A few words about military retirement 'reform' and social class in America

Mr. Goldich is spot on. As a man who joined the Navy as an E-1, then rose to Chief Petty Officer before switching to become a commissioned officer, I can really appreciate this understanding of how this new change would hollow out our NCO corps.

Any planned change to major military benefits should be studied and agreed upon first by the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (and his service counterparts) before being presented to the congress. Without their buy-in, changes like these will only be damaging and be recieved as contraversial by the NCOs.

If this change is forced upon currently serving NCOs, you will see our best and brightest take the post-9/11 GI Bill and leave the military in droves to get better jobs for their families. The ones that remain will largely be those who feel that they can not compete on the outside. And is this who we want making our services run?

The general public may watch movies or shows that seem to focus on the officers in the military, often portrayed as if they are the decision makers and that the enlisted men and women simply salute and carry out their decisions. The reality is that most successful decisions are only made AFTER a thorough analysis and recommendation has been made by the senior NCOs.

Additionally, the NCOs are the ones who train the junior officers when they begin their careers and rear them to become good officers. If the NCOs are not top notch, then our officers will not be developed properly and will make poor leaders.

A military with average officers but outstanding NCOs will succeed. But a military with outstanding officers and average NCOs will fail.

And rebuilding our military after weakening it with policies like these will cost trillions of dollars and countless lives. It will make the savings that the Defense Business Board looks to capture look like peanuts.

But with less than 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform today, who will stand against these recommendations?

Thanks, Tom, for posting this.

Thanks, Mr. Goldich, for laying out the case for NCO's and preserving their retirement plans. I agree that NCO's and officers ought to have their retirement plans as long as everything else remains the same. It's just too bad that everything else is remaining the same.

There are lots of questions that ought to be asked and answered openly about how NCO's and other military personnel are valued and how they are compensated with salary and allowances while they serve.

Why not pay NCO's more and provide more and better allowances while they serve? Why does anyone accept this idea that military personnel sacrifice and make do with less salary and housing while they serve? And that the pay off will come with a secure retirtement that pays 50-plus percent for the remainder of their natural lives? Most other professionals would not stand for a system that causes them to suffer and go without for their working careers.

Is there still something unique about the jobs of soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine that places them outside of standard compensation and retirement models? The same can be asked about law enforcement and fire-fighting professionals. Is the current system of sacrifice with a later pay-off based on traditions of compensation and retirement for military personnel? Are U.S. service members heirs to the Roman system and the British system? Are other contemporary militaries doing things differently? How about better hiring preferences for honorable service? Lower taxes? Land or income grants? Free housing? Other benefits?

Again, I'm all for keeping the retirement system the same if nothing else changes. I think a better course-of-action at this moment also would be to take a serious look at how career military personnel are compensated while they serve. Of course, preserving and/or enhancing medical disability and survivor benefits would be a requirement of any reform.

Also, should 21st century life expectancy and expected work years influence the compensation, allowances, retirement eligibility, and retirement packages for military personnel? And what about the shear numbers of retirees from the current military? Back in the day, "regular military" retirees were smaller in numbers, right?

Just to nitpick, an Air Force Technical Sergeant is an E-6; E-7 is a Master Sergeant.

I'm a former Naval officer who left after twelve years and I have to disagree with the author. Nothing I say here is about my own case - I knew I wouldn't get anything if I left short of twenty and decided to get out for a myriad of reasons any way.

I'll start by saying that I agree with two of his premises: that we should be looking at enlisted retirement as much as officer and that military members should have a retirement system that far exceeds civilian systems. However, I don't see why that has to be the current twenty year retirement system, which has several problems.

The first is that it is an all or nothing system: twenty years and zero days, half pay for life, but nineteen years and 364 days, nada. This has bad problems for the service members as well as the service.

I've seen many service members who had severe family problems because they were holding on just to make twenty. I had an seventeen year E-6 who had a daughter who was having severe teenage problems. He had decided it was best to leave her in her current school when he transferred, so he became a geographic bachelor. She kept having more and more problems and he really needed to be there for her. We were willing to give him a humanitarian discharge so he could be with her, but he hung on to make twenty and get his retirement. The girl eventually killed herself. There are many more stories like this out there.

Likewise, the services get stuck with people in the ROAD program: Retired On Active Duty. There are people who have stopped putting out the required effort and coast along, doing just enough to stay out of trouble but not enough to do the job properly. Because of the all or nothing nature of the retirement system, it is much harder to get rid of them. I remember an 19 year CPO who had grossly failed the fat measurement test and was a horrible Chief in every way. After his third consecutive failure, the CO refused to kick him out, saying, "I'm not going to throw a man out with nothing after he's served his country for that long."

