MAJOR IRR Policy Change...

[bubblehead]

The IRR is comprised of both the VTU and the ASP. If you are concerned, just sign up for the IRR/VTU to finish up your 20.

The VTU is not part of the Selected Reserve. They are part of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and are not racked and stacked nor are they on any "short" or "mob" list. SELRES are mobilized under different authorities than IRR and The only people who are racked and stacked for mobilization are the SELRES. The last time that I read about anyone being involuntarily mobilized from the VTU was in 2004 and before that, 1991.

In the VTU you are required to maintain readiness (medical, dental, PFA, etc.) and you receive no pay, only retirement points. You are not required to perform Annual Training (AT) and do not need it to earn the 50 points for a "good year." You get your 15 participation points, the 48 drill points, plus whatever, if any, you earn throughout the year. You can go on ADT, ADSW, and non-pay AT (if you choose) and can volunteer to mobilize (some do). You also have a CAC card. You have to pay DFAS directly for your SGLI and the Reserve Tricare costs more.

The VTU is not a bad deal at all if all you are looking to do is to ride it out until retirement. On drill weekend you will literally sit around at the Reserve Center doing nothing if you so choose.

If you cannot go from Active Duty directly to VTU, then simply affiliate with the SELRES and after you are affiliated, request a transfer to the IRR/VTU. If you are coming to the SELRES from Active Duty you get a 2 year mobilization deferment so you do not have to worry about that.

Here are all of the authorities associated with Reservists...

• IDT/IDTT - 10 U.S. Code § 10147 Training Requirements
• AT - 10 U.S. Code § 10147 Training Requirements and § 12301(b) Reserve components generally
• Funeral Honors - 10 U.S. Code § 12503 Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty
• Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally
• Active Duty for Training (ADT) for Operational Support - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally
• Active Duty for Training (ADT) for Schools - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally
• Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally
• Mobilization (Voluntary) - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally
• Full Mobilization (Involuntary, During War Time) - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(a) Reserve components generally
• Partial Mobilization (Involuntary) - 10 U.S. Code § 12302 Ready Reserve
• Presidential Recall (PRC) - 10 U.S. Code § 12304 Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members; order to active duty other than during war or national emergency
• Full-Time Support (FTS Recall) - 10 U.S. Code § 12301(d) Reserve components generally

 

[lostSeaBee]

Because I am affected by the policy change, I called the Navy Reserve Officer Recruiter in my area (Minneapolis). I talked to a Petty Officer and a Master Chief. They were nice and respectful but did not have a clue what I was talking about concerning transferring from the IRR-ASP to the IRR-VTU. The Master Chief referred me to a LCDR and I left him a message. More to follow when available.

 

[bubblehead]

Call the POC's on the PERs web site:

(800) 535-2699

IRR_Counselor@navy.mil

 

[MrSaturn]

For those with under 16 good years, I’d:
Once you’re a BGO you’ll drive your own schedule and track you own points, and go IRR.

Question! Under 16er, BGO was already in the works. Should I bother signing up for VTU or submit a request to go right into USNR-S1?
Can I try to hook a deal as a VTU to show up for drill twice a year for PFT/Med/Dental and take AA's the rest of the time?

 

[jagM3]

Question! Under 16er, BGO was already in the works. Should I bother signing up for VTU or submit a request to go right into USNR-S1?
Can I try to hook a deal as a VTU to show up for drill twice a year for PFT/Med/Dental and take AA's the rest of the time?

I'm wondering the same thing. For VTU, do we actually need to go to the scheduled DWEs (besdies PFA, etc.) or can we do reskeds with NKOs, GMT, etc. on our own time?

 

[MrSaturn]

I'm wondering the same thing. For VTU, do we actually need to go to the scheduled DWEs (besdies PFA, etc.) or can we do reskeds with NKOs, GMT, etc. on our own time?

I'm betting its dependent on the command. I know the AA trick is done by some SELRES commands to retain talent if there is trouble for about a year. It just kills promotion possibility.

 

[nittany03]

I'm betting its dependent on the command. I know the AA trick is done by some SELRES commands to retain talent if there is trouble for about a year. It just kills promotion possibility.

You can request up to 6mos AAs, but you're on your own as to whether your contributions will still rate a good FITREP . . . which in turn may impact promotion. Many people request AAs or reskeds post-MOB. First, they need to get their civilian life back in gear, and second, they already have enough points for a good year, because you get 1pt per day of active duty.

