Sounds pretty intentional.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
If the active duty has not been following what is happening on the reserve side, recent changes also have come down to reduce compensation in the reserve retirement.
Last edited:
Yes.... ? Go on....
??? Do tell. I was under the impression that the plans being discussed, if anything, would be to a reservist's advantage. Weren't they talking about slashing the "working age" pension for AC, but then adding it to the RC retirement? We currently get bupkis until 60 unless deployed to a combat zone.
From a philosophical point of view, I would be much more comfortable with a simple BAH rate regardless of whether you're dual mil, with dependents or unmarried. If people rate a benefit or allowance, give it to them and be done with it. I can't believe that dual mil couples make up a statistically significant portion of the overall military BAH costs. I understand that the military has at least a vague interest in promoting marriage and the nuclear family concept, but paying a higher BAH rate for dependents is bogus. That is a choice the member makes, and should ultimately take financial responsibility for.
Of course, we're all fiscally conservative/anti-entitlement ideologues... until it comes to our own paychecks.
Of course, we're all fiscally conservative/anti-entitlement ideologues... until it comes to our own paychecks.
Stolen/borrowed/copied from a post over at SailorBob - the author identifies as an aviator. Not sure if you lurk/post here, but I'm re-using your post:
"So an individual is going along with their compensation package, they meet another active duty individual who's going along with their compensation package, and decide to get married. Now one of them has to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars in compensation? Please, someone, explain to me how that makes sense?"
"Yeah, yeah, the tired trope of "mil to mil make that choice." Ok...? Did you decide to meet your spouse? Did you decide the time and place that your paths would cross, and did you decide what you would end up feeling about that person? I suspect many of the people arguing that "it's a choice" are some of the same people who would quickly tell you that homosexuality ISN'T a choice."
"So an individual is going along with their compensation package, they meet another active duty individual who's going along with their compensation package, and decide to get married. Now one of them has to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars in compensation? Please, someone, explain to me how that makes sense?"
"Yeah, yeah, the tired trope of "mil to mil make that choice." Ok...? Did you decide to meet your spouse? Did you decide the time and place that your paths would cross, and did you decide what you would end up feeling about that person? I suspect many of the people arguing that "it's a choice" are some of the same people who would quickly tell you that homosexuality ISN'T a choice."
Most bubbas eventually transition from SelRes to IRR as the billet opportunity narrows and/or your free time becomes very limited. It is now extremely difficult to get additional points and/or years in the IRR which reduces your retirement.
Well, that's a decision people need to make. What is your free time worth? I've got to be honest, with the O-4 selection rates being what they currently are in the RC, and the rationale behind the change, I've got little sympathy for that argument. There's a big difference between a motivated LT who can't get shit, and a LCDR who can at least mark time to 20 YCS and get the check. That's a lot different than a the difference between that RC LCDR and an IRR O-4/O-5/O-6 who already has the brass ring, and is just racking up points in the VTU/ASP because they can. I'm not saying the latter is not the honorable choice for anyone, depending on their station in life. But we're all adults here. Give the SELRES your time and earn your pension, or pursue other opportunities because they're more financially or spiritually fulfilling. Neither option is wrong or right; it depends on the person.
I've met a senior director at Microsoft who is in the VTU. I'm sure he'd be leaving money on the table if he was a SELRES. I'm also sure some people are making the honorable choice to spend time with their family because they've had enough of Big Navy. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you choose not to participate, don't be surprised when Big Navy cuts its losses, especially when it finds out that senior firefighters are claiming drill points for Basic Fire Safety, security directors (not the guy I met; hypothetical ones) for Intro to Info Assurance, and other shenanigans. That's why the IRR Correspondence course requirements tightened up; there was a bunch of BS getting claimed that added zero value to Big Navy.
Last edited:
I had this discussion around here yesterday. My take, allowances aren't intended for people to make money off of, they are intended to offset the costs of living/eating/etc. As the system currently sits, people are reaping the benefits of dual-mil couples, roommates splitting rent, etc. In the end, if the military says that people are no longer going to rate "making" money off of an allowance, I can understand why. If someone wants to get married to another military person or split rent with a roommate, they may have to factor that in to their budget.
A good point was made by the guy I was discussing it with though, his take is that the whole point of having BAH/BAS, etc, is to simply reduce the retirement costs at the end since it's not a function of base pay. That opens up a whole different debate on the compensation we get and how it's packaged.
Similarly, the per diem rules have changed to 75% of max allowable if you stay in one locale over 30 days now, and that was to limit how much people are pocketing as per diem wasn't intended for people to make money.
