There was an interesting article in last week’s Washington Post concerning the unaffordability of the all-volunteer military. Some of what was written was not a surprise: the current retirement pay beginning at 50 percent for the rest of retired active duty service members lives as well as health care is under scrutiny or already changing. And as many of us know, the active duty retirement system is a pretty good deal.Which is one reason why this family still moves every two to three years.
How can retiree pay be a money sucking entity, you might ask, when 80 percent of the military never see a penny due to leaving the service before that golden 20 year retirement mark? Well, with 2.4 million retirees currently in the system, 1.4 million active duty, the need for health care and future benefits including those for dependents can indeed, and will be, a vacuum for the Benjamins.
All that considered, an interesting topic was brought up: Should benefits be equal for someone who has seen combat vs. someone who has only had an office or stable career in the military with no deployments?
Example: The Marine Corps Band (aka “The President’s Own”). Most of the members, according to the article, never even attended boot camp. Members of this elite group of musicians are able to live in the D.C. area for pretty much their entire career if they choose. They are eligible to receive the same retiree benefits as someone who has seen at least one deployment. Retention comes into play as well. Not many guys in the band are punching their military meal-tickets early where other marine corps service members rarely stay in 20 years (little wonder why … war takes a serious toll).
Rest easy, ’cause Washington is on the case. Defense Secretary Panetta called for the assembly of a nine member panel to discuss such things among themselves and give recommendations to congress and the president for modernizing the military retirement system.
But what I want to know are your opinions … do you think there should be a system in place that takes into account the number of times a military member sees combat? Say, a 1-2 percent increase in retirement pay for someone who has deployed and a 1-2 percent decrease for those who have not. Or maybe all retiree pay in the future begins at 40 percent, with increases of 1-2 percent for each deployment. Or pay stays the same, but a decrease in health care benefits for everyone.
And what of those who want to deploy but keep getting left behind? In an era of troop withdrawals, some Brigades are leaving half their people back home as the rest head to the ‘Stan. Since an individual servicemember is hardly in control of what Big Army decides will be his fate, is it fair to tie his retirement and his family’s future sustainability to a decision on which he doesn’t get the final say?
We can’t come up with a three trillion-dollar coin to fund this, so be creative but also be practical. Instead, a penny for your thoughts — what would you do? The only thing we cannot do is leave it the way it is — at least for those currently in the process of entering the service.
What would you recommend to the panel?
About Heidi
Comments
"combat" is not a well defined term for purposes of what people have put on the line. I think about all the guys and gals that have been hurt in training or simply worn down from years and years of getting ready for war. And what about the entire Navy? Every time you pull away from the pier, you are in a "warship"…those are never training rounds on board (except maybe the occasional torpedo for an inspection/exercise). Is "combat" only if you've been actually shot at? What about if you were in theater but never shot at? It becomes very hard to discern and differentiate. As far as the Marine band goes, and using it as an example, I don't think it's a very good one.
I completely agree.
I agree. I was an Member of an Army National Guard Band for 20 years, and I was in a guard infantry company for three years before that. I was never deployed. However, some bands have been deployed, whether it was an airborne band deploying with their divison, or a band deployed to Vietnam to entertain the troops.
I understand that what I did is not same as combat deployment. My son spend a year in the infantry, mostly doing house to house searches in Iraq, and I can't pretend that my serivice was as dangerous as his. That's why he got combat pay, a theater service ribbon and a Combat Infantry Badge.. And since most of my 23 years were not spent on active duty, my retirement pay will be less than it is for someone who was active for those 23 years.
That said, a deployed band still lhas to drive down the road and be subject to ambush or IED attack just like any other unit. When I was in the infantry, I had no control over whether or not I would be deployed, and I always knew it was a possibility
I would leave the current system pretty much as it is.
During a time of war, it is clear that combat troops on the ground have paid a higher price–their death rates are higher, their rates of wounded, ill or injured are higher, even the suicide rate in the Army and the Marine Corps have increased at a greater rate than the Navy or the Air Force. But the majority of those who served on the ground will never retire. So altering the retirement pay doesn't make sense because it doesn't affect the combat troops when they need it most.
But in all the intervening years at which we haven't been at war, the Navy still deploys all the time. Families are still separated, etc. What about those years? Or don't those sacrifices count? What about all the Navy Corpmen that have died in this conflict? What about all the Individual Augmentee tours, especially those that came right on the back of a regular ship deployment and their families had zero support or contact from the unit to which they were attached?
Yes, combat is ONLY when you are under fire! Come up with other terms for PTSS caused by fearing future combat or death in combat, or even loneliness and boredom. But don't steal the thunder of combat veterans like me! We deployed to places like Vietnam, just as vets from Grenada, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that, unlike those on ships that did'nt see actual action, those WAITING to deploy, etc., we actually DID see combat! So, you have deployment AND combat! Clearly, being in imminent and present fear for your life is worth more than not always rational FUTURE fear of combat death or harm to body! Non combatants fear future combat death or harm to body, but the rockets and small arms fire in Vietnam were real and actually happening to me! Again, the possibility of combat death or harm is much greater in that circumstance, and the stress and psychological harm from real conditions like PTSS merits a more extensive benefits package, and higher monthly pension and service connected monthly disability compensation payments!
Oh, sure. Because ships never deal with danger, are never fired on, never have accidents. The Cole never happened. Counter-drug ops are never dangerous. Etc.
So constant deployments year after year for decades are worth less than constant deployments for the last decade because of the nature of the danger. Am I picking up what you're putting down?
Of course, we're discounting the lucky few who've ended up with boots on ground (despite their training to fight in non-landlocked situations), yes?
This whole discussion is silly. Without the contributions of all, the military would not be as strong as it is. Regardless of role, there are demands put on the service member and his/her family. Nobody is any less worthy because s/he remained behind to support the members who were called away.
Jacey,
I agree and disagree with you at the same time. I was Active Army for 4 years. I’m currently with the Air National Guard. I’ve done three tours to the “sand box” one with the Army and two with the Air Force. I can assure you that the reason Army suicide rates are greater than the Air Forces’, is not because they are more exposed to any more action than we are. It’s all a matter of taking care of the troops which the Air Force does very well. I think the Army should get of their high pride and seek help from other branches in dealing with this issue. Can’t speak for the Navy or Marines.
I think once someone has served their country (4 years or more), and left on good terms or retired should be able to receive good health care benefits. Even for those who retire, the jump in cost for health care insurance is very steep. Combined talents of diversity is the key to success in the military world. It take everyone and so pay should be equal. If you improve it for everyone then no one fall through the cracks.
I agree, I served 6 years in USMC and left with a Honorable Discharge and I'm not even allowed to go on base and use any of the facilities. I don't expect medical benefits and pay but using the commissary, exchange, or any of the MWR facilities I don't think is unreasonable.
Join the USMCR. Then you can.
Larry,see my response to Susan.
Get real. 4 years doesn't equate to 20 years of arduous duty, low pay, and frequent separations from one's family. The reason the retirement pay is progressive serves as a incentive to achieve rank, obtain more responsibility, and become a leader of men and women. It also makes one put their lives on the line more frequently.
Do you think these "short-timers" get it?
I served 23 years, retired in 1983 and I don't have the health benefits and neither does my wife. I don't know were you are getting this. Congress stopped it shortly before I retired after I was promised that I would be getting them for most of my career. You need to check things out a little more before telling it as if it were factual. If you can get into the VA you are able to get some benefits from there but your kids and wife will still get nothing.
my question is why you are not getting the health benefits? Are you & your family not eleigible for TriCare-standard or prime if not retirement age or TriCare For Life if on Medicare? There is no charge for TriCare standard and a yearly amount for TriCare prime. There also is no charge for TriCre For Life if you choose to pay for Medicare Part B. I have had TriCare since my husband retired in 2001 after 38 years in the Air Force/Air Natioal Guard & then drew his check for only 9 mo. prior to his passig away.
I agree with Brenda. I put in my 20 years and have been covered ever since. Yes, we had to start paying some per year but that still covered me and my wife till she passed away in 2004. Now my wife of 8 years is still covered too. We are at that age where what isn't covered by Medicare is picked by Tricare for Life. So, why you don't have medical benefits of some sort is certainly a mystery to me too.
As to the subject at hand, I would think they should just leave well-enough alone. I have the utmost respect for all those who have been on the wrong end of a gun. They're the ones doing the 'real' fighting. Still, when I decided to serve my country I was willing to do that too; it's just that the military didn't put me in that position. Lucky?? Maybe. But was willing to do whatever I was told to get the job done.
My husband retired from the USMC after a mix of 28 active and reserve years of service and since he is not yet of "legal retirement age" and I am a civilian federal employee eligible for "other Federal Health Insurance Benefits" (which costs an arm and a leg!), we are not eligible for any retirement health benefits from the military. While he was still in Reserve Status we were literally kicked off of Tricare Reserve and forced to pick up my FEHB at a great cost burden to our family. Once he reaches 59 1/2 though (only 12 more years!)…we will be eligible for Tricare again and maybe get some of those benefits he worked so hard for! Semper Fi!
If you work on a civilian job and leave you get nothing. I served twenty years for the medical benefits. Everyone wants the benefits without doing the time.
Full retirement benefits should be awarded to those who served 20 or more years only. Susan,4 years is hardly enough time for you to get a free ride.
Anyone that has served for 18 months and was Honorably Discharged can go to the VA for health care. We need to work on the current health care system and make it work. EVERY MTF needs to follow the rules set out by TRICARE and they do not and waste a lot of money with missed appointments, service members also cost the system money by makin appointments and then not showing up!! Or using the ED as their private physician. I know someone ,who was a Seebie NEVER on a ship, got to go home to his wife every night and is getting VA disability for hemmorrhoids, where my husband served 20 years on a SHIP away from his family and yet they get the same retirement? There is something to be reviewed in that, "combat" is a loose term. Policemen and firemen get special retirement in the civilian world because of their profession!!
Not true Regina. Not everyone is eligible for VA benefits just because they spent some in the military. The VA requires one to have a "disability". Let's use me as an example. I spent 20 continuous years on Active Duty with the Navy. Retired May 1999, honorably of course, without any disability. Cannot get in to the VA because I have no disability. I also have another job which the VA tells me I make too much money. I cannot even get a flu shot from the VA! So, really, why should a person that only spent a while in the military be entitled to medical care? Please, know your facts first.
Susan, I think you said it very clearly. I am a 20 retired Army First Sergeant and I spent two tours in Vietnam, and a total of 16 years overseas during my career. I found out that no matter what rank a soldier holds or what job he performs, the retirement pay should be the same. Every job at every rank level is required to a total Army. The lowly cook is just as necessary as the Genreal who gives the orders.
Don E.
My biggest concern isn't the pay, but the medical care. Living at Joint Base Lewis-McChord it seems to be a huge imbalance when active duty families can't get doctor's appointments because of all the retirees at the hospital. There are plenty of VA hospitals in the area, but they go to madigan because they don't want to pay co-pays and what not. This seems very unfair to those of us who have currently serving spouses. I have been waiting 3 months to get into a clinic that never gets cancelations and I am living in CONSTANT pain. Another issue I have is having to wait 3 to 5 hours just to pick up a prescription, for the same reason as above, there are just too many people going and not enough resources. If the hospital was there to serve active duty it would be much easier to get the quality health care we deserve. I am by no means saying retirees don't deserve the benefits, because we plan on retiring in the military because of the benefits, but there are lots of resources available for post-military life, like the VA. Seems like putting too much hardship on those of us who are active duty are are CURRENTLY dealing with deployments.
Melissa, three months is outside the access to care standards. Talk to your PCM or Patient Advocacy if you're still having issues getting an appointment. More info — http://www.mamc.amedd.army.mil/patient-appointmen…
As for the prescriptions, while I don't think waits of that length are typical at military pharmacies, they're not always speedy either. I personally utilize the mail order pharmacy for routine meds & a civilian pharmacy (with co-pays) for more urgent/one-time meds. Yes, it costs a bit out of pocket, I'd rather do without a Starbuck's or two that month than have to wait around. Your mileage may vary.
most pharmacies any more have at least an hour's wait time for prescriptions, so the VA pharmacies are just likethem.
I agree with Melissa. Being the wife of a 20 and still active Marine, I find the same problem. It is very difficult to get in to see a doctor for even a well baby visit. Every time I have called for an appt for one of our children urgent or not I am told the same thing, " We have no openings, go o ER". But yet they post boards with the number of cancelations for the month… So healthcare would be at high priority in my book.
That is why we as active duty should have a copay for an appointment…People would be a whole lot less likely to cancel if they have to pay to do so
Considering that those veterans actually served, I don't think we as spouses should come before them. Seeing what a VA hospital did to my grandfather, I'll have my husband take on post medical whenever possible. Appointments should be active duty, then veterans, then active duty dependents and veteran dependents tied for what is left. Why are your husbands current deployments any more important then the ones the veterans themselves did?
I agree with what you've said to a degree. I'm not against military spouses, but I don't appreciate anybody treating us as if we don't matter. I received a 70% disability rating, but I don't go to the VA. Why? Because I don't have to nor do I want to. It's my right to go wherever I choose for MY healthcare needs. I just retired in Feb 2012 and I can go on post for treatment if I want to. Ma'am, when your husband retires and he gets a taste of VA, holler back at me and tell me if he's satisfied. I'm sure that all VA's aren't bad, but let's not fool ourselves. I just don't want anybody giving us retirees a "back hand compliment." It's like saying, "Thanks for your service, but we don't want you here at "our" hospital. Really?
I LOVE the VA. We have TriCare but now that both of us have retired from the service, it costs $$. I keep it in case I have to be seen downtown or while on a trip or something. And we also can't be seen on base here.
I agree for twenty years I heard the same bull from dependents and their so called rights, we should get this, we should get that, they seem to forget that it is their spouse wearing the uniform not them. I was at Blytheville AFB when the Officer's and NCO wives club went to the wing commander and want him to put the commissary and the BX off limits to the active duty the day before, the day of, and the day after payday so they could do their shopping, His reply was he could and would put both places off limits to them if he heard one more complaint, this shut them up but quick. The hospital is no different it s there for active duty first and in most cases Vet's second and then dependents which is the way it should be. Dependents seem to think the military world revolve around them, it doesn't and Wing and Post Commanders need to remind them of this like mine did.
You should hear them scream while waiting in the clinics for an appointment. I as a spouse have actually told them to STFU. One woman screaming she shouldn't have to wait (she was 10 minutes in the office) because she EARNED medical benefits by being married to her husband. I stood up between her and the receptionist and said you EARNED nothing and if you don't like on post health care feel free to go get a job and use theirs or pay for your own private insurance at a rate of about 800/month plus copays for her mis behaved gaggle. Receptionist busted out laughing and the woman stormed out. It was one of those times I really wished I could slap stupid.
Thank-You
We dealt with the same problems of over-crowding in the 60's. Plus sa change,plus c'est la meme chose.This is a problem that has been around a long time.So,do what everyone else has been doing all these years.Do your time and get out.Become a retiree and get in more lines.See? It never ends.But don't put this on retirees' backs.We're all in this together.Ain't my fault you can't get in to see your doctors.Yell at the hospital administration who can't seem to control admissions.Tell the Congress about your plight.Or find another line of work.
Melissa, if you have a referral to a specialty clinic and you cannot be seen with in 30 days Tricare will refer you to a provider off base. You need to call Tricare directly and you will receive a referral in the mail to make an appointment. I am an Air Force spouse currently receiving care at a Marine Base. I find that asking the right questions to the tech (though they are not techs in the Marines) get me farther. Case in point, the pediatric clinic lost a doctor so there was a back log and my boys needed school physicals. When told that they could not make any new appointments because they were short staffed I told them that was unacceptable and they needed to come up with other options. You cannot take no for an answer. be polite but firm. This clinic is constantly full as it is small. Yes there are many retirees, but they are not the cause of the back log and shouldn't be made into second class citizens. You will one day be in their shoes. I am sorry you are in pain, but you need to be proactive and seek solutions because the only person that is going to take care of you is you. If you are uncomfortable being firm then take someone with you to be your advocate.
