Leaderboard

OK - the 20 year retirement is designed as a retainer,not a retirement per se. The idea is that by taking the retirement check, you place yourself in line for reactivation should the nation require it. Doesn't happen but it can. So why 20 years? Well, for this we go back to the reason fora young service. When 20 year career was developed, there was a lot more gruntwork requiring young, very fit service members able to keep up with the demandsof infantry, flight in un or poorly pressurized cockpits, hot bunking on ships,etc. Since WWII we have moved more into a technologically service orientedforce that requires more brain power and less brute power (some career fields exemptedof course - infantry, tactical aviation, special ops, etc.). This means that servicemembers are not only more valuable longer but are more valuable over time(experience). So while a 42 year old infantryman may be struggling to keep up with a 22 year old infantryman, a 42 year old acquisition specialist is running circles around a 22 year old newbie just out of tech school. And will be for the foreseeable future. So in essence, the need for a young force is less important now than it was in 1950. In some cases (acquisition,intelligence, logistics, maintenance, etc.) older is probably better and by age 42, the service member in question is likely at the peak of his or her proficiency and therefore a very valuable commodity. The other reason for the 20 year retirement deals with the military culture andhow our careers evolve. We generally move every 3-4 years and have a few remotes/six month deployments and several PCS schools (e.g. PME, Tech School, UPT, RTU, etc.) over a 2 - 24 year period. This means the typical military family (member and spouse) cannot generally build deep roots in any community they live in. Even if they buy a house they live there for only 3-4 years then it's on the road again. For spouses this means no second careers. Even spouses with portable jobs (e.g. teachers, nurses) have a hard time maintaining a career as they move from one location to another. As a result, by age 38-44 the typical military family (member, spouse and now probably 1-3 teenage kids) will have less than 3-4 years on station when the member retires. Now contrast that with the neighbour who has lived in the same house and worked in the same area for the last 20-22 years. That family unit probably has paid down their house significantly, both spouses probably work and have viable careers and the family has established lifelong friends and connections. This means the military family at age 42 is essentially starting where the civilian family did 22 years earlier. And you don't get those years back. The military member may find work paying the equivalent to his or her former position but not the seniority. In this case, the military member is starting at the bottom. For the spouse its worse. He or she has been off the career track for 20-22 years and now must start over competing against other candidates more than a generation younger. So you have a new house (with a full 30 year mortgage), two new jobs (one at absolute beginning status) and live in a community that maybe wonderful but is alien and will take years to really integrate into. Who would do this to themselves voluntarily? The answer is "the military" and primarily for the retirement. The immediate support of the retirement check and medical benefits is a cushion allowing for an easier transition to the civilian world. While you don't get rich off of retirement it will generally pay the house payment, the utilities and the car payment. After that, all you need to do is cover food - and youcould do that as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Not that most military would do this... It is however an option. So if retirement was taken off the table with a general promise of less money at age 57 but not before the rank and file are going to bail. If they go through with this 10 year retirement at 57 it will be even worse. There is no incentive to stay past 10 years since you are vested and you won't get your money earlier anyway. In fact staying the extra 10 years would be devastating financially as the member could have made far more and paid off more of his or her house/cars etc. in that next 10 years. Simple economics... So if the committee wants to really change the retirement system, they really need to change what a military career is. For this, we need to discard the notion of a need for a young service. We also need to discard the "up or out" policies we have now. In short, like many of our allies a military career is something you do for life, not for 20 years before finding something else to do. Proposal - set the mandatory retirement age at 57 - all officers are fully qualified to Lt Col all enlisted fully qualified to MSgt. The cream as always will climb to the top while the rest will fulfil their careers moving from tactical to staff and training positions over time. In some services, the pilot force is managed in this fashion - in Sweden for example, all pilots are supposed to be fighter pilots in their "youth" progressing to transports and helicopters as they get older. Those who want to leave and fly for the airlines do so but at a loss of retirement benefits. Several NATO allies have an all or nothing retirement program that requires their members toreach age 55 before retirement. At least one NATO member even restricts retirees from taking on new work by reducing their payments by the same amount they receive from their new position (discourages the military to contractor revolving door). There are some benefits to this plan. The biggest being the re-branding of a military career as a calling versus a job. Unless the member wants to be CSAF there is little need for the careerism we see today. Members would choose jobs according to AF and personal needs and desires versus how it affects their careers. There will be less pressure to get promoted "on time" allowing for more broadening of careers and longer assignments (5-6 years). You still have the spouse issue, but since the member is staying in one place longer, there is less disruption. Moreover, by the time the member is ready to retire they are more likely to be grandparents than parents of school age children - even less disruption. And finally - retiring at age 57 means the retirement package starts right then allowing for a better transition. In my opinion, the establishment of a career to age 57 is critical to any changes in the retirement system. If the government decides to simply move retirement to 57 and high five then the exodus will be huge. Mainly because military members simply aren't crazy or stupid enough to place themselves and their families in the position of starting over at age 38-44 with nothing but a promise and a plaque. It's just not fair. This is common sense... Just my thoughts Hobbit

