No changes to military retirement anytime soon, officials say

News > No changes to military retirement anytime soon, officials say

Photos


(U.S. Air Force graphic/Corey Parrish)
Download HiRes

No changes to military retirement anytime soon, officials say

Posted 8/16/2011

Email story Print story

by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

8/16/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The military retirement system isn't going to change any time soon, a Defense Department official said recently.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said any changes to military retirement should be studied carefully and should be "grandfathered" so the military doesn't break faith with those in the service.

Pentagon officials are reviewing all areas of the defense budget, and the goal of the review is to "inform the decisions and strategies that we have to make," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Aug. 4.

"So that's going to be key to what decisions we make and what areas we look to for savings," the secretary added.

In support of the department's efficiency initiatives, a small group of Defense Business Board members was tasked to develop alternative plans to the current military retirement system. The group briefed its findings and draft recommendations to the full board during their July 21 quarterly meeting. The full board approved the recommendations, and the group will issue a final report by the end of this month.

The Defense Business Board provides DOD's senior leaders independent advice and recommendations "on effective strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters of interest to the Department of Defense," according to Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, officials are reviewing the board's recommendations.

"Any recommendation to change the military retirement system must be approached with thoughtful analysis, to include considerations of impacts to recruiting and retention," Eileen Lainez said. "While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved, and no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force."

Comments

11/7/2011 1:52:27 PM ET
I guess I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have been RIFd due to not completing ACSC since I was deployed for nine months to a one deep shop in NATO in Afghanistan. I have been Active Duty since 1997, first in the Army and then commissioned into the Air Force. I now get no pension whatsoever and have to start over. I did try the TSP but I will be lucky to get out as much as I put in. I had planned on putting in 20 plus years. Guess not. No points for dedication, a total of seven years away from family or even the true desire to serve. Vets with less than 20 who wanted to stay should at least be entitled to some kind of reduced pension or benefits since we can never reclaim the lost years with family and our children. We kept the faith, the military sadly has not.

Not enough time, Charlottesville VA

8/22/2011 4:32:20 PM ET
My brother is three years from retirement and terrified the government might pull the rug from underneath him. I am currently in the process of joining the Marines as an officer. I have reviewed the changes the DoD task panel recommended and found that much of the language used is extremely slanted creating false arguments relying on illogical figures. They complain that military retirement is more generous that civilian retirement but the demands of troops working 80 hours or more a week in war zones are quite harder than a corporate suit working 40 hour weeks and going home to his family every evening.I think the new retirement system will reward military members who do not stay as long as possible. Qualified candidates will leave after one or two tours for more lucrative jobs. Career military will be those that have no other options. If this passes we will see a decline in the quality of high ranking men and women. Also I would like to add that most men and women in th

James, Austin TX

8/22/2011 5:59:19 AM ET
It makes me sad to read the comments saying that we the military members should be the first ones to give up what we have earned. I come from poverty and I have earned every thing I own. I can not believe that we have members that have do more with less so engrained into them that they are ready to accept this while there are still people defrauding the welfare system and buying drugs with food stamp money. You got your change, you asked for all twenty seven cents of it.

More with Less, Offutt

8/20/2011 11:19:38 AM ET
I've read through the comments and listened to the news. It may be necessary to make the retirement more affordable but is it really too generous for the sacrifices that most troops make in their carreer? Recently, they announced the new immigration policy and I can't help but think how much more money that will cost, and acknowledge where the military's retirement dollars are going to go to.

MSgt AF, US

8/19/2011 1:02:02 PM ET
Spec Ops is constanly bemoaning being undermanned. Wonder what it would be like when members can take their 401k and bail at the 8-10 year mark and double their pay as a contractor. If the retirement package is so wonderful why do only 1 in 7 stay for it? It is bad enough when something like this comes out the legislative or executive branch. it is truely disgraceful when it comes out of the DoD.

GT, WPAFB

8/19/2011 10:01:44 AM ET
Turning the retirement program into something the government can afford would make sense, but unfortunately it won't happen until there is enough incentive to get past all the complaining from the ranks.

Analyst, Barksdale

8/19/2011 9:48:49 AM ET
This is a black and white issue: the government needs money and they don't want to be the ones making the financial sacrifice. Sadly the entire human kind is greedy. We always try to find ways to cheat our way out of problems, etc. If we only worked together for the good and benefit of everyone. But this will always be a one way street run by the government. Yet we still think that our voice and opinion matters. What real choice do we have but shut up and color?

Chris, JBSA

8/18/2011 10:06:29 PM ET
I agree that there should be something for those who serve less than 20. TSP is that program. Currently it does not match for uniformed service members, unlike civilians. I have not contributed due to this reason. Remember, those this change most affects are those who, like me, have served not in just Afghanistan x4 and Iraq x2 but in Desert Storm, Panama, Kosovo, Somalia. This change also hurts the military families who have also sacrificed much as well.