As far as a sliding scale for deployments, who would regulate that or determine what constitutes a deployment? If you put in your time, then it should be the same across the board regardless of how you served.
Melissa, As a retired Army Warrant Officer (female) married (now) to a Purple Heart Veteran of Korea, let me tell you one thing about the VA. They will NOT do a thing for YOU when your husband retires. They flatly told me that my being a retiree meant my husband was a dependent, and "go do your thing". We aren't near an Army base and we do have a lot of "bennies", but be sure to do a lot of planning before you pick a place to retire.
P.S.
Melissa, I also served 2 tours in Vietnam, so I wasn' t a stateside/Europe only retiree.
Melissa,
A bit of advice. Get a life. You want to retire for the benefits, but you don't want the retirees to have benefits at "your" hospital. You can't have it both ways.
The VA does not support the dependents and are not there to provide benefits or medical for them. The alternative is to go from waiting in the long line at a local base, to increases of $200-300 a month or more. It isn't a small sacrifice you are asking the retired to take on so that you can get to the front of the line. Once you start realizing that the "co-pays and what nots" you think a retired family should accept can be in the thousands of dollars a year, maybe you will realize that this is the sacrifice you are saying you would willing take on when you retire. Tri-care proposals are to increase the cost to retirees until there is no benefit. To take it away little by little until it is gone. Next time you see a retired military family getting actual medical care from the military start thinking you hope they fight to keep it long enough that you will get to see it.
I lived in Washington most of my life and just moved to a more economically friendly state for a DV to live. Where are the "plenty of VA hospitals"? Washington has fewer VA facilities than states with equal or less veterans almost anywhere in the country. the 3 to 5 hour wait for your prescriptions aren't due to retirees or vets taking up the time it's caused by poor quality workers. The Pharmacies have the most up to date equipment available what they don't have is people that want to work. The Pharmacy world is full of highly educated lazy people, have you tried a Walgreen, QFC or Fred Meyer it's all the same. There are just a hand full of Pharmacists that know their craft and care about the patients. In the VA / Military system I have met 2. I personally believe the on post medical facilities should be for active duty personnel only! Dependents, Retirees, and us Vets need to be using other resources. I know there are co-pays for some but there is and should be a cost for the care we get. We are no better than any other citizen.
Disagree with your closing comment, Jeff. We, the military, have been promised this health care for retirees since World War II, and finally got it in 1997! It was a promise a LONG time coming, and already they're starting to dismantle it piece by piece. You're WRONG when you say we're no more deserving than ANY other citizen, because we have millions and millions of Americans who are capable of working, but simply not interested in it, because they'd be giving up a life better than many of our retirees…for doing absolutely nothing! I'm not talking about those going through a rough time…I'm talking about those who are making a career out of it, and I know you've seen he kinds of people I'm talking about on reports about the problem on TV. I, for one, will be losing my TriCare Prime this coming Oct. 1st…simply because I don't live within 40 miles of a military base. I spent 41 years in the military between active duty and Guard. After the government promising health care for retirees for 52 years, it finally arrived. After 4 years of having TriCare Prime, I'm losing it. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're logic escapes me, when it's so easy to see how much money is being handed out to sao many who not only HAVEN'T DONE anything…but also REFUSE TO DO anything. Now our President wants to allow another 11 million undocumenteds to join in on the dole. This is a VERY bad case of mis-prioritization…PERIOD!
Jeff, so the next time I need to go some place else for my prescriptions to be filled, I'll be sure to call you up so that you can pay my co-pay. Again, I served and I am going to use whatever source that I want to use. What other "resources?" As you stated in your own words, YOU feel that we're not better than any other citizen." If you think in those terms, what makes you think that the government doesn't feel the same? In other words, if they feel the way that you do, what other "resources" do you think will be provided for us? Let me know when those "resources" show up.
I am retired but no Military hospital is near me, I wish there was. Not all of us can get care at the local VA. I did not get evaluated while on active duty so have never qualified although I do have medical issues. Yes, I stayed in for the retirement medical care that I don't use. Without Tricare I would have no medical at all. I am very thankful for the retirement benefits I do get.
I am Vietnam era, never served in a combat zone, but provided medical care to those who did. Does that make me less qualified for medical care and retirement ? I was on call 24/7, and could have been sent anywhere at anytime. My life was not my own. On the other side of the issue, as a medical professional, if you are in CONSTANT pain, you should be triaged by a patient care advocate to the front of the line.
You know that it is not too late to get that medical evaluation and receive that disability rating, just contact the VA on how to file such a claim then follow the process. It really isn't that bad unless our medical records were lost, and even lthen you can still be awarded benefits.
I'm retired and I agree with you 100% – we should be shunted off base to either VA or private doctors. Ditto on the pharmacy and drugs – there is no reason why we can't use civilian facilities and providers. Even the Base Exchanges gives precedent to someone in uniform in lines etc. The Base hospital and pharmacys should do the same. Their funding is based on the active forces using them more so than the retirees. Retiree considerations come from an entirely different viewpoint.
Well, for one thing, Melissa, you say: "Seems like putting too much hardship on those of us who are active duty are are CURRENTLY dealing with deployments." You seem to ignore the fact that many of the retirees are CURRENTLY still suffering as a RESULT of THEIR deployments. Don't get me wrong…I understand and empathize with your situation. It's just another problem caused by the government's doling out all sorts of free benefits to millions of Americans…AND NON-AMERICANS …who simply don't deserve them, thus taking money away from health care for its military members, active and retired, who earned that care the hard way. I'm certainly not saying ALL Americans being helped by the government don't deserve help. but we have all seen very clear examples of those who just get so much for nothing, those who are able to work, but refuse to because what incentive do they have to get off the dole and get a job? It's our politicians who are responsible for this upside-down situation, but they keep getting voted back in. Now, the military is being forced, by budget cuts, to take TriCare Prime away from a lot of us just because we live more than 40 miles from a military base…exactly where active duty families like yours would like us to be for obvious reasons. I see this move, coming on 1 Oct of this year, just causing more retirees to migrate closer to bases, making a bad situation even worse for you folks. We're all just pawns…our best years used up by the government…and now, because of their back-assward policies which. by the way, may soon result in even deeper cuts to military active and retirees when our President allows another 11 million illegal aliens to become citizens and legally drink from the welfare trough. If you think it's bad now, Melissa, it will be getting a lot worse before long…for you active duty folks as well as us retirees. We're ALL getting screwed by those who supposedly "work for us".
I agree with you Retired. A promise that was made to all military people who retired with 20+ years should be honored & taking away TriCare Prime just because you don't live close to a base is ridiculous. And I don't think it is fair at all to give amnesty, free medical, free welfare, free SS to illegals who have never even served our country in any way. And our politicians don't even have to serve 20 yrs to get their retirement/benefits. Put them on the same retirement plan as the military & see how fast it gets changed!
Thank you Chief, for presenting the big picture with its varying facets and causes and once again educating the young. May I respectfully request that you consider returning to the service of your country in the next election? It seems we are in short supply of dedicated, intelligent, analytical and well-versed people in critical positions! Plus, as a congressman or senator, your retirement pay would be many times what it currently is.
Melissa,
You need to be mindful of the mess you spew out. I am a retiree–I dedicated a total of 23 years in uniform. I earned my retirement benefits. You may be a spouse, but you have NEVER laced up a pair of boots at all. My body has gone through all types of changes–and so what you've been in pain? Who hasn't? You are NOT a veteran/retiree, but yet you have the audacity to rant about what YOU need. You need to kiss a retiree because it was him or her that have allowed you to embrace the freedoms you have today. Chick, you need to RECOGNIZE!!
Hi All ! Mellisa, don't let these folks get you down. You have expressed what every one of them has felt while they were active. They just don't remember. It will all be a remote memory in a few years.
Having enjoyed over 32 years WWII and Viet Nam I look back and enjoy the memories. Walt
Nope…we're still active duty and if I were to hear this girl say this out loud I'd be inclined to inquire how stupid and self centered she was. Yea I have to wait for appointments and meds but guess what it's still HALF the time I had to wait when I had my private insurance prior to marriage.
Some retirees don't go to the VA because the care isn't always up to par and have long wait time!
You can say that again,Chief. I gave up trying for (1) the reasons you state and (2) for the insulting manner I was treated by the civilian quack assigned to me.And (3) when I tried to find someone to address the problem,the answer was "he's busy right now but if you leave your info,etc,etc we'll get back to you as soon as possible".That was four years ago. I'm still waiting.Phoque the VA.
I personally prefer VA's care to the lack of care I would be able to afford if it were not there. Sure I'd love to have care that was fast courteous and didn't hesitate to spend whatever was needed for my care, but guess what, civilian insurance doesn't always look out for what we want either, and look at the complaint levels for most HMO's and you should be able to see that dispite the complaints VA care is still pretty good, and if you can aford civilian healthcare these days you are fast becoming a minority.
JBLM (Army) requires the retirees to use Madigan if they are in range of miles. I myself am on Medicare and Tricare is its supplemental insurance. I am not forced to use Madigan as other 20+ AFS retirees are. You need to do your homework before you ASSUME. I am quite sure if you had a choice to go elsewhere, you would not go to Madigan. I do not trust Madigan and only go there for prescriptions. The VA health care system is not free unless you have a service connected disability which takes years to get unless you are lucky. Again, do some homework before you ASSUME.
Hi Smitty, sadly some of us with documented service related condtions can't get seen by the VA unless the compliant is directly related to the disablity documented. Melissa doesnt understand the system but she'll find out the hard way later.
How am I "lucky" as you put it that I suffered a very severe Tramatic Brain Injury (bruise on the brain) in the line of duty? It looks like to me that you are the one that is assuming this time.
Melissa, I myself would prefer to pay the copays but if you would go to the TRICARE website and research you would see why more and more of us retirees are flocking to the base.The new copay for a 30-day supply of a brand name medication purchased at a retail network pharmacy will be $17, up from the current $12. Beneficiaries using TRICARE Home Delivery will pay $13 for brand name drugs, up from $9. However, the Home Delivery price is for a 90-day supply. The greatest change in copays applies to non-formulary medications. The $25 copay for these drugs increases to $44 at retail pharmacies and $43 through Home Delivery. For fiscal 2014 and beyond, the new law directs that copays increase annually by the same percentage as retiree cost-of-living adjustments, this applies to the cost of prime also. So as you can see the government is driving us "Retirees" to the bases. I know when i retired back in 2006 i was told that i would have to be seen at the base but luckily i already had my family with a Primary Care Provider downtown so they let me go downtown also. For some of the older retirees that are on a fixed budget this can be devastating. As far as the appointment cancellations go I wonder what the rate is for cancellations for Active Vs. Retired Vs. Spouse is? Just wondering. Maybe it would help if everyone no matter who they are had to pay a cancellation fee for cancelling an appointment. Just a thought!
Retirees pay insurance premiums too. You know if they cut out any service to anyone, non-military spouses and dependent children will more than likely be cut from benefit of base facilities before active duty and those who have previously served their country. So be careful what you ask for.
Military hospitals were never and have never been established for dependants. The entire number of medical personnel are established by the number of active duty personnel the serve in that area. Dependants are not considered and have never been considered in this count. Most dependants assume they have rights to on base/post medical facilities but this is only a courtesy when and whenever a dependant gets medical attention. Old timers remember CHAMPUS and now there is TRICARE for dependants. I advise you to get use to your tricare because this courtesy will go away real soon.
A good point. I have not experienced such since I don't use Madigan. I doubt it's the number of retirees though. Besides, the bulk of them are enrolled in Tricare Prime. That means they are entitle to the benefits that plan affords. I opine part of the problem is the number of medical military members forward deployed. The VA could probably handle the retiree load but they would need additional funds to do so (facilities and staffing too).
Nothing is free You pay with money or time. Military health care is a form of National Health. Watch carefully where Obama-care takes us. I'm retired military and waited in line whether active or retired. I don't see it getting any better.
And Melissa..you thought the retirees are only that..never served on active duty, think again.. Did you ever thought of them as once just like your husband..in the active force? did what your husband is doing now and more? A lot of retirees suffered from active duty, injured and what not…you are sooo selfish thinking health car are only for active duty personnel..How long have your husband been in the service so far? You will eat your words when your husband retires…mark y word…
My husband is retireed navy of 20yr 6 mos. Now when he was in the service my understanding of how it worked at the miltary hosp was Active duty came first then dependants then retiree's on space available for retirees. That is why tricare prime is so important to me. I choose outside dr's because I choose to leave the base hosp for active duty members who need it most. As for the va hosp. while I am entitled to my health care there I still choose my outside dr's to keep the Va hosp available to the members of the miltary who need the services it provides for the soldiers. more in next post.
next posting Now our politicians want and are taking away my prime care to force me into the base or the Va hosp for my care. Which in turn will overload and already overloaded system of health care. I will lose my primary care dr. and my oncologist as well as the other dr's that I see unless I pay the fees of tricare standard. So now that is said, Don't go blaming all of this on the retiree's. Why don't the government just tell all dr's and hospitals that they have to treat the military Active, reservists and retireed along with their dependants for free and make that mandatory for all the service that our service members and their families have done for this country past and present. You Melissa have a lot to learn about the Military and the families that have served you should be ashamed for trying to throw the retiree's and there dependants under the bus. We did our time and we did it well and didn't complain about those before us.
I am a retiree and my wife also chooses to use a non-VA doctor for her and our kids. She doesn't want to take appointments away from the ones that have earned it.
As long as your spouse gets in for medical care anytime he/she needs to, you have no complaints. Go on the economy and in most cases you can get in to see a doctor the same day, and in some within 1 or 2 days.
Quitt complaining and become pro-active. TRICARE helps paying for some of the medical costs.
I have done this most of my life being married to a soldier, and never complaint because I could not get in. There are plenty of doctors on the economy.
Your soldier spouse needs the medical care. As the saying goes "If the Army wanted you to have a wife they would have issued you one."
The retirees deserve medical care and most of them served in the Vietnam war and have seen things that you never saw or will see because they kept this country safe.
Gotta love someone like you. Well said GS.
I am a retiree, who does not use base or VA except very little of the VA. Most bases has a active duty priority. So to blame retirees is not right
MElissa, dont forget those who served before you and those who have made life much better for you and the active service members of today. Healthcare whether it be at madigan or the VA is something that these retirees have earned, so no apologies for the inconvenience it causes you. As a Retiree I understand your concerns, but do not sympathize with someone's inconvenience. We have all been inconvenienced at some point in our lives but what we do with it is choice. God or bad decisions are made daily. Complain or not to complain regardless of the two, they are still choices. One day, maybe you can go make an appointment at the VA to see how their system works. What you will find is that Tricare has sent these "Retirees" to madigan and it wasnt their choice!
Melissa,
No disrespect but you keep using the words "we" and "us" as if you were out there dodging bullets yourself!
If you think your hospital is overwhelmed the VA is 5x worse. I thought active military and spouses and families always had priority over retirees? At least that's the way it was once I retired. My closest base is Shaw in Sumter SC and I can't drive there for every ailment. I work for a company that has decent insurance and my Tricare supplements that Thank God!
As for making “Combat” a requirement in how much you get when you retire I see it as a non-player. If you spent 20+ years in the Military regardless of branch of service you paid your dues so to speak. I worked the flight line on attack and fighter jets. I was deployed more than home for the most part. Spent 13 months on a remote tour with a wife back home working full time and raising a 3 year old and 18 month old with no family around to assist. I was never directly shot at but the threat was always there so how can you use any of your mentioned situations as a requirement for the amount of retirement benefits one should get? Maybe all the big wheels in congress need to take a pay cut and start paying into their retirement and benefit plans. Heck they can work (if you call what they do work) just 4 years and they are set for life. That’s where the cuts need to start….
