TIG change in NDAA23

[Chida]

Quietly inserted into 10 USC 1370 (regular) and 1370a (reserve):

TIG requirement for Maj is now 3 years for it to be held. It was 6 months, previously.

[nsplayr]

I never got why these exist below O6 and Chief. Below those ranks, absolutely no one else cares what rank you retire as, but it’s insulting to the service member to be “demoted” in retirement. The whole thing seems dumb to me.

[Chida]

As far as I can see, this will normally only impact reserve officers that are prior-enlisted. If the reserve officer can’t hold the rank at retirement, he gets kicked down to O-3 pay chart. MSD for O-4 is 20, at least it can be, unless continued. But now that I think about it that MSD is only for twice passed over. So the effect would be that a prior enlisted O-4 may have to go beyond 20 to hold O-4. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Chida

[cragspider]

It has been this way for at least a year. Buddy retired as an O-4, prior E and didn’t have the 3 years pinned on. 

[Chida]

Did he know prior? Was he regular AF?

[SocialD]

On similar lines, can anyone back me up on this?  If a DSG/TR retires after only a year as an O-5, their retirement paperwork will show O-4 (who really cares).  However, since they live in the "grey area" and continue to accumulate years of service until they hit retirement age, their retirement pay is still all based completely off O-5 rates...right?  

[cragspider]

12 hours ago, Chida said:

Did he know prior? Was he regular AF?

He didn’t know. He found out after he retired when the mpf called him telling him he needs to come back in to get a different retiree I’d since the regs changed. 
Yes he was active duty. He still got the high three. Just didn’t have O-4 on the full 3 years. If he knew I don’t think it would have changed a single thing 

Edited February 11, 2023 by cragspider

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

On similar lines, can anyone back me up on this?  If a DSG/TR retires after only a year as an O-5, their retirement paperwork will show O-4 (who really cares).  However, since they live in the "grey area" and continue to accumulate years of service until they hit retirement age, their retirement pay is still all based completely off O-5 rates...right?  

I've been personally wrestling with this.  The answer for traditional reserve retirement: As a TR, if you retire with paperwork that says O-4, you get O-4 pay when you finally get it at age 60.  My MFP troops were kind enough to show me that in writing...no idea the reg...to make sure the fight was worth fighting.

After being twice passed over, I pinned on O-5 shortly before separating for the AFRC (long story).  Fast forward to me with 20 good years (a few years after joining the AFRC) and ARPC started claiming that my DOR was my accession date into the reserves, NOT my actual DOR when I pinned on while on AD.  Our personnelists were entirely perplexed, but it turns out that they can't call ARPC directly.  Yes, you read that correctly.  There is no pipeline for base level AFRC personnelists (at least mine) to contact ARPC directly.  They had to submit a trouble ticket, just like I did. They got the same answer I did: "you need 3 years TIG" with no reference or reg that states your DOR becomes your accession date.  

Four months and much pain later: My personnelists finally found the AFI/AFMAN/REG that states with no break in service, you keep your original date of rank.  POOF!  Magically my retirement order is published to retire as an O-5 at my originally requested date.  ARPC is a completely corrupt clown show run by GS's who will suckle at the teat until they literally die, all the while stating as "fact" what is actually "I think I remember from back in my day the reg said..."

Two UTA's left.

[av8tor55]

On similar lines, can anyone back me up on this?  If a DSG/TR retires after only a year as an O-5, their retirement paperwork will show O-4 (who really cares).  However, since they live in the "grey area" and continue to accumulate years of service until they hit retirement age, their retirement pay is still all based completely off O-5 rates...right?  

Your retirement pay is based on your High-3, highest 36 months of basic pay. So if you did 18 months of O-4, and 18 of O-5, it would be an average of the two. The rank on your retirement ID is dependent on if you did 3 years TIG at that rank.

[Chida]

5 hours ago, av8tor55 said:

Your retirement pay is based on your High-3, highest 36 months of basic pay. So if you did 18 months of O-4, and 18 of O-5, it would be an average of the two. The rank on your retirement ID is dependent on if you did 3 years TIG at that rank.

