Likely Changes to Military Retirement System (US)

[Romag]

LTC can stay to 28, COL to 30. However the Army has started holding Selective Early Retirement Boards (SERB) for both ranks which forces some (probably not enough...) out after they have been passed over twice for promotion. I know a few guys who have been hit with this.

[NICE!]

O-6 can stay till 26 in the Air Force. I believe O-5 is 22 or 24. It is ultimately based upon your promotion boards. For O-6 I think they let you do your primary look (call that year 0), one year above the zone, and two years above the zone. So, if you were promoted early to O-4 and then early to O-5, you might not make it to the 26 for O-6.

At any rate, I do think they should do more Selective Early Retirement Boards. If they're going to make the poor souls from years 5-17 deal with this, those who've already earned the pension should definitely have to go through it. Especially because anyone who has spent more than a couple of years in the military knows there are plenty of E-7/8s and O-5/6s above 20 years who are marginal contributors.

[NICE!]

I looked up the Military Retirement Trust Fund #s and, according to the CBO, there is very little to worry about. The amount of retirees isn't expected to balloon significantly, but the outlays will gradually rise.

It just underscores the fact that, while these changes are probably a good move, completely ignoring Tricare is folly. That's where military retirement spending is about to run off the rails. This makes the temper tantrum that the different military/veteran lobby threw a few years ago look even more ridiculous. Gates wanted to raise premiums and copays by a token amount, but oh man did everyone yelp. Eventually they upped things by an completely insignificant amount.

I still fail to see why they don't reform the active duty system, either. They should start instituting premiums and copays, but keep them low and index them to rank. Obviously if you're overseas, deployed, or remote it should be free. However, if you're sitting stateside in an everyday gig, you should be paying something. Like I said, maybe the # is $0 for E-1 to E-5 or E-6. Perhaps it starts at something tiny like $10/month for O-1 and E-7 with a copay of like $1 for medicine, things like cavities, anything elective, etc.

Seems pretty reasonable to me and that would certainly help slow down the bleeding.

[Nords]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/04/30/dod-rejects-tricare-reform-does-not-oppose-retirement-changes/26638471/
It is looking more and more likely that the US military retirement system, which is based upon a pension that cliff vests at 20 years of service, will change.
Thoughts?

I hear you, but you're reading Military Times.  They (and MOAA) have been whipping their readers into a frenzy for over a year on this topic.  I've never seen so much ink and so many electrons devoted to a study and some Congressional subcommittee hearings.  Remember the Defense Business Board "retirement overhaul" of 2011?  Remember all the Quadrennial Reviews of Military Compensation which could have overhauled retirement before now?

I think that the MCRMC retirement recommendation needs more analysis before there's popular comprehension and a consensus.  Right now the CPAs can't even agree on how the dollars work out, and DoD is rightfully concerned about retention.

I also think DoD can't afford a "new" retirement plan, and here's why. 

The existing retirement system is funded by special-purpose Treasuries.  DoD has to follow GAAP rules for pension funding and interest rates are very low, so it already takes a lot of these Treasuries to cover the actuarial pension obligations.  In the current pension system, DoD is trying to reduce this obligation by being able to use other assets with higher returns (and higher risks).  They're also trying to automate and outsource as much of the rank & file as possible, because they don't have to fund pensions for drones, robots, or contractors. 

Only 17% of the military's servicemembers vest in the current pension, and the cost is already getting smaller as the services get smaller.  Even if the new pension started at age 60 instead of 20 years of service, the savings is not a large percentage of DoD's expenses.

But what if DoD had to fund a TSP match and give cash to servicemembers when they left the downsizing military?  That's 83% of the force, and that's a current expense (not a deferred liability).  It might not be much money per servicemember, but that's nearly five times as many people.  I doubt that the savings will be significant, and indeed many financial analysts claim that the new retirement system is largely revenue-neutral for the servicemember.  But now DoD has to pay money up front instead of setting aside a little every year for deferred liabilities.

I bet DoD feels that it's a lot easier to hand out GI Bill benefits (paid by the VA) and transition benefits (paid by the Dept of Labor) for departing vets, and to save their DoD funds to buy retention-- not separation.

With the current cliff-vesting pension system, two kinds of people stick around for 20:  those who are having fun (and might not really care about the pension vesting), and those who are afraid to leave before vesting.  If the second group is given a TSP match and can leave at the end of an obligation with some cash in hand and a deferred pension, then why would they stick around?  Most humans can't calculated the future value of a present amount anyway.  Retention will plummet.

So in effect, the new pension system will saddle DoD with higher current expenses (and lower deferred expenses) in exchange for lower retention.  Sounds a lot like REDUX.

Then there's the expense of implementing the new retirement system.  Nobody even knows how much it will cost to reprogram DFAS computers and do the analysis & auditing as well as the contracting.  Again that bill is footed by DoD, not by deferred liabilities or other agencies like the VA.

I've been paying attention to this as well.  I agree with some of the arguments in favor of overhaul (specifically that the REAL warfighters are least likely to benefit from the current system), but make no mistake, the real reason behind it is so that Uncle Sam can cut benefits overall.

As far as trying to get a severance, that would typically only happen if you hit High Year Tenure or get forced out via other means, and the payouts are nowhere close to a real retirement.  For myself, it would mean the difference between ~$120K for severance at 15 YOS, or the pension equivalent of ~$1.1M 401K if I can retire.

As long as they grandfather the existing soldier in I think it is a good idea. I've meet too many senior NCO with 8-12 who have after their 3rd deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan said I'm getting out.   I feel these guys really got screwed by the existing system.

There will be grandfathering.  This retirement proposal does not affect anyone in uniform today, although they can choose the option... just like REDUX sucks in a few hundred servicemembers every year.

BTW, JMusic, you need a better phrase than "REAL warfighters".  How about "high OPTEMPO" or "physically punishing" or "labor intensive"?  One team, one fight, right?  Even the SF and the SEALs can't bang on doors until the support forces gain the intel and the logistics guys produce the gear.  And I've seen plenty of those REAL warfighters lose their cool when they're underway underwater on a nuclear-powered taxi service.

But I digress.  Back to the retirement overhaul.

The military gets the retention that they're willing to pay for.  Right now, retention sucks so badly in my daughter's community (nuclear-trained surface warfare officers) that at the five-year point she'll be eligible to sign 3-5 year retention contracts for two different bonuses at the same time.  In addition to her base pay of roughly $62K/year, she'll be eligible for $65K/year in bonuses.

How badly does a job have to suck for the military to double your base pay?

Another aspect is the advanced training.  By the time she's developed five years of leadership & management skills (along with 30+ credit hours of graduate-level nuclear engineering training) she'll easily be able to pull down six figures in a civilian engineering career. 

So how does the military persuade these people to stick around?  Outrageous bonuses work once or twice, but eventually even lieutenants realize that the fun is dwindling.  During recessions they still have the skills to leave active duty for a bridge career.  It's very easy for them to move to the Reserves for some of the fun with much less suckage. 

One of the effective retention mechanisms is keeping it fun.  Another very effective retention mechanism is cliff vesting, with the possibility of reaching financial independence in your 40s.  In my daughter's case, she's already saving more than half of her income (easy to do on sea duty as an unqualified O-1) and planning to go to the Reserves after she finishes her five-year obligation.  She'll work a bridge career (or a lot of Reserve duty) and save enough assets to retire in her 40s (but, being my daughter, will probably try to reach FI in her 30s) and she'll have a Reserve pension waiting for her at age 60. 

I see the MCRMC recommendations as heavily weighted toward the servicemember while burdening DoD with unfunded expenses.  As Spartana says, instead of improving DoD's retention, it actually encourages servicemembers to fall prey to hyperbolic discounting and get out before 20 years.  Congressional subcommittees will be delighted to hold hearings on behalf of their (voting) constituents (especially during an election year) but I think DoD will drag out the process until it dies.  In the meantime DoD will continue to pay targeted bonuses to the 17% it wants to retain, and won't worry about whether cliff vesting is fair for the other 83%.

Hopefully Nords will weigh in on this, as this is his bailiwick.

I try to search the threads every week for keywords like "Nords" and "military.

However there seems to be plenty of expertise here already, both from active-duty and veteran posters.  I may be more widely published and have some media contacts, but the MCRMC is pretty new to everyone.

Every W-2 I have received from the Navy for 25 years has had the Retirement Plan box checked.  Block 13.  http://images-paycheck-chronicles.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/W-2-without-identifying-information.png?b538d5

Ok, but this prevents us from deducting the Traditional IRA? Why doesn't it apply to the traditional TSP?

The TSP and the IRA are two different portions of the tax code, and they have different rules.

I remember the same frustration in the 1980s when we found out we couldn't deduct our IRA contributions.  "Whaddya mean, 'covered by a retirement plan'?!?  We don't even know if we want to serve more than five years!!"  When I retired in 2002, it took my spouse and I 12 years to incrementally convert our traditional (non-deductible) IRAs to Roth IRAs in the 15% income-tax bracket. 

but I'm pretty sure that very few 18 year olds join the Marine Corp primarily because they get a pension in 20 years.

Oh, don't be too sure!  I remember a specific conversation between me and my brother:

I did say Marine Corp for a reason.  In general Marine Corp recruits (See Making the Corp) are motivated by more patriotic/traditional reason for signing up than the other services.  Navy, Air Force (ROTC in my case) and Army typically appeal for multiple reason like your brother.   I believe (Nords will correct me if I'm wrong) that the Marines have the lowest percentage of the service collecting pension, Air Force I think is the highest.
But proportionally Marines are engaged in far more of the actual fighting than the other services, so I believe the current system penalizes them unfairly.

I'd say that anyone who joins the military because of the retirement benefits is misguided by fuzzy thinking.  Joint the military to learn new skills, to be part of something bigger than yourself, to do more than you ever thought you could, and to serve your country.  But to plan to stick it out for 20 years just for an inflation-fighting pension and cheap healthcare is putting a lot of pressure on yourself, and it's excessively rigid planning.

Instead I'd suggest that servicemembers take it one obligation at a time and, when the fun stops, move to the Reserves/National Guard.  You can reach financial independence through a bridge career (or a lot of Reserve/Guard duty) and at age 60 you'll still have pension & healthcare benefits to cover your longevity risk. 

I wish I could remember where I read the statistics, but the Air Force retirement rate (active-duty and Reserves/Guard) is over 30%.  Meanwhile the Marine retirement rate is more like 8%.  Officers are about 30%-40% (depending on the service) and enlisted are down around 20%.  The overall retirement rate is about 17%.

The Marine Corps acknowledges that their job is physically labor-intensive and they don't want a lot of people hanging around for 20.  Instead they want a core leadership (both officer and enlisted) and they're hoping to rapidly ramp up during wartime.  As one of the smallest of the uniformed services, this works well for them.  It wouldn't work for the Army or the Air Force with their existing infrastructure requirements and specialized larger forces.

It just underscores the fact that, while these changes are probably a good move, completely ignoring Tricare is folly. That's where military retirement spending is about to run off the rails. This makes the temper tantrum that the different military/veteran lobby threw a few years ago look even more ridiculous. Gates wanted to raise premiums and copays by a token amount, but oh man did everyone yelp. Eventually they upped things by an completely insignificant amount.

