Iraq War Question #1: Career Military

[JSojourner]

Hello friends.  I have some questions about the current war in Iraq and I would be interested in both hard answers, as well as your opinion and analysis. 

Question One:  Are "career" military men and women, particularly enlisted personnel, resigning, not re-enlisting or retiring at record rates?  I have heard this, but have not seen hard numbers.

Along these lines, if so, why?  I have heard that the retirement benefits for a six year veteran are no different than for a 12 or 18 or 24 year veteran.  I don't know that this is true -- it certainly seems peculiar.

Thoughts?  Input?  Ideas?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Initial recruitment is doing OK, as is retention of the senior grades, but holding the people in-between is the problem.  So we have enough sergeant majors, corporals and privates, but not enough sergeants, (or for officers, enough lieutenants, captains, and generals, but not enough majors and colonels.  However, at least in the officer grades this isn't quite as much of a problem as it seems.  Under the up or out promotion system for officers, typically a number of people qualified for promotion have been getting booted rather than promoted because there were considerably more qualified people seeking to stay than were needed for the next rank.  The pool of people who stay around to seek promotion to major and colonel has shrunk, but not yet to the point where there's a shortage of qualified people.

The military retirement system kicks in when you have 20 years of service unless you are retired due to disability, so it does take a number of years before the benefits vest.  (For a few years in the 1990's it could kick in with fewer years of service in some cases, but that was related to the post-Cold War drawdown and intended to reduce the pain associated with it by making early retirement available for people who would have been allowed to stay except for the drawdown reducing the pool of available billets.

As for why, I'd say the fact that the high rate of deployments is playing havoc with family life is the principal reason why the mid-grades are choosing to not re-up as much as they once did.  To remedy that problem we need to reduce the level of deployments or increase the size of our armed forces.

[NewFederalist]

 I have heard that the retirement benefits for a six year veteran are no different than for a 12 or 18 or 24 year veteran.  I don't know that this is true -- it certainly seems peculiar.

The retirement benefits for a 6, 12 and 18 year veteran are the same... nothing. That assumes no disability. Regular military retirement begins once a member has served a minimum of 20 years day for day and earned at least 7200 points. Reservists who may spend 6 years on active duty and 14 more in the reserve component (or any combination that adds to 20 years of minimum total service) begin receiving their benefits at age 60 instead of immediately as with active duty retirees. A reservist will also not have anything close to 7200 points (one earns one point for each day served on active duty) so the retirement benefit will be reduced in terms of retired pay but not with regard to medical benefits. The military pay system operates on a 360 day year (I probably used to know why but...) 360 days x 20 years gets you 7200 points and immediate retirement eligibility. Reservists don't acquire 360 points in a year (most earn 75 to 100) so when they get to the 20 year point they may have only half as many points as the active duty member and thus receive only half as much retired pay. A typical reservist has completed his or her military career by the time they are in their 40's but won't see any benefits until age 60.

[JSojourner]

 I have heard that the retirement benefits for a six year veteran are no different than for a 12 or 18 or 24 year veteran.  I don't know that this is true -- it certainly seems peculiar.

The retirement benefits for a 6, 12 and 18 year veteran are the same... nothing. That assumes no disability. Regular military retirement begins once a member has served a minimum of 20 years day for day and earned at least 7200 points. Reservists who may spend 6 years on active duty and 14 more in the reserve component (or any combination that adds to 20 years of minimum total service) begin receiving their benefits at age 60 instead of immediately as with active duty retirees. A reservist will also not have anything close to 7200 points (one earns one point for each day served on active duty) so the retirement benefit will be reduced in terms of retired pay but not with regard to medical benefits. The military pay system operates on a 360 day year (I probably used to know why but...) 360 days x 20 years gets you 7200 points and immediate retirement eligibility. Reservists don't acquire 360 points in a year (most earn 75 to 100) so when they get to the 20 year point they may have only half as many points as the active duty member and thus receive only half as much retired pay. A typical reservist has completed his or her military career by the time they are in their 40's but won't see any benefits until age 60.

Thanks.  This is what I was driving at.  IF this is true, and I've no reason to doubt it -- then we are likely hemmorhaging good, career enlisted personnel.  Why not retire early if there is no benefit to staying in?

Shouldn't there be a graduated system of reward?  The longer you stay in, the greater your pension & benefits?  I don't suggest we curtail anything.  Just add on for those with longer tenure.

[MODU]

Why not retire early if there is no benefit to staying in?

Because many of us enjoy what we do (or in my case, did).  Most people join the military because it interests them, and not for socio-economic reasons people on the outside tend to claim.  And once you are in and find a field which you can specialize in, you get closer to achieving your hierarchy of needs satisfaction.  It's a great life, and one which is a bit difficult to replicate on the outside world.

[JSojourner]

Why not retire early if there is no benefit to staying in?

Because many of us enjoy what we do (or in my case, did).  Most people join the military because it interests them, and not for socio-economic reasons people on the outside tend to claim.  And once you are in and find a field which you can specialize in, you get closer to achieving your hierarchy of needs satisfaction.  It's a great life, and one which is a bit difficult to replicate on the outside world.

And I hope my post didn't come across as suggesting otherwise.  In fact, I am sure no factor is as important to career military folk as simple love of country. 

Thinking purely in terms of retention, however, I would love to see this administration (and I said the same about previous ones) do more to reward men and women in uniform with higher pay, better retirement benefits and so forth.