Similarly, as one who has gone through a downsizing period, part of the reason that the military had to pay so much to those forced to leave service is because it is viewed that they lost their retirement. If there was another retirement plan, RIF'ing someone would not be nearly as expensive, since they would take whatever retirement benefits they accrued with them.

Looking at the twenty year retirement as a retention tool, I see it as a double edged sword for a couple of reasons. If twenty years is such an important tool for retention, we are essentially saying that the only reason our best people (E-7-9, O-5/6) are staying around is for the money. Do we really believe that is the major motivator of the senior people in the military? Do we want it to be?

I also think that the twenty year retirement actually hurts retention at more junior levels. A lot of officers who are completing their first commitment and enlisted who completing their first enlistment look at the choice not as "Do I want to try another tour?" but "Am I going to stay for twenty?" This is because from both financial and life standpoints, if they don't stay twenty, they aren't getting anything from staying in: they are falling further behind their counterparts in civilian jobs and they are not getting any retirement benefits unless they stay twenty. If we made it less of an "all or nothing" system, we might increase the number of the best people who would consider staying in past their minimum obligations.

Similarly, in a job where going into harm's way is part of the job, retirement benefits are lost if a service member is killed in combat (or any other way). There are some death benefits, but I think most of them don't differentiate on terms of service. If he is killed in combat, the family of an E-8 who has served for 25 years will get the same as an E-4 on his first reenlistment. Does this seem right? (I have been out of the military for 10+ years, so this might have changed.)

I don't know enough about compensation systems to say what the right system that could give our military a retirement that reflects their difficult service but isn't a "twenty or bust" while still cutting costs. Maybe something that increases pay, automatically deposits a percentage of pay into a retirement account, and matches a higher percentage than civilian jobs, maybe 10-15%. Heck, maybe something that rewards people for taking the harder jobs: increased contributions when in combat/difficult jobs, since those are the reason that military members deserve a better retirement than civilians. That way, those who have essentially been a civilian their entire careers and driven a desk in CONUS for eighteen of their twenty years would get retirements more in line with a civilian, and those who have been in wars, sea tours, unaccompanied overseas tours, etc. (all the things that differentiate military from civilians) would get retirement more in line with the difficulties they've endured.

I don't see the current twenty year retirement system as some sacred cow. I think that we can find a better way to give our people retirement benefits that reflect the difficutly

Check it out:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/a-veteran-questions-a-proposed-overhaul-of-military-pensions/?ref=world

The commenters have all covered very relevant questions.

I was intrigued to read the theories questioning 20 or nothing. As a one-term four year person, I got nothing (except my GI Bill on leaving), but recognized the relevance of, say a partial payment for ten years---same as other federal service folks once they complete a five year vesting.

Looking at the system as a whole, I agree that twenty years or out is a motivation, as would be the option to check out earlier and cash in the GI Bill.

Like the above, I agree that the Officer/NCO issues probably warrant a separate analysis, as does actually making veteran hiring a real right (as a continuum), instead of the current vets hiring issue that is a paper joke in most agencies who routinely circumvent veteran hiring in favor of internal hires.

Adding value to veteran's hiring preferences (unlike now), allows military to convert their four, ten or fifteen years to federal retirement, but is only a value to this debate if vets hiring is an actual benefit to be viewed in a mil/civ continuum.

Obviously, there is a lot to consider.

I'm in favor of a nuanced/blended approach. It would save money without affecting current personnel retention. It won't be a fiscal cleaver as suggested by the DBB but will achieve realistic savings while maintaining a balanced and professional force to meet the critical needs of American nuclear and national security of the 21st century.

Basically, my proposal is:
1. Keep the current 20+ year threshold as it's a standard baseline for meeting the complex requirements through longevity. It works, it's not broken just need to weed out those that make the 20 year mark.

2. Assign each command in the military something like "Command Retirement Points (CRP)" which will be the percentage factored in at the 20 year mark to give the final payout %. The emphasis for this will be placed on operational commands vice the non-deploying, desk job types (you know who I'm talking about). It will provide a bigger incentive for people to take the harder jobs. For instance, 1 year tour in Afghanistan is factored in at 5% while a 1 year tour in deskjob in CONUS at .5%.