I think Tricare Prime seemed like a pretty good idea at the time.  However an insurance company can't survive when their premiums are frozen at the same rate for 15 years.  I think it was a smart move (yet a temporary fix) to index Tricare premiums to the CPI, but I agree that the concept of Tricare Prime is not working.  I can see the military either ditching Tricare Prime or turning it back into Tricare Standard.  The idea of having incentives for better health outcomes is an enticing feature of the ACA legislation on Medicare payments, and I think that might help Tricare a lot.

One final rant point:

For those who feel that the military's 20-year active-duty pension is excessively generous, I'll remind you again that America gets the military it's willing to pay for.  (We should apply that logic to the State Department, too, and then maybe DoD wouldn't be so busy.)  There's a reason that pensions start early for firefighters, police officers, emergency responders, and military.  Those jobs have very few candidates who are qualified to join (let alone volunteer), and they're so highly trained & skilled that they're difficult to retain.  You should account for survivor bias and work-related risks.  For every hundred retirees like me who live in paradise and can surf every day, there are over 500 more veterans who left the military before they vested their pension.  There were a few guys who died on active duty (war or training) and a dozen more who are 100% disabled.  In my cohort of 100 happy retirees, there are a couple dozen more who have significant disability issues and a permanently shorter lifespan.

Would a MegaCorp pension seem excessively generous if your bosses & clients killed or maimed a few of your co-workers every year?

[NICE!]

For those who feel that the military's 20-year active-duty pension is excessively generous, I'll remind you again that America gets the military it's willing to pay for.  (We should apply that logic to the State Department, too, and then maybe DoD wouldn't be so busy.)  There's a reason that pensions start early for firefighters, police officers, emergency responders, and military.  Those jobs have very few candidates who are qualified to join (let alone volunteer), and they're so highly trained & skilled that they're difficult to retain.  You should account for survivor bias and work-related risks.  For every hundred retirees like me who live in paradise and can surf every day, there are over 500 more veterans who left the military before they vested their pension.  There were a few guys who died on active duty (war or training) and a dozen more who are 100% disabled.  In my cohort of 100 happy retirees, there are a couple dozen more who have significant disability issues and a permanently shorter lifespan.

Would a MegaCorp pension seem excessively generous if your bosses & clients killed or maimed a few of your co-workers every year?

Or my brother-in-law, who definitely has PTSD but isn't really addressing it due to both the byzantine VA and his own desire not to go to a therapist. Like you say, Nords, there are plenty of others. Shit, I could be one of them on my next deployment if one of those damn indirect fire rockets hits my sleeping quarters. Unlikely? Sure, but as you noted, not only are very few people willing to sign up for that, very few people are actually qualified. I'm cool with the pension, but I still think Tricare needs reform. I also think that the military is still a little too much of a sacred cow. I think everyone should bear the brunt of righting our national ship. Luckily, they're actually holding military pay down right now, which surprises me. I didn't think they'd get away with that for more than a few years before someone made it a campaign issue (SUPPORT THE TROOOOPPPSSSS yellow ribbons free bloomin onions on veteran's day).

Obviously, I'd like the TSP match because it'd make my decision at the end of this commitment (3-4 years, depending on whether I take a two year commitment 2 years from now) even easier.

You're right though, one obligation at a time. I still am in awe of your wife's quitting right before the finish line story, though. Damn impressive, especially because I'm sitting here thinking about whether or not I'd keep going for 7-8 years even if I'm not enjoying myself.

Military Times...MOAA...

I know you're late to the party but I did end up discussing these fools later in this thread. I was highly unimpressed by the stonewalling they did when Gates was trying to fix retiree Tricare. You can rest assured that I don't and won't subscribe to the Military Times, nor will I donate to or become a member of MOAA.

retention sucks...

Uh, what? This is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing for years, with the exception of a few specific career fields (pilots in the AF being the biggest). The services have actually raised recruiting requirements and have had to axe a ton of people who didn't just go ahead and take the VSP. If retention is such an issue, why are they having to axe people?

[Travis]

Quote

    Military Times...MOAA...


I know you're late to the party but I did end up discussing these fools later in this thread. I was highly unimpressed by the stonewalling they did when Gates was trying to fix retiree Tricare. You can rest assured that I don't and won't subscribe to the Military Times, nor will I donate to or become a member of MOAA.

Quote

    retention sucks...


Uh, what? This is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing for years, with the exception of a few specific career fields (pilots in the AF being the biggest). The services have actually raised recruiting requirements and have had to axe a ton of people who didn't just go ahead and take the VSP. If retention is such an issue, why are they having to axe people?

Most veteran's lobbying organizations drive me nuts.  Anything that smells like a single dollar might be taken from the DoD budget and they swear up and down that the troops aren't being supported and it's the end of the world.  While procurement is a much larger share of the budget, everyone has to do their part and even personnel proposals that are prudent and efficient are decried because they nudge the apple cart.  It reminds me of some recent labor union disputes where they fought for their benefits right up until they point the company went bankrupt or there were massive layoffs.

As far as retention, down on the line there aren't any real issues.  The problems are in the fields where we have a small population or highly specialized skill sets (nuke engineers, pilots, linguists, cyber defense).  It doesn't take much experience for them to become highly marketable and their branch doesn't know how to hold onto them except for throwing money at the problem and in increasing numbers it's not enough.  The Air Force is about to become desperately short of pilots and the airlines are on a hiring spree.  The IT industry is always hiring and the Army is trying to stand up a whole new force of cyber defense teams and they're having trouble retaining those skill sets.

[sol]

BTW, JMusic, you need a better phrase than "REAL warfighters".  How about "high OPTEMPO" or "physically punishing" or "labor intensive"?  One team, one fight, right? 

I'd even go one step farther, and say it's not the above-mentioned "real warfighters" that make the US military so outstanding.  There are hardened badasses in every country on earth.  Tough guys are a dime a dozen.

What makes the US military so exceptional is precisely the folks he was denigrating, the hoards of logistics and support people that can deliver those badasses and their toys to any spot on the planet in a matter of hours.  And keep them there, well supplied with food and equipment and satellite recon and things that go boom, pretty much indefinitely. 

[Nords]

I'm cool with the pension, but I still think Tricare needs reform. I also think that the military is still a little too much of a sacred cow.

The part of Tricare reform that I object to is when DoD complains that personnel & medical expenses are cutting into weapons systems procurement.  DoD expects Congress to allocate more money for Tricare fixes, but they're forcing it to be done by threatening benefits cuts instead of (*gasp*) improving weapons procurement.  Then MOAA (and other advocacy groups) have to go to bat for the families.  The families end up "storming the Hill" and other publicity stunts to call attention to inequities that DoD should be fixing without Congress' help. 

Obviously, I'd like the TSP match because it'd make my decision at the end of this commitment (3-4 years, depending on whether I take a two year commitment 2 years from now) even easier.

You're right though, one obligation at a time. I still am in awe of your wife's quitting right before the finish line story, though. Damn impressive, especially because I'm sitting here thinking about whether or not I'd keep going for 7-8 years even if I'm not enjoying myself.

Just to put the decision process into perspective, it was two years in the making.  It was based on the choices that you can select when you have financial independence.  It was also based on bad assignment policies from her community.  It was pretty clear what she needed to do.

For over half of her career, women were banned from assignments to Navy combatants.  Yet when those restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, the attitude was "All right, ladies, now you have to catch up with the boys."  A number of remedial-duty billets were offered on combatants, but no warfare qualifications.  Most of the billets involved administrative work that did not improve warfare skills.  They weren't even welcome in combat watchstanding duties.  One billet proposed to my spouse was two paygrades below her rank, although later that was "upgraded" to one lower.

She negotiated with her community's assignment officer(s) for over 18 months, including proposing several warships and billets both in and out of the community.  A submarine flag officer even offered her one of her community's billets on his staff, but her admiral turned it down.  What started out as a polite discussion of "Here's what you should develop in your career" fell apart when one of the assignment officers blurted out in a chatty e-mail "Just suck it up for two more years and get your pension!"  Um, what kind of "career development" is that?  Their counseling was rooted in the assumption that 18-year officers will do anything to get to 20. 

Part of her orders involved a year of separation before our daughter and I could rejoin her.  One night we parents found ourselves discussing a friend's endorsement of the great family counseling services that are offered at her new duty station.  What a wonderful way to start a tour!  At that point she said "Well f%^& it, it's only money and I can always get a real job."

There's a provision in the transfer manual that says when an officer gets within six months of their rotation date, the assignment officer can issue two-year orders to anywhere-- unless the officer has submitted their resignation.  We found that clause another night when we were digging through the manual, and she realized that she had less than 48 hours to her PRD.  When she faxed in the resignation letter, the senior assignment officer e-mailed her "Aw, you got me."  He'd already had her orders in the queue but he was not going to tell her until they'd been transmitted.  Again the assumption was that her resignation was just the start of serious negotiations and that she'd still do anything (and pull her resignation letter) to get to 20. 

The lack of trust in the chain of command made it very easy for her to throw away the baton and walk off the track so close to the finish line.  No one had ever called their bluff before.  They even extended her at the command for four months because they couldn't get her relief onboard in time-- they didn't believe she was really going to leave active duty.  When she used her separation orders to move household goods to our new home, she was actually lectured that she'd have to pay back BUPERS when she pulled her resignation letter.  They just didn't get it.

I hope nobody ever has to go through this decision process, but just be aware that the assignment officers rarely understand the concept of financial independence.  They're accustomed to having their way when you get past 14 years of service, because they think you're afraid to give up the pension. 

But when you have assets and human capital, career fields are fungible.  You don't have to stay on active duty to reach FI, and you don't even need a Reserve pension to reach FI.  Military pensions just make it easier to reach FI because they're built-in longevity insurance.

I know you're late to the party but I did end up discussing these fools later in this thread. I was highly unimpressed by the stonewalling they did when Gates was trying to fix retiree Tricare. You can rest assured that I don't and won't subscribe to the Military Times, nor will I donate to or become a member of MOAA.

I've been treated well by Military Times journalists, and I have classmates & shipmates working at MOAA.  I've met other MOAA staff at USAA meetings, and they're good people.

What annoys me about Military Times and MOAA is their breathless blow-by-blow reporting every time that a legislator touches a microphone.  There's absolutely nothing of significance to report from the MCRMC debates, yet we're perpetually being asked to e-mail our senators about hearings on House subcommittees?!?  The "Keep Your Promise" crowd is up in arms every time someone suggests changing retirement, yet they should know that it's being grandfathered.  I blame the media for inciting the hysteria by crying wolf.

retention sucks...

Uh, what? This is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing for years, with the exception of a few specific career fields (pilots in the AF being the biggest). The services have actually raised recruiting requirements and have had to axe a ton of people who didn't just go ahead and take the VSP. If retention is such an issue, why are they having to axe people?

One issue is that sequestration is forcing end-strength and readiness cuts below the numbers the services feels are reasonable.  Servicemembers have too many missions and not enough resources.  The smart ones (who can actually forecast trends and do math) are getting out now to avoid the impending glut of veterans on the civilian job market.  They have little reason to hang around, so they vote with their feet.  Bonus contracts are one attempt to stem the loss of talented people.

Meanwhile the ones that the services would prefer to nudge out are digging in.  The military ends up with the wrong mix of skills and ranks.  They have to deliver large bribes to keep the right people in uniform, while using almost any excuse (like the Army's Officer Separation Board debacle) to separate the "not quite right" servicemembers.

The recruiters are raising requirements, yes, but look how low they went during 2005-06 with the surge and stop loss.  We're just getting back to the top of the sine wave.