Common misconception. You’ll be O-4 in Retired Reserve. Your high-36 will be calculated from the O-4 level for the 36 months pay charts preceding age 60 or your reduced retired pay age. This will be at the highest longevity (so topping out the O-4 payscale. This a key difference between regular and reserve retirement systems and why it is highly advisable for reservists to get TIG to hold their rank. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Chida

[Chida]

7 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

I've been personally wrestling with this.  The answer for traditional reserve retirement: As a TR, if you retire with paperwork that says O-4, you get O-4 pay when you finally get it at age 60.  My MFP troops were kind enough to show me that in writing...no idea the reg...to make sure the fight was worth fighting.

After being twice passed over, I pinned on O-5 shortly before separating for the AFRC (long story).  Fast forward to me with 20 good years (a few years after joining the AFRC) and ARPC started claiming that my DOR was my accession date into the reserves, NOT my actual DOR when I pinned on while on AD.  Our personnelists were entirely perplexed, but it turns out that they can't call ARPC directly.  Yes, you read that correctly.  There is no pipeline for base level AFRC personnelists (at least mine) to contact ARPC directly.  They had to submit a trouble ticket, just like I did. They got the same answer I did: "you need 3 years TIG" with no reference or reg that states your DOR becomes your accession date.  

Four months and much pain later: My personnelists finally found the AFI/AFMAN/REG that states with no break in service, you keep your original date of rank.  POOF!  Magically my retirement order is published to retire as an O-5 at my originally requested date.  ARPC is a completely corrupt clown show run by GS's who will suckle at the teat until they literally die, all the while stating as "fact" what is actually "I think I remember from back in my day the reg said..."

Two UTA's left.

I hope your transfer date is end of May. ARPC has been telling people incorrectly they can “retire on a partial year.” This is a gross misunderstanding of the partial year concept. A good year is 50 pts AND 365/366 days in a participating status. If you already had 20 good years yeah sure you can retire anytime you want. But if you’re in your 20th year it has to be at least 20 whole years. 
Partial years come into play if one has a break in service. In that case 2 partial years (presumably 1 on the front end and 1 on the back end) can combine to make 1 good year. Other than that situation, partial years past 20 good yrs only give you pro-rata membership points, but don’t have any further meaning. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Chida

[hindsight2020]

6 hours ago, av8tor55 said:

Your retirement pay is based on your High-3, highest 36 months of basic pay. So if you did 18 months of O-4, and 18 of O-5, it would be an average of the two. The rank on your retirement ID is dependent on if you did 3 years TIG at that rank.

 That's AGR/regAF retirement,  not TR/DSG. For a TR/DSG retirement, the grey area (time during retired reserve, aka the grey years, which usually top most people out at 30) payscale longevity accrual is based on retired grade, which would be O-4 for an O-5 without 3 year TIG. See chida's response. As such, that's why this mickey mouse business about TIG potato has always been centric to TRs, not AGRs or regAF (a mere vanity on paperwork for the latter two).

 

break break

According to Army sources, TR O-4s should still be golden on 6 months TIG. Typical of the DoD: WTFK

Link source

ETA: Just saw Dec 2021, not 22. Perhaps the latest change made the inclusion of non-regular retirement retired grades. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by hindsight2020

[Chida]

Hindsight2020:

Army’s press release is incorrect, tho. 10 USC 1370A does say the same as 1370, meaning reserve and regular are both 3 yrs TIG now. 

[FourFans]

47 minutes ago, Chida said:

I hope your transfer date is end of May. ARPC has been telling people incorrectly they can “retire on a partial year.” This is a gross misunderstanding of the partial year concept. A good year is 50 pts AND 365/366 days in a participating status. If you already had 20 good years yeah sure you can retire anytime you want. But if you’re in your 20th year it has to be at least 20 whole years. 
Partial years come into play if one has a break in service. In that case 2 partial years (presumably 1 on the front end and 1 on the back end) can combine to make 1 good year. Other than that situation, partial years past 20 good yrs only give you pro-rata membership points, but don’t have any further meaning. 

Original commission was May.  Transfer with no break in service was Aug, but my anniversary in PCARS and on my record is May.  Most importantly, the retirement order says 28 May 2023 in the grade of O-5.  I printed that in triplicate, framed one, put one in the safe, put one in my wallet, and left the digital copy up on my desktop for 69 hours so the text is burned into the pixels.