3. At the 20 year mark all CRP is calculated to give the percentage payout with normal, hard deploying career being around the 50% mark with the more non-operational careers given a substantial bit less. The CRP would also calculate in a "fair" rest time percentage for high-OPTEMPO folks.

4. Use the existing voluntary TSP program as exists today to compensate for any disparities.

5. While careers spent in low CRP assignments will get less retirement benefits and emphasis on a more civilianized TSP style package they are compensated with some intangibles as such:
a) They are more able to work on their college education
b) They are able to see their family more often
c) They most likely will have better working hours
d) Many of these jobs are administrative in nature and many can simply return as a civilian vice some of the technical or obscure jobs that don't readily translate over which are inherent to operational units.

The big thing I want to emphasize again is that it provides incentive for people to do the hard jobs. Some folks having never deployed in the last 10 years to things like OEF & OIF will get the same benefits as those who've done multiple tours, lost their families and a bit of their sanity to put everything on the line. There are many that haven't endured the hardships to merit equality in all respects in my opinion. Sorry I'm not trying to disenfranchise everyone but I am active-duty and trying to come up with a reasonable and feasible approach to this.

... it's also worth pointing out that a burgeoning mood in Congress is for screwing as many federal employees, personally, as possible. This ain't malicious, it's just that there's no reason to care about folks who have taken that fruit of the poisoned tree -- a federal paycheck.

Sound extreme to you? It wouldn't to thousands of FAA employees in the past few weeks.

The man on the right in the photo above is paid $1194/month for his MoH. Why not honor a few more NCO's that deserve the pay?

Let's hope so.... two words I do not use in my vocabulary are Never and Always.

"Amat victoria curam"

Here are some other reasons why retirement with pay at 20 years makes sense:

1. Because the current system provides an incentive for members to retire, it opens up promotion opportunities for more junior personnel. Compare the regular opportunities for promotion with the long periods between promotions experienced by service members serving before WWII.

2. Despite what your recruiter told you, military skills do not always translate well into civilian employment, especially as you approach and pass 50. Retirement pay can help offset the financial penalties of having to change careers during what otherwise would be you peak earning years.

3. Retirement pay can also offset the lost earning potential of a spouse who had a more difficult time advancing in their own careers due to frequent moves and because they had to assume a larger share of family responsibilities while a service member is deployed.

4. Retired military members are subject to recall and therefore constitute part of the inactive reserve.

I've squared off with a few people on this topic before, so bear with me if I'm reopening old arguments.

The issue I have here is that arguments like that always seem to conflate all MOSs and assume that everyone lives the spartan, physically exhausting life of an infantryman. I've been in the reserves for eight years, including time on active duty for mobilization and deployments, and I'm a Department of Defense employee in my civilian life who works in the DC area. I've seen plenty of military folks, both officer and NCO, who were comfortably retired in place, with the expanding waist line to prove it.*

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the system we have now is the best possible balance of taking care of retirees and not completely bankrupting ourselves. In general, though, I don't like the way the whole topic of reform has become this taboo third rail by raising the specter of the physically broken down E-7 from the 82nd with two bum knees and a bad back from an IED as though that's the universal picture of the retiree when it actually represents a fairly small percentage.

* To preempt, I'm not saying these people represented the whole or even the majority of the military. I've also met tons of active duty servicemembers, even those who supposedly live the easy life here at the Pentagon, who routinely put in 14-15 hour days.

HecticCity's plan is interesting and, I think, worth exploring. You could also factor in people who volunteer to PCS frequently or PCS to less desireable areas. Living in the Ft. Polk area alone should get you a 25% bonus.

One of the benefits I can see with reforming (NOT scrapping, but reforming) the military retirement system is it might force some financial responsibility/long term planning into the heads of servicemembers. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position in the military has stories of counseling soldiers for getting themselves into trouble doing the most retarded things with their money. A good friend of mine who was a squad leader in the 82nd could talk for hours about his Joes who would be flat broke even as they financed BMWs and bought $2,000 rifles. Their response to his asking WTF: The army will take care of me. Drumming the message of "Hey, there IS life after the army, and while the government is going to contribute, you have to take some ownership of your own future. Maybe instead of buying that flashy car on an E-4 paycheck, you should actually contribute 5% of your LES to an IRA or the TSP" into soldiers would be a huge leap forward.

I'm not saying this attitude is caused solely by the blanket, one size fits all retirement plan, but it is an example of the guaranteed safety net that allows servicemembers to live paycheck to paycheck. It's not just junior enlisted, either. I've seen NCOs and officers who ought to know better lose their clearances or have to apply for relief because they were horrible at following a budget.

