. This was pre 9-11 and I must say I was pretty disgusted with the "weekend drills" of the National Guard that consisted of setting up a keg of beer, drinking it on Friday night, then starting IVs on each other Saturday morning to deal with the hangovers. I can only speak for my unit, but my guess was that they were seriously unprepared for a medic deployment. I am willing to guess that there were other units in the same condition. 9-11 forced the guard and reserve units of all branches to maintain sustainment training in times of both high and low ops tempo.

Response by SPC William DeBlase made Apr 9 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-04-09T13:24:47-04:00

I would agree with the 2 year minimum active duty and a longer basic training and AIT to be in the reserves of any branch this would weed out those who don't want to be all they can be. And make for a stronger reserve components.

Response by SGT Jason Campbell made Apr 9 at 2015 3:30 PM

2015-04-09T15:30:16-04:00

In My Opinion, We only need the active duty components to keep up the post and test our equipment.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 4:08 PM

2015-04-09T16:08:42-04:00

As a reservist with zero active duty experience: The current process works. The Navy spent zero money on my nursing education and they got a fully qualified BSN to serve. As a civilian I work as a nurse full-time; maintaining my continuing education requirements and training. I'm still waiting on the signing bonus, but the pay-out is much lower than what it would cost to put me through nursing school via ROTC.

From personal experience; DCO class 15030 PAPA Co. was full of professionals; some were priors and some were not. Classmates that were priors had an easier time with the course, but we all made it through.

If prior service were required to enlist/commission into the reserves we would end up missing many proud Americans who are willing to serve.

Response by MSgt Jim Bain made Apr 9 at 2015 7:24 PM

2015-04-09T19:24:46-04:00

I do not agree that it be a requirement to be active, before a reserve or guard commitment!
Having served both active and in the Air National Guard, I have experienced both sides of the coin. The young men and women I served with in the Guard that had no prior service, learned from their service schools, their fellow airmen, and plain old experience on the job.
Our flying officers, for the most part held airline jobs that kept them in the air a lot, that and their flying hours at our base probably kept them in the cockpit more than the active duty folks. I know one thing, our Wing , our squadron kept right up with the active duty types, when it came to the many competitions , we won a heck of a lot of them, and when it came to the real thing overseas, we did our job and kept up with the best of them, and the young men and women that kept those planes flying, God Bless 'em! I can not speak for the other services, but I am sure many of their NCO's, like myself, would agree!

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 9:46 PM

2015-04-09T21:46:30-04:00

It all depends on the MOS. For example an 88M Motor Transportation. If a Soldier in the Reserves or National Guard as an 88M and is also a civilian over the road professional truck driver than that would work out great. Other examples would be; medical, law enforcement, IT techs, diesel mechanics, heavy equipment operators. etc, etc...alot of Reserve and National Guard Soldiers have civilian jobs that correspond with their MOS. I served in the Regular Army and in the Army Reserve and worked with High-Speed and not so High-Speed Soldiers in both.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 10:26 PM

2015-04-09T22:26:07-04:00

It might be nice to try and require that, however, most of the people who have a different mentality aren't the ones fresh from boot, it's the former active. We tend to not treat it the same as when we were on active duty. I don't know about the national guard but the navy had at one point the requirement to have been active to serve in the reserves; and I don't know if making it a requirement again to have served on active duty in order to be in the reserves would change the mentality.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 11 at 2015 10:38 AM

2015-04-11T10:38:03-04:00

No because it is not part of the career plan. I worked with a very large Reserve unit and made these observations: 1. Planning sucks because you have cadre making plans and passing the plans are to reserve leaders to refine, cross talk, and disseminate. This seems to be a difficult task. 2. Often the staff meeting is conducted the night before the drill, which does not offer much time for the troops to react to changes. 3. Many times the unit conducting annual training which eats up the weekend. This is the nature of the beast.

Response by CSM Carlson C. made Apr 14 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-04-14T13:18:29-04:00

I have served on Active Duty 12 years and currently have 5.5 years as a Reservist. Realistically, to truly understand the reasons why Reservists and National Guardsmen have the reputation, you would have to be a member. It would not be feasible and truly defeats the purpose to have a mandatory active duty requirement. It is extremely difficult to maintain a unit of part time military members with the exact same medical, physical and training standards as and active duty unit. Coming from the active side can give you a solid knowledge base however, that does not guarantee that you wouldn't be an oxygen thief and or dirtbag. I have met extraordinarily professional and knowledgeable individuals who have 100% reserve duty but would hold up to any active duty member and I have met Active Duty members who don't meet the standard. I have reduced and removed individuals from both Active and Reserve. There are reservist who have multiple deployments and active duty members who have none. It is not fair to compare and then denigrate them. The balance of the reserve requirements, family, school and work wears very heavily and there should be more respect given to them. It's the responsibility of the leadership and individual Soldiers to uphold the standards and provide clear mentorship to Soldiers in both active and reserve. It starts from the top. To be absolutely honestly, if I had stayed active, I'd probably still have the perception that most active duty have about the reserves.

My respect factor has skyrocketed substantially.

Response by PO3 Aaron Hassay made Apr 14 at 2015 10:52 PM

2015-04-14T22:52:31-04:00

Are we not all 1 nation? 1 Army? 1 Navy? 1 Air Force? 1 Marine's

Honestly I find the distinction of RESERVES as a way to somehow serve as a way to limit or somehow box 1's pride and dedication as RESERVIST VRs ARMY-NAVY-MARINE'S-AIR FORCE.

Until there is a seperate bootcamp-a seperate UCMJ-a seperate uniform-a seperate everything then we are all on the same team with different specialities and experiences and histories.

Being termed a RESERVIST can be considered slander in some cases, misleading in others, .

Response by Sgt Benjamin Moyer made Apr 14 at 2015 11:51 PM

2015-04-14T23:51:52-04:00

I acknowledge the perception of Reserve members being distinctively different from that of members of Active Duty. That's just like the distinction between branches of service. Truth being told, we all serve a purpose and it's up to those in charge to decide which task is given to to who. Yes, I believe our reserve component needs leadership from the active duty component. However, those transitioning from active duty to civilians would most likely transition better if serving as reserves for a good time as well. It's not easy going from one tour to another. Nor is it easy to start and stop being a Sgt at a civilian workplace.

Response by PO3 Aaron Hassay made Apr 15 at 2015 1:02 AM

2015-04-15T01:02:16-04:00

Has anything changed since this Congressional Report about Reserve's quote " anachronistic scheme for the provision of health care and related benefits to Reserve component"?

------ 1997 -----

Means of Improving the Provision of
Uniform and Consistent Medical and Dental Care to
Members of the Reserve Components

Report

To

Congress

Prepared by: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense For Reserve Affairs
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense For Health Affairs

INTRODUCTION

Section 746 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1997 directed the Department of Defense (DoD), in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a study and report to Congress on the means of improving the provision of uniform and consistent medical and dental care to members of the Reserve components (RCs). In response to this congressional requirement, two major areas were identified and evaluated: (1) reserve component health care and (2) force health protection. These topics encompass the circumstances under which medical and dental care may be provided to Reserve component service members and the means of meeting medical readiness standards for deploying those service members. To ensure a comprehensive review of the many issues related to the provision of medical care to reservists, the Department established a working summit, which included representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Active and Reserve components and the DoD medical community. Additionally, to support this evaluation, the Department also contracted with Birch & Davis Associates, Inc. The following report is submitted in response to section 746 and reflects the department�s assessments and recommendations. The report develops recommendations for ensuring that medical treatment, entitlements, and readiness for RC members are sufficient and in parity with those provided to Active component (AC) members. The recommendations will help ensure uniform and consistent health care and related benefits for RC members that correlate with duty status and risk of illness or injury.

BACKGROUND

During the Cold War, a reservist incurred limited exposure to potential hazards during periods of duty (active or inactive duty). The focus for the RC was on training for mobilization. The Reserve components consisted principally of a force whose use upon mobilization would be to provide augmentation and replacement manpower for the Active components. In contrast, the focus of the Active components was on fulfilling operational requirements.

Since the end of the Cold War, and with the drawdown of the force, the role of the Reserve components has changed, and the use of the RCs in the performance of operational missions has increased dramatically. Reservists are now providing daily support to military operations around the world. This increased use results in a significant increase in exposure to injury, illness, disease, and death in the line of duty. As shown in Exhibit 1, Reserve component man-day contributions to Total Force missions have increased ten-fold from a 1989 benchmark. At the same time, the overall strength of the Reserve forces has decreased by nearly one quarter. As a result, the average Reservist�s exposure to injury and illness has increased significantly.

Secretary Cohen�s goal for the 21st century is a seamless Total Force that integrates active and reserve components and provides the national command authority the flexibility and interoperability necessary for the full range of military operations. To achieve this goal, all residual barriers, structural and cultural, to integration of the Active and Reserve components of the force must be eliminated.

Current legislation and policy reflect the historic use of reservists by structuring medical and dental care, incapacitation, and disability entitlements according to length of assignment: 30 days or less or more than 30 days. However, it is the performance of duty, not the length of duty, that creates the risk for harm. Reservists now work side by side with AC members and perform the same missions as AC members. Yet, when a reservist is injured performing one of those missions, entitlement to health care, pay, and family support is different from that of the AC member. RC benefits currently are based on the length of duty rather than the performance of duty. The increased exposure to risk associated with increased reliance on the RC has resulted in an increasing number of line of duty injuries to reservists and has served to highlight the disparity between Active and Reserve component medical benefits and entitlements, despite exposure to similar levels of risk.

For example, on April 1, 1997, an Air Force Reserve C-130 aircraft crashed at Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Seven RC crew members survived this crash with incapacitating injuries. Although the survivors were entitled to incapacitation pay and medical treatment, prevailing restrictions precluded them from being retained on active duty for treatment of their injuries past the period of duty prescribed in their orders. Because length of duty status determines entitlements, their family members were not eligible for health care through the military�s TRICARE system. An Active or Reserve service member on orders for more than 30 days would have received retirement credit, pay and allowances, medical treatment for line of duty (LOD) injuries, comprehensive medical care for non-LOD conditions, and comprehensive medical care for family members. One survivor, who is married with three children under age five, noted, "I never thought in a million years that my family and I would not be covered if an accident occurred while serving my country." He also stated that, "If the Reservist/Guardsman knows that in a time of need, neither he nor his family will be protected, retention will be a serious problem�how can I continue to put my family in this predicament?" This example illustrates both the anachronistic scheme for the provision of health care and related benefits to Reserve component service members and the importance of modernizing the benefit scheme as a quality of life, force protection and recruiting and retention tool.