Ironically, the drawdown after the Cold War and DESERT STORM was bigger than this drawdown in both percentages (25%) and numbers of people.  (1.9M-->1.4M).  You'd expect that we'd be able to do a better job this time, especially with more computer power and more automation/outsourcing, but so far we don't seem to have learned from the last drawdown.

Anyway I'll stand by my predictions of legislative gridlock and status quo, accompanied by plenty of political theater and media fireworks.  And if I turn out to be wrong on both counts, then this new pension system will make REDUX look like a retention incentive!

[NICE!]

I'm in the Air Force so I can only really speak intelligently about that service, but I know that the only really big retention problem at the moment is in the pilot community, but that world has always had that problem. It is almost always related to airline hiring. That effect has dropped considerably as salaries have dropped in the airlines since they were far too high in the past. But, they've also added requirements that makes it harder for a fighter pilot to fly an airliner due to different companies not counting their hours since they (rightly) state that flying a F-16 is nothing like flying a 777.

As far as I know, pilots have the only bonuses on the officer's side and there are only a few on the enlisted side. Cyber officers definitely aren't getting a bonus but as they push that career field to a more technical network attack/defense setup, I bet you will have retention problems. I can't imagine how much an Amazon or Google would pay a young military officer who's actually done attack/defense while leading people. Those salaries would be preposterous, I'm sure. It kinda makes me wish I were more technical and could take advantage of something like that.

I see what you're saying about people digging in their heels vs not, but I honestly see almost everyone digging in their heels...The exception being pilots and quite a few enlisted. That's actually been one thing that has always impressed me about the enlisted force - they don't seem as driven by fear in their long-term decision-making. Many officers wait far too long to do something else because they are scared/ultra-conservative. Hell, I might end up being one of them.

Again, I only truly know the AF and I have heard that the Navy has a SWO retention problem, which is disconcerting as it is the biggest officer career field.

Military Times...MOAA

I'm glad you've had good personal experiences with Military Times but I think they're a damn tabloid. I rarely even give them clicks/pageviews. On MOAA I see your point but I'm sorry, I still want more responsibility from an organization like that. If we are a community that represents honor and sacrifice, I think fighting tooth and nail against any benefit cut makes us look like hypocrites. I believe we have budgetary issues and I believe that we should be a part of the solution. A small part, but a part. Marginally higher copays and premiums are not unreasonable.

But you're right, procurement and contracting are both pretty serious issues that, if we could fix them, we'd probably be able to raise benefits!

badass wife FI story

Thanks for retelling that badass story, Nords. If I wasn't clear, I admire the hell out of you and your wife for making that decision. I'm just not confident that DW and I would do the same. Do you really think that they think they own me after 14 years? Why do you think it is 14? I hear a lot of people who claim that if you're in for 10 you need to make 20. Now, I think this is absolutely ridiculous and I usually say 'dude, if you hate what you're doing you should not do it for another decade, that's a long time.'

I don't hate what I'm doing but I have at points in the past. I'm trying out a new career field (FAO) for size. I guess I just need to see if I like it after one assignment. That will take me to roughly the 12-13 year point. I don't need the AD pension for FI, but we won't quite be at FI in 3-4 years. I could get a job for a couple/few years to get us there or DW could take the career lead, which is what she ultimately wants to do anyway. She's not at all interested in FIRE in her 30s and I'm only just starting to make some headway on selling getting out of the 'career' mindset in her 40s.

[sol]

I like your perspective, sol, but I think it is actually a combination of our badasses, our support people, and our technology. Also, we spend an insane amount of money.

[libertarian4321]

This is AMAZING.

Finally something for the 75+% of servicemembers who don't hang on for 20 years. Finally.

Yup.  The current system is a gold mine for those who hang in for 20 or 30 years, but those of us who are "citizen soldiers," who serve for 2, 4, 6, 10 years, get NOTHING but a swat on the ass on the way out.

All of those citizen soldiers start out way behind civilians, because there is currently absolutely nothing for most soldiers.  It's either be a careerist and hit the jack pot, or you get nothing.

A more balanced system may encourage more citizen soldiers (a good thing, imho) and discourage some of the dinosaurs from just hanging on like grim death until they hit the 20-year gold mine.

[Nords]

Thanks for retelling that badass story, Nords. If I wasn't clear, I admire the hell out of you and your wife for making that decision. I'm just not confident that DW and I would do the same. Do you really think that they think they own me after 14 years? Why do you think it is 14? I hear a lot of people who claim that if you're in for 10 you need to make 20. Now, I think this is absolutely ridiculous and I usually say 'dude, if you hate what you're doing you should not do it for another decade, that's a long time.'

I don't hate what I'm doing but I have at points in the past. I'm trying out a new career field (FAO) for size. I guess I just need to see if I like it after one assignment. That will take me to roughly the 12-13 year point. I don't need the AD pension for FI, but we won't quite be at FI in 3-4 years. I could get a job for a couple/few years to get us there or DW could take the career lead, which is what she ultimately wants to do anyway. She's not at all interested in FIRE in her 30s and I'm only just starting to make some headway on selling getting out of the 'career' mindset in her 40s.

I think it's just the fuzzy dividing line between "doing an obligation or two" and "career". 

Around the 14-year mark you're getting close to O-5 or E-7/8.  You're 2-3 tours away from 20 years.  You're also getting into the upper half of the billet pyramid, which means that there are fewer billets available yet a higher percentage of "hot fill" unpopular billets. 

I do not envy the assignment officers (although a few could show a little less enthusiasm).  They get the job because they show the potential to reach O-6 (or higher) and they're being given a chance to learn how their community is managed.  They're on the fast track, they're hypercompetitive, they're in a fiercely competitive environment, and they can't imagine why anyone would not feel the same way as they do.  They would never "retire to rust on the porch", and they just don't know anything different than working as hard as they can for as long as they can.

Every week they have to find someone for a tough billet, and every week those unfilled billets go on a briefing screen for an admiral to inquire when they'll be filled.  "Needs of the Navy" is a very convenient excuse for "let's get this off my To Do list".  I think there's also an element of "let's see whether these people are committed to command or if they're just hanging around for the pension".  I don't know whether it's this way in all the services, but in the Navy (particularly in the submarine force) the assignment officer's job is a flag breeding ground.  (Two of my old assignment officers made flag rank.)  These guys would happily sacrifice their personal work/life balance to climb the career ladder, and they're eager to ask others to give up their quality of life because they think they're giving them a shot at making flag too.

As for "fear", I was that way at the 12-year mark.  Today I realize that I could've gone into the drilling Reserves, picked up a contractor job to work in the Tactics shop at COMSUBPAC, had the same parking spot, even gone to sea for an exercise or two, and reached financial independence at about the same time as I did on active duty.  The difference is that I would have had more savings/investments and my Reserve pension would've started 19 years later at a slightly lower figure-- but the 4% SWR would have worked out the same.  However I'd never learned anything about the Reserves and as far as I knew they had a poor reputation. 

When my spouse joined her Reserve unit and started drilling at PACOM, by the third day of an AT she'd get the job offers.  Whether it was for mobilization, ADSW on the watch floor, civil service, or contractor work, it all ultimately came from DoD funds.  A Reserve unit at a large joint command was really just an extensive employment interview and she could've moved easily among all of those areas.  The staff was ridiculously grateful to have a Reservist who lived on island, had no schedule conflicts from a day job, and was willing to stand midwatches in the JOC for 2-3 weeks so that people could take leave.

She also met plenty of shipmates there who were still on active duty and trying to make rank in their PACOM billets.  They were working 60-hour weeks and aging visibly during their tour.

If you enjoy FAO then do a second tour.  (If you're doing your first tour in a different community then you probably owe it to yourself to give them a second chance anyway.)  If you get to 14-16 years and you're not happy then send the usual retention signals:  sign up for TAP, start asking around your command about the Reserves, network the contractors over a cup of coffee.  Tell the assignment officer that you're ready to leave active duty and see what they can do for you.  Go to a Ruehlin seminar-- that tells people you're really serious.  You might have to explain to your bosses and to the assignment officer just how financial independence works, but it's worth showing them that you're ready to move to the Reserves and you don't need a career-enhancing billet.  If they tell you how miserable the civilian job market is, then share that you have enough assets to reach FI on your drill pay.  If they can't spell SWR then tell them where to find my book explain that you're going to spend more time with family and you don't need the paycheck to enjoy your life.

On the financial side, I think going to the Reserves/Guard at 12-17 years is a revenue-neutral decision.  (If you get a promotion in the Reserves then you might even come out ahead.)  The quality-of-life part of going to the Reserves/Guard, however, is a huge improvement.  And as you say, a decade is an awfully long time to hate your job.

[NICE!]

Thanks again, Nords. Your insights are always valued.

I actually don't know anything about assignment officers and careerism in the AF. I do know that it is better to lean towards honesty with them and that if you can work with them, they'll work with you. For example, my next assignment isn't exactly a desirable location, but I was able to get them to make it a 24 month accompanied instead of a 12 month unaccompanied. That's a big damn deal.

I have been told that they don't like ultimatums, so it isn't surprising that they didn't flinch when your wife said she'd get out.

The only thing that sucks about the AF's FAO program is that you maintain your primary branch/MOS. So, I have to go back to my cyber career after this upcoming assignment...That could be the final nail in the coffin, depending on where I'm sent. If I get lucky, that could make me go the distance (FAO assignment ends at 11 yr point, then a cyber one till 13/14, then another FAO from 13/14 to 16/17). I dunno. We'll see I guess? What would you do if you hated the cyber posts but enjoyed the FAO ones? That's like 2-3 years of good, followed by 2-3 years of bad. Rinse, repeat.

My saving grace is probably the years of savings (that won't quite make us FI for another 5+ years) and my wife's career ambitions. I could be a stay at home dude and she'd be happy to be the breadwinner, especially if we started pumping out kids.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

If you read the DBB and other reports, they put a lot of consideration into retention and how it is affected by the 20 year cliff-vested pension. Trust me, they're taking it into consideration. I worked for a Marine O-6 who worked directly for the flag officer in charge of manpower and he told me that the pension was actually more important for enticing people to get out. He said, like it or not, they don't want a bunch of E-7s, E-8s, and O-5s running around for much longer than 20.

I think the retention bonus at 12 and continuing the pension will continue to make the system workable, but of course there will be growing pains and peaks/valleys.

We'll see if they eventually get it right.

Depends what the 12 year bonus is. 2.5 months of base as proposed in the MCRMC would be a a nice chunk of change ($15,000 or so), but not nearly enough to commit for another 4 years, not even enough to commit for another 2.5 months honestly.

[Nords]

Thanks for asking these questions.  It's a little tough to write up this advice in a neat little 1000-word blog post with a cute image and a snarky caption.

I have been told that they don't like ultimatums, so it isn't surprising that they didn't flinch when your wife said she'd get out.

I don't know why it got that way in the Navy, but a resignation letter was an accepted signal that you were simply escalating the negotiations.  Nobody expected you to get out-- just that you were being insistent about how you wanted to stay in.  The chain of command (especially assignment officers) had stopped understanding that a resignation letter meant you really were leaving active duty. 