I agree with all your sentiments except one….20 plus is not the best cutoff to decide who "earned" their retirement benifits! I was medically retired with 19 and a half years active duty! I also worked the flightline, fighter jets and bombers! Two short (unaccompanied) tours to Korea while my kids were still very young! Since I did not "earn" my retirement pay, I get to forfeit it to the VA in order to collect my Disability pay! 100% If I would have not been retired medically, I would most certainly have stayed in the other 6 months to "earn" my retirement! Counting the 2 short tours (12 months each) and untold deployments, I believe that I did indeed earn my retirement as did a lot of other people who fall into that chapter 61 rule! Paid your dues, you certainly did but I and the others like me also paid our dues!
I put in 33 years and four wars. Was a full time Guardsman retired at 60 and had no local military installation close by. And now I am on Tricare for life and Medicare the point I want to make is The Military is doing away Tricare Prime . For us that live far away from military bases this is going to put a strain on retirees and famliy. Making retired people change to stright tricare makes it hard to find medical care and hard on active duty people as well. I believe this will all get worse for all active and retired.
After you retire, you want have the same comments. Have some respect for those that came before you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would HOPE if U R in pain you would use your Tricare and get some help. Or do what a lot of folks did , before Obamacare, and still do–GO yo the ER!
Not all of us retirees have VA benefits. When I retired in 1978 there was 3 bases within a 8 to 45 mile range 2 with hospitals. All 3 were closed. I'm lucky though, I have tri-care for life and good insurance from my job after the AF.
That's exactly how we retirees feel when Active Duty comes to the VA. A lot of VA's have joint-sharing with the military because in a lot of places there are no military facilities. I retired from the military and I have worked at the VA for the last 13 years, belief me it's a two way street.
Okay, so i have sat and read through all the responses to Melissa's post and feel many have miss-interpreted her writings due possibly because of limited space. I do not think she was finger pointing or dissing any of the prior veterans or questioning the fact that they served their country in any ill capacity. I think she was reflecting on her experiences at the hospital and the causes for her to be unable to get scene. The military has changed tremendously and with the economy being as it is the military Family is just that a unit in itself and it is alot harder to raise a family now rather than even ten years ago and with pay being borderline poverty going out and seeing a civilian dr is too costly for a family w/dependents , so being seen ON POST seems like the world they fit in. On a side note, i recently visited the Madigan hosp where my 33 yr retired Marine brother-in-law was in the ICU and lost the battle for life and while there scene the incredible mass conjestion everyday of people passing through those doors and lines for meds and yes it appeared to be mostly foriegn americans and retirerees, but i seen the staff being incapable and ill prepared wandering all over the halls not the patients being uncooperative.
The point i read in many of the postings was that the care and availablity of OUR VA hospitals is so bad that nobody wants to go. YET they are incredibly funded and resourced and possibly our LEADERS should put the crunch on them and make them start doing there JOBS. Those places have incredible payrolls and countless personnel just wandrering all day long yet active duty facilities have to contend with a tremendous patient load and back log.
OUR RETIREES DO DESERVE GREAT CARE and the VA facilities are positioned all over the states, they just need to be monitored better by our USELESS congressional leaders we elect and plan to help care for them and relieve the active facilities to the active and families assigned to those areas. Melissa was just writing openly about her difficulties get care and not stating anyone else doesn't deserve it just that the government should try and ensure the monies we are providing get to better use and care should be improved and required to stay employed and NOT be looking for active or retirees to pay more for crapy care. The military is a positive place in our society and tho different through the years our past military personnel experienced different circumstances and nowaday personnel and yes there dependants are scrutinized much more for virtually the same in not less pay per capita.
Due to the recent wars and incredible pain and losses and increased wounded the congress should look to better resource our communities with retirees and wounded needs and not just take the easy route and punish those of us who in our own time period served OUR GREAT COUNTRY. The demands needed nowadays to raise a family in the military environment and accomodate the civilian world around them is tremendous with school and healthcare so i ask that you don't ridicule Melissa for voicing a concern and allow her to write and respond much like all of us have to a much needed topic of concern both Retirees and Active members deal with.
#1: The Va was not intended to give Medical Care to Active Duty Military Personnel. The VA has been tasked with treating Active Duty Personnel because the Military does not have the means to treat them for what ever means. #2. The VA was not intended to treat Military Families…That is why Military Personnel are provided Health Insurance for their Family. Wake-up people…if the real problems are not addressed, nothing will be accomplished….and the real problems are not being addressed. Why would anyone complete Medical School and then turn around to work for an organization that gives considerable less compensation then can be obtained else-where?
While VA does have good treatment for the men, it is still behind on treatment for women. My wife does not use the base hospital at the Little Rock AFB, she uses out side primary care and other care, what worries me is Tricare moving retirees from prime to standard. Take me, I was forced to retire because both legs were injuried along with other injuries, I can't work or make extra money and moving me to tricare standard would be a very big blow to my family.
Dear Melissa,
I wish it was that easy. I wish I could go to the VA hospital. It is much better than the hospital on base. I tried before with a service connected injury to my knee. I was turned away and told to go to the Emergency room on base. It is the same with primary care proividers in my area. I had one for the family but he closed shop and went back up North. Thanks OBAMA Care.
Melissa, did you know that you you have an option to go off-base, and be seen by a civilian dr since your husband is still an AD? My husband has now retired but when he was in uniform, I had changed my Primary care to be seen off-base and it's no co-pay for any appointments for AD dependants. I was just 30 mins away from the Base and was able to this, so maybe this could be an option for you.
Seriously you are not putting yourself above retired vets and their families. Some retired military don't want to use the VA for various reasons, if you are one of the fortunate to stay for the long haul you will realize that ALL military is family and be thankful for each other. You say pay isn't a concern…when you are retired military, living on the retirement and your medical co pays and prescription costs and your out of pocket just keeps going up you will realize just how selfcentered you sound..I will pray for you
Hello Melissa,
The problm is the VA services are so packed, you wait 6 months or more for an appointment. Try it to see what happens. Tricare 'assigns' you to a facility once retired and those folks at your PCM probably have no other PCM they are allowed to go to.
I don't know how close you are to retirement or your spouse, but it is not as simple as that. Active duty ALWAYS have priority over retirees everyday of the week and that includes dependents. Ask me how I know…… My father retired while I was just entering high school and I am now the spous of a retiree. I assure you it is even worse if you live overseas, which I do. How would you like to be a retiree and have to pay for your healthcare up front and wait for what is never full reimbursement ? I promise you I have been denied more healthcare because I don't get seen at all or until long after active duty and dependents of active duty are seen than you will have ever been. As to prescriptions, try living in a country that has suddenly decide you can't even use MAIL ORDER to send prescriptions to me over here when I cant even get the prescription through a MTF because it is not on the military drug formulary. Oh, and lets not forget that once you hit social security age you can't even be seen as a retiree in a MTF (small exceptions for a few specialty clinics), you pay increasing premiums and have eroding healthcare opportunities.
Please stop complaining. Go see the customer service department at the MTF and remind them you are dependents of active duty. I assure you, you will get seen over retirees.
If, as you say, active duty personnel aren't able to get appointments at the base hospital/clinc then the fault is that of the base commander and/or hospital commander. All retired personnel, with very few exemptions, should be admitted or given appointments to military doctors on a space available basis. If the medical facilities at a military installation is not able to handle the work load, then the base/post commander and/or the hospital commander can and should end retirees us of those facilities. If, what you say is common for all active duty military personnel at your post then I would recommend that you complain to some one who may be able to do something about it, e.g., stop retiree us of the facilities or at a minimum ensure that active duty personnel receive priority. Complaining on this site will do you absolutely no good.
I think the direction of the proposal is to cut cost. Well if that is the case then start elsewhere before you cut military pay and benefits. How about the ridiculous cost of federal govt civilian emploees retirement benefits and pay. When I arrived at Marine boot camp the first thing my D.I. told us was to "Give your soul to God because your ass belongs to the Corps". Well that is true for all branches of our military because basically you have no choice. Your oath upon swearing-in commited you to obey orders and do whatever job you were assigned and go where you were sent at any time. While it is true that many are not in the line of fire or a combat zone they are still providing necessary support for those who are; however, their oath commited them to be assigned to a combat zone if required so their asss was on the line whether sent to combat or not. Our military protects us 24/7 no matter their job. Look elsewhere to cut cost and respect those who are willing to serve.
when are we going to talk about the pay and retirement benefits of our legislators who are filthy rich but who are NOT doing the jobs we elected them to do?
I served in the Navy but didn't retire. I think that retirement pay should be a percent of the pay rate at retiring. This pay rate should be adjusted all along for those who are deployed in war zones and the hazard pay should remain intact once the person returns to normal duty. Each time the person is deployed the pay should increase. This way those who have seen the most combat would receive a larger retirement check. Also in the Navy we received submarine duty pay and that increased our paycheck. This extra pay should be figured into the rate of pay for retirement calculations. I am sure their is similar pay adjustments for Air Force personnel also.So those who were never deployed at sea or in combat zones wouldn't receive as much at retirement. Not that their service isn't as important but don't penalize those who did see combat or deployment just to be equal. Life is neither fair nor equal.
It's a shame that our over educated political leaders can't understand the concept of raising your right hand and giving up your freedom of choise on where you live or what job you have to do. The benefits are being eroded daily for retiree's. the medical benefits that were to be provided for life if you retired are no longer available (Try-Care for Life = medicare @$$$$ per month, plus co-pays, now they want to reduce the retiree's pay. The solution is to eliminate career positions and revert to a similiar Military of all the previously defeated country's of a two or four year mandatory service for everyone. Watch the wheels fall off and see what the political leaders think then.
I would like to make a small distinction to your comment "about the ridiculous cost of federal govt civilian emploees retirement benefits and pay". I as a regular ol' third rate run of the mill federal employee get a basic retirement package once I reach retirement age and over 20 years of government service which will include health care and retirement pay that I have paid into as well as up to a 5% agency "match" much like civilian employers do. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those Capitol Hill government politcal snobs who can be elected and after 4 years of "serving", receive a whopper of lifetime paychecks and free lifetime medical benefits. In reality, mostly lowly fed employees are in the same boat as the military when it comes to our bennies being slowly eroded. And yes, my hubby is a retired Marine. We are both being let down by our govt.
I retired in 1977,been a few years ago.just after the first olf the year I get really nice letter from then President Reagan,To the effecthat as a former member of the Army It was really our duty to take a pay cut or pass on a cola raise.That was fine because I felt the same.Buit less than 2 weeks later I was reading the Army Times when back a ways off the front page was a blurp to the effect that houses of government had awarded them selves a 100% pay raise effective now and for so many years after
That is were I LOST a lot of faith in our form of govermnet. being run by lawyers .and it has gotten worse over the years .We have sat on our butts and let these people tell us when we can pee or what ever.If they are so willing to cut our pay to save a few bucks,let them step up and show their colors.Better yet let us step up and insist that there be some work on their pay and micky mouse retirement setup
Dead on target. You said all that I wanted to add. I too think this is a ploy to reduce costs NOT TO REWARD COMBATENTS. I served in a war zone in three conflicts / wars and I feel anyone who has served is due equal retirement benifits. If you are truely NOT GOING TO TOUCH non combatents retire pay now or in the future then giving more for more given is good BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED HERE..
I agree. You may not have a "front line job" but everyones primer job in the military is to fight. And if I remember corrently, a round flying through the air has no eyes, its first come first served. Don't screw with their retirememnt for their job is truely a 24/7/365 one.
Well done Charles. You hit a home run. The armed forces and their dependents have always been the soft target of the DOD establishment and Congress. And we know why- its "duty, honor, country". Yes sir, no sir, six bags full. We take the oath, sacrifice, and pay the price. And they continue to ask for more.
Charles you make a very good point and all of it is true. When we active duty, retired, or veterans took our oath, we basically signed a blank check to our nation for an amount of up to and including our lives. I went in with the intent of serving for 20 or more years but due to being unable to take a skills test in a timely fashion, I was stuck at the rank of E-3 and could not go any higher. I think, like you, that we should start cutting costs, not on the backs of the military, but cut out some of the frills that our members of Congress and the Senate voted for themselves along with all the ones who work in the Congress, the White House, and civil services.
I think the "deployment" concept is just too vague. Not only do we have issues mentioned here, such as people who want to deploy but never get orders, or navy ships who are on patrols whenever they leave port, but there are other duties that people may argue are similar.
Air Force Missileers "deploy" to fight the nuclear war on a regular basis. Some installations have individuals who are considered "Deployed in place".
Plus, we already get financial bonuses each time we deploy in the form of tax breaks and special pays, none of which require us to retire to reap those benefits. I certainly wouldn't deny the deployment beneits to someone who has deployed, simply because they left after one or two enlistments instead of staying until retirement.
Interesting idea, however, what happens if we end up with an extended "peace time" like between the 1970s and the 1990s. Those people will have no opportunity to increase their retirement pay.
Extended Peace time! While there was no "war" please don't forget those that deployed to Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Congo and Iran and several no-named places! It's so easy to forget those that died or were injured fighting during "Extended Peace". Yes I'm one of those and I earned every dime I get each month and the medical care for injuries received during my military career. And BTW there are no MOH or Silver stars or Purple Hearts to go to those that served and or died during "Extended Peace"
my husband spent 3 mo. on a "closed base" just before he got out of the Air Nat. guard (he had 38 yrs of AF/Air Nat. Guard) and he took many, many extra trips with the guard that he didn't have to do. So, just because he didn't spend a whole lot of time in any war zone, he still put in a lot of time on foreign soil in peace time as well as war time. He put in a lot of time in Panama Canal/Costa Rica & although they were not war zones, he was considered for dangerous tours (drug trafficking) so he also did pull duty in places not considered "safe". Why should he not (he is dceased) have gotten the pay the same as someone who put in a lot of time during war? He did his time, should be paid for it-he died 9 mo. after drawing his first check.
"Those people will have no opportunity to increase their retirement pay".
Uh, that's exactly the point. You don't think this 9 member panel was put in a room to create a mandate do you? No, they have a mandate already, Panetta just told them to come up with a way to get it done. The end state is already decided.
100% correct! We must remember that the military and hence the DOD is here to protect Democracy not to practice Democracy! Orders have been sent and the TOP already knows the end result maybe not the exact details but the end result. This has already been decided and useless to debate because to many people are walking around with their eyes wide shut!!!
There was and is this little group (37,000) on a year tour (or more) in a country that does not yet have a peace treaty from it's northern neighbor country from the end of the conflict (1954 to present). They are in a combat enviroment and some (who volunteer) actually live within a 1/2 mile of the border with constant trips to the border on a daily basis (if not more). So did we have an extended peace time between 1970 to 1990? Not really for the reason stated above.
How do I know, I served with that group who volunteered to live within 1/2 mile from the border as its Assistant S1 and PAC Supervisor.
The military retirement cost is such an absurdly miniscule part of not on only the federal budget but the entitlement payouts in general. But… we'll be the first to get chopped because we vote conservative in such a large percentage the current ruling party doesn't bother with trying to "court" us. The money is better spent giving it to people who never have, and never will, contribute anything to our society, but vote the correct way. To breach the pact this country made with its service members who have stuck it out for 20+ of honorable service is disturbing.
I agree with you.
and the politicians get their retirement/benefits after one "tour or duty"! How about we make them serve 20 to get that? Seems fair to me-rather than always threatening those who have gave them the freedom for their position!
Would love to agree with you but I prefer that our politicians serve only a maximum of two terms and go home. They do enough damage in that length of time.
Lets make our Law Makers sever 20 years to get 50 % there full retirement. I'm currently Retired and haven't had a cost of living increase in 3 years but my taxes still keep going up so i live on less now.