Increased use of the RC also heightens the importance of maintaining the medical and dental readiness of each member. Medical readiness issues begin at the time of entrance into military service with the induction physical examination and continue with routine medical fitness requirements throughout a military career. There is currently no uniform, DoD-wide rule on accountability and responsibility for providing health care services to RC members, creating a risk of inconsistent treatment of similarly situated individuals.

As mission demands, participation and potential exposure of reservists to harm increase, it is important to reassess the requirements for medical readiness and health care entitlements for Reservists, and health care entitlements for family members. A comprehensive and uniform approach to the provision of health care, force health protection and medical readiness is needed for the Reserve component career professionals who serve their country less than full-time. This study strives to make feasible legislative recommendations toward improvements in these issue areas. The broad goals of this study are to improve the medical readiness of the Reserve components and the Total Force and to ensure that medical treatment and entitlements for RC members are sufficient and in parity with those provided to AC members. The laws and policy governing health care for reservists must be brought up to date to reflect the realities of the current role and use of the RC.

Exhibit 1

RESERVE COMPONENT HEALTH CARE

Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component Members

The purpose of providing uniform medical and dental care for military members is to create and maintain readiness and high morale in the uniformed services. It is considered a vital element in maintaining a quality All Volunteer Force. The special character of military service, which is the basis for establishing a military healthcare system, also applies to members of the Reserve components when they are serving in a duty status.

A member of a Reserve component serving on active duty for more than 30 days is entitled to receive medical and dental care in any facility of any uniformed service as prescribed under section 1074 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.). This is the same coverage that is provided for members of the Active component. For members of the National Guard and Reserve serving shorter periods of active duty or performing inactive duty training, the situation is more complex.

Reserve component members who incur or aggravate an injury, illness or disease while performing a period of active duty that is 30 days or less, are entitled, under section 1074a of title 10, U.S.C., to the medical and dental care appropriate for the treatment of the injury, illness or disease. This section also applies to Reserve component members performing inactive duty training. In either case, the injury, illness or disease must be incurred or aggravated in the "line of duty" and must not be the result of gross negligence or misconduct by the member. Appropriate care is authorized until it is determined that further hospitalization or treatment cannot materially improve the disability that resulted from the injury, illness or disease. At this point, the member must be processed for disability retirement or separation if he or she can not be returned to full duty.

Portal-to-Portal Coverage

Section 1074a has been expanded over the years to provide what is often referred to as "portal-to-portal" coverage, that is, coverage from the time the Reserve component member leaves home for duty until his or her return. In 1983, appropriate medical and dental care was authorized for treatment of an injury incurred or aggravated while traveling to or from inactive duty training. In 1984, such care was authorized for members who contract diseases or become ill during inactive duty training.

In 1985, Congress plugged a significant gap in medical coverage for Reserve and Guard members by authorizing medical and dental care for Reserve component members who aggravate a disease or illness, to include a pre-existing disease, while in a duty status. Congress was especially concerned about members who suffered heart attacks or strokes during inactive duty training. This had become a greater problem with the heightened awareness of the need to ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserve meet physical fitness standards. In 1986, Congress further amended section 1074a to include hospitalization coverage for injuries and to provide more uniform medical and dental care for all National Guard and Reserve members.

More recently, medical coverage was extended to those members who overnight at or in the vicinity of the training site, prior to commencement of or in-between successive periods of inactive duty training. Ostensibly, this completed fairly comprehensive portal-to-portal coverage for Reserve component members when traveling to and performing, remaining overnight at, and returning home from training duty. However, some significant gaps in coverage remained.

Active Duty for 30 Days vs. 31 Days

Until recently, prevailing Comptroller General decisions precluded a Reserve component member from being continued on active duty in order to receive medical care. In decisions dating back to 1965 and 1975, members on active duty for 30 days or less, who were hospitalized or recovering from an injury in the line of duty, could not remain in an active military status beyond the last duty day prescribed by their original orders. The active duty could not be extended through a period of hospitalization. Another rule was that any subsequent injury during hospitalization could not be considered the result of active duty unless related to the original injury.

Like other aspects of reserve compensation, medical benefits and entitlements for Reserve component members and their dependents are based on the type and length of duty. The significant disparity between the medical benefits and protections afforded members on active duty for 30 days or less and those serving 31 days or more was highlighted by the increasing use of Reserve component members to perform operational mission support of short duration in the current post-Cold War period. These members were being exposed to the same type of hazardous risks as their Active component counterparts and Reserve members on longer tours of active duty. If disabled, the member was entitled to treatment for the injury or illness, but protection during the period of treatment or recovery, in the event of subsequent injury, illness or disease, was not provided for the member or his family.

Meanwhile, between 1996 and 1998, Reserve component support of day-to-day operations was more than double that provided from 1993 through 1995. The increase in required support was supplemented by greater flexibility to use Reserves operationally in a variety of duty statuses. The Department has never espoused healthcare for Reserve component members commensurate with that afforded the members of the Active force. However, Reserve members do expect to be covered in the event of becoming seriously disabled as a result of military service, such as in the crash of the C-130 in Honduras, when seven Reservists were injured and were recovering from their injuries for up to one year.

Correction of an Inequity

Both the Department and Congress recognized the potential for inequities in the coverage provided members on active duty for 30 days or less vice those serving 31 days or more. In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1998, medical coverage provided in section 1074a was expanded for members serving on active duty for 30 days or less, whose orders are modified or extended so as to result in active duty of more than 30 days. In such cases, the member is now entitled to medical and dental care on the same basis and to the same extent as members covered under section 1074 (Active component members).

This change applies to Reserve component members who are being treated for or recovering from an injury, illness or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, while performing active duty for a period of 30 days or less. In addition, the dependents of a member whose orders are extended are entitled to medical and dental care provided under section 1076 while the member remains on active duty. This important change in Reserve component benefit protections does not address members who sustain a disabling injury or disease while performing inactive duty training.

Inactive Duty Training

Inactive duty training is defined in DoD regulations as "authorized training performed by members of a Reserve component not on active duty, and performed in connection with the prescribed activities of the Reserve component of which they are a member." It consists of regularly scheduled unit training periods, additional training periods and equivalent training. While the primary purpose is to provide individual and unit readiness training, it may also support Active component mission requirements concurrent with the performance of training.

This expanded use of inactive duty training provides increased flexibility for employment of Reserve forces in support of Total Force missions. It also creates the potential for a member in an inactive duty training status to serve alongside a member on active duty. In the event of serious injury, the difference in medical entitlements during the period of treatment and recovery for the two categories of members and their dependents, based on the member's respective duty status, becomes readily apparent. The member on inactive duty for training has no orders that can be extended or modified to entitle the member to the same care and benefits as a similarly affected Reserve component member on active duty. This also has a significant effect on the member�s dependents. Specifically, the member in the inactive duty training status is not eligible for health care for conditions other than the injury incurred in a duty status, and the dependents of the member are not entitled to health care in the military health system.

The dependents of a Reserve component member who dies from an injury, illness or disease incurred or aggravated while performing inactive duty training are entitled to continuing medical and dental care. However, the dependents of a member being treated for or recovering from a life threatening or other serious disability as a result of inactive duty training would not be entitled to medical or dental care under the military healthcare system.

Medical and Dental Care for Dependents of Reserve Component Members

Family members and other dependents of Reserve component personnel serving on active duty for more than 30 days are entitled, under section 1076 of title 10, U.S.C., to the medical and dental care prescribed by section 1077 of title 10, U.S.C. The latter section lists the specific types of health care authorized for eligible dependents. Entitlement is subject to the availability of space, facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff. Such coverage also applies to a dependent of a member who dies while serving on active duty, regardless of the length of that duty, or who dies while traveling to or from the place at which duty was to be performed, to include inactive duty for training.

Transitional medical and dental care is provided for a member and his dependents under section 1074b of title 10, U.S.C., immediately following the member�s service on active duty in support of a contingency operation. Upon release from active duty, the member and his dependents are entitled to the health care available under section 1076 or the health benefits contracted under section 1079(a) of title 10, U.S.C., for up to 30 days or until the member and his dependents are covered by an employer-sponsored health plan, whichever is earlier. Care under the transition authority does not depend on establishing that an injury, illness or disease was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty.

With respect to dental care, the Secretary of Defense has the authority, under section 1076a of title 10, U.S.C., to establish basic dental benefits plans for eligible dependents of uniformed service members who are on active duty for more than 30 days. To assure adequate premium collections to cover program costs, the department requires that the sponsor have at least two years of service obligation remaining in order to enroll his or her dependents in the dental insurance program. Currently, about 1.7 million dependents are enrolled in the DoD dependents� dental program, or 80% of those eligible for this contract program. The authority to establish a Selected Reserve dental insurance plan is provided under section 1076b. This plan is authorized only for members of the Selected Reserve, other than those ordered to active duty for more than 30 days. It is not available for dependents.

Dependents of Reserve component members serving in a duty status are in a unique situation. They are generally not accustomed to relying upon the military healthcare system, and most are not located near military treatment facilities. For these reasons, and in order to maintain the continuity in their health care, many dependents would prefer to retain their civilian medical providers, when their Reserve component sponsor is ordered to active duty. However, escalating costs in such circumstances can make it infeasible for members to retain their civilian health care program when serving on active duty.

Health Care Protection Under USERRA

A Reserve component member does have the option of continuing health coverage under his or her civilian employer-sponsored plan. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) enacted in 1994, now chapter 43 of title 38, U.S.C., provides for full health benefit continuation for persons who are absent from work to serve in the military. Health insurance coverage may be continued for the member and his or her dependents for up to 18 months during periods of military service. For a member who is ordered to active duty for 30 days or less, the employer may require the member to pay only his normal employee share. However, for longer tours, the Reserve employee may be required to pay the full premium cost. If the employer requires the Reservist employee to pay most or all of the premium cost, this may discourage the Reservist from remaining in the employer-sponsored health care plan.

If a member chooses not to continue his or her civilian health coverage during the period of military service, the member nevertheless retains the right to immediate reinstatement of the coverage upon returning to the civilian job. However, coverage does not extend to an injury, illness or disease determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to have been incurred or aggravated during military service. If unable to report back to his or her civilian employer because of a service-connected injury, illness or disease, a Reserve member retains the right to reemployment for up to two years (may be extended), but may not have civilian health care reinstated until reporting back to the civilian employer.