When my spouse moved our household goods on her separation orders, it was because we'd bought our dream home a few miles away.  (15 years later, we still love it!)  When an active-duty friend heard we were moving, she thought we were downsizing and piling up cash for the bridge career job search.  She called up my spouse to talk about the entire saga.  My spouse shared everything (and explained we were upsizing) because this woman is a very good friend-- but also because (with my spouse's consent) she'd share the conversation with the assignment officer.  When our friend called BUPERS and explained "She ain't gonna change her mind", the assignment officer still didn't believe this was anything but a high-stakes poker bluff.

Even after being extended on active duty, the week before my spouse signed her DD214 she was still getting "Can we talk?" e-mails from the assignment officer.  It was like winning the Powerball lottery and quitting your job, only to have your boss "negotiate" by offering you flex time. 

What would you do if you hated the cyber posts but enjoyed the FAO ones? That's like 2-3 years of good, followed by 2-3 years of bad. Rinse, repeat.

My saving grace is probably the years of savings (that won't quite make us FI for another 5+ years) and my wife's career ambitions. I could be a stay at home dude and she'd be happy to be the breadwinner, especially if we started pumping out kids.

I'd enjoy the first FAO post, give the AF one last chance on the cyber post, start the second FAO tour, and immediately begin telling the assignment officer that you need a really good reason to stay on active duty. 

Or I'd start those tactics during the first FAO post.

Maybe they'd give you another FAO post to 20, or maybe they'd give you a low-stress cyber post that's regarded as a career backwater.  Maybe you'd even get an ROTC billet to persuade more students to go cyber.  But more likely you'd leave active duty at 16+ years of service and reboot your life in the Reserves.

The logic conflict here is the concept of cliff vesting.  The sunk costs fallacy means that we don't want to "waste" those first 18 years by quitting so close to 20.  The reality is that they're not wasted at all, especially if you're saving/investing. 

The only military families who "waste" those years are the ones who spend every paycheck, never get around to contributing to the TSP (let alone a Roth IRA), never update their professional skills, and suddenly get a career curve ball.  That's when they realize that they have zero financial flexibility.

You could join a Reserve unit for a few years of drills followed by years of IRR.  (With over 16 years of active duty, you will not be mobilized because of concerns over sanctuary.)  You could start your own bridge career, or your spouse could elevate her career.  Your assets only have to last for a couple of decades.  At age 60 you'll still have a COLA-adjusted annuity and cheap healthcare.

The whole reason I wrote the book was to show people how a military pension and cheap healthcare make financial independence so much easier to achieve.  The reality is that a pension is not necessary-- it just raises the success ratio from ~80% to 100.00%.  You eliminated portfolio failure, but you were probably going to succeed anyway without the pension.

So if you're not having fun on active duty, you have to have faith in your human capital and go to the Reserves/Guard. 

Every few months I repeat pretty much the same advice to my O-1 daughter:  if you're not having fun, then get out at the end of your obligation and join the Reserves.  Then go get your MBA, or join an engineering firm and get your PE, or found a side-hustle startup and work it with your Reserve career.  Or all of the above.

Of course right now she's an unqualified under-instruction newbie on deployment (and on perpetual midwatches) with a bunch of broken gear and a thick stack of CASREPs and not enough personnel, so of course she's hating life.  But we'll have to recheck the calibration on that after the deployment, when she has her shiny new Surface Warfare Officer qualifications and gets to pick her transfer date for Nuclear Power School.

I just don't want her to feel obligated to sign a bonus contract simply because BUPERS waves a $65K annual bribe under her nose.  Gleefully signing one because she loves driving ships and the Navy will pay her even more to do what she'd do for free?  Sure.  But feeling coerced into it because she has a big SUV, a consumer consumption lifestyle, and no savings?  Not gonna happen.

[NICE!]

I'd enjoy the first FAO post, give the AF one last chance on the cyber post, start the second FAO tour, and immediately begin telling the assignment officer that you need a really good reason to stay on active duty. 

Or I'd start those tactics during the first FAO post.

Maybe they'd give you another FAO post to 20, or maybe they'd give you a low-stress cyber post that's regarded as a career backwater.  Maybe you'd even get an ROTC billet to persuade more students to go cyber.  But more likely you'd leave active duty at 16+ years of service and reboot your life in the Reserves.

The logic conflict here is the concept of cliff vesting.  The sunk costs fallacy means that we don't want to "waste" those first 18 years by quitting so close to 20.  The reality is that they're not wasted at all, especially if you're saving/investing. 

The only military families who "waste" those years are the ones who spend every paycheck, never get around to contributing to the TSP (let alone a Roth IRA), never update their professional skills, and suddenly get a career curve ball.  That's when they realize that they have zero financial flexibility.

You could join a Reserve unit for a few years of drills followed by years of IRR.  (With over 16 years of active duty, you will not be mobilized because of concerns over sanctuary.)  You could start your own bridge career, or your spouse could elevate her career.  Your assets only have to last for a couple of decades.  At age 60 you'll still have a COLA-adjusted annuity and cheap healthcare.

The whole reason I wrote the book was to show people how a military pension and cheap healthcare make financial independence so much easier to achieve.  The reality is that a pension is not necessary-- it just raises the success ratio from ~80% to 100.00%.  You eliminated portfolio failure, but you were probably going to succeed anyway without the pension.

So if you're not having fun on active duty, you have to have faith in your human capital and go to the Reserves/Guard. 

Every few months I repeat pretty much the same advice to my O-1 daughter:  if you're not having fun, then get out at the end of your obligation and join the Reserves.  Then go get your MBA, or join an engineering firm and get your PE, or found a side-hustle startup and work it with your Reserve career.  Or all of the above.

Of course right now she's an unqualified under-instruction newbie on deployment (and on perpetual midwatches) with a bunch of broken gear and a thick stack of CASREPs and not enough personnel, so of course she's hating life.  But we'll have to recheck the calibration on that after the deployment, when she has her shiny new Surface Warfare Officer qualifications and gets to pick her transfer date for Nuclear Power School.

I just don't want her to feel obligated to sign a bonus contract simply because BUPERS waves a $65K annual bribe under her nose.  Gleefully signing one because she loves driving ships and the Navy will pay her even more to do what she'd do for free?  Sure.  But feeling coerced into it because she has a big SUV, a consumer consumption lifestyle, and no savings?  Not gonna happen.

Thanks again for the thoughts.

I definitely understand that it is really only golden handcuffs that we're talking about here and I'm actually free since, as you note, I'd only be covering 25ish years with the portfolio (interesintly in retirement planning we look at 30 years as equaling infinity). That is also ignoring the fact that I'd do guard/reserve work like you say, although the MPA days are way less prevalent than they were in like 2012 and before. But I'd at least get my annual stuff and maybe a little more if I wanted it. My friend just "deployed" to Stuttgart for 6 months but it was cut short to 4 and this was right as they changed the long-term TDY finance rules. Pretty sweet situation. I actually considered being a Guard/Reserve bum when I was single and around the 5/6 year point. I planned on taking deployments for 6 months and then doing whatever I wanted for a few and then doing it again.

Anyway, that is all ignoring the possibility of a bridge career and once again, the fact that DW would happily become the breadwinner if I were to get out.

I don't know if I should start the tactics you mentioned while at the FAO post (starting later this summer). The primary problem is that I'm dealing with different assignment officers since the career fields are different. The AF has each primary career field (except pilots right now) pay a "bill" to the FAO career field. They send X officers to do a FAO assignment with the understanding that these officers will come back for a primary branch assignment. They flip/flop between these assignments. So, the officer that I kinda hooked up by taking this assignment actually has no effect on my next gig - that will be a cyber assignments person. I'll be just another guy and actually a guy who has been out of the career field for half a decade at that point in time. I shudder to think of what they'll want me to do. Here's where the other problem comes in...say the assignment is terrible and we/I don't want to do it - now I'm in the realm of a 7 day out. That's a pretty quick turnaround to make such a momentous decision.

I think one thing that definitely makes these decisions easier is the combination of Tricare for Guard/Reserves and ACA. I doubt there are many people that still holding for the healthcare, although I'd seriously consider it if I had a child or spouse with a major disability, birth defect, or something along those lines.

Your daughter is way toO junior to know what she'll want to do next! As an O-1 I was raising my hand so high for deployments I almost separated my shoulder. They didn't give me anything until I was an O-2 and it was a great experience. That kept me satisfied until I PCSed, where the honeymoon lasted 6-12 months and I was able to find a PCA about 2.5 years into the assignment. From there I deployed another 8 months later, which was good because that PCA wasn't really panning out either. I returned from deployment, had a good 6 months as an overage (meaning only 3-4 shifts/week) in a cool workcenter and then I finally hit the FAO training pipeline, which I've been in for about 1.5 years.

My career looks nothing like I would've guessed. It just occurred to me that the military also keeps you moving constantly. This has the effect of giving you greener pastures every couple of years (or sooner if you have a good deployment coming up). You're unhappy? Well in a year you'll get a new assignment, which could be awesome but if it isn't you won't be past the honeymoon period until about 6-12 months in and then it won't be an ultra long wait until another assignment comes down.

It could be really easy to sleepwalk through a career like that.

PS Just to give you an idea of #s, I think we will be about halfway to a barebones, lowball FI by the end of this year. I think it'll take another 4 years after that to get to the actual number, barring any crazy market action (good or bad).

[Nords]

I definitely understand that it is really only golden handcuffs that we're talking about here and I'm actually free since, as you note, I'd only be covering 25ish years with the portfolio (interesintly in retirement planning we look at 30 years as equaling infinity). That is also ignoring the fact that I'd do guard/reserve work like you say, although the MPA days are way less prevalent than they were in like 2012 and before. But I'd at least get my annual stuff and maybe a little more if I wanted it. My friend just "deployed" to Stuttgart for 6 months but it was cut short to 4 and this was right as they changed the long-term TDY finance rules. Pretty sweet situation. I actually considered being a Guard/Reserve bum when I was single and around the 5/6 year point. I planned on taking deployments for 6 months and then doing whatever I wanted for a few and then doing it again.

"Golden handcuffs".  Good point.

I think hot-fill mobilizations are a great way to bankroll FI with a Guard/Reserve career-- especially for singletons.  Another way is living near a major joint command:  Washington DC, Norfolk, Tampa, Omaha, Colorado Springs, Oahu... close to the money.

Otherwise you show up for drill weekends and focus on your bridge career or side hustles.  My favorite is the O-4 who teaches science at a private high school here for 6-8 months/year and then takes 179-day orders to anywhere that the Navy Reserve needs the help.  (The high school keeps his job open for him.)  My other favorite is the O-3 who's a Vail ski instructor between his 179-day orders.  He owns hardly more than a suitcase of clothes and a car (and some great ski gear), lives with roommates all year long, and has easily saved over 70% of his income. 

I don't know if I should start the tactics you mentioned while at the FAO post (starting later this summer). The primary problem is that I'm dealing with different assignment officers since the career fields are different. The AF has each primary career field (except pilots right now) pay a "bill" to the FAO career field. They send X officers to do a FAO assignment with the understanding that these officers will come back for a primary branch assignment. They flip/flop between these assignments. So, the officer that I kinda hooked up by taking this assignment actually has no effect on my next gig - that will be a cyber assignments person. I'll be just another guy and actually a guy who has been out of the career field for half a decade at that point in time. I shudder to think of what they'll want me to do. Here's where the other problem comes in...say the assignment is terrible and we/I don't want to do it - now I'm in the realm of a 7 day out. That's a pretty quick turnaround to make such a momentous decision.