Absolutely wrong, IMO. There would be plenty of incentive to actually stay beyond your initial commitment now. Right now, it's "do the minimum and GTFO" or "stay in for life", and very little in between. Now, people at, say, 8 years who don't want to do 20 will be willing to put in another 4 because they're drawing immediate benefit. Furthermore, the various services have to actually take into account the fact that they can't just treat their people like shit and fall back on the military retirement system to buoy their retention. The only ones this would hurt are the people who have committed themselves to getting military retirement. But it would help the vast, vast majority of people who don't do 20. And it costs less.

A guy in my Sq was recently passed over for the 1st time and talked to some Lt Col promotions shoe down at AFPC for his "non-selection counseling". The short story is that he was told that due to over manning, when he likely gets passed over for the second time next year that he will most likely not be offered continuation and it was suggested that he should start preparing for that. So he then tells the shoe that the Res Sq at his base told him they were looking to hire someone and would love to hire him... he just needed to get out of the 1 year left in his PCS commitment. He asked what either the ADSC waiver or Palace Chase process would be or if he could point him in the right direction for who he needed to talk to about it. The shoe told him that he could apply if he wanted, but it was extremely unlikely that his Palace Chase package would even make it past the initial stages... BECAUSE HE IS IN A CRITICALLY MANNED CAREER FIELD!!!!!!!

Anyone want to have a pick up game of Sepak Takraw?? Volleyball with your feet!

As much as I'd like to see some form of TSP-matching rolled into our retirement scheme, I highly doubt there are 218 House members willing to dismantle the current military retirement system. The proposal may make sense from a board of patriotic Wall Streeters....its simply politically not realistic.

I guess I'll lump myself in with those new-age SNAPS, but you guys realize that Nellis has non-fighter units that actually deploy right? In fact, in the 5 years that I spent at Nellis, I can't remember one fighter unit that did deploy. Home of the Fighter Pilot? I guess, but meanwhile I (helo pilot) spent 5 years there working, deploying, sweating and bleeding (watching friends bleeding) getting the job done. I don't care for the PC culture of the Air Force; I don't think everyone is a warrior, and I do think Robin Olds is a bad-ass, but I think Nellis AFB is more than the "Home of the Fighter Pilot." As I was.

There ARE warriors in the Air Force beyond fighter pilots, but when you take that fighter pilot out of the Air Force, we lose a great deal of what made the USAF the dominating force it has always been. Know your role, where you fit in the mission, and accomplish that role with pride, no matter what it is. I believe that everyone has a mission to play, and many, but not all, of them are important. I never was a fighter pilot, but I knew my role, and I never strapped a "Cyber Warrior", a "Finance Warrior", or a "Chow Hall Warrior" into a bombed up jet and set them off on a combat mission hoping - but never positive - that they were coming back at the end of the day. This former "Speedhandle Warrior" is offended by this, and what would Frank Luke, Hub Zemke, Gabby Gabreski, or Robin Olds think today...? Perhaps I should have posted the note about Robin Olds birthday, 14 July, here instead (he would have been 89). Shows just how much we need him today.

Just closed a mortgage on a new house with USAA last month. Holy crap, by the time the process was over, i was considering closing every USAA account I have. Total lack of customer service! If you can go with someone else on the loan, unless you like unreturn messages and emails. My closing was 6 hours late, because of USAA and the only reason it worked at all was because our closing attorney was a close friend.

BL: I don't like you. You serve no other purpose than to validate retroactive birth control.

Bishop, Ever heard the term "Ten ones are better than a twenty"? Mission planning: You need to go to the ATM and get at least 5 magazines ($20 bills). You can get more later, they'll have an ATM where you're going. Make sure you have at least ten singles in your wallet so you can get started as soon as you show up. Mission tasking/Execution: Proceed direct to the Mons Venus. Sit down in the middle of sniffers row, hold up a $20 and shout "AMMO!". When the barmaid shows up, get change for the twenty, open a tab on your credit card (never burn your cash), order beers for yourself and anyone else sitting at sniffers row and let 'er rip with the singles. After you've seen the batting order get a couple lap dances from your favorites. Mission Debrief: Don't worry about the money you spent. It will be a night you will not forget, and that is worth more than money. Hey Now!