Military retirement under attack

[HuggyU2]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

Well,.. for me, many of the reasons are the same.

I'm also a pilot who separated at the 15 year point. After being out a little over a year, I realized I had made a mistake, and worked to come back on active duty. Fortunately for me, I made that decision about 6 weeks before 9/11.

I have not regretted it. I like what I do.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Huggyu2

[RAMurai]

Well,.. for me, many of the reasons are the same.

I'm also a pilot who separated at the 15 year point. After being out a little over a year, I realized I had made a mistake, and worked to come back on active duty. Fortunately for me, I made that decision about 6 weeks before 9/11.

I have not regretted it. I like what I do.

Many, but not all. Many of my reasons are the same, as well. I'm just stating that there are some key differences between what I thought was important at 20 vice what I think now.

Like you, I love what I do and I don't regret one second of it.

[brabus]

Meanwhile Congress' ridiculous retirement remains untouched. Perfect.

[Cap-10]

Where does it actally state that 20yrs of active duty = immediate pension?

I've been reseraching 36-3203 and 36-3209 as well as parts of the US Code Title 10, but everything I've found so far just states things like, you can retire after 20 years, 10 years mimum as officer if prior E, etc, but I haven't been able to find in writing that once retired, you get your $ right away.

Help?

Cheers,

Cap-10

[HeyWatchThis]

Any dudes who went thru the 90's draw down want to chime in? Was military pay/benefits/retirement put under the microscope back then as much as it seems to be now?

[Guest]

No.

[Butters]

No.

No, you don't want to chime in or No, it was not put under the microscope?

[Guest]

No, not under the microscope. I can't remember if that was when they implemented high three retroactive.

[sputnik]

I think that's when we got a bunch of big raises wasn't it?

Or maybe we didn't and they started playing catch up end of 90s.

Yes, another useful input

[MilitaryToFinance]

More writing on the wall: Much in line with the report I posted from the "liberal think tank" that some believed wasn't to be taken seriously, The Congressional Budget Office just released a detailed report effectively saying we enjoy too much pay and too many benefits.

https://www.cbo.gov/s...itaryComp_0.pdf

Apparently, the military retirement system is approaching $1 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Also,

Hear me out on this one before you attack me, I think the problem is that we are paid based on rank and TIS not AFSC. For the majority of Air Force officers I would argue we are fairly paid if not over-compensated for the amount of work done. I'm talking about support roles, not pilots/navs here. Looking at acquisitions officers, scientists, finance officers, personnelists etc the pay and benefits are above industry standards. As an engineer my Lt pay was certainly lower than what I would have gotten in industry but by the time you make Captain the pay and benefits are actually higher than comparable civilian jobs. I'm in the process of separating so I've looked at this quite a bit. The average work-week in my office is 40 hours, 45 hours is a "long week," even for the O-5/O-6's more than 45 hours would be outside the norm. If you include tax benefits, medical benefits and actual pay I'm making the equivalent of about $90,000 salary at a civilian company. Not to mention 4 weeks of vacation and thousands a year in tax free per diem. So I work less hours, have better benefits and equal or more pay than if I left and took the same type job at a civilian company. And that is in a low cost of living area. I know Captains at LA AFB making around $110,000/year working 40 hours a week. That is just speaking for acquisitions but seeing how often all the "support" functions on base are closed and I think it is safe to say that most of those officers aren't working 50+ hour weeks.

Then you have pilots who deploy all the time, work longer hours in worse conditions than civilian pilots for less pay. But in order to give pilots a pay raise you also have to give the rest of us a raise too because of how the pay system works. Unless you go towards AFSC-specific bonuses instead of actual pay raises. As much as I love money it would be hard for me to explain why I need a pay raise. I'm not trying to diminish the incredible amount of suck that some career fields go through nor am I saying that everybody is overpaid. I'm just trying to highlight an example of why it is easy for people to think that. Most people here are pilots, surrounded by other pilots, who feel justifiably under-paid. But when I look around my office or the MPF I see lots of overpaid individuals and wasted dollars and sadly you're stuck with us.

[Karl Hungus]

I don't know anyone that I work with that feels that they're underpaid. We make damn good money and enjoy great benefits. Comparable civilian pilot jobs make far less initially, and take a while to catch up. The biggest difference is improved quality of life in the civilian sector, or at least the freedom to have some sort of control over your life.

Start cutting/ delaying the pension and benefits (it WILL happen) and suddenly putting up with multiple 365s to shitholes and a PCS to Cannon as your wife and kids leave you doesn't sound so appealing.

[Duck]

Talking to some of my buddies flying tankers who have been gone over 300 days this year and almost 300 days the year before, they feel underpaid.

[ThreeHoler]

Talking to some of my buddies flying tankers who have been gone over 300 days this year and almost 300 days the year before, they feel underpaid.

That's a lot of dwell time waivers...Although last year they were running the OEF/OUP scam of deploy to OUP, deploy to OEF during your dwell for OUP, then go back to OUP.

I'd like to see the proof though, I find 300/yr two years in a row hard to believe.