That's a problem.  You'd have to start a dialogue with both assignment officers at once and hope that they keep a good file on you.  And, yes, seven days is way too short for those decisions.  Hopefully you have a couple of years to think it through before that decision point.  Most military families have too few assets (or too much debt) to even be ready to think about it.

I think one thing that definitely makes these decisions easier is the combination of Tricare for Guard/Reserves and ACA. I doubt there are many people that still holding for the healthcare, although I'd seriously consider it if I had a child or spouse with a major disability, birth defect, or something along those lines.

I think the ACA is the biggest impact on early retirement in decades.  People with health issues used to be stuck with their corporate medical insurance (and their bosses knew it) or staring at thousands of dollars in COBRA insurance bills-- if they could get coverage at all.  Now at least they have a chance to get the insurance, let alone afford it. 

Your daughter is way to junior to know what she'll want to do next! As an O-1 I was raising my hand so high for deployments I almost separated my shoulder. They didn't give me anything until I was an O-2 and it was a great experience. That kept me satisfied until I PCSed, where the honeymoon lasted 6-12 months and I was able to find a PCA about 2.5 years into the assignment. From there I deployed another 8 months later, which was good because that PCA wasn't really panning out either. I returned from deployment, had a good 6 months as an overage (meaning only 3-4 shifts/week) in a cool workcenter and then I finally hit the FAO training pipeline, which I've been in for about 1.5 years.

Heh.  She's locked herself into a five-year pipeline:  two years on this destroyer learning how to drive & shoot, then a year of nuclear power training, then two more years in the nuclear engineering department of an aircraft carrier.  The carrier engineers barely get to see the sun, and they're not even allowed on the bridge. 

She picked a Rota destroyer because she knows the ships in overseas homeports get more fuel, ammo, and parts.  In her first year she's had five months underway, three months of school, and four months of inport duty.  She already knows that she'll be underway for seven of the next 12 months.  It sucks for families but it's great for qualification & experience.  She wants her carrier duty to be out of Yokosuka, where again she'll see more underway time than any other carrier in the fleet. 

That five years includes a $15K one-time bonus and four years of $100/month sea pay.  She's free to go after five years, but she'll probably take two years of shore duty (anywhere) to set herself up for a transition in the U.S.  Or she'll get out and travel Asia & Australia for a few years.  We just keep throwing out the wild ideas and talking through them.  No losers in these choices.

She's had to live with early retirees since she was nine years old.  I think she has a pretty clear idea of what she wants to do after the five years are up.  She certainly has the tools & advisors...

My career looks nothing like I would've guessed. It just occurred to me that the military also keeps you moving constantly. This has the effect of giving you greener pastures every couple of years (or sooner if you have a good deployment coming up). You're unhappy? Well in a year you'll get a new assignment, which could be awesome but if it isn't you won't be past the honeymoon period until about 6-12 months in and then it won't be an ultra long wait until another assignment comes down.

It could be really easy to sleepwalk through a career like that.

Yes.  It's possible to suck it up for a year or two of a tour.  Beyond that, though, I think the stress takes its toll on physical & mental health. 

You have the advantage of switching between two communities, which could help you stay happy all the way to 20, and that'd be a good thing.  But it's always better to be ready to resign even while you're making the best of a bad tour.

And when your spouse unleashes her career, you can read "When She Makes More" to understand the goofy stereotypes that society imposes on our expectations.

[act0fgod]

I'm in the Air Force so I can only really speak intelligently about that service, but I know that the only really big retention problem at the moment is in the pilot community, but that world has always had that problem. It is almost always related to airline hiring. That effect has dropped considerably as salaries have dropped in the airlines since they were far too high in the past. But, they've also added requirements that makes it harder for a fighter pilot to fly an airliner due to different companies not counting their hours since they (rightly) state that flying a F-16 is nothing like flying a 777.

As far as I know, pilots have the only bonuses on the officer's side and there are only a few on the enlisted side.

...

I think the retention problem regarding pilots is overblown, and overblown by pilots.  One I think there are way too many authorizations for pilots.  I get every General who is a pilot wants a bunch of pilots just like him on his staff but he doesn't really need pilots.  In a meeting with the Chief of Staff I was amazed when his O-6 fighter pilot exec was taking lunch orders.  Two there really isn't a problem with the numbers of pilots, even given the overblown number of authorizations.  The heavy community was/is over manned and asked/forced people to get out.  The fighter community wants more pilots but really they don't have enough aircraft for the pilots they do have and that will only get worse.

There are a number of other officer careers in the AF who have "bonuses."  As a dentist I get a significant special pay, even before the retention bonuses kick in.  Physicians and many other medical careers get bonuses.  Last year I know intel was being offered a critical skills retention bonus.  Over the years contracting, combat rescue, special tactics, chaplains and various other career fields were offered critical skills retention bonuses for different year groups (still may).  This is all in addition to any career field that is eligible for various special pays that are not career specific.

[davisgang90]

I'm in the Air Force so I can only really speak intelligently about that service, but I know that the only really big retention problem at the moment is in the pilot community, but that world has always had that problem. It is almost always related to airline hiring. That effect has dropped considerably as salaries have dropped in the airlines since they were far too high in the past. But, they've also added requirements that makes it harder for a fighter pilot to fly an airliner due to different companies not counting their hours since they (rightly) state that flying a F-16 is nothing like flying a 777.

As far as I know, pilots have the only bonuses on the officer's side and there are only a few on the enlisted side.

...

I think the retention problem regarding pilots is overblown, and overblown by pilots.  One I think there are way too many authorizations for pilots.  I get every General who is a pilot wants a bunch of pilots just like him on his staff but he doesn't really need pilots.  In a meeting with the Chief of Staff I was amazed when his O-6 fighter pilot exec was taking lunch orders.  Two there really isn't a problem with the numbers of pilots, even given the overblown number of authorizations.  The heavy community was/is over manned and asked/forced people to get out.  The fighter community wants more pilots but really they don't have enough aircraft for the pilots they do have and that will only get worse.

There are a number of other officer careers in the AF who have "bonuses."  As a dentist I get a significant special pay, even before the retention bonuses kick in.  Physicians and many other medical careers get bonuses.  Last year I know intel was being offered a critical skills retention bonus.  Over the years contracting, combat rescue, special tactics, chaplains and various other career fields were offered critical skills retention bonuses for different year groups (still may).  This is all in addition to any career field that is eligible for various special pays that are not career specific.

The Air Force RPA fleet has a real manning problem which exacerbates the other communities as well since some of the RPA pilots are drawn from other communities for a tour or two.  My office if part of weekly briefings on the status of MQ-9 manning.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/04/exclusive-u-s-drone-fleet-at-breaking-point-air-force-says.html

[act0fgod]

The Air Force RPA fleet has a real manning problem which exacerbates the other communities as well since some of the RPA pilots are drawn from other communities for a tour or two.  My office if part of weekly briefings on the status of MQ-9 manning.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/04/exclusive-u-s-drone-fleet-at-breaking-point-air-force-says.html

Sorry shouldn't have taken the thread on this tangent.  I just wanted to correct what I saw as misinformation.  In regards to your statements I hope the newish 18X, RPA pilot, pipeline can help alleviate this.

[Travis]

The Air Force RPA fleet has a real manning problem which exacerbates the other communities as well since some of the RPA pilots are drawn from other communities for a tour or two.  My office if part of weekly briefings on the status of MQ-9 manning.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/04/exclusive-u-s-drone-fleet-at-breaking-point-air-force-says.html

Sorry shouldn't have taken the thread on this tangent.  I just wanted to correct what I saw as misinformation.  In regards to your statements I hope the newish 18X, RPA pilot, pipeline can help alleviate this.

With regards to retention, here is some analysis on the Air Force's pilot shortage.

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/air-force-pilot-bonus-program-reflects-institutional-panic/

[Nords]

I think the most objective definition of "shortage" is when you're involuntarily extended on that tour for six months and your relief is gapped by another three months...

[NICE!]

I don't want this to turn into an AF-specific thread - sorry for taking it in that direction and thanks for your inputs, other posters. Also, my apologies if I've turned this into a generic 'should I ditch before 20' discussion.

Nords:
- If I get out I definitely think we're going to DC, New York, or overseas. The overseas job would hopefully be my wife getting something official USG-related, which would mean I'd have spouse hiring benefits...and those are way better in Embassies/USAID than they are in DoD, likely due to the drastically different sizes and missions of the departments. I don't know that I'd want to take many 179s unless it is a 179 in the DC area where we'd probably be living. The goal would be to avoid extended crappy situations away from DW.
- How would I even go about starting the discussion with the assignment officers? Just imagine that we're looking at my next assignment, at the 12 or 13 year point. I have to convince them to send me to a cyber job, preferably in DC to help my wife's career. I already spent 4 years in the DC area, don't know if they'll care about that. If I can at least get the good location then it'll make the decision to possibly get out even easier - I'll be where DW has a career and I can easily transition to guard/reserves and a bridge career (if I even want one). Also, if I can soldier through the job my next FAO job could be really cool and we might decide we want that anyway.
- I'm actually looking forward to DW making more, if that comes to pass. I amassed a good amount of money before we were married and am still massively outearning her, so it would take years for her to catch up. I think that would help us avoid any of the societal/cultural/psychological issues regarding a female breadwinner. I already think we're a bit immune to those, but it is totally possible we aren't and I will definitely read that book if we get there.
- I totally wish I would've had some of your perspectives when I was a butterbar and O-2. I probably would've gotten out at 5 or 6 years if I had given myself a cushion. I would've traveled and had some serious fun, thrown in a Reserve/Guard deployment, done another 6 months of traveling and fun, then settled down a bit. Or, hell, I could've just let the fun & 179s roll. Send her thoughts from an O-3 that isn't too much older than her that a path like that would be awesome and it's something I wish I would've seriously considered & prepped.

[Nords]

I don't want this to turn into an AF-specific thread - sorry for taking it in that direction and thanks for your inputs, other posters. Also, my apologies if I've turned this into a generic 'should I ditch before 20' discussion.

I think this is a great thread for a retention discussion, and your questions apply across all of the services.

- How would I even go about starting the discussion with the assignment officers? Just imagine that we're looking at my next assignment, at the 12 or 13 year point. I have to convince them to send me to a cyber job, preferably in DC to help my wife's career. I already spent 4 years in the DC area, don't know if they'll care about that. If I can at least get the good location then it'll make the decision to possibly get out even easier - I'll be where DW has a career and I can easily transition to guard/reserves and a bridge career (if I even want one). Also, if I can soldier through the job my next FAO job could be really cool and we might decide we want that anyway.

DC is a pretty big place with lots of billets, so you'd want to make it easy on the assignment officer.  Ask them what will motivate them to send you to the DC area.  Tell them location is your top priority, with the command and the type of duty up to the assignment officer-- whatever billet they need you to tackle. 

If you asked specifically for a spot on a general's staff or at USNA's new cyber instructor staff then you might be at the end of a very long list in a relatively remote location with very few billets.  DC could get your spouse a great career, yet it might not be so good for your career or your morale.  But it'll almost certainly keep you in the DC area.

Tell the assignment officer that you're on the fence about staying in.  Tell them if you get DC then you'd rekindle your career enthusiasm, but if you end up in a place that's bad for your spouse's career (or for your transition) then you're outta there at the end of the tour.  If you have to interview with your new command then share that you're paying back a FAO tour, and you want to build on that by being at the epicenter of the cyber business.  Tell the command that you asked the assignment officer for the DC area, and you're here because they think you're the right guy for the job. 