[av8tor55]

Common misconception. You’ll be O-4 in Retired Reserve. Your high-36 will be calculated from the O-4 level for the 36 months pay charts preceding age 60 or your reduced retired pay age. This will be at the highest longevity (so topping out the O-4 payscale. This a key difference between regular and reserve retirement systems and why it is highly advisable for reservists to get TIG to hold their rank. 

Thanks for the clarification, I must have mixed up the AGR and DSG retirements.

[Chida]

4Fans:
That’s good. The other 2 most important documents will be your 20-yr letter and your PCARS printout.

Heard about an old boy went to Army HRC to get his retired pay started. HRC says they have no record of him at all. He had his 20 yr letter, tho, so HRC knew they had to pay him something. But with no record of how many points he had earned, they gave him 50 pts per yr for 20 yrs. That’s brutal.

My 20 yr letter has my points as of my 20th yr printed on it, so may not be a factor for you, but I’d get PCARS printout anyway, especially with their screwing around with all the software. 

[FourFans]

16 hours ago, Chida said:

4Fans:
That’s good. The other 2 most important documents will be your 20-yr letter and your PCARS printout.

Good to know.  Thanks!

EDIT: Reading @hindsight2020 above, and applying general common sense...

WHY THE F IS GETTING A MILITARY BENEFIT SO F'ING HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously. 

We gave you our prime years for skill learning.

We gave you our prime years for child rearing. 

We gave you our prime years for career development.

We gave you our prime years for physical output.

We gave you our prime years for finding a co-level partner for marriage.

Yet some 67 year old impotent congressman/senator-who-has-never-seen-so-much-as-a-parking-ticket (his driver took care of that) gets to decide what your benefits should be.

I'll admit that I am one of the few lucky individuals who came out of this meat grinder with my sanity, my marriage, my self-esteem, and my perspective in tact.   That's not normal.

We need more veterans in congress.  I argue we should have a MAJORITY of veterans in congress, most decidedly from both sides of the aisle.

Dirty confession: I sincerely want many progressive veterans fighting for veterans rights.  I've heard the most convincing and most accurate arguments from that side!

OK OK OK yea....wrong thread... got it

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by FourFans130
Source: Bushmills Original

[Chida]

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.

[SocialD]

17 hours ago, Chida said:

Common misconception. You’ll be O-4 in Retired Reserve. Your high-36 will be calculated from the O-4 level for the 36 months pay charts preceding age 60 or your reduced retired pay age. This will be at the highest longevity (so topping out the O-4 payscale. This a key difference between regular and reserve retirement systems and why it is highly advisable for reservists to get TIG to hold their rank. 

 

17 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

 That's AGR/regAF retirement,  not TR/DSG. For a TR/DSG retirement, the grey area (time during retired reserve, aka the grey years, which usually top most people out at 30) payscale longevity accrual is based on retired grade, which would be O-4 for an O-5 without 3 year TIG. See chida's response. As such, that's why this mickey mouse business about TIG potato has always been centric to TRs, not AGRs or regAF (a mere vanity on paperwork for the latter two).

 

 

Maybe I'm misreading your posts, but they way you explain it is how I always knew it to be.  However, this is where the confusion lies with guys in the squadron.  We received a powerpoint created by DFAS (DFAS 101 Retirement Services) provided to us by FM, that shows otherwise.  They give an example where a DSG retires after 2.5 years as a LTC and 0.5 years as a COL.  The examples shows that they continue in the gray area as a COL until they hit retirement age (age 60 or earlier as applicable), and that this counts toward their "high 3."  It specifically says "all 36 months will be at the COL rate."  This is all if you "stay affiliated" (stay in IRR) after retirement.

Edited February 12, 2023 by SocialD

[Chida]

DFAS and ARPC are incredibly confused….

Technically they are correct in part, but due to inflation of the pay charts over a typical 16-yr or so stay in the grey-area, they are most likely (for the vast majority of typical part-timers) incorrect on this point. One can demonstrate using past pay charts to show their hypothetical actual high-36.

Where they are most definitely incorrect is the rank in the grey area. One holds their rank by achieving required TIG while in a participating status. If not, then you get bucked down for the entirety of the grey area. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Chida

[SocialD]

12 minutes ago, Chida said:

DFAS and ARPC are incredibly confused….