In conjunction with the authorities in title 10 governing military health care for both the member and his dependents, USERRA provides a safety net. But that safety net still has some holes. These problems were alluded to in the discussion of health care for dependents. The first problem that may arise is the loss of medical coverage for the member and his dependents if the period required for recovery from an injury, illness or disease incurred while performing inactive duty training extends beyond 18 months. Even if the member elects to extend his civilian medical coverage under USERRA, he and his family would be without coverage after 18 months. The second problem relates to the potential cost of maintaining an employer sponsored health plan. Many reservists do not live close to a military medical treatment facility. They must depend on civilian health care. The cost of maintaining a civilian-sponsored health plan may be prohibitive if the member is required to pay the entire premium for maintaining that coverage. This could make continuing civilian coverage problematic for a Reserve component member.

DoD Summit on Reserve Component Health Care

To fully address the requirements contained in section 746 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1997, the Department established the DoD Reserve Health Care Summit. One of the principal objectives of the DoD summit was to ensure that those who become ill or injured as a result of military service receive appropriate health care and medical benefits. The summit intended to dispel any lingering disparity in benefits based on length of duty by establishing as a basic premise that "the performance of duty, not the length or type of duty determines a service member�s risk and exposure to harm." This proposition recognizes that Reserve component members now work side by side with Active component members performing many of the same missions and accepting comparable risks.

The summit concluded that basing benefits on length of duty or duty status creates a disparity in benefits for Reserve component members. Even though an injury, illness, or disease was incurred or aggravated while performing duty, the benefits a member is entitled to could be different depending on the length of the duty. Military members serving on active duty for 31 days or more not only receive treatment for any injury, illness, or disease sustained, but are also entitled to comprehensive health care for themselves and their dependents for any other medical conditions that may arise. Reserve component members who are not continued on active duty beyond 30 days after sustaining an injury, or who sustained the injury while performing inactive duty training, may be entitled to treatment for the condition, but are not covered for any other unrelated health care problems that may arise for the member or the member�s family. The DoD summit on Reserve component healthcare attempted to address these discrepancies.

Moreover, the summit addressed medical readiness requirements for Reserve component members. They studied the statutory and policy requirements as well as the implementation of those requirements. The summit found that there were also disparities that inhibited the Reserve components from achieving full medical readiness. These will be discussed in the Health Protection section of this report.

Interpreting Statutory Language

The summit determined that certain inconsistencies in authorized medical care or treatment for Reserve component members stem from varying interpretations of the terminology contained in applicable provisions of law. The piecemeal nature of many of the amendments to section 1074a over the years has contributed to this result. The intent of specific language may not be entirely clear, which can lead to inequities for many Reserve component members.

For example: Is a Reserve component member who sustains an injury after stopping to pick up a child at the day care center while returning from inactive duty training considered to be injured while traveling "directly" from the place of duty? In establishing a comparable standard of reasonableness for veterans benefits, title 38, U.S.C. provides for taking into account such factors as the hours of travel involved, the method of travel employed, the itinerary, and the manner in which the travel was performed. No comparable standard has been provided for disabilities incurred during travel under applicable title 10 U.S.C. provisions.

Other examples include: Is a member remaining overnight between successive training periods covered if involved in an automobile accident while driving to dinner off base? Clearly, the member was not in a duty status; however, the member was between successive inactive duty training periods. Although 1985 legislation which provided medical care for aggravation of pre-existing disease was termed the "heart attack" provision, is a member covered if underlying atherosclerosis existed long before any possible aggravation resulting from training duty? The summit determined that these questions of interpretation and those in other situations arise from a lack of specificity in the law and DoD regulations.

Recommendation 1. There are no accompanying definitions in the law to describe specifically what constitutes "incurring" or "aggravating" an injury, illness or disease in the "line of duty." The summit recommended that these and other terms be clearly defined in statute or DoD regulation. Clearly defined statutory language will provide the basis for the Department to develop a standard of "reasonableness" in its policy interpretations. Also, health care benefits for members on full-time National Guard duty and Reserve component members in a non-pay status need to be clarified in law or DoD regulation.

Protecting Members on Inactive Duty for Training

Protecting Members on Inactive Duty for Training

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1998 provided the authority to modify or extend the orders of a Reserve component member, who is disabled in the line of duty while serving on orders to active duty of 30 days or less. If the extension, which covers the period of treatment or recovery, results in the modified orders exceeding 30 days, the Reserve component member would become entitled to the same medical and dental care as an Active component member. He or she would also be entitled to any other benefits that relate to active duty status.

Approximately 1,100 Reserve component members become incapacitated each year. About 15% of these cases occur while the member is in an inactive duty training status. Currently these members receive treatment only for the service-related injury, illness or disease. The total cost of this limited health care is about $100,000 per year. It is estimated that placing these incapacitated Reserve members on active duty to provide them with full benefits during the period of treatment and recovery would cost an additional $200,000 per year. This cost takes into consideration the amount of time the member will be incapacitated and the probability that the member has or will be able to continue other health insurance.

There is an average of 2.2 dependents per Reserve component member. Currently, the dependents of Reserve members who are incapacitated while serving on inactive duty for training are not entitled to medical care under the military healthcare system. Placing the incapacitated Reserve member on active duty during treatment and recovery would result in an additional DoD expense of approximately $500,000 per year to cover the estimated cost of providing health care for their dependents. The summit recommends that Reserve and Guard members on inactive duty for training and their dependents be provided full medical protection and other active duty benefits during the period they are being treated for or are recovering from a service-incurred or aggravated injury, illness or disease.

Recommendation 2. If a member of a Reserve component is injured, becomes ill or contracts disease in the line of duty while performing inactive duty training, there should be authority to place the member on active duty, during the period of treatment for or recovery from the injury, illness or disease. A legislative amendment that would achieve this recommendation is included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Recommendation 3. RC members are frequently required to remain overnight in the field in an Inactive Duty status. Consideration should be given to providing medical coverage for Reserve component members who are injured or become ill while remaining overnight at the site of inactive duty training between successive training periods, even if they reside within reasonable commuting distance. These members may be training late into the evening or performing duty early in the morning which could make commuting to and from their residence impractical. This requires new legislation.

Waiver of CHAMPUS (TRICARE) Deductible

When Reservists are ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation, they often experience income and other economic loss along with the personal stress of activation and deployment. These latter stresses are exacerbated by family and employer concerns. When such pressures are coupled with concern for affordable health care for family members, who are left behind, it creates a burden on Reserve members that may be disproportionate even to that experienced by deploying active duty members.

In general, National Guard and Reserve members ordered to active duty for more than 30 days and their families are entitled to medical treatment on the same basis as other active duty members. Their family members are eligible for TRICARE Standard. However, the normal TRICARE deductible requirement, $100-300 per family per year, can present an inequity for Reserve component families.

Family members of Reservists and Guardsmen are often not located near military treatment facilities or other lower cost, military-managed health care programs. Additionally, family members of Reserve component members who are ordered to active duty for less than six months are not eligible for TRICARE Prime, the Department�s HMO-like option which has no annual deductible and requires only nominal co-payments. It was felt that enrolling family members of individuals ordered to active duty for less than six months would add a costly administrative expense to TRICARE Prime. Thus, Reserve component members may find the health care options for their families restricted to TRICARE Standard, the most costly option for military members.

In addition to their TRICARE annual deductible, Reserve component members may have already satisfied or may be in the process of satisfying an annual deductible under their civilian health care coverage. It is anticipated that few Reservists would willingly drop their civilian health care coverage and their family members� regular medical practitioners when they are placed on active duty, unless such coverage becomes too expensive to retain.

In 1996, in an effort to improve access to health care and to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Reserve component members ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation, the Department of Defense developed a demonstration project. The demonstration project waived the annual deductible under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS/TRICARE) for the families of Guardsmen and Reservists ordered to active duty for more than 30 days in support of Operation Joint Endeavor conducted in and around the former Yugoslavia.

The annual cost of waiving the TRICARE deductible for dependents of Reserve component members serving on active duty in support of a contingency operation would be dependent upon the number of Reservists called to active duty, for less than one year, who have family members eligible for TRICARE. Based on the historical experience of the Bosnia call-up from 1996 through 1998, an average of 2,700 Reserve component dependent users filed claims annually. The cost of waiving the deductible for this size population is conservatively estimated at $800,000 per year. This estimate is based on a deductible of $300 per user, which does not take into consideration the lower deductible amounts for Reservists with one family member or those in the grade of E4 and below.

Recommendation 4. Provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to waive or reduce TRICARE annual deductible amounts (currently $300 for most families) in the case of dependents whose Reserve component sponsor is ordered to active duty for less than one year. This discretionary authority would be applied to Reserve component personnel ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10 United States Code). In addition to reducing potentially inequitable out-of-pocket expenses, such discretionary authority would enhance National Guard and Reserve members� satisfaction with military service and the military healthcare system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 includes a provision to accomplish this recommendation.

Reserve Component Dental Care

A large number of Guardsmen and Reservists mobilized during the Persian Gulf War did not meet the dental readiness standards required for deployment. Reportedly, as many as one-quarter of those mobilized could not be deployed until they completed dental examinations and associated treatment. The effort to meet these dental requirements placed considerable strain on mobilization facilities and the military dental care system. Concern for maintaining dental readiness in the Reserve forces, prompted Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996, to direct the Department to establish a dental insurance program for members of the Selected Reserve.

The TRICARE Selected Reserve Dental Program (TSRDP), authorized by section 1076(b) of title 10, U.S.C., has been in effect since October 1997. To enroll in the program, a Reservist must have at least one-year remaining of his or her commitment to serve in the Selected Reserve. While an estimated 640,000 Reserve members are eligible for the program, enrollment, as of March 1999, is about 27,000 National Guard and Reserve members, considerably lower than the 200,000 initially projected. These initial projections were based on survey data indicating that nearly one-third of all Reservists and Guardsmen had no civilian dental insurance.

The Department is continuing its extensive efforts to increase awareness of TSRDP and thereby increase enrollment in the program. A quick survey and focus groups, conducted to determine the reasons for low enrollment, identified several concerns that may limit Reserve component member participation in the program. Concerns with the current program include: the limited provider network, the lack of a family member option and the reduced benefits compared to comparable private sector dental programs.