- I'm actually looking forward to DW making more, if that comes to pass. I amassed a good amount of money before we were married and am still massively outearning her, so it would take years for her to catch up. I think that would help us avoid any of the societal/cultural/psychological issues regarding a female breadwinner. I already think we're a bit immune to those, but it is totally possible we aren't and I will definitely read that book if we get there.

Farnoosh spent a lot of time (and money) on the research & interviews.  (I was part of the launch team.  She shared the details and numbers at FinCon too.)  It's a fascinating book on how society imposes expectations that you'd never think to see in the 21st century.  You guys are probably immune, but when you're tired or stressed then you'll still be surprised to find yourself reflexively channeling some Neanderthal gender attitudes.  It talks about how spouses signal our perceptions or whether we're oblivious.  She shows that what is no big deal to one spouse can be very frustrating to the other.  She does not bash guys with psychobabble but we all need to understand a spouse's perspective.  I saw it as a secret decoder ring.

What's really surprising is how our friends (and our in-laws) send rather unsubtle signals about their gender biases.  Again, forewarned means you won't be offended or insulted by an offhand comment.

I also scored major guy points by ostentatiously reading the book in the presence of my spouse & daughter, and then buying my daughter a copy to discuss with her... guy friends.  My spouse thinks I'm trying to sabotage every relationship our daughter will ever encounter, but my daughter's an engineer who (I'm pretty sure) just wants to optimize her filters.

- I totally wish I would've had some of your perspectives when I was a butterbar and O-2. I probably would've gotten out at 5 or 6 years if I had given myself a cushion. I would've traveled and had some serious fun, thrown in a Reserve/Guard deployment, done another 6 months of traveling and fun, then settled down a bit. Or, hell, I could've just let the fun & 179s roll. Send her thoughts from an O-3 that isn't too much older than her that a path like that would be awesome and it's something I wish I would've seriously considered & prepped.

Thanks, I will!

We all have to learn somewhere, and you guys are learning sooner than I did.

[Romag]

Very interesting thread to me...
I am about to retire as an O5 Army FAO (NICE!, I am also in Africa...) I have less than a month to go before terminal leave/PTDY. I am FI, but decided not to RE just yet. I wanted to pursue a long-time desire to teach. I start as a JROTC Instructor on 1 August.

I was also an Assignments Officer at Army Human Resources Command from 2009-2011 and that duty definitely pushed me towards retirement. I hated it, and in my case it also hurt my career evaluation-wise.

It is very difficult to get what you want from an assignments officer, unless, as Nords posts indicate, you are truly willing to walk away. The vast majority are not. There were many instances where officers told me "If I don't get X or Y, I will retire." VERY few followed through.

I tried my best to give people SOMETHING they wanted. It just wasn't always possible, and I was forced to leverage people's Service obligation, time in service, dwell time etc. If I really gave someone a bad deal, I was usually able to get them a desirable assignment on the back end.

I'd like to think I did a pretty good job in balancing service needs with the desires of individual officers, but I had a lot of constraints and little flexibility. If I got a requisition, I needed to fill it before even discussing creative solutions...and in my field we had more "places" than "faces", so...

The system is outdated and inflexible, but the 20 year cliff made it pretty easy to fill those 4 jobs in Haiti every year...not sure how you incentivize it (money?) if the stakes of levaing at 16 years are much lower.

[NICE!]

Nords/Romag - so y'all really think I should start having the discussion with the cyber assignments officer when I'm a year or two out? I dunno, this just feels weird to me. I'm a very honest person but my whole life I've had lesson after lesson on how that can hurt me rather than help me. I feel like telling the assignments officer that I'm on the fence will make him/her say "so what? We're cutting people, get out if you want." I don't know how to get to a point where they can understand I'm willing to work with them if they work with me. Like you said, DC is a big place and there are lots of billets. I'm also somewhat flexible on location - I'd probably consider LA (although that sounds terrible), but there aren't many options for me out there.

How did you view these conversations, Romag? What do you recommend saying/doing to be the most effective and let the assignment officer know that you're willing to work with him/her?

Also, how could you convince the assignment officer that you aren't bluffing? I obviously hope it never comes to that - I'd be happiest if I got a string of good assignments and finished by riding off into the sunset somewhere around 20 years. I just know that there's a decent chance it won't happen.

We haven't even started to discuss remotes/short tours. I am nearly 100% certain that I'll have one of those before 20 since my last one finished in '09.

Romag, is there any chance you can give me some of your thoughts on FAO in SSA? We can move the discussion to PM.

[jmusic]

BTW, JMusic, you need a better phrase than "REAL warfighters".  How about "high OPTEMPO" or "physically punishing" or "labor intensive"?  One team, one fight, right? 

I'd even go one step farther, and say it's not the above-mentioned "real warfighters" that make the US military so outstanding.  There are hardened badasses in every country on earth.  Tough guys are a dime a dozen.

What makes the US military so exceptional is precisely the folks he was denigrating, the hoards of logistics and support people that can deliver those badasses and their toys to any spot on the planet in a matter of hours.  And keep them there, well supplied with food and equipment and satellite recon and things that go boom, pretty much indefinitely.

You're absolutely right.  You'd laugh if I told you what I do.  I try to be careful with what I post online, but I'll just say that I've been known to hump boxes on a conveyor on a few ships. 

[Nords]

Nords/Romag - so y'all really think I should start having the discussion with the cyber assignments officer when I'm a year or two out? I dunno, this just feels weird to me. I'm a very honest person but my whole life I've had lesson after lesson on how that can hurt me rather than help me. I feel like telling the assignments officer that I'm on the fence will make him/her say "so what? We're cutting people, get out if you want." I don't know how to get to a point where they can understand I'm willing to work with them if they work with me. Like you said, DC is a big place and there are lots of billets. I'm also somewhat flexible on location - I'd probably consider LA (although that sounds terrible), but there aren't many options for me out there.

You're right, it's hard to base the assignment relationship on trust when you know they can ignore your preferences and just invoke higher authority.  If it's any consolation, assignment officers hear those comments all the time and have plenty of scripts to follow for their responses.  You're injecting a refreshing note of honesty into a very choreographed dance.

That "So what?" comment is why Navy assignment officers didn't believe anyone would resign, even after they submitted a resignation letter.  And if you get that, then chuckle ("No offense taken!") and let them know that it's comments like that which put you on the fence.  You can follow the "on the fence" comment with "I think I'm doing a good job, and I'd like to make a career of it, but I'd rather do it for love because I don't need the money.  I hope that we can both get what we want if I just ask for the location while you pick the command & billet.  I'm really interested in Washington DC so could you start there?"

I've seen "spouse's career" listed as a resignation reason on many retention briefings.  I don't know if assignment officers pay attention to it, but you'll let them know that you have choices. 

Here's another reason that you share the "on the fence" thoughts with the assignment officer:  to get yourself in the transition mindset.  If you have these conversations a couple of years out then you're giving yourself plenty of time to talk through the spouse discussions, sit through TAP and Ruehlin and MOAA seminars, and see how you really feel.  It's very difficult to compress this process when you're only a few months away from the next set of orders.

[CheapskateWife]

I don't have much more to add to the conversation other than to interject a trailing spouse's perspective on all this "should I stay, or should I go" debate.

My career has suffered stops and starts as a result of being the trailing spouse, and I have had to accept for many years that I come second to the Army (at least in the Army's eyes). DH is worth all that so please don't think I'm bitter in what I say. 

But please, please, please ask your spouse FIRST what he/she wants or needs in order to feel secure when you reach that separation decision point.  You doing 2-4 more years in the service to optimize that retirement might just mean another family separation, or another great job given up to follow you.  He or she has been with you for the long haul and it just might be time to put your career on the back burner to let him or her have their turn to be the breadwinner for the family.   

This has been a fantastic and informative discussion, so grateful to have this community to learn from!

[NICE!]

I've seen "spouse's career" listed as a resignation reason on many retention briefings.  I don't know if assignment officers pay attention to it, but you'll let them know that you have choices. 

This is likely to be the primary reason for any early exit. I still can't believe how the DoD can't fix its mindset on this - we aren't in the 1950s anymore - plenty of spouses want careers of their own. State Department, for example, has much better policies for supporting working spouses. Different environment and smaller workforce, but the level of effort is also much higher.

The only problem with my situation is that I probably have to take one more PCS regardless of what happens (the next cyber assignment I'll have). I'll try to get the assignment officer not to make it suck but if it does then you're right, I might need to start moving down the TAP and semi-ultimatum path.

great comments from CheapskateWife

I appreciate your comments and completely agree with them. DW's needs are at the forefront of my, no check that - our decision-making. She's extremely career-driven and never wanted to play second fiddle. In fact, I think she's honestly one of the few women who'd want me to be a stay at home and never make another cent. Maybe that'll happen later!

[Nords]

This is likely to be the primary reason for any early exit. I still can't believe how the DoD can't fix its mindset on this - we aren't in the 1950s anymore - plenty of spouses want careers of their own. State Department, for example, has much better policies for supporting working spouses. Different environment and smaller workforce, but the level of effort is also much higher.

I think we've just reached the point where enough admirals & generals have retired that the personnel commands are ready to officially recognize this.

In 1997, at the end of the last drawdown, there was a legendary recalibration of an admiral in front of an audience of San Diego O-3s.  He was a BUPERS two-star on an assignment officer's road trip to tell the troops about the latest initiatives.  The O-3s had a lot of questions about pay, bonuses, and retention-- so he decided to administer a little tough love.

Using the typical knife-hand and scolding-finger body language, he admonished the crowd "You can't expect to just leave the Navy after five years and immediately land a job at $60K.  You're going to take a big pay cut, and then you're going to spend years working your way back up to the Navy money that you're earning now.  You have kids and car payments.  You shouldn't hurt your families by getting out and losing everything you've put into your careers."

One fearless O-3 (who had already resigned) raised his hand.  He said "Actually, sir, my spouse has lost plenty of her own career opportunities during the last five years because the Navy has moved us around so much.  Now she has a $100K job in the tech industry, and her company just hired me for $60K. I don't think the Navy can match that."

The crowd said that the admiral was dumbfounded.  It was clear that he didn't expect (1) a spouse to have a job, and (2) anybody to get paid $100K/year in their 20s-- let alone "a military spouse".  After stammering a little he said "Well, son, good luck.  Any other questions?"

The O-3s knew that this guy was way out of touch, and he pretty much destroyed their faith in BUPERS' ability to manage their careers.  Several of my shipmates decided to resign just because he scared them so badly with his lack of understanding.

But these days when I go to conferences and browse my military Facebook groups, I meet plenty of military spouses who've built their own $75K+ careers and are married to senior officers.  Their active-duty spouses at the personnel commands understand the difficulty of managing a dual-career family, and that's finally feeding back into the assignment policies. 

I think you can safely assume that the assignment officer (or their boss) will understand the spouse career challenges.

The only problem with my situation is that I probably have to take one more PCS regardless of what happens (the next cyber assignment I'll have). I'll try to get the assignment officer not make it sucks but if it does then you're right, I might need to start moving down the TAP and semi-ultimatum path.

By the time you get to the point of a second FAO tour, your cyber assignment officer will have noticed that lots of cyber guys are going FAO (or resigning) and they ain't comin' back.  Hopefully by then you'll either have a dedicated FAO community (no more cyber tours) or, at the very least, better assignment policies.