 

[vxc961]

An exception to the norm doesn't mean the new policy is a bad one, it just means you were one of the very few who was able to contribute more in the IRR than when you drilled. It should also be noted that BGO will apparently be allowed in the IRR under the new policy and I imagine Funeral Duty Honors might be as well.

Flash, we kind of agree...it's poor form to argue in anecdotes. I also think that a common flavor of the argument here is "the IRR isn't worth it!" but I think before you argue that, you have to figure out what the IRR actually costs. I can't prove a negative, but when IRR changes first started happening, I called PERS several times to ask that. I got the same "the IRR isn't worth it!" argument, but when pushed nobody could give me ANY kind of number of how many reserve retirements came from the IRR, what the average number of IRR years those retirees did was, how many points (and thus how much it cost)...nada. Nobody had a *clue* if any study had ever been commissioned, and it certainly seemed like my mention of it was the first time such a thing had crossed their minds. I also looked on my own for Govt Accountability reports or the like...nothing. It seems to me that the "IRR isn't worth it!" argument is a bit of a straw man.

The IRR is about 48k strong. I think we can all agree that the vast, VAST majority of those in the (non-VTU portion of the) IRR are doing nothing, earning no points, and just want to be done. So if, say 100 (just a guess on my part--which seems high, but I want to be generous) dudes did their last 10 years in the IRR, at about $0.50/pt/monthly-retirement-pay(which doesn't start until age 50), to me that's chump change. What does the Navy get in return for that chump change? A "career intermission" program for reservists? New job, new wife, new kids, travel lots with work--go IRR for a few years, and stay viable so you can re-enter. Also, people seem to think that getting points in the IRR is as simple as clipping UPC codes from cereal boxes and sending them in; it's a pain in the tail.

I did JPME, funerals and BGO duty while in the IRR. Not dealing with the NOSC was G-L-O-R-I-O-U-S! I'm quick to say that SELRES is a waste of time, and others are quick to say how great their units are--I agree, I came back in and went ANGLICO, and it's a great unit with a fantastic mission...I still want to rip my fingernails out the two times a year I have to drill with the NOSC. I still want to hit my hand with a hammer everytime I dial the NOSC, knowing that nobody will answer and that nobody will call me back. I want to drink drain cleaner when I point out a manning problem in January, reach out multiple times per week on the issue, and then in May am told "sorry, it's a 90-day window and then it's final." So, in the IRR I didn't have to deal with that, I did what the Navy wanted (JPME 1), I helped my fellow veterans and their widows, helped patriotic young men and women, AND I got to be home for all my kids birthdays and travel for work. When the kids got older and my job was more secure, I went SELRES again...I've enjoyed lots of it, but trust me, the Navy has gotten its pound of flesh out of me.

I'm going to submit a revolutionary statement and say that the Navy reserve needs less rules and less people enforcing them, not more. I say we let the 100 (made up number, but I don't care how many) IRR guys get their retirement each year, and free up those PERS bodies who are evaluating courses with a magnifying glass or spending all day answering calls from panicking reservists work on keeping my point count accurate and getting my fitrep entered on time.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the welfare state, but people are touchy about retirement. Having gone through the @$$ pain of going IRR to SELRES, I can tell you that this recent change is going to screw some folks. The 16 year mark is *something*, but I think it's a tyranny of the majority to let a guy transfer to the IRR in 2016 thinking he can get his reserve retirement there, then tell him he can't in 2017.

 

[Flash]

...a common flavor of the argument here is "the IRR isn't worth it!" but I think before you argue that, you have to figure out what the IRR actually costs. I can't prove a negative...Nobody had a *clue* if any study had ever been commissioned, and it certainly seemed like my mention of it was the first time such a thing had crossed their minds. I also looked on my own for Govt Accountability reports or the like...nothing. It seems to me that the "IRR isn't worth it!" argument is a bit of a straw man.

The Navy and folks like me aren't saying the IRR isn't worth it, they are saying paying the IRR retirement merely because they took some online courses every year isn't worth it. What value, any value, does the Navy get out of a member of the IRR who merely does correspondence courses to earn retirement points? And yet they are paying the same retirement as a person who is a faithful member of the SELRES. Who actually does the required number of drills and does their AT every year? Who is on the hook for at least one very likely mobilization in their SELRES career? Sorry, it isn't a straw man but sensible decision by the Navy to not pay retirement to folks who aren't serving in a meaningful capacity for the Navy.

I agree that there is value in BGO and Funeral Honors Duty but those are likely being retained as viable ways to earn points in the IRR.