I have also said this all along , that they should serve a full 20 years of service, maybe not in the same job as I also agree two terms in any office is enough. But most of them come up through the ranks in local govt, to state and then federal. So if they served a total of 20 years they should only get a max of 50% of their basic income. If they serve less than 20 than sorry, guy/gal, get another job.
I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. How about we stop sending billions in foreign aid also?
MORE THAN DISTURBING–TRY 'REVOLTING' AS YES WE WILL.!
Twenty years served honorably whether it be a desk or in battle deserves what is PROMISED to the military member when they signed up. However, there are few, if any, other jobs that provide such a retirement (50% of base pay at 20 yrs). This will likely change, but those currently serving will be grandfathered in. Yes all retirees should received medical care. It is not unreasonable to have a small co pay for prescription drugs. All retired troops who were ever injured in any situation in the line of duty ,should be medically cared for, for life.
I agree that any troup hurt in the line of duty should be cared for for life. That is not the way it will ever be because we are concidered 3rd class citizens. You also have to remember that every time you re-enlist that you are signing a new contract. Between your last contract and the new one congress can change the rules on you as they did to me about the promise of health care for life. They can do the same about retired pay for those already serving and there is nothing you can do about it. They don't have to grandfather anybody and in most cases they will not.
All retirees deserve equal benefits. If for no other reason than the one you stated, "Since an individual servicemember is hardly in control of what Big Army decides will be his fate, is it fair to tie his retirement and his family’s future sustainability to a decision on which he doesn’t get the final say?" Also, a single military member, may choose to sign-up for deployment after deployment, because they have no family or maybe a service member signs-up for multiple deployments for the tax breaks. There are many reasons that a member can deploy, especially when self-initiated versus directed. Also, as a previous member voiced what about the times we aren't in combat? I also agree with the sentiment expressed earlier about all those veteran's who served their time and some even during combat that now can't find good access to care. Suggestion, how about the Government re-access Disability and look at those people who while on active duty did something like tore-up their knee while skiing and meet the magical criteria for a disability check, so they separate from Active Duty, receive their monthly disability check, receive VA benefits & meds and go on to a Civilian job as a GS-13 working full-time making $85,000 a year with the option for full medical benefits from the government…there is room for improvement there.
I'm with cds and MsCamo. I know plenty of Soldiers who would like to have deployed, but came in too late and were never PCSed to a unit that deployed. And, right, we're getting to the end of the current war business, so all of those who serve in a time of peace but still have given their country twenty years of their life wouldn't have the option of deploying to make the extra percentage through no fault of their own.
Leave it alone. It doesn't make any difference about combat or no combat. Every person put in his TIME. There are hardships that are felt by every service person. Deployments, month or two on combat training exercises, 24 hour duties, etc. Everyone plays a vitial roll and preferance should not play any part. If you want to keep moral up you must play fair to all. Remember, every person in the military is there to due their part – even if they are never called to due so. Therefore they have earned 50% plus 2.5% for every year after and their medical – along with their spouse – should be provided (Period).
I am the spouse of a retired 20-year AF man. Married in early service years and spending much time away from each other, and the kids not really getting to know their father, made for a difficult time. I feel that my husband earned whatever the military promised to provide, and some of the time it has not provided that care. I agree that retirement benefits should be equal all around. Whether at a desk job, or musician, or actual battle, the service person is still on the alert and could be used for war at any time. Equal for all.
PRC (ret) George Bilodeau
What you say holds true today except one part. When I entered the service in 1951 I was PROMISED free medical for me and my dependents FOR LIFE if I stayed for 20 years. I put in 22 years and have still to see the free medical. I have a good HMO that has no co-pays for doctors or hospital stays, but it comes at a price—-I still have to pay part B of my medicare (over $100/month) but I can't use it. If I do then I am dropped from my HMO. So much for my Gov't PROMISES. And I am supposed to have confidence in my Gov't ????
The "old days" of the Army (my grandfather's Army) when a man could spend his entire Army service on one post has long gone. The military moves you, uproots your family, and with a move always looming in the not too near future, you can't buy a home or do a great deal of financial planning for "after". Those who choose to serve for the full 20 years (or more) are one segment of our society that that deserve our full support, and that of our country. There is a joke going around about "a herd of cows", a "gaggle of geese" and a Congress of Baboons". Enough said.
I was moved 12 different times in my 23 year career. How many civilian jobs make you pick up stakes, move everything to a differend place or maybe be moved away from your family?
I have about 7 1/2 years active and 5 reserve before being discharged so except for VA benefits I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I have a niece still recovering from injuries received in Afghanistan. So I believe military retirees and wounded vets are entitled to benefits. But we have to remember that the 20 year retirement point was create quite a while ago when both live span was shorter and medical care less effective. Perhaps a change for future retirees should be a merge of current active and reserve procedures. Unless it's been changed a reservist with 20 years equivalent service waits until 55 to start getting retirement pay. Perhaps an active 20 could get 20 to 25 percent base until 55 and then bump to full 50 or higher based on years of service. I believe medical coverage should still start with retirement though even that could be adjusted given that the new health care laws will keep retirees from being excluded from civilian medical plans due to prior injury or medical condition. And with a revised system it might just be possible to provide "bonus" percentage for combat service or frequent relocation and sea duty. Of course probably nothing practical or that doesn't provide advantages to our congressional reps financial backers will be passed.
I don't know where everyone gets the idea that retirees get free health care. If you are elegible to go to the VA or live near a base without a VA you don't get anything. They stopped the free stuff before I retired in 1983. As for the percentage of your retired pay being based on the number of year in service there is a problem with that also. You have to make the rank to be able to get to 20 years and keep making the rank to stay in longer then that. We worked for our 20 year retirement. If you want to make changes in retirement how about stopping the retirement years that your elected officials in Washington. They get full retirement after one term…… Now they are talking about taking away or changing the military's because they want to spend that money elsewhere. The retired pay is really the only thing that most retirees get because they don't live near a base.
Senate and House members do not get full retirement after only one term. They have to serve at least five years just like any other federal employee.
Well, the House term length is 2 years, for the Senate it's 6.
Any plan that doesn't phase in with new recruits is a breach of trust, Any plan that reduces retirement and benefits will hurt recruitment and, by extension, readiness. When the economy eventually improves, what kind of 20-year man do you think you will have left in the force?
As a veteran of 22 years. I did several deployments and many years away from my family. I also knew that as I reached the end of my tour that I would be able to enter the work force with the knowledge that I would get some payback for all my missed time away from family and friends. May days on ship working 17 hours. Many of our service people have lived this life. So to say that maybe we should put off paying retiree's until they reach 55 as a reservist is not even the same.. Many reservist have not even come close to the amout of time served as an active duty service person. Why should a congress man or Senator recieve their retirement for only one 6 year term. I have only heard of one being shot at, but that was from a crazy person. Maybe their reitement should be discussed prior to messing with our troops that are putting their lives on the line each day.
GySgt Chavez USMC Ret..
There has been a change to Reserve retired pay, George. I could not receive my Reserve retirement until I was 60 years of age. That was in 2007. It may have changed since then but I don't believe so. I had 20 years as active Reserve and 2 good years (50 retirement points earned) in the Individual Ready Reseve.
George, the age for a Reservist to draw retirement pay is 60. That is unless the called up for Active duty after 9/11. Thetime was then redused form 60, down the amount of time they served to the max reduction to 58 years old. But I did see on here back in July of this year, where they were trying to get that redone also. The way they wanted it to work was that is you stayed in for 20 years, you then could start drawing 30 years from the start date of you boot camp.I do not know if it would be at a reduced rate either. But would like to see what they had planned, to see how good or bad it would have been. I have not seen anymore info on it since. But if it works out, and comes to a good amount, I think I would like to get it since I will reach my 30 this March. And as for active/reserve time, I maid two cruises, spend 72 straight days off the coast LeBanon, was off the coast of Libya, and in the reserves called up 18 months, and spent 7 months in Bahrain.
If the government is concerned about cost then why are they handing out billions every month to dead beat ever widening rear ends that won't work!!!! Oh I get it. Votes. The takers now outnumber the givers. And also, by demoralizing and shrinking our military, it will unable to come to the aid of the citizens when the commies try to take over!!! The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. Obama's Homeland Security Force (he said it would be larger and better armed than the military) will only have allegiance to him!So he is doing everything he canto destroy the military!
and add to that the 11 + illegals that will be given amnesty & then medical, welfare, housing, SS, etc. and there will b many more getting a lot more than the military & veterans. And on top of that, the politicians REFUSE to accept Obamacare or even Medicare-if it's good enough for the military/veterans, it should be good enough for them!
Homeland Security Force better Armed than the Army. Seems to me Adolh Hitler had the same thing called the gestapo. The National Guard is our Homeland Security, or that was its intended purpose, until they found out there wasn't enough regular Armed Forces to do the job. High wages, are part of the problem, along with single parents, day care, and a mixed bag of other benefits that aren't necessary to a strong Armed Services. In 1970 I was paid 300+ dollars a month, then I took a discharge and found out my equivelant civilian pay was appro. 15 dollars an hour. This was calculating health care , meals in the mess hall, living in the barracks and of course overtime was averaged. this is all there is to it, wasted monies on housing, family care, nothing but the best provided by the Congressional cronies at the highest cost. Million dollar missiles to take out 10-20 people overpriced equipment, much not even made in the USA because of the cost to the MFR. I could go on forever, but to change the compensation of retirees and how they earn it shouldn't even come into the powers that be thoughts.
I agree 100%!!! This bloated debt our government has incurred is not caused by the military budget, it is caused by giving free cell phones, welfare, rent subsidies and free medical to free loading leaches who have not and will not work to support themselves. One only has to look at the woman on the news lately who has given birth to fifteen kids and is jumping up and down screaming that someone had better meet her 'needs' because the system put her drug dealing baby daddy in jail thereby depriving her of her ability to feed and care for her kids! That is how absurd this has gotten and like it or not our current president has doubled the number of people on the welfare dole and has plans to increase it even more. I am all for giving my fellow man a hand up. I am fed up with giving them endless handouts only to be told that I must 'tighten, my belt and have my pay and benefits cut so some worthless, good for nothing slime ball can have a 'free' cell phone. This is insanity but a liberals dream!!!
I'm also a retired E-7 and my retirement is less than half of the retirement that is received by the local police officers I currently work with. Just like the military, most worked hard for their 20 years, while some others rode much easier 9-5 desk jobs for most of their careers. Most of their overtime is by choice and significantly increases their take-home pay. Most of my overtime was not by choice and had no effect or increase to my pay. I do know that rising co-pays and nearly non-existent dental care now reduces my retirement in a major financial way that I would never have anticipated 10 years ago. Our military deserves better and promises made need to be promises kept.
You are right on the money with this. To the taxpayer funding our retirements, what is important is their overall tax rate. If all public servants are held to the same retirement plan as military (50% averaged over three years of base pay) the impact to tax payers would be lessened. In CA cities Firemen are often receive retirement based on their last pay which can be a single month on the books as Bn Chief with extra overtime. With disability this equates to 6-figure retirements. Teachers get 80% after 30 years in No. VA but at least that's more in line with the military, This is a problem that needs a holistic fix not one that focuses on a small segment of society.
Don't base pay on an individual, base it on their MOS, (or their NEC for sailors.) If you are in the army, and you are straight infantry, you get a 50% retirement pay and an increase of 1% for every six months of deployment. If you are in a MOS that is considered support, then a 40% percent retirement after 20. However, if you get deployed, same thing, 1% bump for every six months deployed. If you earn your CIB, CAB or the CMB(?} then you are entitled to a 2% bump for the deployment.
NOW, if you join the service willingly as an infantryman, you know your retirement pay is 50% after 20, plus any bonuses for deployment. If you never deploy or only deploy once in a 20 year period, it doesn't matter. You signed on the dotted line showing your willingness to be deployed. That is your commitment. The Army (or Navy or Marine Corp does need to accept some risk also, so if you don't deploy, they risk that as well.)
Should you switch to a support roll after a few years, then average out the difference for your retirement pay. If you join the Corp simply to play in a band and stay stateside, you know upfront that your retirement will be less than someone in a combat unit. This would be a good start, but it could be fine-tuned. Like we use to say in the Navy, "pick your rate, choose your fate", and truer words were never spoken. Some rates in the Navy are just simply better than others, yet most will deploy for months at a time.
As for officers, a line officer in the Navy is gone on deployment much of his career, yet a JAG officer gets a nice office and remains stateside a bit more; same with the clergy. I have seen Navy clergy on board ship, but not very often. Similar to the enlisted, "Pick your rate, choose your fate." Except now their are bonuses for the more difficult rates to fill.
Maybe combining this with other ideas already submitted might be worth looking into also. Just my thoughts.
Remember this… Had it not been for those "desk jobs" those "infantry men/ women" wouldnt be able to do their job.
Every member of teh US Armed forces took the same oath and all have the same chance of going to combat.
If you think your pay ever got screwed up before, wait and see what happens if they attempt to match all of what you are proposing.
The Military Retirement pay system is not broken, the US wastes a lot more money rebuilding nations after they call for our assistance and then turn their backs on us. This is where the fraud actually occurs. Lets cut that fat. We rebuild a building and a short while later they bomb it. Now it makes plenty of sense to rebuild it again. NOT
We no longer fight on a linear battlefield. Support Soldiers are running convoys and engaging in direct fire contact. Clerks are manning entry control points where suicide vests and VBIEDs are a high threat.
Don't let the propaganda fool you, Jay-R is right. The retirement pay system is not broken. Very few commit to taking this road in life. Look around at the retirement plans of firemen, police, government civilians and other public servants. We military are an easy target. Unlike these other groups we have no union, only a few dedicated groups like MOAA.
A soldier is a soldier whether they are an infantryman or a clerk. All deserve the same benefits upon attaining 20 years of service regardless of their MOS. Retention of soldiers is hard enough if we start messing around with the retirement system, which by the way, is not nearly as good as a public school teacher, which in many states is 100% after 30 years of service with low or no cost health insurance.
You may not have seen many Chaplains on ships, but I assure you they pound the ground with every Marine unit assigned all over the world, just like FMF Corpsmen do.
One thing no one has addressed, is; what about those that cross-rated? My husband went from a Spec-War support position to a Corpsman after his first 4 years of service, how would Washington figure those types of careers?
I am sure there are chaplins on shore, but i only saw them on ships. 12 years shipboard duty here. Not a chaplin or RP rate here, just seeing what i observed.
OK Tin Can, I retired at 29 years as both an Army logistics officer (12 year)s and an EOD officer (12 years) . Both are considered "support" I started my career as an Enlisted MP (2 years) and EOD tech (3 years). Both of those are alos considered "support". Are you saying that my 15 years as a bomb tech on 24/7 call to render safe ordnance and IEDs is less importand than being in the Infantry??? Your suggestion is not well thought out.
Heheh good answer! I'm a computer specialist. 12 of 26 years deployed. 50% disability due to results of a speed boat attack on my ship (went down the ladder the hard way). His proposal means my service counts less than his.
I'd walk over and slap him except i can't walk.
Ok so I can understand the idea of why there could be a push for those who saw combat. What I do not understand though is how you can compare experiences. For those of us that struggle with PTSD I cannot comprehend how you would. ell someone what they feel, interpret, or experience is or is not justified. For me I went though a series of horrible events as I was stalked, harassed & threatened while in basic. I ended up being discharged honorably but it was under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Now I realize that’s not the same as watching a bullet just miss you or being. In a vehicle that was hit by an I.e.d. On the otherside of it how can you put those who were affected by the shooting @ Ft. Hood and say they didn’t deserve the same treatment as those who went overseas?
Ultimately, we are each individuals & those of us who have legitimate medical, and mental health issues & illnesses’. Why should any of us be made to feel any worse than we already do. I feel like crap because when I took the oath I didn’t take those words lightly. I’d rather be out there protecting my friends and family. They could save some money by not giving the money to those that treat it like welfare. Nothing in the world can be perfect and none of us have spent anytime in the other person’s shoes.