[NICE!]

That's quite the story, Nords. People can become really out of touch with reality. Unfortunately I bet the guy didn't let the O-3's words seep in - he probably justified it in his head saying he was an outlier or that he'd be regretting his decision in a couple of years.

I do think it is hard for an officer to earn more than they do in the military, though. People are notoriously bad at figuring out their actual compensation. When tax bennies and a free gym membership are considered, a 10-year O-3 in a HCOL area is making well over $100k.

But as we're discussing, money isn't the primary factor (although it is for some).

Unfortunately the cyber guy won't be seeing FAO guys who go and don't come back, unless they get out of the AF. They're obligated to go back to their career field and in fact, with the commitment incurred in the training pipeline, they'll probably end up with the FAO assignment plus a cyber one (like me). It would be pretty stellar if they start seeing people resign because they don't want to go back to their primary, though.

[AllChoptUp]

BTW, JMusic, you need a better phrase than "REAL warfighters".  How about "high OPTEMPO" or "physically punishing" or "labor intensive"?  One team, one fight, right? 

I'd even go one step farther, and say it's not the above-mentioned "real warfighters" that make the US military so outstanding.  There are hardened badasses in every country on earth.  Tough guys are a dime a dozen.

What makes the US military so exceptional is precisely the folks he was denigrating, the hoards of logistics and support people that can deliver those badasses and their toys to any spot on the planet in a matter of hours.  And keep them there, well supplied with food and equipment and satellite recon and things that go boom, pretty much indefinitely.

You're absolutely right.  You'd laugh if I told you what I do.  I try to be careful with what I post online, but I'll just say that I've been known to hump boxes on a conveyor on a few ships.

Sol - Applause! And thanks, those of us at the blunt end of the spear do all we can to support those at the pointy end.

Jmusic - Thank god for conveyors :)

[sol]

those of us at the blunt end of the spear do all we can to support those at the pointy end.

It just baffles me that anyone thinks our military is so awesome because of some tough guys.  Tough guys are still vital, don't get me wrong, but they don't win wars the same way that aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and supply convoys do. 

I think it's their enormous capacity for logistics that sets the US military apart.  Despite all of the ridiculous inefficiencies, no other force on earth can put so many assets anywhere they want for as long as they want.  It seems to be a uniquely American strength, for now.

Just some random civilian's opinion.

[Travis]

those of us at the blunt end of the spear do all we can to support those at the pointy end.

It just baffles me that anyone thinks our military is so awesome because of some tough guys.  Tough guys are still vital, don't get me wrong, but they don't win wars the same way that aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and supply convoys do. 

I think it's their enormous capacity for logistics that sets the US military apart.  Despite all of the ridiculous inefficiencies, no other force on earth can put so many assets anywhere they want for as long as they want.  It seems to be a uniquely American strength, for now.

Just some random civilian's opinion.

It pretty much is unique to the US.  Even our allies have difficulty supporting their own forces with distant and long-duration logistics tails.  Several of my international relations textbooks identified our "superpower" and "global hegemon" status in part to this ability to go anywhere, anytime, for any length of time.  Nobody else comes close.

[Chuck]

those of us at the blunt end of the spear do all we can to support those at the pointy end.

It just baffles me that anyone thinks our military is so awesome because of some tough guys.  Tough guys are still vital, don't get me wrong, but they don't win wars the same way that aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and supply convoys do. 

I think it's their enormous capacity for logistics that sets the US military apart.  Despite all of the ridiculous inefficiencies, no other force on earth can put so many assets anywhere they want for as long as they want.  It seems to be a uniquely American strength, for now.

Just some random civilian's opinion.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The simple fact is, in an "even" firefight, US Soldiers and Marines have an incredibly impressive K/D ratio. That owes to equipment, but also to superior training and execution.

The point that was originally being made was that the ground pounders very rarely make it 20 years. This is one of reason that senior enlisted leaders are drawn from all MOS's: There are very few infantry guys that last that long before they break and are discharged.

The one's who literally sacrifice the most, in terms of time (not just deployments, the garrison schedule of an infantryman involves weeks at a time away from home) body, mind and blood, are the ones who ALMOST NEVER get that 20 year payoff.

That's fucked. Period. From a former military intel guy, the grunts get fucked.

[Nords]

The point that was originally being made was that the ground pounders very rarely make it 20 years. This is one of reason that senior enlisted leaders are drawn from all MOS's: There are very few infantry guys that last that long before they break and are discharged.

The one's who literally sacrifice the most, in terms of time (not just deployments, the garrison schedule of an infantryman involves weeks at a time away from home) body, mind and blood, are the ones who ALMOST NEVER get that 20 year payoff.

That's fucked. Period. From a former military intel guy, the grunts get fucked.

While 83% of the people in the military never make it to a pension, it's hard to separate out the MOSs which make up that total.  I'm not aware of demographic breakdowns of disability by military specialty, and I'd love to see any links that anyone can offer.

I think it's also extremely difficult to adjust a pension by MOS.  It's fairly straightforward to set extra pay and bonus programs for retaining specialties or advanced training, and the VA has the job of figuring out the degree of physical sacrifice that a servicemember has made during their military time.  But a military pension is already adjusted for heroism, and VA compensation is already adjusted for CRDP and CRSC above a certain rating.  I don't think that pensions should be adjusted for additional degrees of sacrifice -- there are already plenty of other "physical damage" adjustments to military compensation.

While you write that the infantry occupations "literally sacrifice the most", I suspect that there are plenty of aviators and even submariners who qualify for that club.  Is the spinal damage from an infantry MOS worth more than the spinal damage from an aviator who takes excessive Gs or even ejects?  Is it worth more or less than the submariner's disability incurred from atmosphere control chemicals or occupational exposure to ionizing radiation? 

Your "sacrifice" comment may also be subject to recency bias.  The U.S.'s 21st-century wars have been fought mostly on land instead of on the sea and in the air.  I think you're also seeing more sacrifice because more of this century's servicemembers have survived their wounds than ever before.

As for the "fucked" comment-- the Navy version of that saying is "Choose your rate, choose your fate".  Nobody forces servicemembers to pick an occupational specialty, and in today's combat zones I think the risks are much more diffuse.  Nobody forces infantry members to go to Ranger or SF or SEAL training, either.  If people thought the compensation was unfair then they could have made another choice.

By the way, I know a woman who enlisted in 1974 and retired in 2010.  She worked her way up the ranks from recruit training to a college degree and a commission.  Not only has she never been in combat, but for most of her career she was forbidden to serve in a combat zone.  Yet today she has a 60% disability rating from spinal and knee damage as well as other conditions. 

Physical damage accumulates over the years, and it affects different people in different ways.  I think the current system is the best of a bunch of marginal approaches, and pension adjustments would be among the worst.

[NICE!]

While you write that the infantry occupations "literally sacrifice the most", I suspect that there are plenty of aviators and even submariners who qualify for that club.  Is the spinal damage from an infantry MOS worth more than the spinal damage from an aviator who takes excessive Gs or even ejects?

My good family friend (now retired) just had his fifth, yes fifth, back surgery due to an ejection over two decades ago.

And speaking of recency bias, weren't the lion's share of POWs in Vietnam fighter pilots? Didn't a lot of sailors die on December 7, 1941?

But that's neither here nor there, the very premise is screwy and most people recognize that it is a big team - you need people to play all roles.

That said, I do like the idea of reform because I think many junior enlisted get the shaft. Also, an E-6 or O-3 that gets out at 10 years should have some level of matching TSP to show for it.

[Travis]

those of us at the blunt end of the spear do all we can to support those at the pointy end.

It just baffles me that anyone thinks our military is so awesome because of some tough guys.  Tough guys are still vital, don't get me wrong, but they don't win wars the same way that aircraft carriers and stealth bombers and supply convoys do. 

I think it's their enormous capacity for logistics that sets the US military apart.  Despite all of the ridiculous inefficiencies, no other force on earth can put so many assets anywhere they want for as long as they want.  It seems to be a uniquely American strength, for now.

Just some random civilian's opinion.

The point that was originally being made was that the ground pounders very rarely make it 20 years. This is one of reason that senior enlisted leaders are drawn from all MOS's: There are very few infantry guys that last that long before they break and are discharged.

The one's who literally sacrifice the most, in terms of time (not just deployments, the garrison schedule of an infantryman involves weeks at a time away from home) body, mind and blood, are the ones who ALMOST NEVER get that 20 year payoff.

That's fucked. Period. From a former military intel guy, the grunts get fucked.

Chuck, if there are demographics on the ratio of retirees by MOS, they're not readily available.  The positions for senior leaders is largely dependent on that particular unit or organization.  It's quite possible more infantry officers make it to retirement because there are simply more jobs for them even after attrition.  Logically it could go either way.  I'm a signal officer and we top out at O-9 while there are a couple dozen for the various combat arms branches.  The pyramid is much steeper for some branches than others.  I'm pretty sure there's ever been only one signal O-10 and it was a fluke rather than part of a normal career path. As for infantrymen going to the field, they never go alone.  You're right that they're humping a ruck a hell of a lot more than I am, but as a branch they don't necessarily go to the field any more or less than other units. I shot out a request on Rallypoint to see if anyone had hard data on the matter.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

That said, I do like the idea of reform because I think many junior enlisted get the shaft. Also, an E-6 or O-3 that gets out at 10 years should have some level of matching TSP to show for it.

But that's really not all that much. A 10% disability would outweigh the match for an E6 and an O3. (Do 10, get 10% for wear and tear, get 133 a month for 40 years, that's 63k).
2 years at 1%, 8 years at 5% if they take advantage:
That's only 2,880ish if the E6 put nothing in himself, and 12,672 with 8 years of 5% match (granted there will be raises and investments do grow, but I'm making it over simple).
For the O3 that's just $25,392

And that's only if the E6 and O3 match, we all hope they do, and if the MCRMC passes we will have two years to convince a new butter bar or enlistee to position themselves to put away at least 5% (the current TSP utilization by the military is roughly 40% where its north of 80% for civil servants).

There should be news later this week.

As far as who gets what. The lines of war are blurred, sailors seem to spend a lot of time away from home too, even drone operators get PTSD and no time to process before they go home to their kids. The medics that come save the infantry and bring them back to FOBs, they are in danger too, as are many fields.

I think the USAF costs of retirement being higher than the other branches does tell a bit of a tale, as we think of the chair force as a bunch of desk jockies, but they too have PJ's and EOD and lots and lots of pilots.

It'd be really hard to account for strength of sacrifice, but I do believe that the high speed jobs are high demand, and high demand jobs are hard to fill, and hard to fill jobs get bonuses, so maybe we could base the match on taxable pay (regardless of if it was taxed or not), and the new defined benefit on highest 3 of taxable pay.

Here's an interesting article on staying or going before 20.

http://whitecoatinvestor.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-financial-implications-of-military-separation/

[CheapskateWife]

While you write that the infantry occupations "literally sacrifice the most", I suspect that there are plenty of aviators and even submariners who qualify for that club.  Is the spinal damage from an infantry MOS worth more than the spinal damage from an aviator who takes excessive Gs or even ejects?

My good family friend (now retired) just had his fifth, yes fifth, back surgery due to an ejection over two decades ago.