As it for it never being studied, it was specifically noted that the Navy Reserve is the only reserve component that has had this policy in the final report by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission in 2015 (the bottom of pages 9 and 13). And just how much study does one have to do on something that makes no fiscal sense whatsoever?

Finally, I'm not a fan of the welfare state, but people are touchy about retirement.

If it wasn't evident so far, you can count me as one of those folks.

I can tell you that this recent change is going to screw some folks. The 16 year mark is *something*, but I think it's a tyranny of the majority to let a guy transfer to the IRR in 2016 thinking he can get his reserve retirement there, then tell him he can't in 2017.

It was a good deal while it lasted but they had to make the cut somewhere.

The argument that this policy change is somehow unfair doesn't fly with me, at all. I've done over 10 years in the SELRES, from drills to AT's to MOB's. To argue that taking a few correspondence courses is somehow equal in any way to what I have done during my time in SELRES is absurd, and the Navy thinks so too.

 

[vxc961]

The Navy and folks like me aren't saying the IRR isn't worth it, they are saying paying the IRR retirement merely because they took some online courses every year isn't worth...

So the IRR is worth it, but not IRR retirement? Not sure what you're saying. How much are retirements from the IRR costing us?

As it for it never being studied, it was specifically noted that the Navy Reserve is the only reserve component that has had this policy in the final report by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission in 2015 (the bottom of pages 9 and 13). And just how much study does one have to do on something that makes no fiscal sense whatsoever?

I'll re-read the report, but if memory serves it talks about the Navy promoting people without regard to available billets, and then makes reference to how the Navy then lets them drill for points only--is that the "this policy" you're referring to? I don't recall it saying anything like "IRR retirements are costing the USG X dollars...", but I didn't re-read the report before posting here. If I'm wrong, that's great, as it's the info I've been asking for!

If it makes no fiscal sense whatsover, it must be costing something. I mean, if it cost ZERO dollars it's tough to argue that it makes no fiscal sense, right? If it costs a MILLION dollars per year, that's too much. I agree there's a limit there somewhere, but I think you have to have an idea of the quantitative amount before you assess if it's "worth it."

It was a good deal while it lasted but they had to make the cut somewhere.

I agree that policy's can and must change, I just think the "somewhere" should have been all dudes going IRR from here on out. I've done both, and to me SELRES is *mostly* a "keep your medical, dental, PRT and GMT up to date, and we'll train you up when we MOB you" sort of thing. So if an IRR dude is a big boy and keeps those up with those, I think he/she could go through NMPS and be the Protocol Officer in Bahrain or the ANA General's Aide just as well as a SELRES dude.

Maybe a partial solution would be med/dental/PRT at the annual screening in order to stay out of S2 status? I agree that a reservist should be prepared to MOB, I just like having two flavors of readiness for that.

The argument that this policy change is somehow unfair doesn't fly with me, at all. I've done over 10 years in the SELRES, from drills to AT's to MOB's. To argue that taking a few correspondence courses is somehow equal in any way to what I have done during my time in SELRES is absurd, and the Navy thinks so too.

I'd say the Navy paying me four days worth of pay to stand in line for 16 hours is much more absurd. I think something like limiting IRR time to three or four years is much more reasonable, as it allows folks to focus on career/family/whatever for a bit and then come back. It also addresses the mythical "guy who did four years active and then correspondence courses for 16 years." Keep in mind that years of commissioned service/promotion chances make that scenario pretty unlikely.

If you drill, do AT, and MOB you're rewarded with pay, better fitreps, promotion, and GI Bill xfr benefits--I'm not arguing that doing SELRES is the same as IRR. But in the IRR, in 15 or so years you'll get 50 cents per point and none of the rest--you're compensated proportionately.

"...and the Navy thinks so too." Is that a jab at me? I'm SELRES, so I'm good. Before this policy revision did you think the Navy thought the IRR and SELRES were "equal" (whatever that means) because the Navy thought so? If you think that all Navy decisions are correct, all the time, then I guess we'll agree to disagree. Are FTS reservists better than SELRES reservists?

Right now BGOs have an email saying "you'll be fine", and nothing more. I trust CAPT Swift immensely, but I wouldn't stake my retirement on an IOU. I am aware of no such IOU for IRR/ASP doing funeral honors, but I think that is another great way for the IRR to serve.

 

[subreservist]

If retirements weren't costly, I don't think we would be moving to a Blended Retirement System.

