But what does waiting until 60 for my money have to do with sanctuary? Reading your explanation I could still argue for 55 years old, 65 years old or two years past retirement date regardless of age. I honestly always though it was actuarial or something. Just trying to save the government money. Whenever changing the age comes up in congress it always is shot down because it will cost them so much to put us Reserve slackers on the pension rolls for an extra 10 years or so. Yes, it is still clear as mud.
Everything you say is correct, but needs some explanation.
This discussion is best when it takes place over beers and a piece of paper. I wil discuss reserve retirement compensation, which you probably already know most of; the rest is for those who are curious.
Most important item to remember - it is always about money. The government will spend millions of dollars to find a way to save fifty cents.
Second item - sanctuary was really designed to protect an active duty guy from being "fired" just to keep him from getting his pension. Because it is law, a reserve guy who is serving on active duty when the stars align (18 years of full-time duty) and he meets the sanctuary criteria can then take advantage of that law to guarantee himself full-time orders for the next two years to get him to 20 and the immediate paycheck.
If you play for 20 years you will get a retirement check, but you willl either get it starting the month after you retire, or you will wait until age 60. I'll use the two extremes to pain a better picture.
Scenario 1: A full time guy gets commissioned in 1989 at age 21. He has all the good deals and puts up w/ the crap for 20 years and retires as an O-5. Forgetting about high 3 / redux / or whatever program he was on, he will essentially get 2.5% x 20 years = 50% of the base pay of an O-5 over 20 (pay chart:
http://www.navycs.com/09militarypaychart.html) or 50% of $8797 which is $4398.50. He starts getting that immeduately, or in this case, at age 41.
Scenario 2: A guy fresh out of college decides he wants to do something and gets a direct commission into the Navy Reserve as an O-1 on the same day in 1989, but because of his job, family, current demand for Reserves, etc, he finds he can only perform the absolute minimum, which is one weekend a month and 12 days a year of annual training. The math ends up being 60 points that year (48 drills, plus 12 days of training = 60).He is a smart and squared away dude, and manages to promote just like the first dude, and also achieves 20 good years and decided to retire. By law, he must wait to get that paycheck at age 60, and the paycheck will be roughly $723 per month to account for the fact that he served far less time during those 20 years than his full-time counterpart (60 points x 20 years = 1200 points divided by 365 days in a year = 3.2867 full-time (day for day) service x 2.5% = 8.22% of the O-5 over 20 Base Pay Salary ($8797) = $723.11 per month. And, because of current law, he has to wait to get that beer money until he hits age 60. There are subtle nuances, like he will probably get paid that 8.33% based on the pay scale in place when he hits age 60 and not the one in place the day he stopped wearing the uniform, but it serves as a good comparison.
There are many who have argued just to start paying pension the day a guy hits 20 calendar hears and both guys will start receiving pensions the same day, although one will get $4398.50 and the other will get $723.11, buecause that's the "fair" way to do it. People write their Congressmen. The American Legion, VFW, The Reserve Officers' Association, and the Naval Reserve Association all lobby each year for this. Each year the military strongly recommends against it, primarily because that huge extra retirement cost would come directly off the top of the Navy (or Army, or Air Force) budget each year. Personnel expenses (retirement, medical, etc) are already far and away the most expensive lines in the military budget. And the military leaders are a bit concerned that more people would bail to the reserves if they knew they would be able to bag a monthly retirement paycheck at age 41 for part-time service. So, the comprimise in these tough times is that for every 3 months or more of full-time mobilization, a reservist can receive that retirement check that many months prior to age 60 (a one year mobilization would enable the reservist to receive the paycheck beginning at age 59). Again, some subtleties like when that law began, and the fact that it is not yet retroactive to 9-11, as is being asked for.
Because so many Reservists are doing so much active duty, you are only now starting to see the sanctuary rule beginning to affect reservists such that some who bailed out of active duty late in life (12 -14 years of service) and went to the airlines but got furloughed, have the opportunity to do full-time Navy work and accumulate max points such that the law covering sanctuary protection now comes into play for them. It really was meant to protect a full-timer from getting kicked to the curb with nothing at year 18, but the law applies to a reservist if he is on active duty orders when he hits that magic date.
There's more to it, and if you are trying to figure out how this fits into your own master plan, the best thing to do is join me at Breezy Point on Friday, 20 Feb. I'll buy you a beer and we can map it all out and talk to you candidly (I think) about Reserves, life after active duty, airlines (from a spouse perspective), and the meaning of life. No hard sell.