When will the day come that instead of going after those of us who signed the line voluntarily or drafted get treated with respect. Have we forgotten that without the military we wouldn’t be as far as we are, regardless of where each of us served we are all still connected in some ways. I’m personally tired of hearing that our assistance should be taken away or questioned. How about the politicians give up some of their salaries? I mean come on look at what they receive & then look at how they act like spoiled kids that didn’t get picked fast enough for dodge ball. You could spend 2 years in D.C screwing crap up & then end up with better health care & penision than the rest of us. I just think people need to take a look at what their throwing @ the citizens..
I think it is funny how so many of you automatically blame Obama when it is the Republicans that are insisting on a reduction in spending. Were you in the military too long and forgot how to think for yourselves? I only have 12 good years toward retirement because of a back injury, but I have over 200 combat missions in VietNam, so how much should I get compared to someone who spent their time in Germany during that time? I also earned the Combat Action Ribbon while a FAC with 2/7 in VietNam so should that get me more than that reservist that was never called up? I have worked over 30 years in the medical field and get NO retirement so why should you get something that civilians do not get now days that the Republicans have gotten rid of most of the unions that used to help out the common people. Maybe those 45 year old "retirees" need to get a civilian job and work until they are 65 to draw their pay like the rest of us do that are paying taxes to support their pay.
Oh woe is me…..
I am soon to be a 67 year old veteran and one thing I have learned through those years is that both the Democrats and the Republicans in our Congress and Senate are the ones who control the spending. We have this big deficit because both houses want us to have a deficit. It doesn't make any difference which party is in the White House because the President doesn't control the funding of any thing that is spent. All the President can do is propose a spending budget, the Congress and the Senate are the ones who provide the money to spend. They are also the ones who load the budget down with what's known as PORK BARREL funding. Why are we as Americans sending billions of dollars to rat trap countries who hate our guts and would slit all of our throats if given the chance to do so. My little stump speech!
Well maybe the when Military can get theirs streighten out they can then work on the Postal Servie's retirement streighten out….Ummm that will never happen
Each of us experienced, felt and interprets things differently, while in the service. I can understand there's questions of how retirement or maybe even service connections should be paid or distributed. My concern is how can anyone decide or determine what exactly a person who has been diagnosed with PTSD would be place or I guess judged. I mean how can you say that someone who witnessed the shooting at Ft. Hood be treated any differently than someone who saw death among other things overseas. Both are equally traumatic experiences. You could contrast so many different scenarios, but I have a hard time understanding how location is the only thing that separates us as Veterans.
I faced enough things that I've not only got physical issues but I've also got a lot of mental health problems. I did not even make it out of basic training because of injuries. I never made it back training because some people felt that they should interfere or start drama due to lack of respect. Basically, I was given the discharge that corresponded with the, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I endured a frwat deal of harassment not only from my fellow soldiers but also from my chain of command. I'd be the 1st one to tell you if I had done anything to warrant even a quarter of what I did, which was someone over heard a conversation. Harassment was not the only result, my life was threatened because I would help another soldier out, the 1stSergeant stalked followed & dismissed my requests to seek out the chaplain. Also, come to find out they held up my discharge for 2 months just to have extra time to leave an imprint on my memory. Now in sharing that, I know rhat some may think that's nothing compared to them. That right there is where the biggest issue is, because we're all different & sometimes you didn't have rhe chance to stay in and fight to see another day. I ultimately filed for my service-connections inly after I received the blessing if a few of my felliw soldiers who were frustrated by what they saw.
I worry I'm taking assistance away from another Veteran. I have to be reminded that its okay & I did/am doing the right things.
Anyways shouldn't Congress and the Senate have their pensions and healthcare looked at? I mean they inly have to serve 1 term & their set up better than us for life. I mean hell we're supporting Al Gore now to me that's disturbing along with all the other knuckleheads we support. Pay the Veteran, at least we're good at something & care more about defending the Constitution. All the politicians are good for is telling stories, lying and pointing fingers.
OH, BOO HOO. Plain to see why you were given a bus ticket.
Lets not argue among brothers and sisters in arms. We all EARNED every dime we get in retirement and what’s left of Medical. Where and how you served is rewarded by higher rank and salary on active duty that transfers to retirement. Those that gave more and lost sight or limb are compensated tax free from VA Those that served and did not get the call trained and sacrificed same as others that did get the call. Don’t let them decide us on this issue . The DOD can make cuts on Homeland Security & TSA not personal and retires. We are still the ultimate weapon subject to call back. We are family her Unite against those that choose to strip from us instead of earning it themselves. Because we love our country and are honorable, that dedication is now being mistaken for weakness. Rally brothers,
I live near an Air Force base in northwest Florida and from my perspective the rule for medical treatment is active duty first as it should be. I'm on Medicare with Tricare-for-life as secondary and have no complaints.
AMEN- Brother
Yancey,
One clarification – in this world you are allowed to be disabled or retired but not both! If I am intitled to a 30% disability rating and still serving, don't you think I have to work 30% harder to keep up with my peers? Then why an I not entitled to disability pay and retirement pay – I think I earned them BOTH!
YOUR LIMIT ON THE BLOCK IS TOOOOO DAM SMALL!
my husband served this country and lost lage and has P T S D and some barnd damage just what eals well thay denie him he cant get anny thing for livening in agent orange like outher's get ,for d0ing the same thing as he has done . and now you wount two take some of his retiremant as wall. and a nouther thing not evary one's jobes wer the same over thear in wore time so you get your pay amount as a sined to your dotys wer.thats comman secense. love you all boy's and girls
I feel for you and your husbands loss, along with all the others who serve and suffer.I don't think the P.C.big wigs will ever be able to come up with an equiblepay/benefit plan for those who serve in direct combat and those who provide support fron rear echelon areas.
At present a member of congress has 100% free medical coverage and a retirement check if they serve a single day of their term. Why not start there? Where else do you get to decide when and how much of a pay raise you are to get. Only in congress. They ask us all to sacrifice except them! I say LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!!!
Sorry Thomas but that is no longer the case. They are now in the same 401K retirement plan that other civil service employees participate in. But they should take a paycut. They only worked 154 out of 365 days last year and the average Congressman/Representative earned $174,000. It's ridiculous.
AS a 24-army wife, and now an Agent Orange Widow, I'll put in my two cents worth. We got what we
were promised when my husband signed up. The other side of the coin is the fact that I retired from
Federal Civil Service, and that was accomplished over 40 years in order to get the 20 years to retire.
Yes, I stayed home while we were overseas and raised my own kids. No better investment could we have made. However, I'm now being penalized by not being able to get much of my husband's Social
Security, because of my retirement check. Had i retired from Coca-Cola, I'd not be penalized. So be it.
I'll take the good with the bad, but I would also like to see Congress cut their benefits by at least half,
which I feel would be a show of good faith. They ran up the deficit – so why shouldn't they help pay it off.
The G.I. doesn't have to be first in line for cuts every time Congress overspends.
You can thank Reagan for not getting a full widow's portion of Soc Sec. He changed that back in the 1980s.
I read somewhere that the military comprises of roughly one percent of the total U.S. population. With that being said only one percent of that one percent will stay in long enough to reach 20 years. Therefore, the retiree benefits should be left alone.
Actually less than 1% of US Citizens will volunteer to protect and defend the Constitution. To have the other 99+% decide our fait is ludicrous and ridiculous.
An appointed panel is only going to give "their boss" the biased facts, in fear of their job.
Look what happens to those senior leaders who speak their minds concerning the wars…. Sure they have to obey their orders, but they also need to be able to speak the truth.
Come on now we cannot go against each other…. Serving our country is a sacrifice in itself. Some time we don’t have a choice in the MOS selected for us due to test scores but giving of our life to protect our country speaks for itself. There are still a lot of civilians walking around stating they will never go in the military and there is a job for every and anyone in the military. There was an old guard; we both were preparing our resumes during retirement transition, he was a Staff Sergeant; if I could have cried for him I would have. He sat crying stating “what am I suppose to put in my resume that I shoveled horse mess serving my country for the past 20 years.”
One will fail to realize although certain MOS’s don’t seem important to you, they are important enough to keep one solder in place because it’s near to impossible to get a replacement. Regardless if it’s safeguarding the Tome of the Unknown Soldier, taking care of horses, dogs or playing an instrument in a band all of which are very important in support of the National Capital Region (NCR). What is not fare is to treat the soldiers serving in the NCR any different than they treat all other soldiers supporting our country. The entire military should follow all set military rules and regulations (over weight, physical training, and annual qualification only to name a few). Regardless of how we serve our country all of us should be treated the same.
There are a few non-deployable bands in the system… the Jazz Knights at West Point and the Marine Corps Band. These are distinct from the division bands, and you have to be a better player to get into them than the division band system and the Guard bands, both of which are deployable assets with a wartime mission (post security, casevac assistance, traditionally).
For the non-deployable bands, I suggest we use contractors or technicians, rather than active duty troops.
Its the Marine Corps, not the marine corps.
I spent twenty-five years (1974-1999) in the Marine Corps and was never in a combat zone. I served where the Commandant told me to and I shouldn't be penalized by way of my retirement pay for following my orders. Marines in combat zones get combat pay, end of story.
I retired 14 years ago. When we retire from the military, we only get a percentage of our basic pay (good bye allowances that helped us live). If I were to retire today, my retirement pay would be about 25 % more than I am currently getting. I recently learned that since I live more than 40 miles from a Military Treatment Facility, that my Tricare Prime will be taken from me this October to save the DOD money. I guess being a 26 year Marine Veteran is not enough! The Pentagon and Congress keep screwing the military retirees (and Congress keeps bumping up their own benefits). We military folks are asked to sacrifice a lot…what does Congress sacrifice?
They sacrifice us! They have broken the financial back of the country and are now looking for scapegoats. Here is a thought: The country is and has been run by "Ivy League" graduates and checking out their performance we should never send any of our young relatives to "Ivy League" schools if we expect them to be moral and have character.
Jim,
The bozos in Washington with very few exceptions are elitists. Look at how many served on active duty. Look at how many have children that have served or are serving in the military. Very few of them understand the sacrifices that we have made and are making for our country. Most war veterans feel that the real heroes died on the battlefield (they feel guilty they are still alive). A lot of those dead heroes died to save their buddies. Congress should honor those dead veterans by ensuring that their families, and those live buddies are taken care of. We earned our benefits by our service to our country. "We the people" need to assemble and hold these politicians accountable for their spending like a "drunken Congressman." Ha Ha!
To SgtMaj USMC Retired fm E-6 Retired AF (21 +yrs) I agree, military that live 40 or more miles away from a MTF, shouldn't have to give up their Tricare Prime. The government keeps closing bases and treatment facilities which has increased the necessity to outsource treatment to local hospitals anyway so why can't they just let you go ahead and chose a doctor locally and receive your medical care. Most military facilities and VA Hospitals (as well) now have civilian doctors in the mix with military doctors anyway, don't they?
I think the way the retirement system is now needs to stay the same. Changing it for those that are already retired is ridiculous! Retirement pay should be 50% of what you made when you got out. Now for future service men and woman, why not change that system, with a grandfather in there for people that will be retiring in say 5-10 years or so. Those after that could have a 40% retirement, with increases every year until they hit the 50%. People that are close to retirement and those that have already done so, their benefits should not change. I also feel that those that are retired now should continue to be able to use Tricare prime! Maybe those retiring in 5 yrs or maybe even less maybe they should go to Tricare standard. These men and woman stayed in one because of their duty to their choice in military but allot of them stayed in because of the benefits they knew they would have when retirement came. That was their security, why would you want to take that away? I also feel that if we stopped letting people abuse the medical system everywhere not just in the military costs would go down allot. If you go to the Dr for a cold or any other sickness that does not need a Dr visit, take care of it yourself. Go to the drug store or Walmart and buy your own medicine. I understand this is not a one size fits all, there are people that are sick with diseases that need to see a Dr when they get sick, that is different. All I am saying is we need to quite abusing the system. Just because it is there does not mean we need to use it!!!
I have never understood how retired pay can be different for people of the same grade who retire in different years. A retired E-9 is a retired E-9 today as one who retired 20 years ago. Same grade, same retired pay.
I have to agree with VegasSmitty. My father retired in 1966, as an AF E9. When I retired in 2003 as an AF E7, I was earning approx $300.00 more per month than he did. My brother also retired in 2003 as an E-6, and HE was making more than our father. While it made for humorus banter when he got together, it hardly seemed fair……
"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." – Benjamin Franklin
I served our country for 20 years – never got to a combat theater because my commander at the time didn't think "girls should go" regardless of how well they were trained. After I retired, I spent the next 18 years as an AF wife – following my husband from base to base and spending long months with him deployed to War Zones. Thankfully, we have a VA here in Tucson, but for TriCare we still have to pay the same as any other retiree, even though both of us are eligible. This seems wrong on the face of it.
I don't see where anyone should receive fewer dollars for retirement pay based on what they did while active duty. Combat pay is what is supposed to make up for the difference. Not retirement pay.
Ridiculous question. Aside from the tiny unit of bandsmen that are recruited specifically for the band, name any MOS that isn't subject to difficult work at unpredictable times. I remember four infantry Marines who used their first reenlistment option to switch to aviation and after a couple of years were wishing they hadn't. They thought of course that the aviation Pogues had bankers hours and no sweat jobs. Then they found out that they routinely worked 12 hour days ashore and 14 or more seven days a week when deployed which was at least 50% of the time. Between green (Marine deployments) time and blue time (deployments aboard ship) they were never home. Gone were the early fridays when not in the field, gone were the Company Gunny's training schedule with early days, replaced by longer hours, more actual work and more. Each MOS has its good and bad, easy and hard and none are exempt from following orders when given or short and no notice deployments, PCS orders, recruiting duty (sucks) and more.
Leave the congress out of it, the only thing they can do is screw it up. We are going to have a long period without wars and as always, things cycle in and out, things change. Let the military manage their own, civilians and politicians can only much it up for all.
All I can say is the Base/Post/Camp Hospital should be for active duty folks and their dependents. Retirees should only use it if the distance to a Vet center is to far to travel and 60 miles is not to far to travel. Also, everything depends upon the illness or injury. We use the local services because it helps to create jobs for people. The more people working the more taxes being paid. I earned what I receive, it's too bad that some people abuse the system and receive what they shouldn't, which makes it bad for others that deserve it.
Just my opinion mind you.
Sorry BigEd, not all retirees are eligible to receive treatment from the VA Hospitals. I wasn't for a long time but was able to get in on their
open enrollment a few years back. I am retired Air Force with over 21 years active duty and 1 year reserves, but am not disabled by their standards so I must pay a co-pay for prescriptions. Luckily I don't have to pay for the doctor visits because of my low income. I do pay for TriCare Prime also but try to utilize the VA because of the tremendous wait for appointments at the base.
Take a look at the retired pay scale for a Congressman/woman, Minority/Majority Leader, or Speaker of the House!!!! Readjust that FIRST before taking another privledge or benefit away from a servicemember!
The higher the rank, the higher the responsibilities, you cannot have equal retirement or pay, when most are off duty, those with responsibilities are still working, the system have always been good for those who served before, I lived off $78.00 per month. but as I was promoted my pay went up, There can never be a equal pay scale, the pay in the pay grades are equal but if you have served more time your pay will reflect it.
DoD (aka DefSec Panetta) admitted in Congressional testimony that DoD hasn't the slightest idea where all its money goes. A splendid example: Remember a few months back when they wanted to raise Tricare premiums because "the premiums weren't paying enough to support the program" and turned around and asked for permission to borrow from the Tricare program to make up deficits in other programs? Another item of interest: DoD has NEVER been audited! Perhaps if DoD would clean up its fiscal house, they would find more than enough money to support manpower programs like retirement and health benefits!