I wouldn't be surprised if the military goes back to the old school way of turning in your lease to show the costs, similar to OHA, etc.
A good point was made by the guy I was discussing it with though, his take is that the whole point of having BAH/BAS, etc, is to simply reduce the retirement costs at the end since it's not a function of base pay. That opens up a whole different debate on the compensation we get and how it's packaged.
Similarly, the per diem rules have changed to 75% of max allowable if you stay in one locale over 30 days now, and that was to limit how much people are pocketing as per diem wasn't intended for people to make money.
I wouldn't be surprised if the military goes back to the old school way of turning in your lease to show the costs, similar to OHA, etc.
^ So Sailors who use spend their uniform allowance at the base thrift store instead of on brand new sea-bag-o'-the-month items should forfeit the difference saved?
Argue it however you want but allowances aren't meant to make people money, they are intended to offset a specific expense, which is why they aren't taxable. Pay is taxable because you can use it however you want.
I have no problem whatsoever if they can organize their expenses in such a way to make money from those allowances. If the Navy feels like it should only give an allowance for the actual expense incurred, I can't say I'm surprised by it.
vxc961
.
The problem is, guys who decided to go IRR for their last few years have suddenly had the rug pulled out from underneath them. I was IRR, got a ton of points (including JPME 1), and went SELRES again when family and work conditions were more favorable...but it took me almost two years. There are plenty of guys out there who were looking for a break, then the music stopped and now it looks like they'll have 17 (or whatever) years and nothing to show for it. Not a pity party, but when they left SELRES, they had a plan to get to 20 and then the rules changed.
In case anybody asks, my recruiter told me "no, you go IRR to VTU...those days are gone."
I would be the first to start a business buying discounted leases on property / housing from military members and then selling them back to the leasor, who might be me as well.
Not really the same thing. Recent changes have made it harder to go through the IRR for years and years earning points towards retirement, the retirement rules themselves have not changed.
In my personal experience 'most bubbas' do not transition to the IRR from SELRES, I have certainly known quite a few to do so but definitely not a majority of folks that I have served with in SELRES.
As for making it difficult to get points it all has to do with what is good for the Navy, why should the Navy pay retirement for folks it gets very little value out of? Having a bunch of folks earn a retirement by merely taking some online course of varying value while not utilizing those folks in any meaningful way, IRR folks are very rarely mobilized in the Navy, doesn't really buy the Navy much at all. So the Navy decided to 'fix the glitch', as they probably should have years ago.
Of note, the Navy was apparently unique in allowing IRR folks to earn good retirement years with online courses, that was specifically noted in the final report by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission and it appears the Navy took notice.
Yes and no, I am sympathetic to a degree because the rules have changed and that seems to have been handled poorly but the opportunity apparently will still exist to get at least a few good years (maximum of 3 apparently, again with the poor communication) towards retirement in the IRR by taking courses. That is a better deal than the other services from what I know and gives most a pretty reasonable amount of time to figure something out.
Are you saying that IRR to VTU isn't an option any more? Not from what I have seen.
We have several empty O-5 billets in my unit alone, just a few of the several hundred empty billets in the fleet concentration area I drill in. We are also opening sets in 'under-served' areas where there are plenty of folks but fewer billets. So while not ideal for everyone there are still billets out there if you are willing to make the commitment, you just have to decide whether it is worth it. Is a few years of traveling every few months (most units in fleet concentration areas allow for flex drill nowadays) with a pension? And if you are not willing to make the commitment, why should the Navy?
Takes the King's coin...
vxc961
.
C
IRR was sold to me as a chance to regroup, focus on family/job, and stay viable for re-entry/activation. Standby S-2 reserves was a step lower. Resigning commission at the bottom.
I get the "take the king's coin" argument, but it's frustrating for those guys who left •months• ago and are now under a different set of rules.
I personally don't fault somebody who did 12(or whatever) years, then wanted to keep getting good years doing coloring books until his/her personal situation changed or it was retirement time.
call a recruiter dude. Mine would not entertain the notion of going IRR to VTU. That's only one data point though, but it wasn't an option for me. maybe she was quota driven or something?
IRR was sold to me as a chance to regroup, focus on family/job, and stay viable for re-entry/activation. Standby S-2 reserves was a step lower. Resigning commission at the bottom.
I get the "take the king's coin" argument, but it's frustrating for those guys who left •months• ago and are now under a different set of rules.
I personally don't fault somebody who did 12(or whatever) years, then wanted to keep getting good years doing coloring books until his/her personal situation changed or it was retirement time.