Recommendation 5. The dental program for the Reserve components be expanded to include a more comprehensive benefits package, not just basic coverage as currently provided in the law. In addition, a family option needs to be offered, at no cost to the government. Merging the TSRDP into the TRICARE Family Member Dental Program may be a cost-effective option. Combining these programs would provide uniform dental benefits for Selected Reserve members and their dependents comparable to those provided for active duty dependents. The expanded benefits and family option would address the concerns expressed by National Guard and Reserve members. Without increased enrollment in the Selected Reserve dental program or merging it into the Active family member dental program, the cost of maintaining the current TSRDP as a separate program may become prohibitive. A provision to implement this recommendation is included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Medical Insurance Protection

Reserve members have a personal responsibility to ensure that they are able to meet the medical readiness standards for deployment established by their component. However, there is a perception, especially within the DoD military medical community, that many Reserve component members may lack civilian health care coverage. There are a number of Reserve component members who are unemployed, seasonally employed, who work for small firms or are full-time students. The only data currently available on the extent to which Reserve component members have medical insurance coverage was obtained as part of periodic, comprehensive surveys of members and their spouses.

Recommendation 6. The department should conduct a study designed to determine the overall medical readiness of Reserve component members in order to determine prospectively their fitness for duty as well as DoD�s ability to monitor and access such information.

RESERVE COMPONENT FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION

Background

The 1997 report of the Department�s Quadrennial Defense Review emphasizes that with the approach of the 21st century, the readiness of U.S. military forces to meet the full range of defense strategy demands has never been more important. In recent years, DoD policy and budget guidance have explicitly made readiness the top priority.

An essential component of overall military readiness is medical readiness. It ensures a fit and healthy force for deployment and employment. DoD policy specifies that all service members, Active, National Guard and Reserve must be physically and mentally fit to carry out their missions. Defense guidance requires that resource programming to support medical readiness provide for comprehensive force health protection.

In today�s post-Cold War, post-drawdown environment, considerable force structure and operational capability have been transferred to the Reserve components. Reserve forces are now critical to the successful conduct of military operations both in wartime and in peacetime. The medical readiness of the individual members comprising those forces is essential to ensuring the effective early use of Reserve forces in any operational scenario.

Historical Perspective

Prior to the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, there was no clearly established priority for ensuring that Reserve component members were prepared for mobilization. From the end of World War II through the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was continued concern about the readiness of Reserves for immediate mobilization. The Vietnam Conflict was sustained for nearly a decade through conscription and without a large-scale call-up of Reserves. With the advent of the Total Force Policy and the All Volunteer Force in the decade of the 1970s, the scope, size and criticality of missions assigned to the Reserve components began to increase dramatically.

The Persian Gulf War was the first use of the President�s involuntary call-up authority, under which nearly 270,000 Reserve component members were mobilized and served an average of nearly six months active duty. The Persian Gulf War highlighted both successes and failures with respect to providing force protection. Despite few casualties, the Department was not adequately prepared to deal with health issues that arose upon completion of the conflict. The difficulty in addressing the health-related problems of many Gulf War veterans, including a large number of reservists, was compounded by the lack of pre and post-deployment medical assessment data collected and maintained on deploying members.

Another watershed event occurred with the call-up of several thousand Reservists possessing skills predominantly resident in the RC to support an operational commitment in Haiti. This reflected the first use of the President�s involuntary call-up authority to support a relatively small-scale contingency operation. Limited scale call-ups continued for operations in Bosnia. Roughly 20,000 Reservists have now served an average of 8 to 9 months in support of these operations since December 1995.

Today, smaller force levels, smaller budgets and less overseas presence present a challenge to our military forces. As a result, Reserves are used more often to meet peacetime mission requirements and help reduce Active component operational burdens. In each of the last three years, the Reserve components have provided the equivalent of nearly 13 million workdays in direct support of the Active forces. This direct support was in addition to training and other duty performed during those years. Increased use of the RC heightens the importance of maintaining the medical and dental readiness of each RC member.T

Statutory Requirements

The military services are required under chapter 1007 of title 10, U.S.C. to maintain adequate and current personnel records of each Reserve component member�s physical condition and availability for service. The kind of duty to which the RC member is being assigned must be considered in determining the physical qualifications required for active duty. The law also provides that each Reserve component member will be examined as to physical condition at least once every five years if not more often. Finally, RC members are required to submit an annual certificate of physical condition.

Additional requirements have been established under section 1074a of title 10, U.S.C., specifically for Reserve component members of the Army who are assigned to early deploying units. The Army must provide these early-deployers with an annual medical and dental screening and the dental care identified during the annual screening. Early-deploying members over age 40 also must complete a full physical exam at least every two years.

Individual members of the Reserve components have a personal responsibility to maintain a medical condition that meets requirements for deployment. Section 10205 of title 10 U.S.C. requires that each member notify the military service concerning any change in physical condition that would prevent the member from meeting the physical or mental standards prescribed for his or her armed force. The military services establish dental readiness standards, physical fitness standards and require certain immunizations to support the medical fitness of their respective Active and Reserve forces and to ensure they are fully deployable.

Section 1074f of title 10, U.S.C. directs the Department to establish a system to assess the medical condition of members of the armed forces (including members of the Reserve components) who are deployed outside the United States or its territories or possessions as part of a contingency operation. The system must include the use of pre-deployment and post-deployment medical examinations to accurately record the medical condition of members before their deployment and any changes in their medical condition during or subsequent to the deployment. The law also requires centralized recordkeeping and quality assurance that system requirements are met.

Force Health Protection

DoD is developing a force health protection strategy for members who are subject to deployment. That strategy ensures physical fitness, continued health, and medical treatment at the right time and right location so that national objectives and military missions can be achieved. It is designed to benefit the Total Force and to support Joint Vision 2010. Force health protection provides a conceptual framework for optimizing health readiness and protecting service members from all health and environmental hazards associated with military service.

Medical and dental readiness and health promotion are key elements of this comprehensive management strategy. Also important to improving force health protection are the provision of better health information, more effective medical recordkeeping and a robust health surveillance system. Joint medical surveillance policy establishes the Department�s continuous responsibility to provide force health protection to all service members who are subject to deployment, who are deployed or who have completed a deployment. This policy ensures the collection, monitoring and assessment of information relating to the health status, health risks, and health consequences of deployments on individual service members and the military force as a whole.

Deployment health surveillance includes identifying the population at risk, recognizing and assessing hazardous exposures, employing specific countermeasures and monitoring health outcomes. Policies for the health surveillance of Reserve component members must be consistent with the policies established for the Active component. Medical information management is dependent upon an effective medical tracking system for retaining health and health-related data on all military members throughout their military service, and especially before, during and after deployments.

The Department is committed to improving its ability to assess and protect the health of military personnel during deployments. The health status, physical readiness and deployability of Reserve component members ordered to active duty during Operation Desert Storm were a subject of debate. While successful in supporting the overall military effort, mobilization operations revealed that some Reserve component personnel were not in proper medical or physical condition to deploy and perform wartime tasks.

Physical Exams

Although Reservists are career professionals serving on less than a full-time basis, the health and physical readiness demands placed on our Reserve forces are generally consistent with those of the Active force. Complying with the existing statutory requirement that a member be examined at least every five years means that approximately 270,000 Ready Reservists, including over 175,000 Selected Reserve members, require a physical examination each year. In addition, each of the nearly 1.4 million members of the Ready Reserve must submit an annual certificate of physical condition as prescribed in the existing statute.

The average cost to the military services of providing a physical exam ranges between $200 and $300 per examination. The estimated annual cost to the Department of meeting the requirement that each member of the Ready Reserve complete a physical exam every five years is $46 million. While Reserve component medical units may conduct these physical exams, this is often accomplished at the expense of essential mission-related training for these units. In addition, the medical force structure in the Reserve components has been substantially reduced, further straining the capability of medical units to meet examination requirements.

The benefits of a periodic physical exam have been a topic of discussion within the Department since Operation Desert Storm. The Army recently eliminated physical examinations for Active component members under age 30 with the exception of deployed members. The Air Force has implemented an extensive health assessment program in lieu of periodic physical exams. The value added by such exams is now considered marginal, nor do they promote health and wellness. Based on current research and medical practice, the focus of the Department for ensuring a ready force has shifted to the identification of risk factors and to health education.

Health risk behavior for Reservists is influenced by two distinctly different environments or cultures�one civilian and the other military. Since the mid-1980s, the Department has issued policy guidance encouraging military personnel and their families to adopt health promotion programs, including smoking prevention and cessation, physical fitness, nutrition, stress management, alcohol and drug abuse prevention and early identification of hypertension. The unique, part-time nature of Reserve service constitutes a challenge to providing preventative and health promotion programs for Reserve component members. Presently, there are few such military programs available to the reserve community. Also, research is needed to describe factors related to the health and physical fitness of Reservists compared with their Active component and civilian counterparts.

Physical Exam Recommendations

DoD medical programming guidance currently directs the military services to ensure that all RC personnel are required to have a periodic physical exam every five years. While there are no data to support the benefits of conducting periodic physical exams, the DoD Health Care Summit was reluctant to recommend a change to the statutory requirements at this time. The Summit suggested that additional research needs to be accomplished to identify the most cost-effective methods for ensuring Reserve component medical readiness.

Recommendation 7. The Department should conduct a phased study, in conjunction with Recommendation 6 above, to:

Identify the potential health risks or problems that have a direct impact on deployability and retention of RC members;
Develop a more cost effective, focused health assessment tool for use in conducting physical exams for Reserve component members;
Conduct a pilot program employing the assessment tool to measure individual medical fitness and deployability; and
Establish joint procedures, based on the results of the pilot program, that will ensure greater consistency and uniformity in determining the medical readiness of Reserve component members.
Individual Ready Reserve

The Summit concluded there is little return on investment for any program to conduct physical exams for the more than 450,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The annual cost of ensuring that IRR members are examined as to physical condition at least every five years is approximately $2.3 million. This cost reflects approximately 10 percent of what the Department should be spending annually on physical exams for this population. However, DoD is able to provide only about 11,000 of the more than 100,000 required physical exams for IRR members each year. In this period of constrained resources, it would be far more cost-effective to conduct physical exams on these Reserve members at the time they are ordered to active duty.

Recommendation 8. Amend section 10206 of title 10, U.S.C., to eliminate any physical examination requirement for members of the IRR prior to activation. Instead, the Department should concentrate on developing a concise DoD annual physical condition certification questionnaire for IRR members of all the Services.