As a retired military member of the Vietnam time period I question if any of our elected government leaders really understand what a military member goes through today. What percent do you really think will make the military a career. Weather combat or non combat one has served 20 years of blood, sweat and tears to EARN a retirement. Enlisted or Officer one pays a price for a military retirement. The very thought of different pay rates for retired members is insulting to career members. It shows no respect for what we have gone through for service to this country.
Wow! I feel so proud right now. Finally I see Veterans sticking together as one. Now we need to come together with all issues that involves retirees, whether longevity or medical. We can run this Nation if we would all unite for common good. Nothing p's me off more than when soldiers(all military services)or Government entities use "hyphenated" retirees, eg…combat-non combat, boots on the ground-not, longevity-medical-tera etc. We all served when called, no matter the job nor the geographical area. A cook in Ft Drum or the infantry soldier at Joint Base Lewis/McChord, no soldiers job is any more or any less important than anothers. It takes us all as a team to accomplish the goals of the USA. Thank you all for your service, this includes the dependants who make up the military family. May God bless us all.
Here they are worried about military retirement, at least we had to spend 20 years to get it. WHY not start looking at the politicians the way they get theirs. All they do is sit behind a desk and screw the citizens of our country.
I am a Army Retiree. As I understand the system today and in the past on about 6% of people who enter the force stay to collect a retirement. That is grossly unfair to both the individual and the Service, it is not always at the Service members option to leave the service before retirement. The other option is to have TSP or 401K type system that allows individual to do X years and then leave the service and can allow the money to grow and collect at 59.5 or some year in the future. The services are having an interesting problem now that they are having an older group of people entering, the problem is that because of the physical demands many are living the service with service connected disabilities. How do you link the disability system and the retirement system. Personally I believe that the VA medical needs to go away and each service member completing 6 years of service or being disable should be enrolled in TRICARE with the option to purchase his family into the program. The VA medical money would go to TRICARE.
If the government truly wanted to save money, they would look at the retirement of Senators and Congressman to include medical. These individuals get a large retirement and paid medical even if they serve only two years. Not bad considering they don't have to put their life on the line, are home for the week-ends.. etc.
Let's give extra retirement pay to those who served and prevented war through deterence. We aren't living in nuclear craters because of them. Many of them weren't in combat but served on alert in the states, trained others to go to war, or cared for the injured! We were strong during the cold war and detered armed combat. I served in the Air Force and I never knew if or when we would go into combat but we were ready if needed. For example of the active duty Air Force personnel during the peak of the Vietnam War only 10% actually went to Southeast Asia let alone Vietman. The point is you are always are subject to go into combat if you serve but never know if you are going. So the point of this article is moot. Every one who served deserves retiement pay the way the system is set up now! In many cases war was prevented because of deterence and the service member was part of it whether they went to war or not.
Don't fall prey to attacking each other…we are all in this together. Everyone is willing to let the other military retiree lose care or retirement …as long as they get theirs. Fight any changes (that hurt anyone)…because if they cut the other guy now, they will come back and get you the next time and justify it as you are getting more than someone else. Be sure that if they give you a few more bucks because you deployed, etc…they will be taking that money from some other guy that served along with you. We all earned our health care and every penny promised…so did other military members.
The same is true for those who were taking shots at civilian employees. They are getting messed over as well. Their pay is frozen and they are everyone's scapegoat. Lots of them are exmilitary or retirees. With veteran's preference, you may want to do the same some day. They don't get any better retirement deal than you do…likely worse in many cases. They get 1% of their pay in retirement for every year served and military gets 2.5% per year. They pay for their own health care (although it is subsidized it is still very expensive) and don't get to use commissary, exchange, VA loans, etc. Taking shots at the other guy serving just does not help you at all.
Make retirement pay a flat pay rate accross the board based on total # of years served between 20 & 30 years of service. A Colonel with 25 years gets paid the same amount as an MSG with 25 years. Or a flat rate for enlisted grades and a flat rate for officer grades. Give additional pay for awards earned in combat such as the silver star, bronze star, purple heart , Medcal of Honor etc…. That would reduce the budget but rewarding those who earned certain war time medals.
At the very least IMO, every veteran who was seriously wounded in war (all wars and conflicts) and is disabled because of it totally deserves free health care for life and the best health care that is available in this country as well. I was not one of those Heroes but that is where my heart and mind lays.
My wife worked for state civil service in a state that is at near the bottom of all states for income, opportunity and other advantages. She draws more in retirement than I do and was an E-7 with over 20 years active. So this nonsense about the military retirement benefits being overly generous is just political hype. Check out the auto company retirement plans and really check out the congressional retirement plan. Talk about leeches!
Do you know anyone that can help a disabled veteran o the USAF? I have been medically retired with 19 years of service and the Air Force just dropped kicked me out with no pay. They told me the VA will take care of me; but one attorney told me that I should receive 3 checks: one from the VA, one from the USAF and the other from Social Security. The military gave the Retirement with an indefinate date military retiree card, but no military pay. I am 100 percent disable, not by war but by the USAF. I spent a year of a coma, I went 4 brain surgeries and coded twice under the knife. No attorneys will touch the military or even think about suing for my pay. If you have an information, please contact me below: jhimae2002@hotmail.com
Retired pay: the system can save bucks by having all retiree's wait to collect retirement when they reach 59 1/2. What other retirement system starts to shell out entitlements after 20 years no matter what the age?
I was in the Army for 30 years (6 active/24 reserve)… Could I have stayed in all 20 years active? Probably not due to life commitments. Did I have friends who did stay the 20? Yes and because they did stay 20 they got great supervising jobs with the VA once they got out… The VA counted their 20 years towards retiring from the VA and they also started picking up their retirement checks the month after they got off active duty… Would they continue another 10 years in the reserve? No, because their retirement pay would then be held off until they were 60. So the reserves couldn't tap their military expertise, but another agency could.
You all voted for him…
if military retirement and medical are up for reductions for cost, then what about senators and congressmen/women's retirement and medical. there are so many more area's of waste in Government.. It is the same thing every time. we need to change the way we look at these cuts..we need to cut other things first if at all possible. these people in charge are lazy there not wanting to really do the work they just want to cut the easiest things , And this is the way our elected officials work. lazy and they all should all be fired for not doing there jobs.We must do things different and we must cut all waste before we cut Benefits to military and Senior citizens.it is the only right thing too do…
I think that everyone who served honorably should receive the same retirement benefits. But what does need to change is those military personnel who are in career fields that allow them to stay at one location for most of their career and not deploy. They need to experience what a real military career is all about. I know that they are afforded better promotion opportunities because there are less eligible and easier to be promoted. They receive higher awards for simply tooting a horn. All military members are suppose to be combat ready. If they can't do that then out of the service they go. Today, it's a matter of stacking priorities and funding. Our job in the military is to train for war and all contingencies. This subject has always been a contention of contraversy.
There are so many other options available to saving tax dollars that haven't been implemented yet. How about 1). pro-rating combat zone tax exclusion benefits. If an aircrew fly over an edge of Saudi airspace on their way to Qatar credit them with one 1/30th of a month tax free rather than a full month. Give the full month to that young deployed Soldier who sleeps behind sandbags every day. 2). Reduce the variety of KBR meals. When I was in Afghanistan no one looked forward to Friday night steak, lobster and ice cream. It was more like shoe leather and rubber shell fish. Most preferred basic fare. 3). Withhold highway funds from states that do not cap their state (and county) public servant rates at the rate Service members are under (high-3 of base pay, without overtime factored in). Is this POM dust? maybe, but why go after military retirement when you haven't made an honest attempt at other areas.
Go back to the draft and they'll be getting out after four years. You'll have so many that don't want to be in they'll be getting out faster than you can say go. If you make everyone's retired pay according to how many times they were in combat you won' t have anyone signing up for the other jobs needing to be done. Nobody wants the military until someone attacks us as in 9-11, then everybody wants us to do something. You only get what you pay for, and if you don't want to pay the military a livable wage and retirement benefits you can kiss the good old USA goodbye. There won't be any one there to defend us when needed and no one to lead them because you don't want to pay them. Cut out all the bennies to the illegals and maybe the money would be there. It's going to be another era like Clinton's, balance the budget on the backs of the military.
Develop a new Defense Budget based on the needs of the Country without politics and pork-barrel projects. Fund troops and reirees fully and, if you need money, cut unnecessary big-iron like ICBM missiles and Ballistic Missile Submarines. Reduce the numbers of ridiculously expensive aircraft you're buying. Get rid of the branch-politics that influence budget levels and, most importantly, reverse the long-standing positive reinforcement for fiscal responsibility throughout Government. Reward managers for spendling less and cutting staff rather than rewarding them for building empires and increasing budgets!
What a patently absurd idea. Most of the military is logistical or administrative support to the war-fighter. I have the greatest admiration for the war-fighter, but in actual fact the rest of the force is needed to allow him/her to do the job for which they trained. I served 6 years as an intelligence officer and 21 years as a judge advocate supporting intelligence operations and unconventional warfare forces. I needed them to protect the nation and they needed me for mostly classified support. I never went to war but was many times in the target sights of Russian warships and the target of an assassination attempt once as a uniformed officer. You might as well ask whether a doctor deserves as much consideration as a combat medic.
The real issue is how much attention we should be paying to those who come out of military service scarred by their experiences. I have a friend who was a pilot forced to eject from a non-combat mission who experienced a permanent and debilitating back injury. Does he deserve less than the person who received a similar debilitating injury in combat?
I joined the Navy when military service was obligatory but the young men and women who serve today are volunteers – volunteers who preserve the security of this nation. To parse among them depending on the actual job they do is an unconscionable thought because everyone of them is needed.
I have watched the erosion of our benifits over the years and think our government has really took it to the Vet. I started my career with a deployment to Bien Hoa South Viet Nam i 1971. Then many other stops along the way. I deployed with SBCT-1 when they deployed in 2004. Seems to me that our government has not kept their promisses at all. They keep cutting and there will be a need for the draft. Pay will suck, you will be able to get better benifits working for Kmart. No one will want to join.
This article singles out military musicians while omitting the fact that most military musicians are not in the Special Bands in the DC area. They are at Division Headquarters all over the world. Ask the Bandsmen at Hood or Benning or Drum or Riley how many deployments they have been on. Most would tell you at least one and some as many as four. Everyone has a job and they all take their turn serving in one way or another.
The Great Leader and his elves are looking for another way to fund HealtCare is looking to the military to be the scape goat. Why does the president even get a retirement? Why do congressman and senators even get a retirement after serving one term in congress? It's amazing you're all missing the point, we have done something for our country and offered our lives up to protect and defend the constitution! What has the Great Leader and his elves sacrificed to preserve and defend the constitution? And either house of congress for that matter. Yes we deserve no healthcare so illegals and leaches who've done nothing for the country except be a drag on society can benefit from our sacrifices. If you're you need to really think about not staying on. Let these leaches along with the Great Leader repalce us and sacrifice as we have before they use us as the scape goat to fix the inept policies and laws they've enacted.
ok, what some of you have forgotten is, if you enlisted, I said ENLISTED, since 1981, NO ONE gets the old 50% for 20 years and 75% for 30 years of base pay, for retirement pay. During a few years from 1981 it went to the HIGH THREE pay system, where they averaged your base pay from your last 3 years on active duty BASE PAY (I know this because im one of them). Not the last year you were in, but an AVERAGE of those last 3 years, and 50% of that. Then it changed again in late 80s/early 90s, and added up to like 40% of base and so on, till now i think they get like 35% of base pay for 20 years (yeah, Im exagerating a bit). The fact is, that the above mentioned article is giving incorrect/missing information about retirement pay.
The military is based and works on a simple concept, TEAM WORK. If you want to tear apart the team concept centuries of generations of military leaders have established start separating who we are! Our team is not the NFL where wages, benefits, where we and our families live, how long we get to stay there are negotiated. However, we all signed a contract with our service. To make a pay difference for deployers vs non-deployers is STUPID!!!! This is how the team gets torn apart. Because an individual stays in the rear with the gear or is deployed in the heat of the battle both are still a vital part of the team. This topic needs to be tossed before it gets any traction. Medical benefits are the top priority to any retired or active duty family. Anybody who retired as E7 or higher should be able to afford the annual fee to increase 100% and be grateful they are not paying $700 to $800 per month or more. Just some food for thought. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
lets cut out the contractors..my opinion where the bulk of the budget goes..example military used to have their own cooks and security…now they pay a contractor many times the money what a soldier would have gotten paid and you end up with a huge waste of money …so we cut out this mess .then everyone in the military that serves their time or is combat retired can both have their retirement and health care just fine! lets stop fighting among ourselves for the scraps and work together to find real solutions!!
The distinction between 'combat' and non-combat is less relevant than Active versus 'Reserve.' Every time we try to fix the active retirement, we risk retention. Redux caused problems and had to be rescinded and I suspect any new change will result in the same challenges. Strangely enough, despite the great disparity between AC and RC retirements, retention in the Reserve and National Guard is stable. So, maybe it is time to re-think AC versus RC. If we treat AC as a tour of between 1 day and 20 years, instead of a separate entity, then we could have every member of the military enter as a member of the Reserves and serve tours of active duty. The service member remains on active duty as long as their tours are extended. If there is a reduction in active component forces, then they transfer back to the reserves (no separation pay and no early retirement ). The RC retirement plan would change to an age 55 plan with a reduction in age of 1 day for every 2 served on active duty and no earlier than age 50. So, everyone joining the military has a clear expectation that retirement will happen no earlier than age 50 but no later than age 55. They are guaranteed no long career on active duty, can attend college as a member of the Reserves or National Guard (instead of on America's dime while on Active Duty) and a career outside of the military (hopefully, reducing the challenges of transitioning from military life). This will create a retention challenge in the Active Component but the RC members have been back filling them for so long, the only difference between components are the disparities in benefits (retirement, travel, housing, etc.)
Mr. Panetta and the panel of 9 should immediately respond to any queries about "modernizing" the military payroll with a very simple reply. That reply is…When congress passes legislation that states the following: There will be no changes to the military retirement system until the following conditions are met: 1. NO Official of the federal government (elected or appointed) shall draw more than 20% of his/her final pay(averaged over final 3yrs of service), as retirement pay. 2. NO official of the federal government (elected or appointed) shall qualify for retirement pay until they have served 20 continuous years and 1day. 3. ALL officials of the federal government (elected or appointed) shall receive ALL their health care (while in office) from the same federal programs currently in use by the Department of Defense, and all dependents of those same officials will be treated as if they were dependents of military personnel, to wit: the elected official shall pay copays, etc. blah, blah blah…when they change how they are treated, then they can begin to "think" about how those of who have served should be treated.
Retirement pay should not be determined by whether a member ever served in Combat. Simply serving for twenty years or more should entitle every service member the same retirement based on rank and years of service. As it is, combat personnel get extra pay and tax benefits as well as awards and commendations that place them above non combatants when competing for advancement. If a service member receives physical or psychological damage during combat then the VA grants disability and at a higher rate than non combatants. A more pertinent question should be Should every retiree receive the same retirement pay if Rank and years of service are the same. I say yes. Why should someone who retired when pay was low receive so much less than current retirees when pay is at an all time high? Especially since retiree raises are traditionally less than active duty further lengthening the gap between current retirees and future ones. And let's be honest, 50% is a misnomer, as much of the pay a service member is in the form of allowances that generally make up about one third of active duty compensation, the public continues to have a misconception about military retirement pay.
So don't pay it. Reduce pay, reduce medical benefits, reduce retirements. There are consequences to these actions. The people of this country can make those decisions. The people of this country will have to live with the consequences. But please if these reductions are taken, please stop saying you support our troops.
How about cutting retirement pay for those do nothing SOB's & DOB's in congress. As always the old firstsoldier.