Technically they are correct in part, but due to inflation of the pay charts over a typical 16-yr or so stay in the grey-area, they are most likely (for the vast majority of typical part-timers) incorrect on this point. One can demonstrate using past pay charts to show their hypothetical actual high-36.

Where they are most definitely incorrect is the rank in the grey area. One holds their rank by achieving required TIG while in a participating status. If not, then you get bucked down for the entirety of the grey area. 

 

 

Where does it say this?  It's totally believable to me that DFAS could be putting out bad data, at this point in my career, I expect nothing less!  But this would be an entire fuck job if this is floating around out there so someone reads it as the gospel and ends up screwed.  It's extremely definitive in this brief.   

[brabus]

7 minutes ago, SocialD said:

It's extremely definitive in this brief. 

But you know how confidently wrong they are all the time! They’re good at one thing, and that’s it right there. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by brabus

[Chida]

10 USC 1370A is one source. One is definitely demoted when transferred to the grey area if he can’t hold his rank. This new rank then becomes a basis for actual high-36 calculations which are performed at age 60 or the RRPA. How could it be otherwise? Additional proof of this is what 4Fans detailed above with his original transfer order in which ARPC couldn’t seem to figure out something as basic as a DOR!

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, Chida said:

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.

Excellent summation of the historical problems of the ARC, especially the AD-Lite subset (AFRC) within it. I will say, regAF has always struggled with the concept of strategic reserve, and they certainly made a mockery of it during our foreign excursions to Iraq and AFG in the prior 20 years. 

It is also absolutely the case that for upper management, this all has always boiled down to a contemptuous affair singularly devoted to shorting people a retirement and benefits. No different than a private corporation attempting to minimize legacy labor costs. It's just that it's viewed with greater skepticism to suggest government managers to be engaging in such attempts at govt sanctioned wage theft, since it's not a for profit organization. Given the sacrifices and opportunity costs @FourFans130 already spoke about (and personally resonates with me, especially the impacts my service had on my ability to even make a family in the first place, and I'll save the details in the interest of my 5th), it becomes insult to injury since, while on status, we're not free to just quit like civilians can.  

As to regAF, it has always been a rank cake and eat it too, hypocritical organization. Bitch bitch bitch about folks leaving over an "up or out" management focus on promotions whilst the rank and file favor "tactical technician" track careers, which are anathema to regAF (and the reason I never did bother with regaf). But then they turn around and systemically kvetch about the ARC's existence writ large, which @Chida post expanded on in detail. I've always told the Alzheimer's ward that is the AvBonus thread: regAF doesn't care about money, they care about control. If they short you money that's a twofer. That's why they won't barter with their chattel even if it saves them money. The money is secondary to them: They want to control and throttle your time, in a way that suits them. That's why they hate Reservists, they've always found our legal ability to say no and leave money on the table for the sake of our lives (the very premise over reserve service as promised on the brochures mind you), too uppity for their liking. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by hindsight2020

[Chida]

A point of confusion is the concept of "holding grade". Used to be, prior to 1996 if I recall, if you wore the rank even 1 day, you held it. After 96, the concept of Time-in-grade was introduced in order to cause people to serve longer and to save money on those that refused to serve longer. One can only "hold" their rank now if they meet the Time-in-grade. ARPC & AFPC institutionally have never quite figured this out and it shows in the AFI's bc they only discuss "holding grade" in the context of an officer grade determination which is quite another subject. So when ARPC says you'll go to the Retired Reserve with your HGH (highest grade held), people incorrectly take that to mean the "highest grade attained" and that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what HGH means.

Not to belabor the point, but I quite enjoy foiling the machinations of AF whenever I can: Another point of confusion is the concept of "satisfactory service" which has quite different meanings depending on the context. For someone who doesn't understand the varied meanings, it can cause quite the mess when "reading" various AFIs, laws, DOD instructions, etc.

In the context of what we're discussing. Satisfactory service in pursuit of qualifying for a reserve retirement involves 365 days and 50 points earned. Once you get 20 good years, the concept of satisfactory service to that end is finished. Unfortunately, due to a fundamental mis-interpretation of the statutes, ARPC has gone on to say that your continuing service must be in a "participating status" in order to get TIG and you must continue to accrue satisfactory years--thus specifically excluding time in the IRR (even though the officer is still on the RASL).