Consider something like the civil service TSP. It's still an incredibly generous retirement plan...potentially. It has the bonus of making the individual actually contribute and plan for his own retirement. Maybe something like a version of the pension now, where a certain amount is guaranteed right off the bat, and then the rest is supplemented by tax-free matched contributions by the servicemember and the government. Might actually force people to learn how to manage their own finances and plan for their future. I'm not advocating leaving retirees hanging in the wind, but letting the individual manage how much or little they want to put away might be a good first step. Obviously, you'd still have to have a very robust system in place for people who were physically disabled in the course of their service.

HecticCity's plan is interesting and, I think, worth exploring. You could also factor in people who volunteer to PCS frequently or PCS to less desireable areas. Living in the Ft. Polk area alone should get you a 25% bonus.

One of the benefits I can see with reforming (NOT scrapping, but reforming) the military retirement system is it might force some financial responsibility/long term planning into the heads of servicemembers. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position in the military has stories of counseling soldiers for getting themselves into trouble doing the most retarded things with their money. A good friend of mine who was a squad leader in the 82nd could talk for hours about his Joes who would be flat broke even as they financed BMWs and bought $2,000 rifles. Their response to his asking WTF: The army will take care of me. Drumming the message of "Hey, there IS life after the army, and while the government is going to contribute, you have to take some ownership of your own future. Maybe instead of buying that flashy car on an E-4 paycheck, you should actually contribute 5% of your LES to an IRA or the TSP" into soldiers would be a huge leap forward.

I'm not saying this attitude is caused solely by the blanket, one size fits all retirement plan, but it is an example of the guaranteed safety net that allows servicemembers to live paycheck to paycheck. It's not just junior enlisted, either. I've seen NCOs and officers who ought to know better lose their clearances or have to apply for relief because they were horrible at following a budget.

Consider something like the civil service TSP. It's still an incredibly generous retirement plan...potentially. It has the bonus of making the individual actually contribute and plan for his own retirement. Maybe something like a version of the pension now, where a certain amount is guaranteed right off the bat, and then the rest is supplemented by tax-free matched contributions by the servicemember and the government. Might actually force people to learn how to manage their own finances and plan for their future. I'm not advocating leaving retirees hanging in the wind, but letting the individual manage how much or little they want to put away might be a good first step. Obviously, you'd still have to have a very robust system in place for people who were physically disabled in the course of their service.

Sorry for the spamming.

. . . but I read history, and I think nothing will stop the government from screwing those who do this service.

It always has, and as the glow of 911 fades, the balance-the-budget people will work to make it so.

You military people are allowed -- expected -- to fight and bleed for the fading American Dream. But the deficit hawks already view you as greedy, parasitic government employees.

Frankly, the main difference between being screwed by an American oligarchy at home and in the armed forces is that you're more likely to keep all your body parts at home.

My advice -- if you're thinking of joining -- don't. If you're in -- get out the first chance you get, unless you're too close to retirement.

This is not a new idea but one we need to consider as we move foward. Spend more on people than on expensive new weapons systems. The Air Force seems to be especially prolificate in sucking up dollars for planes that could be spent on people so move some (not all) of those projects down in priority so the available pool of money for personnel increases. There are also other programs in the other services that could be trimmed to help. Even my own dear Coast Guard is getting more than anyone ever expected and may be able to effectively use since 9/11. I bet the CG could come up with some associated savings.

There is also a basic justice issue for those who are asked to sacrifice so much. The basic disconnect between the country and its military leads me to doubt that we could come up with a solution such as that the Canadian gentleman outline. There needs to be common recognition that the military members and their families are not investment bankers or stock brokers and deserve compensation for giving up so much. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be mature enough as a democracy to expect that outcome.

The debate on retirement compensation for military service will have as many issues as there are ideas. Two items will have to be included on any implemented changes for any service member currently serving. First a grand farther clause for any current service member to elect to keep the old 20 year high 3/50% and second a time limit to opt in or out on the new retirement plan. Otherwise you will have broken faith for those who are currently serving under the current system.

I take issue with Mr. Goldich in categorizing the NCO & SNCO corps as being the tougher side to which to serve in. It's damn hard to serve period! Good NCO's and Officer's will always work hard regardless and make tough sacrifices to look out for who they are responsible for leading. 14 years in the Corps with multiple combat tours and countless deployments overseas and I am still waiting for that comfortable Officer desk job. The burden of command is real, great commanders just make it look easy. Guess I have too much pride not to relax while we are at war. I do agree that it is because I worked with some outstanding SNCO’s as a JO that I am able to continue to serve as an Officer today. In talking to many a NCO & SNCO who “went to the dark side” and became Officers, none have ever categorized the transition as easier. The ones that I respected I bet would have pushed themselves just as hard had they continued to serve in the enlisted corps. A turd is still a turd regardless of what is on their collar and you still flush a turd at year one or nineteen.