I also think that the "fiscal sense" argument is not about how much an IRR retirement costs, so much as what does the Navy get for providing it. With the exception of BGO & funeral honors (which I'm sure few are in this category, as most IRR don't know they can do this), the Navy ROI isn't there.

The report that Flash references is basically calling the Navy out as the ONLY service where RC can earn retirement in this manner. If the current IRR retirement in exchange for break glass just in case policy (not accounting that the member may not be fit to serve) was a great idea, wouldn't the other services transition to what we're doing? But they haven't...because it's not sensible.

 

[vxc961]

If retirements weren't costly, I don't think we would be moving to a Blended Retirement System.

I also think that the "fiscal sense" argument is not about how much an IRR retirement costs, so much as what does the Navy get for providing it. With the exception of BGO & funeral honors (which I'm sure few are in this category, as most IRR don't know they can do this), the Navy ROI isn't there.

The report that Flash references is basically calling the Navy out as the ONLY service where RC can earn retirement in this manner. If the current IRR retirement in exchange for break glass just in case policy (not accounting that the member may not be fit to serve) was a great idea, wouldn't the other services transition to what we're doing? But they haven't...because it's not sensible.

First, in this discussion I think it's worth being precise on what an "IRR retirement" is; are you against being able to get so much as ONE good year in the IRR? If you do 18 years and then correspondence courses for two and retire, is that bad too? I'm arguing that it's a sliding scale, but allowing just one year is too short. I did JPME over three years, AND it took me over a year to get back to SELRES after that, so I'm kind of comfy with allowing four years.

My estimates:
-Cost of 50pts/yr in the IRR: $25/mo extra pension check, about 25 years down the road.
-Benefit: I think the big challenge about the reserves is balancing civ-work, family, reserve duty; Doing a few "sat" years in the IRR allows a guy to focus on the non-reserve stuff, then once things are more stable he can shift back to SELRES--that's the benefit. What's the benefit to the Navy? Well, whatever benefit the Navy gets from allowing you take Annual Leave on active duty, it's the same. I mean, seriously, the Navy literally pays you NOT to work?? What's the benefit? It makes no fiscal sense?

If people have their minds made up that there's ZERO value to the IRR, I can point to military funerals that wouldn't have happened if an IRR guy wasn't there getting points, Naval Academy candidates interviewed by IRR guys, or guys that went SELRES and supported the fight more directly (and had to do correspondence courses to get to that point). If you point out that most IRR dudes probably don't know about funerals/BGO, I raise you by saying that most IRR guys don't make it to retirement.

I also don't think that your argument of "the other services aren't letting you do courses for points" is very strong. If the Army says so, it must be true? I'm not arguing about what the Navy or other services are doing...that's pretty cut and dry. I'm arguing about what I think they should be doing.

 

[atmahan]

When I found out about how one could get to 2o in the IRR I was literally shocked, but I went ahead and did it anyway to see if it was actually possible. After all, it was allowed by current Policy. I did not see anything wrong with what I was doing.

I don't think the IRR is a waste. Even the recently announced email regarding the update to the Correspondence Courses clearly states:

"The ability for RC personnel to receive retirement points for voluntary completion of correspondence courses is an important aspect of the Navy's Total Force Continuum of Service concept. It enables the Navy to retain personnel with strategically valuable skills..."

Of course, it also immediately continues and says "expands the flexible service options for those unable to conduct regular drills due to short-term conflicts."

Again, the IRR, besides the 8-Year MOB and SELRES short-term conflicts thing, was, and still is, meant to allow people who have invested a good portion of their lives/careers in the military and still get something out of it should they find themselves in senior positions but unable to complete their 20 years the "traditional" way. At the same time, it provides the Navy with that pool of valuable personnel. You can argue all day about the value of those people but the intent/goal/fact is that they do possess some value to the Navy.

The newer policy with the 16-Year just ensures that the requirements to be able to get to 20 in the IRR are more strict, which will also ensure that the Navy has an even more valuable pool of personnel.

People who have/are earned 2o years in the IRR are not doing it by "only doing IRR for 18-20 years" Anyone who is trying to get to 20 in the IRR had to first achieve a respectable rank/grade in the Active Duty/SELRES communities first (at least E-6/O-4 non-prior). This is a significant investment by the person achieving this level. There is no way around that fact. And the last time I checked E-6/O-4's and up are pretty valuable commodities.

If you disagree with the fact that people in the IRR are earning 20 years, I am sorry, but it is allowed by Policy.