From the time every service member signs up… till the day of discharge he or she follows orders. They have limited choices, if any, as to what their assignments are. At any time they could be ordered into combat and perhaps not survive or be injured. I just can't see a system that could fairly judge the worth of each individuals service.
Being a Retired Marine of 22yrs. I agree their should be a new system in place for those whom just serve and never really attend boot camp. But for those whom attend Boot camp and serve in an active duty status with whatever unit even if they never deploy should get the same pay in retirement. You serve with the knoeledge that you may at sometime get called up, The Pressidents own will never get called up to deploy to a hostile enviroment or just deploy aboard a ship.
Simple solution to this problem: Make all present and past elected officals use the same retirement system and health care systems that active and reserve military members use and the problem will be fixed in a single session. 21 years of service and I may be lucky to bring in $1500 a month. I will be paying nearly $600 a month for medical benefits (this was supposed to be free when I joined). Congress gets $100,000 and free medical – for what? not balancing the budget on time?
Just a pipe dream perhaps….how about a full Federal and State exempt tax status for military retired for starters. Then let's talk about reduced retirement pay.
need to get rid of all those in our government that are treating its military retiree and dependents without due respect for service render. especially those like McCain.
Never heard of a band member receiving combat pay. Correct me if I am wrong, but those that entered combat were paid combat pay (not enough) and receive special benefits after leaving service. If a member of the military makes the rank, stays the course of 20 plus years they should be paid in retirement accordingly. Promotions are and should be allotted percentage wise for those fields that conduct the core of the military service or where the service needs for retention. So those in the supporting roles are already receiving fewer promotions than the core service. I say if you dedicate your life to a military service, forgoing a civilian life style then you have earned your retirement.
As far as the Marine Band goes they never see combat or even hard training to prepare themselves on readiness. Since they never even went to Basic Training or MOS Training then I fell like they should be civilian GS positions or perhaps even contract ed Eoither way they should not be qualified for the same benifits as deployed soldiers. They did not pay all the sacrifices as others so they should not reap the benefits.
I enlisted in the Navy right out of high school. I spent 4 years on active duty and then completed 18 years of reserve duty. The reserve retirement kicks in at age 60. I think we do need to rethink handing someone a 50% retirement potentially at age 38. In order to maintain an all volunteer force, it needs to be a good deal to join the military. I joined the Navy specifically because I could not afford college and the the GI bill was a path for me to improve my life circumstances. I think delaying the retirement payments across the board, or reducing them until age 60 is not an unreasoable way to lessen the financial impact. Most veterans would be able to get a reasonably well paying job in the civilian sector with benefits until they retire and that is when the retirement check and health care are most needed. Of course this has to become future policy and not impact the contract agreement that all retired and current active duty personnel signed on with. Last, our representatives need to do a lot of cost cutting in many other areas including THEIR overly generous benefits so we all share the burden of fixing the financial mess they got us into.
It is critical that this country maintain the strongest military in the world. Our security as a nation depends upon it. But, in order to maintain such a force, it requires a vast array of skills. And, military service is a young persons game. We need people who are in there most productive years. Some people spend years taining for the most rigous military combat specialty but never see combat. Others never expect to be in combat but suddenly find themselves having to fight.
If this nation needs the type of force we are blessed with, it should gladly pay for it.
I am about to hit 20 years, I have never been to combat. I have served in two different branches of service during two different wars. What makes someone think my service is not as important as my friends who have been to combat and said I am lucky I was left back in the rear. What the hell are people thinking? I go where I am ordered and I do what I am told to do, so why should I get less retirement pay because someone of hirer rank than me said " We need someone who is qualified, to stay back here and run the shop and support us while we are in country". And yes that has happened to me twice so far. I believe the only way to protect our benefits is to 1. Scale back to the basics 2. Cut out all of the civilian contractors (i.e. chow halls ,MWR) and give it back to the Military. Why are we paying people to do a job we already have people trained for?
Rather than look at a total restructure, which by the way, there would be no fair way to do. Lets start at an easy point and then work forward if need be. ALL and I mean ALL including post office and congress the application of retirement should be applied in the same as many businesses. You must work for s certain period of time to be invested in the retirement program. Once invested you could not take a dime of retirement money before age 55 than it would be on a sliding scale up to full retirement age set by the program say 62. This would save millions. Once invested if you retired from the service with say 10 yrs. active duty, you would be able at your retirement age eligibility be able to draw some sort of pension although it would be say 1/2 of what a 20 yr. retiree would draw. Most retiring from the service with 20 or 30 yrs. go on to work full time till retiring at ages listed by social security. Of course who knows how long that will be around with its high maintenance costs and all the exceptions it has built-in. (another story) Medical disability resulting from military service should be dealt with totally separate from retirement and have nothing to do with retirement.
if you do the time you are entitled to the dime.
We all earned our retirement, regardless of where we served. When a person retires the funding for the retirement should be transfered to the Department of Treasury, thus removing the retiree from the DOD budget.
Don't just point out the US Marine Band! There is the US Marine Drum & Bugle Corps whose members do attend boot camp and then report straight to the D&B and can often spend nearly their entire career there. Then there is the US Navy Band and the US Army Band and don't forget the US Army Field Band as members can join them in much the same manner as the Marine Band and Marine Drum & Bugle Corps and can spend their entire careers in those bands.
There are also a good number in all the services who serve only in the Pentagon, or special state side commands their entire careers and yet end up with a chest full of medals to boot!
A little off the subject but people please use SPELL CHECK! I have never read such poorly prepared comments. If this is typical of the correspondence our veteran community can produce it is no wonder that our elected officials feel they can ignore us. This post by s. mitzner is an example:
my husband served this country and lost lage and has P T S D and some barnd damage just what eals well thay denie him he cant get anny thing for livening in agent orange like outher's get ,for d0ing the same thing as he has done . and now you wount two take some of his retiremant as wall. and a nouther thing not evary one's jobes wer the same over thear in wore time so you get your pay amount as a sined to your dotys wer.thats comman secense. love you all boy's and girls
Now to correct or clarify some of my earlier thoughts. I was not aware of the change to the reserve retirement system taking the age from 55 to 60 but not surprised. I also was not suggesting any major change to those currently serving. But just like social security is changing with the older life expectancy I think military retirement (and civil service programs) will have to follow. And we will never have fairness while the corporate culture permits the CEO to leave after a couple years with millions in pension and benefits and the thirty year guy is lucky to get any kind of pension.
You know, George, you need to apply some critical thinking skills first, before you open you mouth to point fingers and to self-righteously condemn and criticize other people.
Did it ever once occur to you that perhaps S. Mitzner's post looks like it does because English is her second language? We have many military spouses and former military spouses who are citizens of the USA, but who were born and reared abroad. Many of these spouses come from third world countries where education was not a priority for anyone – or where their early educations were interrupted or terminated because of open warfare on their native soil.
When any adult has to adapt to living in a new country, to understanding a new culture and customs, and has to learn a new language, sometimes their spoken second language skills are perfectly adequate for them to be understood and for them to take care of themselves in their new country – but very often their reading and writing skills in that second language are not so polished.
Clearly you have never had to meet any of those very difficult challenges yourself – and like far too many Americans, you forget that people from other countries are every bit as intelligent as we are, they are every bit as moral as we are, and most are far more determined to make a better life for themselves, whatever it takes, and to show their gratitude and appreciation for that opportunity, than the average American ever does.
Just because American English is not a person's first language, and just because you don't bother to stop and think first, before you open your mouth to criticize that person, certainly doesn't make you superior to anyone else, not in any way. And I don't recall ever seeing any requirement in the United States Constitution that allows an elected congressperson just to ignore a request or observation from a United States citizen simply because the citizen's literacy skills aren't up to your personal standards.
I had no problem whatsoever understanding S. Mitzner's point – in fact, I thought she made a very comment, considering that she was expressing herself in writing, in a second language which she probably did not learn until after she was an adult.
You, George, had the advantage being given a good, free, public education in the United States of America, where you were taught strong reading and writing skills – in your native language – for at least 12 years, and perhaps you were also lucky enough to have an opportunity to receive higher education in an American college or university. Not everyone who is an American citizen has been so fortunate as you have been – especially those who become naturalized US citizens as adults.
A little more applied critical thinking, a bit of compassion and understanding for other human beings who aren't exactly like you, and a whole lot more common sense, before you ever think about opening your mouth, George, would certainly be useful and helpful new skills for you to learn.
Being retired since 1998, and serving since 1968, I have seen many changes. Some good and some not so good. One thing that never changes is the lines and the waiting at military hospitals. For anyone. Yes priority is given to active duty, but even then it’s a wait. Face it, it’s a fact of life. Living over 100 miles from a military hospital, and 65 miles from the nearest medical facility, I and my spouse rely on tri-care. Prime is not an option. We chose to live here and pay for it. With the cuts to our care, and rising costs of deductibles a retirement check does not go very far. Now with further cuts being discussed, we as retirees are really taking a beating. It’s my opinion our elected officials forgot if it wasn’t for the sacrifices WE made, they would not have the freedom to mess with our benefits the way they are. They should be reminded every day, without the military, past and present, who gave them the opportunity to “serve” the people . Without “us” they would not have the luxuries they have taken for granted. Which includes retirement and free medical for life. AND THEY ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON US. Go Figure….
YAAAAAAAAA……. 1st Sgt……. and you REAAALY have to understand my humor……. I'm ret'd USMC MSgt….. never cared for the admin side…… pack yer happy azz up & get on ……………. I thought I was gonna have to scream…… you said everything I needed to say…………
I am a military widow and my husband passed away after 14 years of active duty. I do not feel that I should be punished for GOD'S work. We were planning on staying the full 20 years as we both loved it, even when he had a 13 month unaccompanied tour to Korea. That was no fun but that is where the Air Force sent him and we had to deal with it. How would you handle this one?
Unfortunately, we are all "punished" for God's work. Whether it is a career cut short, the loss of a loved one or a tornado destroying our home. I had to go to college to learn life is not fair. Hopefully you are smarter than me.
I am so sorry about your loss and the loss of a future with your husband.
Why not just give each military person retiring a cup of hemlock at their retirement, and then all the current "warriors" can enjoy all the things that they feel only they have earned. Until they retire.
I agree with Mr. Caywood's comments up at the top of the comment list. Look to other areas to cut pay and/or benefits. All us volunteer elistees joined to "protect and defend", and when we did certain bennies were pointedly stated would be ours if & when we retired. There are NO other government employees who are on call 24/7 like the all volunteer force, and if some supposedly are, they are collecting time & 1/2 for same. Gut the "do nothing" congress and all the czars and assistant agency flunkies first.
ANYWHO, enough about Melissa. IRT graduated levels for military retirement-It seems like a good option to reign in spending. It could be on a point system similar to the Reserves. When you do 20 years, you get $X (according to paygrade). If you've deployed (90/180/365+ days), you get points. If you do more than 20 years, you get more points. Warfare/Combat/Efficiency designations=more points. It would just be a matter of how many points to assign to the various service accolades. I can't see ANYONE doing 20 years and never deploying if they wanted to. An entitlement mindset is going to destroy this nation, so we all will need to tighten the belt a notch. Having been retired for 6 years, my belt has plenty of notches to tighten. God Bless the USA and God Bless Ironman! MOLON LABE!
I am aware of the pay an entitlements that politicians have voted themselves. I also know they don't participate in a retirement system that leaves much to be desired. They are consider them selves so special that they don't participate in "Obama care" as the rest of us will be mandated to do. So, if we are going to "gut" any programs I would say all political entitlements be first.
There has to be a grandfather clause in any new retirement system that the military adopts. I served for over 22 years and the contract that kept me reenlisting all those years was the promise of the retirement I would receive. To renege on that promise now would start a rash of lawsuits that would bog down the courts for decades. Another problem with any new retirement system in the military is the recruiting and retention programs that will surely suffer if the current system is scrapped. The domino affect of this would lead to another form of military draft as the strength of the forces are reduced and eventaully fall below levels that hurt military readiness. To maintain an "all volunteer force" the people of this countr need to understand that it will be expensive. Otherwise, it will be 1960's all over again with the campus protests and draftees running to Canda to escape the draft.
Being a retired air force TSgt for 16 years this year they need to leave the retirement system alone. I saw it change while i was in. If a member does not deploy that does not mena they are not as important as the person that went. More than likely the person who deployed will have PTSD upon his arrival back from war and get compensated for that while the one who stayed behind just gets his normal retirement. Everyone has an important job in the military. I begged to go to the Persian Gulf war when it kicked off my commander refused to let his 3 women in the squadron go. "I do not believe women should go to war." Boy he would have to eat his words today. You do twenty or more everyone should get the same percentage.
Trackman/treadhead I served in Viet Nam as a tank platoon leader then In OIF in a "rear area"job-only got shot at once by an AK 47 and dodged several mortar rounds and rockets. I believe we were reimbursed with hazardous duty pay ("combat pay") while in these areas. Leave it be, but maybe extend the retirement age, like they are going to have to do with Social Security-we are all living longer than when all of these programs were initiated.
I am a army reservist with 24+ years & 1 deployment, I will start retirement pay and medical coverage at 60 years of age, as reservists don't get paid or recieve medical benefits till 60 and pay is based on 1 point per day of service not 50 percent as active duty gets. I believe that an one that dedicates 20 years or more of their life to the defence of our nation deserve to be provided for. Our political leaders provide for people that won't work that have never served our nation in any capacity with support & benefits that they don't deserve, which should be cut instead of our retired military benefits.
Sure, again, let's go after the military…the congress and senate barely work as it is and they only have to serve one term and they are set for life…why not start there and leave the military alone!!!
Yes, all retirement pay should be equal unless you do away with combat tax exclusion and all of the combat pay entitlements. Keep in mind while these folks are out getting the glory the folks of the jobs deployed and their job. Military pay retirement should not change until the retirement of Congress changes.
How about giving more retirement pay to soldiers who served lengthy time in the recruiting command. Sure they were not being shot at but a combat soldier had more time off than a recruiter. Being a recruiter 12, 14, 16 hour days was the normal. And there was no break. As a recruiter I worked 6 days a week, every week sometimes 7 days a week. Probably on average I worked close to 70 hours a week. Even I went home every night most nights the kids were already in bed, and basically eat something take a shower then go to bed so I could have enough energy to do the whole thing again the next day. And when this month was over, then we started all over again next month. And the leadership we had people in charge who for the most part had NO sales experience at all. The recruiting command was divided up in 3 sections those who treated recruiting like sales, those who treated recruiting like the army and those who just didn't care anymore. In recruiting which I spent 13 yrs I found that I had to try to be successful in spite of the command not because of the command. Many times I heard combat experienced soldiers say being in combat was easier and better than being in recruiting.
So you can give different retirement pay for different jobs but please don't let the only qualifying factor be if someone was deployed or not.
When one enters the service of their country they are not given much choice of what they will do, or when and where they will do it.
I would rather see the House and Senate in Congress, do basic things such as pass a budget on time every year.
Maybe instead if transporting SECDEF to Calif each weekend, that money could go to retired pay.
Not an issue. Those who serve in combat get promotions those who did not serve do not get, they are given preference in assignments, and many other things that contribute more to their income after retirement. An E-7 retired makes more than an E-6. The real drive needs to be to provide our veterans and retirees what we promised them to keep them around in an all-volunteer force. I stayed to have medical and "some" income after retirement, now I'm told I was never "promised" healthcare for life. Seems to me we were all promised healthcare for life, until it wasn't in the governments best interest to provide it. Let's do what we promised, then we can worry about the rest. An injured veteran/retiree shouldn't have to struggle to get the medical care and retirement income they earned.
Perhaps we should look at cutting the retirement benefits of the politicians who serve one term, opposed to cutting the benefits of our service members who put it all on the line for 20 years serving their country. Also why do those same politicians making laws for the common people not pay into social security. Why do immigrants who have never paid into the social security system continue to drain it dry daily? I believe that there is several ways to cut or redirect spending in this country which I served proudly for over 42 years of governement service.