Army Early Deployers

The statutory requirement to provide physical exams every two years for members of the Selected Reserve of the Army who are over 40 years of age and are members of units scheduled to deploy within 75 days of a mobilization creates difficulties for the Department. This is a very fluid category with a relatively high turnover of individuals each year. Those Reserve component units and individual RC members identified as early-deploying change frequently.

Conducting physical examinations and certifying the health status of Reserve members is often difficult because of funding limitations. The annual cost to the Department of meeting this over-40 physical examination requirement for early deploying unit members, as established in section 1074a of title 10, U.S.C., is $3.8 million. This cost to provide a physical exam for these members every two years is over four times the annual cost (about $900,000) if an exam were provided every five years as required for other members of the Reserve force.

A requirement for a complete medical examination every two years exceeds the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a 20�member non-federal panel commissioned by the Public Health Service in 1984 to develop recommendations for clinicians on the appropriate use of preventive measures. The Task Force does not consider such frequency of examinations cost effective in terms of identifying disease or determining deployability. The use of yearly health assessment questionnaires and appropriate age specific tests during the five-year periodic medical examination provide sufficient medical screening of the population over age 40.

Recommendation 9. Repeal section 1074a(d), to include the requirement for preferential dental care for these early deployers. Identify a more efficient and cost-effective health assessment program for ensuring the medical readiness of early-deploying RC members.

Cost Effective Alternatives

As previously noted, funding limitations make it extremely difficult to accomplish the number of physical exams required each year for the Ready Reserve. While it can be argued that it may be cheaper for Reserve component medical units to perform examinations for other RC units, it must not be overlooked that such duty is often performed at the expense of the unit�s required medical sustainment and readiness training. It is DoD policy that any sustainment training for medical personnel should be related to the member�s operational billet and should maintain or enhance the skill proficiency of the individual.

Performing examinations routinely can have an adverse affect on the retention of health care personnel in the Reserve components. It is the challenge of training for and performing medical missions in a military environment and of doing something different than in civilian practice that attracts health care professionals into the RC. Therefore, in addition to detracting from mission-related training, performing routine physical examinations on other Reserve members can be detrimental to medical recruiting and retention efforts.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Division of Federal Occupational Health (FOH) of the Department of Health and Human Services have expressed interest in providing reimbursable physical exams for military personnel. The US Army Medical Command has issued a statement of work for a contract to support the DoD�s administration of immunizations and other health care-related requirements, to include physical exams. A network of multiple government providers would support reform initiatives to pursue greater opportunities for the sharing of medical assets. The development of a strategic federal health care alliance provides an exciting opportunity for accomplishing immunizations, physical exams, dental screenings and other DoD requirements in support of the Reserve components.

A recent memorandum of agreement between DoD, Federal Occupational Health and the Veterans Health Administration not only assures support to the DoD anthrax vaccination program, but is also designed to provide "an array of comprehensive occupational health services in medical, clinical, employee assistance, industrial hygiene, fitness, environmental and "other disciplines." The United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM) is also currently developing a statement of work to test the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and impact of contracting remote-site medical examinations with other health care systems, including the Veterans Affairs System.

Recommendation 10. Identify cost-effective alternatives that use other facilities. Potential alternatives include the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, civilian contractors or even private practitioners.

Dental Readiness

Dental emergencies can potentially impact the combat effectiveness of individuals and units. The loss of members due to any type of disease and nonbattle injuries (DNBI) can be detrimental to the ability of a unit to accomplish its wartime mission. Dental diseases have historically accounted for approximately 20 percent of DNBI. Dental readiness depends on the dental health of military personnel and is crucial to an effective fighting force.

The DoD dental classification system establishes four dental readiness categories that apply to both Active and Reserve component members. In order to maintain a high state of dental readiness, it is essential to be able to identify those members who require dental care or treatment. Military personnel will not be reassigned or deployed if they are in Dental Class 3 or 4, which means they have an oral condition that is likely to result in a dental emergency within the next 12 months or they are in need of a dental examination. It is important to be able to track member compliance with dental readiness standards and ensure members obtain required dental treatment. Historically, DoD has had difficulty monitoring the dental readiness of Reserve component members.

In 1998, the Department issued a policy requiring an annual dental examination for all active duty and Selected Reserve personnel to ensure fitness for duty and deployability. It was acknowledged at the time that this policy would not be "immediately attainable" in the Reserve components without mechanisms for screening Guardsmen and Reservists and without programming additional resources to accomplish this readiness requirement in the RC.

Reserve component members are not entitled to routine military dental treatment unless they are serving on active duty for more than 30 days. Members serving on a more limited basis are generally restricted to emergency care only. The Department does not have the dental staff to provide annual dental examinations and determine dental classification for all Reserve component members without overburdening military dental resources.

The congressionally-mandated, TRICARE Selected Reserve Dental Insurance Program provides one alternative to readiness-oriented dental care for insured members. It is a voluntary program that includes an annual examination by a civilian provider. It is relatively inexpensive, with members paying 40% and the Government 60% of the premium costs. While this alternative can improve dental readiness, it has not alleviated the strain on military dental resources in meeting the requirement to perform annual dental screenings. Thus far, the program has been under-subscribed. Civilian provider certification forms are presently under development.

Tracking RC Dental Readiness

The majority of Reserve component members receive their care from civilian dentists. However, information related to such care is not available to the Department. Currently, there is no means established to document the civilian dental care received by Reserve component members. For this reason, the Reserve components do not have an up-to-date status on the dental readiness of all their members. Moreover, if a dental problem is identified by a military dental provider, the member is often instructed to seek civilian dental care within a specified period of time. However, mechanisms for monitoring compliance with such instructions are limited. Also, it should be noted that Reservists in low income families may find it cost prohibitive to seek treatment from a civilian provider, if they lack personal or employer-sponsored dental insurance.

Just as in the case of their physical condition, RC members have a personal obligation to maintain a dental health status that does not preclude their mobilization and deployment. For the most part, the Department considers deployability a condition for retaining a member in the Reserve components. However, to enforce the requirement for members to maintain their dental health as a condition of retention, there must be a mechanism for RC commanders to track and record the dental readiness of unit members.

Recommendation 11. Develop and implement a standardized dental examination and classification form that can be completed by a military or a civilian dentist and that will satisfy the DoD annual dental examination and classification requirement. Such a tool must be consistent with established DoD dental classification standards. The Summit also recommended establishing the technical electronic support necessary to track dental classification and treatment compliance and to incorporate tracking information into existing automated information systems while ensuring that this information is easily accessible to all command levels, to include RC unit commanders.

Immunizations

Administering required immunizations is a vital element of individual health readiness for deployment and a critical pre-deployment, force health protection measure. Immunizations are intended to provide immunity against certain naturally occurring diseases and protection from certain chemical and biological weapons to which service members may be exposed as a result of a deployment. Some vaccinations are given to all new recruits, others are administered to personnel in high risk occupations or deploying to high risk areas. (See exhibit 2)

As with other force health protection measures, the inoculation of active duty personnel is accomplished by the military health care system and funded by the defense health program (DHP). The DHP also funds some vaccines for the Reserve components. However, the administration of the vaccine is normally the responsibility of the Reserve components. This can require the use of medical personnel and the provision of ancillary supplies not typically included in the RC budgets. The result is often a tiered and incomplete approach to inoculation of the Reserve force.

Problems with RC Immunizations

Access to immunizations, to include those specifically directed by commanders of combatant commands, which can impact the timely delivery and administration of a vaccine, is a major problem for the Reserve components. To inoculate RC personnel in large numbers would require medical teams to administer shots during monthly drill periods. Burdensome administrative requirements already compete for the limited availability of RC members. Accomplishing additional requirements further detracts from the time required for performance of mission or wartime related training. Also, using RC medical personnel to administer inoculations detracts from their medical mission or unit collective training.

A second major problem for the Reserve components is the lack of a system for documenting and tracking immunizations. The military services in general differ in the methods and tools used for tracking and documenting immunizations. These tools include medical records, shot forms, automated record systems and mass immunization rosters. Because of the potential for inconsistencies in data from these various tools, the Department is developing an automated system to record and track immunizations of service members.

VACCINATIONS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL

Immunizing Agent

Army

Navy

Air Force

Marine Corps

Coast Guard

Adenovirus types 4 and 7

A

A

F

A

F

*Anthrax *

C

C

C

C

C

Cholera

D

D

D

D

D

Hepatitis A

A,R

A,R

A,R

A,R

A,R

Hepatitis B

E, F

E, F

E, F

E, F

E, F

Influenza

A, X

A, R

A, R

A, R

A, B, F

JE Vaccine

C

C

C

C

C

Measles

A, E

A, E

A, E

A, E

A, F

Meningococcal

(A, C, Y, W135)

A, C

A, C

A, C

A, C

A, F

Mumps

E, F

A, E, F

E, F

A, E, F

F

OPV

A, C, R

A, R

A, R

A, R

A

Plague

C, E

E

E

E

E

Rabies

E

E

E

E

F

Rubella

A, E

A, E

A, E

A, E

A

Tetanus-diphtheria

A, R

A, R

A, R

A, R

A

Typhoid

B, C

B, C

B, C

B, C

C

Varicella

E, F

E, F

E, F

F

E, F

Yellow fever

B, C

A, R

B, C

A, R

A, B, D

A � All recruits

B � Alert forces

C � When deploying or traveling to high-risk areas

D � Only when required by host country for entry

E � High risk occupational groups

F � As directed by applicable surgeon general or Commandant (G-K), Coast Guard

R � RCs

X � RC personnel on active duty for 30 days or more during the influenza season

Source: Joint Regulation on Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis

*In addition to the requirement for anthrax vaccinations for personnel deploying or traveling to high risk areas, DoD is implementing in stages a total force Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program.

Exhibit 2

New Approach with Anthrax

The advent of the DoD-wide anthrax inoculation program has forced the military services to seek efficient alternatives for administering immunizations, comparable to those discussed above for the accomplishment of physical exams. National Guard and Reserve units are located in over 4,400 communities nationwide. The challenge is to establish an expanded provider network that is at the same time cost-effective and that can serve to reduce interference with training. DoD is attempting to meet this challenge by contracting with other agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, Federal Occupational Health and other organizations outside DoD.

The Veterans Health Administration offers a full range of health services at more than 1,000 locations across the nation. The Federal Occupational Health (FOH) organization provides immunizations, as well as physical exams and wellness services at more than 200 clinics and 200 wellness centers throughout the U.S. In addition, FOH contracts for medical services in areas where no Federal medical facility exists. Just as the previously discussed agreements with these agencies offer a cost effective alternative for providing physical exams, use of their facilities on a reimbursable basis would also assure a more comprehensive, accessible and flexible immunization program for members of the Reserve components. The annual cost to administer required vaccinations by means of such contracted agreements is estimated at $10 million.