 

[bubblehead]

Folks, if you do not like people sitting in the IRR/VTU or in the IRR/ASP earning points towards retirement and not doing the stuff you are doing in the SELRES (i.e., mobilizing), please get over it. Or, better yet, call CNRFC to lobby the abolishment of the IRR.

Sh*tting on someone for availing themselves of an established policy or procedure is douchebaggery.

It's like getting upset because you volunteered to mobilize thinking it would help you get selected for O4, only to find out you were not selected for O4, while your buddy, who never mobilized, was selected for O4.

 

[Flash]

So the IRR is worth it, but not IRR retirement? Not sure what you're saying. How much are retirements from the IRR costing us?...If it makes no fiscal sense whatsover, it must be costing something. I mean, if it cost ZERO dollars it's tough to argue that it makes no fiscal sense, right? If it costs a MILLION dollars per year, that's too much. I agree there's a limit there somewhere, but I think you have to have an idea of the quantitative amount before you assess if it's "worth it."

You're not going to get an answer for the amount of money since there are a millions ways skin that cat, but does it really matter? It makes no fiscal sense. Period.

But, if you want a starting point you can start right here on AW. Depending on the retirees rank and years of service that retirement could easily be worth more than $1 million to the retiree and his or her beneficiaries, and that doesn't even include medical. Multiply that by merely the number of folks who have traded tips about correspondence courses on this forum and you are looking at $ millions.

I'll re-read the report, but if memory serves it talks about the Navy promoting people without regard to available billets, and then makes reference to how the Navy then lets them drill for points only--is that the "this policy" you're referring to? I don't recall it saying anything like "IRR retirements are costing the USG X dollars...", but I didn't re-read the report before posting here. If I'm wrong, that's great, as it's the info I've been asking for!...I also don't think that your argument of "the other services aren't letting you do courses for points" is very strong. If the Army says so, it must be true?...

It doesn't give a figure, and you aren't going to get one, but it specifically calls out the Navy for allowing folks in the IRR to earn retirement by taking courses. It mentions the practice of promoting too many folks for the billets but notes that it ended a few years ago. It then tells the Navy to unscrew itself. The footnote was a very direct shot across the bow of the Navy, and if the Navy didn't get it the first time they put it in the report twice.

The Commission reviewed policies associated with RC members in a nonpay status who drill for points for retirement purposes, particularly those of the Navy (BUPERSINST 1001.39F) because it represents many of these RC members. According to Navy Reserve manpower subject matter experts, most of these Navy RC members reached high-year tenure without accumulating 20 years of qualifying service for retirement purposes. Nonpay drilling allows these members to reach retirement eligibility requirements. Some members voluntarily request to be in a nonpay drilling status to accommodate their individual needs. Others are unable to find a vacant billet for which they would receive both pay and drill points, typically because they were promoted out of a paid billet during a time when promotions were not connected to vacancies at the next pay grade. Navy RC promotion policies have changed to generally prevent promotions independent of paid billets at the next pay grade. The Commission urges the Services to communicate policy concerning nonpay drilling to RC members earlier in their careers and to align RC manpower and personnel levels to further reduce nonpay drilling.

To suggest that the other services lied to the commission and have somehow hid a similar policy from the DoD, Congress and their own members is utterly ludicrous. Seriously?!

"...and the Navy thinks so too." Is that a jab at me? I'm SELRES, so I'm good. Before this policy revision did you think the Navy thought the IRR and SELRES were "equal" (whatever that means) because the Navy thought so? If you think that all Navy decisions are correct, all the time, then I guess we'll agree to disagree. Are FTS reservists better than SELRES reservists?

The Navy offered the same retirement benefits to IRR members who did nothing but some correspondence courses as they did SELRES, so yes the Navy did see them as 'equal' when it came to retirement benefits. The FTS aren't 'better', no matter what @Gatordev might think, but they certainly appropriately compensated for what they do which is serve on active duty in support of the reserves. And no, there is nothing personal about my arguments.

If you drill, do AT, and MOB you're rewarded with pay, better fitreps, promotion, and GI Bill xfr benefits--I'm not arguing that doing SELRES is the same as IRR. But in the IRR, in 15 or so years you'll get 50 cents per point and none of the rest--you're compensated proportionately.

And therein lies my fundamental disagreement with your argument against this new policy, I believe that IRR members who get good years to earn a military reserve retirement by merely doing correspondence courses are compensated far beyond what is proportionate to what they do and what they contribute to the Navy by doing so.