Seems most are missing the point (combat vs. peacetime) The point is professions within the military and the toll of that profession versus standardized retirement. Combat Arms personnel in all services are in the field training in peacetime and walking the patrols in war. The retirement should be based on the skill set performed whether peacetime or war. I am retired Special Forces and I find it insulting that I spent my 20 years in the military doing damage to my body and upon retirement someone that never left an office makes the same thing. Those performing special duties receive special duty pay. This special duty should be accounted for in retirement, the years on special duty or in combat arms and serving in combat should weigh into a calculation for retirement. Those that go above and beyond should receive the same consideration in retirement.
I am a retired Navy after 20 years, with three West PACs, number of shorter trips, two over sea tours for more than a year each, and some shore tours. We who service the NAVY have 12 hour on 12 hours off if you do not have other call to duty like General Quarters, Man over Board (Real of not), and USS Okinawa LPH-3 Blown Boiler. I have times I worked up to 22 hours on some days.
NOW check out what does Congress and the President of the USA receive after the short time of FOUR YEARS! Full retirement of better than $175,000.00 a year and full FREE Medical for LIFE! Now see my retirement pay (40.00 taxable plus $123.00 non-taxable per month.
I know we never have our feet on the ground, but you sail in the SEA with no day off until you pull into port and NO BEER unless you spend 45 days out of port. Then they will let you have only TWO cans of BEER.
Yes 50% of base pay was agree to for all who server for 20 years and 2.5% added for every year after 20 up to 30 years at 75%. We had to meet standards, DC qualification 6 months after reporting to a ship, 3M, and pass test for advancement to next pay grade. Now what does Congress and the White house have to do? Pass a BUDGET and laws! Last four years how many Army, USMC, NAVY, AIR Force have done their duty? Now Congress (Mr. Reed) and the White House, Have they pass a BUDGET? Leave our retirement alone, until you have done your duty and cut your retirement, for the GOOD of the county.
There are many things to considers. What justifies a Cop or Fireman who never leaves their home town getting so many times more than a soldier who was gone most of their career. They get 50% or more of their whole pay, sometimes including overtime. A sailor like me who has 14/15 years sea time, sea pay stops upon returning ashore or retiring. Even a regular municipal, state or federal civil service gets far more upon retierment. There are a lot fatter cats out there that need to be trimmed before they touch the military. They didn't put in a fraction of the time or effort we did.
Come on, let's at least get it right. Base pay is all that is considered when computing retirement income which is 50% after 20 years and 75% after 30. Things like hazardous duty pay,flight pay,proficiency pay, family separation allowance, housing allowance, sea duty pay and hostile fire pay do not count. Again, BASE PAY ONLY which is cleverly kept in check. Were you ever in a combat zone? Did you ever spend 90 plus and 154 consecutive days at sea? Did you ever remain at General Quarters (battle stations) for extended periods? Did you ever make back to cruises? Did you ever get you sea tour extended by a year?
I believe there are many ways to save money rather than changing the current retirement system, which by the way changed several years ago with the percentage of last three years served, Regardless of career field each member has a war time job that they train for in the event they are deployed. And the supply troop sitting at the desk providing supplies to that soldier/airman in the field is no less important because that deployed person wouldn't be able to do his/her job without them. And the clerk the personnel office is there to keep your records straight finance to make sure you get paid etc Every job in the military has a purpose for the Big Picture. The band has a long history of military traditions, providing entertainment to the troops and moral building.
The easiest way to cut down on the amount of money being paid in retirement benefits is to perform ROAD (Retired On Active Duty) boards each year for folks who are over 20 years but have not yet met their high year of tenure. Each year a board should meet to get rid of the lowest 5% of E-7 – E-9 and O4 – O6 who are over 20 years similar to the SERB boards of recent years. This would get rid of the folks who are just hanging out waiting for HYT. It would also make the folks who stay in more productive so they would not be cut and ultimately it would do a world of good on the amount of money going out to pay for retirement. Reversing the 2007 rule that allowed the 2.5% per year retirement accumulation to continue beyond 30 years of service would go a long way to get rid of dead weight and trim the retirement bill.
I served proudly within the US Army for twenty-four years, being involved in four of this nation’s wars; Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf (both Desert Shield and Desert Storm). I was deployed to Korea and Germany during the Cold war, and because of my ability to speak Spanish deployed to El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, and Colombia. I served in all of these assignments not for glory but merely because my nation needed me, and I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, obeying the orders of all officers appointed over me and the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. When I retired there was no brass band or a hoard of people shaking my hand and thanking me for my service, just a very rude DAC who grabbed my ID card put it through a shredder at the out processing office as I walked away. After finishing my terminal leave, I received my last discharge certificate and my career with the US Army was over. All the foxholes (or fighting position as the Army called them); all the miles or kilometers, however you would like to call them walked, ran, or crawled; all the cold days and nights spent on the DMZ in Korea or patrolling the Berlin Wall; all the blood, sweat and many tears shed in all the valleys, jungles, deserts, and mountains both in combat and in training, was all over. For this I was guaranteed fifty percent of my base pay for the rest of my life. For someone, who has never been or seen the things I have done and seen, to now sit and second guess how much all of that is worth cheat the bravery and conspicuous service rendered by all those who served this nation in war, whether or not that war was declared or not. Don’t mess with the retirement funds of all those who served this nation, regardless of where that service was rendered, be that in Washington, DC or the jungles, desert or mountains where our leaders deployed us to, now or in the past, our service was service. What we did, we did it in the service of our country, and regardless of the cost, in our retirement, now is time for that nation to recognize their responsibility to all those Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen in retirement who earned every penny they now receive. I just hope my nation remembers the sacrifices I endured for fifty percent of my base pay, as well as, I remember what I did for my country.
With all the bad press over the military being over paid compared to civilian standards how many civilian companies field enough trained personnel to fight a war? Lets take this issue one step further, not just discuss those that deploy to fight and those that don't and support stateside bases. Lets look at the military pay scale over all. Lets say I am a TSgt Electronics (ECM) or a Jet Eng tech or Munitions tech. What do the have in common one things they are all TSgt and make the pay depending on TG/TS. Now look at the TSgt that types your deployment orders, he too gets the same pay just like everyone in non deployable positions. Pay those that physically fight th war more than those that dont directly dont pay clerks the same as electronic techs ect:
retirement pay and health benifits should remain basic, consumerate to time and pay scale. additional benifits are then awarded through various additional compensation, ie: combat pay, untax pay while deploy to certin areas and such. but if you serve you deserve, lets not take it away. military pay and sacrafice will never equal that of the civilian sector. A sacrafice is a sacrafice, some not as meaningful as others, but a sacrafice none-the-less.
Don't go down this path. It leads to a very slippery slope. The very nature of the question is divisive.
As a retired military member of three branches (mostly Air National Guard) and having deployed into a combat area, I think we retirees should get more benefits than those sitting in Washington DC. Who gave for their country more? Who earned it more? Why is this an issue? Congress needs to be cut, not retirees. While I don't see that happening since they control the decisions (which it should be us citizens and not them), I will put in an idea for retiree pay if a change must be made for the NEGATIVE. When the plan is to be implemented, those coming into the military at that time, forward, will only see 40% in pay for retirement. Mandatory deployments to any area of danger (decided by higher) or extended period of time (i.e. Navy 6-7 month cruises), will get 1% increase in retirement pay. Any volunteer deployments (under same conditions) will garner a 2% increase.
This is not a new development. I served in the USAF for thirty years, twenty-eight days. From 3 September 1979 to 30 September 2009. In that time, we went through three different ways to determine retirement pay. I came in under a system that determined retirement pay based on what one earned on the final month of active duty. That was replaced with a system that determined retirement pay based on the average of the last three years of pay. The final system, I believe, cut retirement pay after 20 years to 40% I didn't study it much because I was not affected by it). The one policy that kept these changes acceptable to everybody was that those on active duty who had already served a certain length of time–vested, if you will–were grandfathered under the older system. A change in retirement policy may indeed be deemed necessary to cut costs. But, as long as there is a grandfather clause in the policy, then the government will not be lying and cheating those who took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution under which the government is supposed to operate.
I say we deserve every dime, i say cut politians retirement pay they never talk about that, its always fuck the guy who gives all, cut the prez and all there retirements and leave the soldier the fuck alone
That is something that I have said for many years. Their pay raises never stop. They get their benefits for the ramainder of their lives no matter whether they served 4 years or more- that does matter to the military but not the politicians! that is VERY unfair and unjust!!
long gone are the days when the line between officers and enlisted was clear. Today, as in the Air Force, I'm sure that all branches of the military require enlisted members to continue their education, for promotion criteria of course. Due to this practice I see many, many instances where enlisted are far more educated than the officers appointed over them. History shows that the backbone of all branches of the military are the enlisted members. An enlisted member that joined in 2000 and was placed into a career field dealing directly with combat ops has possibly seen 11 years of combat or combat support operations (if they're still in). An officer that joined in 1993 that was placed in any office support or supply career field and has never stepped foot in an AOR could retire this year and fare much better in his retirement. Think back to 9/11 and the situation with discerning the relief money for the victims families. Now, does any logical person see why one family would get millions and another family get thousands? Why did any family deserve more than another simply due to what their deceased spouse earned in thier living occupation?
Modify the system used by the reserves. Retirement is based on "points". They get 4 for each weekend and 1 for each day on annual training. So, each day served earns a point with bonus points for hardships. For example for each year of an unaccompanied (not war) deployment earns an extra 100 points. Wartime service earns 2 points per day. 7300 points is 20 years without any bonus. Multiply the earned years times 2.5% to get the current 50% base pay. You can keep 20 years served to earn retirement or go with 7300 points which will clear out seinor NCOs earlier with retirement (and cost more). 10950 points is 30 years earned and the max 75% base pay. I can see the argument now:who deserves the higher bonus AF misslemen or Sailors on cruise. (I think they deserve the same.)
I was an infantry officer in the Army for three years of active duty including a year in Vietnam. Then I was a Navy JAG for 17 years. I did have a nice office for two years just kicking back on the USS FORRESTAL (an aircraft carrier) and a year on the USNS MERCY (in the Gulf War), two years in Korea, 8 month deployment to Med on the carrier, 19 trips to Diego Garcia, and so it goes. Don't assume from the staff insignia that we didn't go into Harm's Way or from the crossed rifles that I didn't have great tours (like Berlin)..
When I first entered the Navy as an enlisted E2, I looked at the 50%@20 years as a just payment for the low wages compared to my civilian counterpart. The medical part I considered my "retirement insurance". I drew many a buck from "sea pay" and "combat pay". Yes some of us Navy guys were in the battle front on SHORE. One thing for sure, no medals, decorations or pay will ever compensate for battle damage on the body. Certainly the majority of us do not have the opportunity to go from E7 to O1 and remain in your same job field. Again, my LDO officer pay did not match my civilian counterpart. I finally grad-u-mitated from the service as a LCDR [O4 LDO Engineering] with 25 yrs active service and 22 of that as "sea duty", lost count of just how many 6 month+ "deployments" and un-accompanied tours I made. My career was not the typical snipe. Any reorganization of the pay and retirement system for all services needs to have a wide open ear on the possible oddities of career paths and pay grades with, close attention to our civilian counter parts. Just how badly does the country want to keep us good people in the service??? Presently I feel my retired pay and disability compensation has been "fair and just".
What about congress? Take away their retirement, they get paid way more than military and get a better deal without ever having to go through the same crap a military member does. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander…
Carlisle Barracks, home of the USA War College, is in PA and alive and well.
I served 20 years, and feel I deserve my retirement. I did not see combat, but did volunteer for SEA several times only to be turned down. I may not have seen combat, but I was ready for it if it came. I think I deserve my retirement.
As for the vets who have seen combat, if the government kept the promises they have made and actually care for the wounded and those with combat related problems, this may not be much of an issue, but until that time comes an additional percentage should be offered.
The retirement pay at present is guaged by rank and time in service, as it should be. The only thing that should looked at is how the congresman can vote themselves a rase instead of a raise being based on their performance and approved by the people in his voting area. Also they should have to pay for medical coverage like everyone else. The retirement pay should be raised just as they are about to do to the 20 year retirement.The military have to endure siduations that no general public has had to endure
Very few congressmen have had to endure the conditions that the men and the women have had to do over the years.
This topic really upsets me. Look at the retirement elected officials get. They don't have to serve but one term and they are on the gravy train. They will make military surrender their benefits, while the elected cowards whom we serve increase their pay and benefits. Sorry for the emotional outburst but I think it is time to turn the table around and it starts by getting rid of ‘professional’ politicians who have outlasted their usefulness.
Your passion is well placed. Speak up! Let your opinion be known before things change!
I would like to know if the same policies that are for the enlisted mem also go for the staff in the Pentagon or what about the staff giving up part of their pay .When you serve you serve.I am a combat vietnam vet.I dont know but I do know that there is no other job civilian job where you can get Ptsd from doing your job or dioxigennexcept Fierman or law enforcment.Bear
I would point out a little acknowledged fact that makes this topic a moot point to even entertain. The number of Americans who served in our armed forces during World War II was approximately sixteen (16) million. Of those, only twenty-five (25) percent actually saw combat. That's correct. Only about four (4) million saw combat during World War II. Today, we still have many veterans of World War II who retired after serving twenty-plus years of active duty in our armed forces. The same can be said about those who have honorably served since then. Not everyone saw combat during the Korean War. Nor did everyone see combat in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet, what all share is a common honorable service record of having served on active duty for at least 20 years and retiring at their highest military pay grade. If you want to speak about equality of retirement pay rates for military veterans, shouldn't we at least acknowledge those who made a career commitment at great personal sacrifice and having to endure many hardships that most Americans have never had to make in their lives?
I, too, feel it should be a moot point. But others do not feel the same. Looks like changes will indeed happen…so if you get a say so on the topic, what would you recommend as a change other than "nothing"?
You know nothing about the bands of the services. The requirements are never-ending. And if combat and deployments are the issue, then the rest of the service needs to comply. That's the problem. There is no mandatory deployment or rotation system in place. People are excused regularly.
Bring back the draft. That will fix it. And it will keep our congressmen in check when deciding to overthrow other nations.
I love to hear the active duty comments about having to wait on retirees and it not being fair. It is funny how your perspective will change-don't be so narrow minded. One day I was an AD E-9 and living on top of my world, the next you are simply retired. Does this mean you shouldn't have the right to the health care promised you? You shouldn't be able to go to the same medical facility you have gone to for years vs the place that you are unfamiliar with and want co pays? When I started my career I was promised many things, Tri-care, Delta Dental, etc… were never in those discussions. So after 25 years of service I don't deserve to be in-line at the pharmacy because a spouse of an Active Duty member has better things to do? If you want something to go after, take a look at the health care plans our politicians get for an effort that is far less than 20+ years of military service. Sorry but I earned my place in that line.
There is not a direct correlation between years served or the number of wars one has served in as it relates to the amount of retirement received. I served in four wars. I had multiple missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Horn of Africa, Uzbekistan, krygystan, Qatar, Doha, Kurdistan, Vietnam, Iraq 1, I mention these only to remind you that I have also served in three fine branches of the United States Miitary Services. I have 30 years, 4 wars and cannot receive my retirement yet. I have to wait until the age of 60. Surprized I am not 60 yet, well I'm not and it is not fair that VA told me that they would have to access my benefits based on my income. Guess what, it's zero at the moment. I have been unemployed since I was RIFTED against my choice. I served in and with several special operation units but that has not given me any advantage. Anyone and everyone who served deserves to draw a just and fair retirement benefit for having served 20 years and appropriate increase for years past 20. You don't like somethng, you know how to change it. Vote, Vote, Vote, Educate people, Vote.