To add to the debate about "real fighters" being injured more, I present to you the case of my DH, with 22 years in military food service.  As a young enlisted soldier, he worked 18 hour days with one Saturday off every three weeks.  On his feet constantly.  Hauling enormous vats of food and cooking up a storm to feed the "real fighters"  He is now 46 with scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, 2 fractured vertebrae, Tuberculosis (that shit still happens) and is now blind in one eye. We have a lifetime of rebuilding ahead of us.  But he's just a cook, so he had it easier, right?  Stress fractures and IED's don't care what your MOS is. 

I would really love for that prejudice to go away, but as long as the service is divided into Combat MOS's and Combat Support MOS's, it is going to be assumed that guys like my husband don't sacrifice as much.

[Hank Sinatra]

Here's an interesting article on staying or going before 20.

http://whitecoatinvestor.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-financial-implications-of-military-separation/

Hi. I just tried that ling and my Anti-malware gave me a pop-up saying:
We recommend that you don't continue to this website because it is reported to contain the following threats:

Suspicious threat:
This is a suspicious site. There is a higher than average probability that you will be exposed to malicious links or payloads.

I'd like to read it but can you vouch for this site?

[Nords]

Tuberculosis (that shit still happens)...

Yeah, they left that out of the submarine recruiting brief too.

I was nearing the end of one shore duty and the doc (an Undersea Medical Officer) was doing a routine physical.  He finished checking all the blocks and said "You're good to go!"  I asked whether I'd have to do another one for sea duty and he said "Oh, you're going back on a submarine?  Then let's get you a TB test, tetanus & diptheria shots, and do a series for hepatitis B & C."

What I really needed was the pneumonia vaccine...

Here's an interesting article on staying or going before 20.

http://whitecoatinvestor.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-financial-implications-of-military-separation/

Hi. I just tried that ling and my Anti-malware gave me a pop-up saying:
We recommend that you don't continue to this website because it is reported to contain the following threats:

Suspicious threat:
This is a suspicious site. There is a higher than average probability that you will be exposed to malicious links or payloads.

I'd like to read it but can you vouch for this site?

You're fine.  Jim Dahle is a Navy veteran who posts at Bogleheads as EmergDoc.  He's written a best-selling book on financial independence for doctors.

Your anti-malware code is either upset at the ads for malpractice insurance, or the whole-life insurance sales guys have been ganging up on Jim again.

[Hank Sinatra]

You're fine.  Jim Dahle is a Navy veteran who posts at Bogleheads as EmergDoc.  He's written a best-selling book on financial independence for doctors.

Your anti-malware code is either upset at the ads for malpractice insurance, or the whole-life insurance sales guys have been ganging up on Jim again.

Ha ha. Thanks. I'm having  a home plumbing catastrophe here. I didn't need to have my god-machine get tripped up too

[Nords]

And sometimes you don't even need to be at either end of the spear to have rough duty with potential injury or excessive danger. A former day at the office for me.

I still remember that motivational statement "You have to go out.  You don't have to come back"...

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

Here's an interesting article on staying or going before 20.

http://whitecoatinvestor.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-financial-implications-of-military-separation/

Hi. I just tried that ling and my Anti-malware gave me a pop-up saying:
We recommend that you don't continue to this website because it is reported to contain the following threats:

Suspicious threat:
This is a suspicious site. There is a higher than average probability that you will be exposed to malicious links or payloads.

I'd like to read it but can you vouch for this site?

Nords recommended it to me, and its an addicting site. So there that risk... Of course the bulk of it doesn't apply to the bulk of the military, but the stay vs go, and stay vs go at 20 articles should carry over nicely to most career fields.

[act0fgod]

While 83% of the people in the military never make it to a pension, it's hard to separate out the MOSs which make up that total.  I'm not aware of demographic breakdowns of disability by military specialty, and I'd love to see any links that anyone can offer.

I don't have large scale statistics or even exact statistics because the briefings are on a computer that is in storage for another 6 months but I did oversea and was responsible for tracking all aspects of the disability evaluation system at a large AF Medical Center (as dramatic changes to the disability evaluation system were occurring).  We processed roughly 200 AF members, over the 1.5 years I was there, for conditions that were deemed potentially disqualifying for military service.  These conditions are outlined in DoD and service specific policy.  Being AF we had a small number of cases that were classified as wounded warriors when compared to the Army or Marines (injuries resulting from a direct act of war - think missing limbs, burns, severe TBI).  The career fields were Logistics, EOD, Security Forces, Intel and Combat Rescue.  There was a lot of politics involved in each of these cases.  I was also amazed at how well the special forces career world took care of their own.  The Combat Rescue Officer had a very strong support structure.

As far as the remaining cases the larger the career field the greater the number of cases going through the disability process.  I will add from a service perspective the determination on fitness for duty is greatly impacted by the AFSC/MOS and grade.  There was a lot about the job that was emotionally draining (I learned it wasn't a job for me and changed careers).  I got to see a lot about peoples character and motivation along with lots of tears.  Understandably people had varying levels of acceptance with their situations from bitter to grateful and selfless to selfish.  There were people I felt were really trying to game the process (usually older) and then there were those I wish could get more help (usually younger). 

I remember one young E4 in security forces who was having lower back pain.  His exam paperwork was lost.  We told everyone to ask for copies before they left their exam and he listened so he was able to bring his in.  For whatever reason when he came in I saw him and got to have a conversation.  He couldn't sit down and talked about the exam and how he was in tears during the range of motion portion so was sure glad he didn't have to do the test again.  His wife was pregnant and he was ready to head back to their rural hometown.  He did what was asked of him, was glad to do it and didn't want to or know how to game the system.  He ended up getting less than a 30% disability resulting in a military separation which means no DoD medical retirement benefits just the VA and was satisfied with the result.  I could contrast this with people who I believe were truly trying to game the system.  Trying to figure out what people "deserve" in situations like this is really tough and there really is no right answer.

[NICE!]

even drone operators get PTSD and no time to process before they go home to their kids.

You should hear some of the hateful shit I hear when I bring this subject up. A lot of people have a hard time accepting this reality and they want to play the "they're not in the shit on the ground" card. I've heard a lot of 'ground-pounders' say this. I've also heard a lot of people question PTSD. I honestly don't know where some people get off.

[davisgang90]

While you write that the infantry occupations "literally sacrifice the most", I suspect that there are plenty of aviators and even submariners who qualify for that club.  Is the spinal damage from an infantry MOS worth more than the spinal damage from an aviator who takes excessive Gs or even ejects?

My good family friend (now retired) just had his fifth, yes fifth, back surgery due to an ejection over two decades ago.

To add to the debate about "real fighters" being injured more, I present to you the case of my DH, with 22 years in military food service.  As a young enlisted soldier, he worked 18 hour days with one Saturday off every three weeks.  On his feet constantly.  Hauling enormous vats of food and cooking up a storm to feed the "real fighters"  He is now 46 with scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, 2 fractured vertebrae, Tuberculosis (that shit still happens) and is now blind in one eye. We have a lifetime of rebuilding ahead of us.  But he's just a cook, so he had it easier, right?  Stress fractures and IED's don't care what your MOS is. 

I would really love for that prejudice to go away, but as long as the service is divided into Combat MOS's and Combat Support MOS's, it is going to be assumed that guys like my husband don't sacrifice as much.

You are absolutely right.  I have serious degeneration in my lower back from flying helos.  The bottom line is that if we didn't need a certain MOS/rating/whatever, we wouldn't have it, therefore they are all essential to support military operations.

[Nords]

even drone operators get PTSD and no time to process before they go home to their kids.

You should hear some of the hateful shit I hear when I bring this subject up. A lot of people have a hard time accepting this reality and they want to play the "they're not in the shit on the ground" card. I've heard a lot of 'ground-pounders' say this. I've also heard a lot of people question PTSD. I honestly don't know where some people get off.

A few months ago a Linkedin submariner group had a fistfight break out on the subject of PTSD.  These were all fellow submariners (who normally get along politely) yelling at each other-- and on Linkedin, of all places!

One group insisted that submariners could have PTSD.  Another group insisted that submariners were so thoroughly pre-screened for the duty that there's no possible way they could have PTSD, and so they had to be lying to the VA to cheat the system for benefits.

On one of my subs we had to MEDEVAC a crewmember who'd developed a full-blown case of claustrophobia.  It was pretty clear that he wasn't faking it, and the corpsman had to dig into his serious sedatives for the 24-hour run to the MEDEVAC point.  The shipmate was medically beached and spent the rest of his career in submarine tender repair shops and shore maintenance facilities.  I'm sure he's still dealing with the trauma of coping with his claustrophobia symptoms, and it meets the VA's criteria for PTSD.

[Villanelle]

The point that was originally being made was that the ground pounders very rarely make it 20 years. This is one of reason that senior enlisted leaders are drawn from all MOS's: There are very few infantry guys that last that long before they break and are discharged.

The one's who literally sacrifice the most, in terms of time (not just deployments, the garrison schedule of an infantryman involves weeks at a time away from home) body, mind and blood, are the ones who ALMOST NEVER get that 20 year payoff.

That's fucked. Period. From a former military intel guy, the grunts get fucked.

While 83% of the people in the military never make it to a pension, it's hard to separate out the MOSs which make up that total.  I'm not aware of demographic breakdowns of disability by military specialty, and I'd love to see any links that anyone can offer.

I think it's also extremely difficult to adjust a pension by MOS.  It's fairly straightforward to set extra pay and bonus programs for retaining specialties or advanced training, and the VA has the job of figuring out the degree of physical sacrifice that a servicemember has made during their military time.  But a military pension is already adjusted for heroism, and VA compensation is already adjusted for CRDP and CRSC above a certain rating.  I don't think that pensions should be adjusted for additional degrees of sacrifice -- there are already plenty of other "physical damage" adjustments to military compensation.

While you write that the infantry occupations "literally sacrifice the most", I suspect that there are plenty of aviators and even submariners who qualify for that club.  Is the spinal damage from an infantry MOS worth more than the spinal damage from an aviator who takes excessive Gs or even ejects?  Is it worth more or less than the submariner's disability incurred from atmosphere control chemicals or occupational exposure to ionizing radiation? 

Your "sacrifice" comment may also be subject to recency bias.  The U.S.'s 21st-century wars have been fought mostly on land instead of on the sea and in the air.  I think you're also seeing more sacrifice because more of this century's servicemembers have survived their wounds than ever before.

As for the "fucked" comment-- the Navy version of that saying is "Choose your rate, choose your fate".  Nobody forces servicemembers to pick an occupational specialty, and in today's combat zones I think the risks are much more diffuse.  Nobody forces infantry members to go to Ranger or SF or SEAL training, either.  If people thought the compensation was unfair then they could have made another choice.

By the way, I know a woman who enlisted in 1974 and retired in 2010.  She worked her way up the ranks from recruit training to a college degree and a commission.  Not only has she never been in combat, but for most of her career she was forbidden to serve in a combat zone.  Yet today she has a 60% disability rating from spinal and knee damage as well as other conditions. 

Physical damage accumulates over the years, and it affects different people in different ways.  I think the current system is the best of a bunch of marginal approaches, and pension adjustments would be among the worst.

Great post.

Our aviator friend who lost the tip of a finger and fractured a couple vertebra when his helo crashed would probably beg to differ with Chuck.  The  recent widow acquaintance of another aviator likely would as well.  By all means, look her and her two young sons in the face and tell her that her infantry men sacrifice more then her aviator husband.