Recommendation 12. To ensure that Reserve component members receive required immunizations, develop: (1) a more comprehensive approach to administration of inoculations for the Reserve components that includes maximum cost-effective use of other federal agencies and civilian facilities; and (2) an automated tracking system for monitoring the immunization readiness of Reserve component members in order that Reserve component commanders have immediate access to the health readiness status of their unit personnel.

Optical Readiness

Visual acuity is essential for combat effectiveness. Reservists who require spectacles to meet basic readiness requirements must have them prescribed during peacetime in order to be able to perform mission-related duties. Members requiring spectacles cannot effectively perform training or other duties in mission oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear without protective mask inserts (PMI). These members must have a PMI for realistic MOPP training in peacetime and for deployment. Providing PMIs and spectacles is another force health protection measure.

The Department funds spectacles and PMIs for RC members on active duty for more than 30 days from the Defense Health Program (DHP) or as part of contingency operation funds. The Reserve components reimburse the DHP for optical items issued to Reserve component members attending initial entry training. Part-time Reserve component members, who wear spectacles in their civilian environment, often are expected to use these same spectacles when training. The rigors of routine training in some units can result in harm to the civilian acquired spectacles or possible injury to the individual Reservist.

Commanders may authorize unit members to be fitted with military spectacles; however, the expense of spectacles and PMIs in such cases is funded from RC training accounts. The DHP is reimbursed for all PMIs issued to members other than those serving on active duty for more than 30 days. Typically, units order spectacles and PMI simultaneously. Currently, there is no system for individual accountability, active or reserve, in the event of negligent loss once the spectacles and PMIs are issued.

The estimated annual cost to provide protective mask inserts for each Reserve component member is $3.3 million. This cost takes into account annual accessions to the RC and replacements due to prescription changes every five years. This cost may be overstated if replacements due to prescription changes occur less frequently than every five years.

Recommendation 13. That optical readiness be considered as a DoD Total Force health protection measure. PMI requirements should be identified and funded in peacetime for the Total Force. Force health protection measures, including the purchase of spectacles and PMIs, should not be resourced from training funds. A mechanism should be established for members to reimburse the Department for the negligent loss of PMI.

Medical Readiness Responsibilities

DoD, the Services and individual Reservists share in the responsibility to ensure that each individual RC member meets readiness requirements for deployment. Although requirements may vary by Service, job classification and unit mission, each RC member is responsible for maintaining his or her medical and dental condition as required for deployment and retention. If members do not meet established standards for deployment, they not only jeopardize their careers, but they also compromise the mission readiness of their unit. It is essential that an individual�s responsibility for satisfying medical readiness requirements be expressly communicated to each RC member.

While Reserve component members have a personal responsibility to monitor their medical readiness, the Department has a responsibility to ensure overall force health protection. Medical programming guidance directs the military services to ensure that any program associated with force health protection, such as health promotion, wellness, or fitness is provided to the Reserve components. However, funding for RC force health protection measures are not specifically earmarked within the Defense Health Program. It is not possible to identify in the DHP exactly how much money is being allocated or spent on force health protection for the RC. Active component readiness is a byproduct of the Defense Health Program. At this point, the DHP virtually excludes Reserve component readiness.

In 1991, DoD directed specific actions to strengthen its ability to perform the military medical mission. Section 1100 of title 10, U.S. Code, established the military health care account known as the DHP. Funds in this account are to be used to provide medical and dental care to eligible DoD beneficiaries. Funds may also be obligated for contracts, studies or demonstration projects for the delivery of health care. All funding for the DoD medical program, including operations and maintenance, procurement, some research and development, and CHAMPUS (TRICARE), was consolidated into this single defense medical appropriations account.

Recommendation 14. (1) All RC members be made aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to their medical and dental readiness and that they are held accountable for meeting retention and deployment standards; (2) The most cost-effective and efficient methods to achieve Reserve component force health protection measures be determined and adequately funded.

CONCLUSION

Today the Reserve components are integrated into the total force and operate in conjunction with the Active force to support virtually all operations. The annual level of support provided over each of the past three years equates to about 1/3 the level of support provided by the Reserve components during the peak of Operation Desert Storm. To function in this more demanding, post-Cold War environment, National Guard and Reserve members must meet the same standards for physical condition and readiness as their Active counterparts.

Operational commanders should expect that assigned personnel have been subject to periodic medical assessments that assure�Active or Reserve�they are fully capable of performing required operational duties. Commanders expect that when their personnel are deployed in areas where they are potentially more exposed to illness or disease they will have received appropriate immunizations and other protective measures. Commanders should not be placed in the position of having to consider the relative degree of risk associated with employing an individual, because of differences in coverage based on component, duty status or duration of orders. Correcting inequities related to medical and dental care for the servicemember and his dependents as well as providing the necessary force health protection measures are essential to achieving full utilization of the Reserve forces.

The medical mission of the Department of Defense is to provide medical services and support to the armed forces during military operations, and to members of the armed forces, their dependents, and others entitled to DoD medical care. The recently concluded DoD Reserve Component Health Care Summit acknowledged that Reserve component mission demands and potential exposure to harm are increasing.

Clearly, DoD has evolved from a Reserve component focused on training for mobilization to a Reserve component that is operationally relevant on a day-to-day basis. While Guard and Reserve members serve part-time, they maintain a full-time military commitment. They are available for immediate call to active duty. The recommendations contained in this report and listed separately below recognize the need to reassess the requirements for healthcare and medical readiness to ensure equitable protection for our Reserve component "full-time part-timers" in the event of service-incurred or aggravated injury, illness or disease, and health and environmental hazards associated with deployment or other military service.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Reserve Component Health Care

Establish definitions in law or DoD regulation to describe specifically what constitutes "incurring" or "aggravating" an injury, illness or disease in the "line of duty."
Allow DoD to place a Reserve component member who is injured, becomes ill or contracts disease in the line of duty while performing inactive duty training, on active duty during the period of treatment for or recovery from the injury, illness or disease.
Allow DoD to provide medical coverage for Reserve component members who become injured or ill while remaining overnight at the site of inactive duty training between successive training periods, even if they reside within a reasonable commuting distance.
Provide permanent statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense to waive or reduce CHAMPUS (TRICARE) annual deductible amounts (currently $300 per family) in the case of dependents of Reserve component members ordered to active duty for less than one year in support of a contingency operation.
Authorize an expanded TRICARE dental program that provides for merging the Selected Reserve Dental Program into the Family Member Dental Program thereby ensuring a more comprehensive benefits package for Reserve component members and a family member option at no cost to the government.
Conduct a study designed to determine the overall medical readiness of Reserve component members in order to determine prospectively their fitness for duty as well as DoD�s ability to monitor and access such information.
Reserve Component Force Health Protection

Conduct a phased study, in conjunction with Recommendation 6 above, to:
identify potential health risks or problems that have a direct impact on deployability and retention of RC members;
develop a more cost effective, focused health assessment tool for use in conducting physical exams for RC members;
establish a pilot program to measure individual medical fitness and deployability;
establish joint procedures, based on the results of the pilot program, that will ensure greater consistency and uniformity in determining the medical readiness of Reserve component members.
Amend section 10206 of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate any physical examination requirement for members of the IRR prior to activation,. if not previously examined during an activation within the past five years. Develop a more effective annual physical condition certification questionnaire for IRR members of all the Services.
Eliminate sections 1074a(d), to include the requirement for preferential dental care for Army early deployers. Identify a more efficient and cost-effective health assessment program for ensuring the medical readiness of early-deploying RC members.
Identify cost-effective alternatives for accomplishing medical readiness requirements that consider the use of other facilities, including those of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, civilian contractors or private practitioners. DoD should continue to pursue ongoing efforts to establish memorandums of agreement with Veterans Affairs and Federal Occupational Health.
Develop and implement a standardized dental examination and classification form that can be completed by a military or a civilian dentist and that will satisfy the DoD annual dental examination and classification requirement. Establish the technical electronic support necessary to track dental classification and treatment compliance and to incorporate tracking information into existing automated information systems while ensuring that this information is easily accessible to RC unit commanders.
Develop a more comprehensive approach to administration of immunizations for the Reserve components that includes maximum cost-effective use of other federal agencies and civilian facilities. Develop Reserve component requirements for existing and proposed Total Force automated tracking systems to monitor the immunization readiness of Reserve component members and to ensure commanders have immediate access to the health readiness status of their unit personnel.
Optical readiness should be considered a Total Force health protection measure with protective mask insert (PMI) requirements identified and funded in peacetime for the Total Force. Force health protection measures, including the purchase of spectacles and PMIs, should not be resourced from training funds. A mechanism should be established for members to reimburse the Department for the negligent loss of PMI.
Ensure all RC members are made aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to their medical and dental readiness and that they are held accountable for meeting retention and deployment standards. Determine the most cost-effective and efficient methods to achieve Reserve component force health protection measures and provide adequate funding.
The recommendations contained in this report have not been subjected to program analysis and evaluation by the Department nor evaluated under the Planning, Programming and Budgeting review process of the Department of Defense. Any legislative proposals that DoD develops pursuant to this report are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 1:20 AM

2015-04-15T01:20:27-04:00

No.

There should be no requirement for that. Reserve components have different requirements than Active and that is a good thing. It means a Service Member can serve with flexibility which can be a difference maker when it comes to raising children, caring for family members with physical ailments, jobs, and a host of other circumstances

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 1:09 PM

2015-04-15T13:09:10-04:00

I didn't realize it reduced your "points" by 30 (or at all) for down voting something. Apparently this doesn't work like some other forums. I'll make a response to show that it wasn't an attack against you, but the thought against mandatory active duty.

I personally would have enjoyed more time training with active duty personnel and could have learned a lot in the past from members who live the life day after day. There is a certain mind set that you have when your sole mission is to prepare and maintain for the fight or to support the fight. I however did not join to be active duty. I chose to play a different role and support both my community and country through part time roles.