Don't pile on too much on the "rear echelon" (I am an old Infantryman). We probably need those MOS too. Historically a lot of combat arms MOS can make rank quickly while it might take 998 points to get promoted in some CSS MOS. There is already various combat and separation pays where compensation is not deferred for 20-30 years

I am not against giving "Extra Credit" for fighting in World War IV (I think Royal Navy Tars got two years credit for retirement for 4 hours of hard work at Trafalgar). This war is not going to last forever (hope not anyway) if accumulating an adequate retirement depends largely on the war lasting forever, we're going to have an problem retaining a peacetime force.

Some of these "nice cushy jobs" where they don't deploy (some where they are "DA Select" and don't have any SAY in their assignment) like Recruiter or Drill Sgt don't sound like that cushy If we don't NEED those NCOs to do those jobs we shouldn't MAKE those NCOs do those jobs.

Getting rid of 20 year retirement is NOT going to make soldiers more responsible with their pay. "Hope is not a method". Getting rid of 20 year retirement is not going to change the facts that you have "killers, fillers, and fodder" in every unit. In general (in business and the rest of real wold) making a drastic cut in total compensation is not going to improve the quality of your work force (why would it?).

40% of what at 20 years? I think your Canadian NCOs might be much better paid than US NCOs.

I had a conversation many years ago with a Canadian MP w a Stirling Machine Pistol at a crossroads in Germany. He was the equivalent of our E6 Staff Sgts (SSG) but was getting paid way more than our SSGs (and more than me 1 LT).

I tried to calculate pay of a Canadian Sgt, Spec 1, pay increment 3 ($71,184 year?) Canadian ($72,045 American?). Pay and allowances are such a rat maze (housing etc...) I decided I was wasting my time and I just thought I'd ask. Do you think Canadian Forces get paid more/less than US?

Obviously when we talk about retirement as a % of something, it makes a difference what that something is. The DBB made MUCH of percentage retirement (compared to civs) ignoring that 50% is just percentage of base pay not total pay.

First off, stop the whining about the pay disparity become commissioned officers and SNCOs and CPOs! Most--more than fifty-one percent--enlisted men and women lack the motivation to get a four year college degree and apply for a commission through the many commissioning programs available to active duty enlisted personnel! They'd rather bitch and maon about officers being overpaid than get off their dead ass and go out and do something constructive about it! They only SNCOs and CPOs who are underpaid are the ones in leadership positions at the very tip of the spear, period. The slackers, drunks and bullies who make up the majority of today's SNCO and CPO ranks are drastically overpaid when you take their total compensation package into consideration! Quite frankly, I would hire them, or the Officer corps for that matter, to mow my lawn!

Hasn't the military already ended "as we knew it"? The change from the draft to a paid force I feel is unappreciated and also misunderstood by most Americans. It has become a job, it is not "volunteering". How is the free market rolled into this market? I do not know, but perhaps the traditional capitalist business model is not the paradigm needed, but it seems to me that is what is being imposed here.

Like some others here, I am not military, but I appreciate Mr. Rick's column and I very much appreciate the comments and debates among his readers here. My thanks to Mr. Rick for sparking these threads and for the follow up by those here.

First off, stop the whining about the pay disparity between commissioned officers and SNCOs and CPOs! Most--more than fifty-one percent--enlisted men and women lack the motivation to get a four year college degree and apply for a commission through the many commissioning programs, which are available to active duty enlisted personnel! They'd rather bitch and moan about officers being overpaid than get off their dead asses and go out and do something constructive about it! They only SNCOs and CPOs who are underpaid are the ones in leadership positions at the very tip of the spear, period. The slackers, drunks and bullies who make up the majority of today's SNCO and CPO ranks are drastically overpaid when you take their total compensation package into consideration! Quite frankly, I wouldn't hire them, or the Officer corps for that matter, to mow my lawn!

The general public may watch movies or shows that seem to focus on the officers in the military, often portrayed as if they are the best gardening tips decision makers and that the enlisted men and women simply salute and carry out their decisions. The reality is that most successful decisions are only made AFTER a thorough analysis and recommendation has been made by the senior NCOs.