4Fans:
That'd be a "why" question, but I'll take a stab. Based on what I've observed over 10 years as a reserve/guard, it is now clear to me that RegAF 1. does not "like" the part-time ARC and would rather it not be a thing, 2. Has never gotten on board with the idea that ARC members rate a retirement (or anything, really). As a result nothing has ever fundamentally changed and nothing will change, I predict.
Witness Congress over the years repeatedly tell DOD to fix the ARC's systemic problems, and what happens? Study after study, making Rand rich, but no hint of systemic change ever happens, just more band-aids.
Examples: 1. Early in the GWOT RegAF complained that it was "hard" to access reserves for their purposes. DOD came up with yet another duty status called ADOS (we're now up to 30 duty statuses, BTW). RegAF worried that Reserves would then easily stay on ADOS their whole career and then get a Regular retirement. The 1095 rule was born--1095 was supposed to be tied to a position, but having no mechanism for tracking this, they tied it to the person, the added benefit being that they could deny a regular retirement to individuals (for the most part). Navy & Army are much more aggressive than AF when it comes to a concerted effort to deny.
2. AFRES has been talking for YEARS about reforming basic functions such as UTAPS and AROWS, yet all they have are excuses as to why they cannot.
3. DOD whined about medical readiness in the reserve. Congress responded with making Tricare and Tricare Dental available to reservists. DOD opposed this.
4. AFRES's record-keeping system for reserve points was basically non-existent. The effect was that reservists would apply for retirement and then have to prove their service. If unable, AFRES would deny the retirement. Congress responded with a band-aid fix of mandating PCARS and issuance of the 20-yr letter which could not be revoked. AFRES opposed this idea and watered it down to include an out for themselves: "the number of years of creditable service and retirement points upon which retired pay is computed may be adjusted to correct any error." Ergo, the onus is ultimately still on the reservist, potentially, to prove his service.
5. When I first entered the SELRES I asked many benefit questions to the finance/personnelists both at my group and ARPC. I received virtually no information and the information I did receive was littered with errors/outright wrong. I concluded that these people didn't know and didn't care because they were full-timers (whether ART or AGR or attempting a Regular retirement) and it didn't affect them. It became quite obvious to me that I would need to find answers on my own starting with title 10 and go from there because the AFIs themselves are littered with errors.
6. BLAB: RegAF runs the show, does not care about the ARC, and any attempts at reform point to the desire of RegAF and ARC Full-timers to just do away with the entire concept of a part-time force because it's pesky to them. This explains the constant drum beat of "we're an operational reserve." It also explains the constant push to get rid of IRR participation (achieved by AFRES except for ALO and CAP-RAP--but they're working on it), points for correspondence courses (achieved by the Army), and the absolute disaster that the IMA program is currently devolving into, sped along by the so-called "IMA Strategic Review Team." Basically the AF wants people on active duty or not on active duty, but can't seem to get there because of their desire to deny benefits in the name of saving money.