My first MOS was 68D or a surgical technologist. I was mobilized and spent some time at Madigan AMC. The biggest personal gain I received here was in leadership and the continual cycle of counseling. Outside of needing to take a more direct role as an NCO than I did in my CSH reserve unit, nothing was different. I did the exact same thing day after day as if I were still at home. As a nurse at a level one trauma center, I help coordinate a safe passage for my patients from beginning to end of the perioperative area. On a daily basis, these patients are much sicker in the standard American community than in a military community. The military community in general is healthier and younger. Even the retired service members who settle down around the gates tend to carry on some of the physical lifestyles developed throughout their careers. The fact that there was mandatory fitness helps to reduce the comorbidities of this population as they age. The time I spend working on the outside improves my ability to handle tougher patients should I be needed to support the mission.

My current unit is made up of people who work either their MOS field or some random civilian job from several different states. We may have combat medics who are police officers or former infantrymen working in IT. The ability to combine the knowledge and expertise of critical care nurses from different facilities and find a solution to problems from their different systems and way of doing things can have a profound effect on completing the mission. Its not the same when everyone is taught to do the same thing and its the only way known to accomplish a task without any varying points of view.

What would two years of active duty do anyhow? I've seen people come from active duty and do no more than soldiers who have been in the reserve for the same amount of time. Its the character of the soldier and their self motivation that matters and active duty isn't going to necessarily correct both of those in two years.

Now tell me how to remove my down vote so you aren't penalized for starting a good thread.

Response by PO3 Aaron Hassay made Apr 15 at 2015 1:11 PM

2015-04-15T13:11:56-04:00

I do agree that if you are going to mix lightly experienced part time true no-prior full time experienced soldiers or sailors with full time experienced soldiers or sailors then do it appropriatly and lightly.

Experience is the key factor here.

The uniform is exactly the same.

The paygrade is exactly the same.

The experience is completly opposite different at times.

Here is an anology I call on that comes from my experience.

It would be like putting a young impressionalbe trying to make a name for himself (1) New York Giants Class A Minor League Baseball Player on the (2) New York Yankees Major League Full Time Baseball Club-in a prime playoff series at short stop-

In a position the borrowed young baseball player trying to build his ego and morale is probably going to feel extrememly crushed beyond normal if he is pressured to perform in this stage at a level he is not accustomed. If he makes errors and all those around him show disaproval or quickly try to correct him, because the game is more important to win then caring about crushing the kid then you start to see how delicate a young impressionally true no-prior full time service member could and would feel in certain high pressure situations without proper normal experience of his paygrade or position he was thrust into.

Response by PO3 Aaron Hassay made Apr 15 at 2015 1:13 PM

2015-04-15T13:13:00-04:00

Response by PO3 Aaron Hassay made Apr 15 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-04-15T13:15:43-04:00

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 3:47 AM

2015-04-17T03:47:06-04:00

I think many here have failed to capture the primary question. It is not if people in the Reserves are capable of doing the job, but if they should have spent a few years on Active Duty. To that -- I say YES!

I remember coming to my first drill weekend with the USAR. I had been in the IRR for a few years, and was expecting military life all over again. It was not what I got. There are similarities...but a few things are night and day. Respect for NCOs/Officers is primarily found within the Active force. The understanding that it is not your God given right to question ever order given is often lacking. The crying that goes on when drill weekend goes on an extra 30mins-hour. The disbelief when you tell someone that the military can literally own your life and demand/order certain things from you if they suspect something.

Most prior active service soldiers are much better about...all of the above.
For many of those who had never served AD -- Basic and AIT are often the closest taste they ever truly had of AD.

So while I don't question many of the Reservists abilities -- it is the military culture and traditions that many truly lack.

Response by SGT K C made Apr 17 at 2015 11:01 AM

2015-04-17T11:01:56-04:00

The reseve components are NOT active duty. Active duty individuals tend to throw off reserve components because they don't understand the complications a reserve unit faces. Part time soldiers face a lot of scheduling difficulties active duty soldiers don't. From finding a baby sitter who doesn't mind if 6pm turns into 9:30 to deciding which job is your top priority; civilian or guard (hint civilian should be since that's your main source of income and benefits). Reserve soldiers can often be put into a position of forgoing promotion simply because they would lose too much money going to schools because their civilian job pays well and they have a family. Those civilian jobs come in handy too. In deployment situations Reserves have a wider skill set to pull from. That tank mechanic could be a civilian plumber. Or the supply clerk could be finishing her engineering degree. The downside is that you often have role reversals. In civilian life the LT. is beneath the SGT. at their prison job. Or the Specialist has 15+ years of mechanical experience where the e6 did the two week military course. the problem with the Reserves is not the lack of military discipline. It is that those soldiers have real responsibilities and obligations outside the military, and those responsibilities are paying their bills and feeding families. The greater problem this leads into is retention. In the 10 years I was in the National Guard I can say for certain the brightest soldiers always left. why? Civilian life got in the way. Having to turn down a military school because you can't afford to lose $1000 or more is a real problem. Yes there are vacation days but you still have to plan for AT. During deployment years you could expect 6+ weeks of military training. Anyone else love the AT in July and another in October? Civilian employees understand the promotion: 2 weeks in the summer and one weekend a month. As all the top soldiers leave to focus on their civilian jobs who's left? The mediocre and poor soldiers. If you stay in long enough and don't have a civilian job you'll get classes and you'll be promoted. The brass that comes in are ROTC kids that hAve no interest in the military and have no business being there (like our LT who picked which females went to his FOB based on looks). Typically they have family businesses or their own business. The ROTC kids that want military go active duty. The final problem is the promotion system and respect. Because of pay differences some soldiers can't attend schools. The other problem is some soldiers get stuck in unpromotable MOSes and can't get promoted. Lack of funding prohibits them from reclassing and so they are stuck. The MTOW changes frequently so slots that did have upward movement suddenly don't. The soldiers that did have an e5 slot and now don't have priority for classes. Or the best promotable MOS is over 3 hours to drill and you have a babysitter you have to get home to. Now you have e4s who have more military experience than some Sgts but they are treated like they are idiots. Imagine being an e4 and having to teach SFCs how to do X or Y then be put in a class in how to do X or Y simply bc your an E4.

The Problem with the reserves is that the full time staff believes the part-time staff should put 110% into it. This isn't even logical because the reserve is not where you get money to pay all your bills. It's not where you spend the majority of your time. If you have timeto go to classes you either have a crappy job or no job. If the guard is paying all your bills from a once a month job you don't have a family or your living at home with mom and dad (or supporting spouse). Gl

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 2:28 PM

2015-04-22T14:28:52-04:00

no offense, but active duty is the weaker element here they should focus a little more on training and a little less on what the guard/reservist are doing.

Response by SFC James Barnes made Apr 22 at 2015 8:12 PM

2015-04-22T20:12:35-04:00

As Prior Active duty and now current member Of the National Guard I have seen both sides of the fence. In some ways active duty does have it positive points such as instant readiness for deployments. On the other hand the wealth of experience both military and civilian outside the realm of the military gives a sight advantage to the national Guard in a wide variety of different MOS and training. Just taking my MOS the active duty army is years behind the civilian side on many things. example of that is cyber warfare which is just now becoming a MOS in the army and just got stomped like little children by civilian counterparts. The National Guard and reservist have been tapping into these skilled individuals for years now. As far as skill in say a combat MOS such as 11B I would put my old company up against most Active duty company's . In fact they have for training exercises in Germany and it wasn't pretty for the active duty. As far as discipline there are good and bad companies in the active , guard , and reserves. There are soldiers who need work on their PT, basic soldiering skills, leadership , and common sense in all facets of the Army. The point I am trying to make with my response is making it mandatory to do active before hand eliminates a lot of good talented people from being part of our ranks. And honestly we are one team we all should start acting like it and get rid of this active duty or your nothing mentality.

Response by Capt David Malin, CEM made Apr 22 at 2015 8:56 PM

2015-04-22T20:56:59-04:00

I rather be with Guardsmen and Reservist than members of active duty, unless we are dealing with Special Operations. That's a young mans game and requires constant training. For the longest period of time, approximately 97% of Aeromedical Evacuation was performed by Guardsmen and Reservist. What you don't see, is that many of these folks at home work in Emergency Rooms, Trauma Centers, Paramedics for major Cities, like Detroit, New York, Los Angeles. Now, I don't know about you...but when the war started, who would you rather be treated by? A Paramedic that works in South Central LA or someone that just graduated and became a Med Tech? I'm not going to say all Guard and Reservist are great and I'm not going to say the same for Active Duty. But overall, I think you get a better performer from a Reservist and Guardsmen, especially for the money. You only have to call them up when you really need them and they still can perform the job. So when you talk about spending cuts....who should you cut first.......Active Duty.....not Reservists.....but that would cost many Generals their job and other Active Duty promotional opportunities.

David Malin, Capt, USAFR, MSC Retired

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 8:57 PM

2015-04-23T20:57:59-04:00

There would barely troops in any reserve components at all... I think 2 years active duty should be mandatory after High School Graduation. Like in countries like Greece. It gives them training and a field to continue in if they don't choose to go to college

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 1:11 AM

2015-04-30T01:11:15-04:00

I have been a reservist almost 15 years. No offense to Active Duty Members, but it isn't for me. I loved Basic Training! AIT wasn't bad either. I wasn't as big of a fan only because it was a little more relaxed than Basic (still had a great time though). As a Reservist, I get to be home. I get to travel a good bit too. I know you can do this Active Side as well. I had an AT in Germany 2002, deployed to Africa in 2003-2004, AT in Panama in 2007, AT in Hawaii in 2008, took care of WLC and all my phases of BNCOC between 2009 and 2010 while playing the "single mom" from 2008-2012 (9 month split from the old man then he went Active for 3 years) then deployed to Afghanistan from 2013-2014. Started my MilTech job in 2009. Because I am a Reservist and close to home, I was able to stay in the Military (my parents babysat for me while I worked full time and did the Reserve thing). I am a people person but not real trusting when it comes to people watching my kids. I do agree that there is a different mentality from Active to Reserve, but I believe there is a difference with Branches as well (None better than the others). Just my perception from the people I have met along the way. Because I work at my unit, I could probably give you the run down on 90-95% of our Soldiers (the other small portion are newly assigned, in training or haven't been at the unit very long for me to get to know as well). Personally, I still feel that my unit still shows the same respect to one another (most of them, there are that select few) regardless of rank. Active isn't for everyone. Dedicated Reservist here;)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 1:12 AM

2015-04-30T01:12:51-04:00

I've spent 10 years in, 4 NG and 6 USAR. I have been with a number of units on both sides and can see where the idea might come from. There were times that I had wished some of the soldiers I worked with had the discipline or training that we assume the active component should have doing it every day. That said, after working with all 3 components, the only constant is that some people just suck. Each component has its good and bad, and they all have many of the same good and bad qualities. I wish that I had made the jump to the active component myself, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I don't know that it would make much difference overall. You can polish a turd, but in the end it's still a turd.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 10:31 AM

2015-04-30T10:31:01-04:00

SGT, I personally think that such a requirement would greatly hinder the reserve components. Speaking for myself, I decided to join the National Guard because I had already established myself in a successful civilian career, but I still wanted to serve. Had there been a stipulation of active duty beforehand, I most likely would not have gone in, simply because I wouldn't want to set my career back that far, especially when I was only a few years out of college. I know this isn't true for everyone in the Reserves or Guard, but I definitely think it would be much more difficult to recruit for, and fill-out the reserve components regardless.