[Guest]

Unless they were able to end the engagement by destroying the site.

[schokie]

Unless they were able to end the engagement by destroying the site.

That right there is job satisfaction that no civilian job can match.

[Lawman]

That's a lot of dwell time waivers...Although last year they were running the OEF/OUP scam of deploy to OUP, deploy to OEF during your dwell for OUP, then go back to OUP.

I'd like to see the proof though, I find 300/yr two years in a row hard to believe.

How about being part of a Battalion that was deployed for 15 months... home for 10... deployed for 12 months.... home for 16,,,, Finishing deployed for 10 months... planning to be home for 13.5.... and already on the patch chart to redeploy for 9 months (just short enough to not get R&R). 18 month dwell time? Bueller?

Keep in perspective guys when your talking about "how much this sucks" most of you are doing it from the greener grass. Not saying 4 month or whatever you do isnt shitty. Just saying when somebody comes up with the "well guys it really isnt all bad for everybody" go ahead and punch that guy in the dick for me.

[ThreeHoler]

How about being part of a Battalion that was deployed for 15 months... home for 10... deployed for 12 months.... home for 16,,,, Finishing deployed for 10 months... planning to be home for 13.5.... and already on the patch chart to redeploy for 9 months (just short enough to not get R&R). 18 month dwell time? Bueller?

Keep in perspective guys when your talking about "how much this sucks" most of you are doing it from the greener grass. Not saying 4 month or whatever you do isnt shitty. Just saying when somebody comes up with the "well guys it really isnt all bad for everybody" go ahead and punch that guy in the dick for me.

No complaining from me.

Don't know the Army rules and frankly don't care. I'm curious as to the legitimacy of Duck's claim that his tanker buddies have been gone >600 days in two years...but hey, their STRD ought to be pretty recent based on the 548/3 year rule.

[Smokin]

Who deploys for 4 months? Everything I've heard of for the last 2+ years is six months or more. And there seems to be an assumption that when you're at home, you're actually at home. In reality, most fighter guys are working 55-60 hours a week when we're home and have TDYs that vary between 2 and 5 weeks every couple months. I'm not trying to compare deployment histories or say 'woe is me', but just because I'm 'home' doesn't mean I always see my kid during the week. I don't think that we're overpaid and I bet the vast majority of my squadron agrees.

[SocialD]

There are lots of different deployment schemes out there...don't think you know how everybody rolls just because you guys might do 6s or whatever type of rotation you're on.

So let me get this straight...not everyone in the Air Force deploys on the same cycle?!?

Edited December 8, 2012 by SocialD

[pcola]

How about being part of a Battalion that was deployed for 15 months... home for 10... deployed for 12 months.... home for 16,,,, Finishing deployed for 10 months... planning to be home for 13.5.... and already on the patch chart to redeploy for 9 months (just short enough to not get R&R). 18 month dwell time? Bueller?

Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe my math is bad, but why would anybody stay in that Battalion for 7+ years? Pretty sure I would've punched during the "home for 16" part.

I'm curious as to the legitimacy of Duck's claim that his tanker buddies have been gone >600 days in two years...but hey, their STRD ought to be pretty recent based on the 548/3 year rule.

Mine says 8/21/12. I used 27 days of use/lose and I've been gone at least 45 days already since my short tour return. I don't even fly tankers.

[Duck]

Yeah, they did the OUP, OEF, then back to OUP. Then back to OEF for just a quick 77 day which ended up being extended to almost a 180 because they didn't have a pilot to fill the next line. Not sure on all the math, but I know the base was pretty proud of their almost 1:1 deploy/dwell ratio but what the numbers didn't show were all the guys on staff who hadn't deployed for the year, but were still being counted in the numbers. No complaints from me, but I am not the one picking up the burden like these guys are.

[Lawman]

Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe my math is bad, but why would anybody stay in that Battalion for 7+ years? Pretty sure I would've punched during the "home for 16" part.

Warrants can IPCOT (In Place Continuation of Tour) and 6 years is actually more the norm. Doing 3 and punching typically lends you no rewards or support from the Battalion/Brigade as far as getting the right jobs/schools for that next promotion board your looking at. So we've got a lot of guys that are locked in for all that bullshit. One of those deployments wasnt supposed to happen, but when another unit failed its NTC rotation so badly that they were deemed undeployable this battalion got the bad news.

Our favorite part is that our Brigade HQ went home on this deployment about 3-4 months in to it and left all their battalions here. So on Paper it looks like as a Brigade we will get our 18 month mandatory dwell time.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Lawman

[Smokin]

There are lots of different deployment schemes out there...don't think you know how everybody rolls just because you guys might do 6s or whatever type of rotation you're on.

I don't pretend to know everyone's deployment schedule. That's why I said "who deploys for 4 months?" rather than "no one deploys for 4 months."

[Guest]

Nice try.

[itsokimapilot]

I don't pretend to know everyone's deployment schedule. That's why I said "who deploys for 4 months?" rather than "no one deploys for 4 months."

There are many of "us" that deploy for 4 months. Even more of us deploy for 2 months.