To add to this, it seems that active duty is fairly polarizing. Most people either want to make a career out of it, or get out as soon as they can. While this isn't true for everyone, I think most folks that would want to get out of the active side, would probably want to step away altogether, not simply transition to a reserve component.

keeping this in mind, it seems like it would fill the reserve components largely with two types of soldiers:
1) The ones that hated their active duty stint, and are therefore resentful of the service as a whole, and can't wait to be done.
2) The ones who ended up loving active duty, but were transitioned into the reserves anyhow based on their initial enlistment, and now resent the reserves.

Neither of these mindsets are conducive to performing your duties well, and (in my opinion) would end up hurting the reserve components much more than helping them.

Response by SGT Curtis Earl made Apr 30 at 2015 3:59 PM

2015-04-30T15:59:25-04:00

NO. There are many fields in the Reserves that would never meet goals if they only depended on prior service. Information Systems. Medical. Legal. Musical. Military Police.

I don't like the AC mentality. That's why I got off active duty.

Response by SGT Doc Abel made Apr 30 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-04-30T16:39:57-04:00

I have often wondered this myself. I see a large number of people on here jumping down this NCO's throat for asking a very logical question.
Now everyone calm down and think where this NCO might be coming from. We are one of only a few countries that allow IET soldiers directly into the RC and NG. Many of our own allies and fellow NATO countries only fill their reserves with prior AD soldiers. So why are we the exception to this very normal practice?
Many other allied nations do this as a means to continue combat strength while not upholding a budget that undoubtedly comes with having a large AD military. The U.S. having one of the largest standing militaries in the world does have some draw back. We spend more on defense than any other country.
With a budget deficit and a ever ahrinking military force maybe it is time that we as a nation look to others as an example of how to combat the need for a larger standing force.
To everyone chastising this NCO let me ask you this. If circumstances change and you are obligated to serve a term on AS would you forfeit being in the Reserves entirely?

Response by COL Jeff Williams made May 1 at 2015 3:41 AM

2015-05-01T03:41:21-04:00

Not sure what USAR or ARNG unit you might be referring to but since OEF members of the reserve component have been deployed as much sometimes more than their AC counterparts. Not sure what mentality they are supposed to have?

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 30 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-05-30T12:59:52-04:00

No, I don't think so.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 30 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-05-30T13:22:00-04:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Generally every National Guardsman and Reserve Soldier has active duty experience when they go through Initial Entry training [IET]. This training is generally the same for active duty and reserve component soldiers. When I went through basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in 1974 National Guard trainees went through riot training that thew rest of us didn't participate in.
The issue should not be focused on individual soldiers rather it should be unit training. Units should be trained and certified as qualified for their primary missions prior to deployment.

Response by SSG John Jensen made May 30 at 2015 2:15 PM

2015-05-30T14:15:36-04:00

having prior active in Nat'l guard units is a plus for the NG unit - one of the "odd" things about the Guard in this regard is the large number of troops from other MOS's that couldn't continue in their old MOS 'cause that kind of unit doesn't exist locally, which actually makes the guard better than AC where so many senior leadership are still in their original MOS's, and don't know any other way of doing things other than the "Army Way" (one of the Active units I was attached to in Iraq, senior ldrs didn't have a clue)
But there are so many people in the guard for whom AC is not possible (work, family, school, etc) that AC requirement is would decimate the guard

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made May 30 at 2015 2:19 PM

2015-05-30T14:19:20-04:00

That would make sense but I'm also willing to bet your unit has a bunch of prior active duty soldiers in it. I've never served in the guard/reserves so I can only speculate what the problem might be. You said it yourself, "part time". These men and women may be friends outside of the guard so there's where a breakdown in discipline and bearing might be. Also because it's "part time", the training tends to be lax as well.

Again, I have no experience with the guard/reserves though and I'm sure not all units are relaxed, maybe someone with experience in this subject will enlighten us.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-05-30T14:22:56-04:00

My thoughts are that the most senior leaderships should be prior active duty members. And if I'm not mistaken they already are and should've been activated as such at some point during their careers. Either way you look at it our reserve forces will lack in many areas more than none when it comes down to leadership, organization, and professionalism because of the lack repetition and stick time.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 2:38 PM

2015-05-30T14:38:33-04:00

That may not be a terrible idea, but as I'm sure you have noticed that the majority of work that gets done in the military is done by E4 and below. Requiring someone to be prior service before accepting them into the Guard or Reserve would limit your pool of acceptable candidates even further than it is already. Most people that separate after 4-6 years are either eligible for promotion to SGT or already have been promoted. There are only so many E5 slots in units so it would be very difficult to try and implement your idea without a large structure change.

But I definitely don't disagree with your logic, it would be beneficial to units all over the Guard and Reaerve to have a large quantity of prior active duty soldiers. On the flip side of that coin, being a prior active duty Guardsman myself, it isn't the easiest transition from active to guard. There would be a lot of folks that would not transition well.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-05-30T16:34:37-04:00

I think the National Guard has proven it can function as a full time capacity AND still cover its state side missions!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 5:36 PM

2015-05-30T17:36:04-04:00

Considering that most deployed guard units are regarded as highly as any active unit of the same corp, I would think it would be a pointless requirement. You have shitbag soldiers in active units, and shitbag soldiers in guard/reserve units. You also have highly trained and experienced soldiers in those same units. Active duty experience or not, the soldiers are trained the same prior to a mobilization and I will gladly serve with either or both when called upon to do so again.

Response by MAJ Terry LaFrance made May 30 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-05-30T17:51:23-04:00

NO, as beneficial as that might be.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 7:19 PM

2015-05-30T19:19:39-04:00

No, the Federal government could never afford the financial burden of having that many Active Duty Soldiers for one. Also, both Active and RC require those E1-E4 people in their ranks. That's why there are often recruiting bonuses to bring in fresh blood

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 9:09 PM

2015-05-30T21:09:04-04:00

No. I understand what your getting at but it is up to your unit to train. The dramatic draw down in troop strength is going to create a reserve force with many more prior service Soldiers, it definitely should not be a prerequisite.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 10:19 PM

2015-05-30T22:19:44-04:00

I know plenty of guys who've been in the guard their whole career who are every bit of job competent as the active duty soldiers I worked with. As with anything it just depends on the soldier in question.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:22 PM

2015-05-30T23:22:23-04:00

Many have had this thought, and although it isn't a bad idea...I would have a hard time saying that it's a good one. The National Guard for instamce is a state force, which is already already (and wrongly) controlled by the federal government, but to make it so that only people who had served federally could get into the force would be a complete conflict of interest. For the reserves..
perhaps, but the NG and reserves really do benefit from the experience that alot of their people bring from the civillian world. We also tend to much less regemented and by the book which can be of benefit. I say all this as a former active duty service member. If the state decided to make it mandatory for anyone in command positions to have served some AD time I think that could have some benefit, but that should be entirely their decision.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:29 PM

2015-05-30T23:29:25-04:00

I have had this thought many times since I served on active duty for 120 days beginning the day I reported in. At the end of those 4-month orders, the difference in deployment readiness and MOS proficiency between myself and the other junior Marines - reservists - who had been there for years was obvious.

Response by LTC David Stender made May 31 at 2015 12:17 AM

2015-05-31T00:17:51-04:00

PFC Ward,
I spent 7 years in the National Guard from 1988-1995. It was always beneficial to have some prior service guys around. Don't forget the purpose of the National Guard though; they are to augment our Active force and by and large have more Soldirs than the active component. There just aren't enough prior service folks to fill the ranks. You don't have to be prior service to make a difference. In closing, don't sell yourself short; you are not lower enlisted but junior enlisted.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 8:38 AM

2015-05-31T08:38:23-04:00

PFC Ward,
In my experiences (all OHARNG) the Active Duty units we replaced on deployments were subpar compared to us. Understandably your MOS is harder to do training on at drill, being a medic, but you need to bring it to the attention of your squad leader or section sergeant that you are craving more training. Being familiar with your BN I know you are attached from HHC with probably one other medic. Make it aware during your AAR comments. There are plenty of opportunities outside your BN but within the Brigade to get some training done with other medics.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 31 at 2015 2:26 PM

2015-05-31T14:26:24-04:00

The Reserve and Guard are required to attend IADT. There is a different mentality in the reserve components, but to assume the the different mentality is negative in any way is short sighted and foolish. The Reserve and National Guard bring much to the table that the AD soldiers do not realize or understand. If nothing else, the cost of prolonged AD would be cost prohibitive, and that is before considering the recruiting repercussions.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-06-01T14:50:38-04:00

I don't think that active service should be a prerequisite to service in the reserve component. I can see the point that you are making, but it doesn't account for the fact that every component and every branch is designed to fit a particular aspect of personal service. Requiring active service prior to entry into the reserve component would eliminate the ability to for many to serve who have obligations such as college or a business from serving. I have served in every component of the Army active, reserve, and national guard and each was right for me at the time. Though I did have two years on active duty it did little to prepare me for the various jobs that I have had since that time, but I still value that experience none the less. What I mean is that as Specialist on active duty trained in communication did not provide a lot of value while serving as a First Sergeant of a MP Company. I have read throughout the threads that it is recognized that the resrve component brings a lot to the table in their service and that they are every bit the professional as others who serve on active duty.

Response by SFC(P) Jonathan P. made Jun 2 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-06-02T13:53:59-04:00

This sounds like a good idea ! It just might make the army national guard and or reserve function better and more proficient !!

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 2 at 2015 3:59 PM

2015-06-02T15:59:43-04:00

No. One of the great things about the reserve component is people can resume their civilian lives after completing BCT/AIT. If the balloon goes up, those people WILL be ready. We've done it before - we can do it again