256 days til retirement, USA for now

8/18/2011 5:22:28 PM ET
If I understand the suggestion that is proposed, at some point the powers that be would implement a 401K system for military retirement. A person would be a fool to remain in the service with the uncertainties of that sort of nonsense. Just look at what has happened to those in the private sector who have 401K plans from their employers. They are losing their socks in this economy!

CMSgt Ret, Col Springs

8/18/2011 1:41:22 PM ET
The proposal will seriously affect everyone, but I can't think about it anymore as it only makes me bitter. I am hopeful that those involved will put aside the extreme partisan politics and do what is right for everybody involved.

Tony, Afghanistan

8/18/2011 1:10:00 PM ET
Why would someone plan their life around a government promise

ADAF, NCR

8/18/2011 12:58:02 PM ET
Sure, just like free medical care for life probably wouldn't change.

Tim, Texas

8/18/2011 11:26:37 AM ET
I still don't agree with making any changes later either. I think they are just trying to pacify the current service members so that they can slide this past us and screw with the coming military generation.

YN2, CT

8/18/2011 11:14:22 AM ET
I think this plan could be a well-needed change. Having 12 years in myself and 7 deployments I still don't believe the country owes me such a generous retirement at age 41 as what is currently in place. Get rid of that incentive to stay in for twenty and you might have more officers willing to speak truth to power and less military adventurism. Yes there are MANY more areas in which we need to cut spending as well but this shouldn't be such a sacred cow. Yeah, you'll loose some people but those motivated by the money probably aren't the ones we want anyway.

ADAF, Andrews

8/18/2011 9:51:02 AM ET
Defraud Our Troops

Tony, Afghanistan

8/18/2011 1:35:37 AM ET
20 years is plenty of time to save for retirement and/or have some kind of saving. Please don't live pay check to pay check and don't rely on the government. Before bashing the government, re-assess your finances too. Last time I checked, Americans aren't the best in personal finance.

Deployed, Desert

8/17/2011 8:14:38 PM ET
I do like the idea of people who have actually gone into combat and are in hazardous career fields would recieve more compensation for their reitrement. A better plan would be to allow for ALL pays to be factored into retirement. Including special incentive and SDIP pays. The people in these jobs recieve these pays for the toll on their bodies which have effects long past retirement.

NCO, everywhere

8/17/2011 7:47:51 PM ET
Sir/Ma'am: I am deeply discouraged, angered and disappointed by the recommendations by the Defense Business Board to cut military retirement entitlements and by other entities who also seem to target the military for federal budget cuts in personnel, manning, benefits, entitlements, pay, etc. Why is the military being targeted? I believe the military has had way too many monetary cuts in terms of care to Airmen and retirees and that this is just not right I am tired of being an Airmen who is forced to do more with less in terms on manning and I know that a large percentage of military members I have spoken to feel exactly the same. The police forces, fire departments and other dangerous career fields like the military have 20 year retirements. Why look at cutting the military retirement of 20 years active duty? It takes a certain caliber of individual to take up the calling in the military, police forces, fire departments in my opinion. I also believe that it is taking an in

Concerned Airmen, Arizona

8/17/2011 7:01:24 PM ET
Once again the bout to politicians are about to screw the military member over. Here's a thought...go to a flat tax...make the non-productive welfare leeches get some skin in the game. We the military have EARNED our retirement benefits by doing as our political leadership has asked. Now when we have done the dirty work we get the slap in the face. Pass this and I will be in my uniform with ribbons in front of the recruiting office and as a guest speaker at the local high school doing my best to dissuade our younger generation from supporting such a corrupt political system.

Retired CMSgt, Creech AFB

8/17/2011 4:26:51 PM ET
In 19 yrs of service I've been assigned with individuals possessing a broad range of work ethic, ability, and willingness to sacrifice. I'd like to see a retirement based on both a minimum time in service, such as the 50 percent at 20 yrs, and a points-based approach. Individuals would earn several points for high-risk jobs -- deploying etc. -- allowing them to reach retirement eligibility faster than someone who does not deploy or PCSs infrequently. Retirement eligibility would be met when both minimum required years of service and minimum points had been acquired. Not everyone is 'tip of the spear' or needs to be, but those who are should be duly rewarded.

Lt Col , CONUS

8/17/2011 3:59:40 PM ET
Military leaders, your two choices are: 1. Realize that you are past 20 and your retirement is secure. You don't care about people really so you'll keep your mouth shut and your bank accounts full. 2. Realize that we airmen are the service and exercise some service before self and speak up in support of your airmen. Freedom of speech is a right you have despite military leadership's history of hiding behind a false military restriction of speech. The choice is yours and your choice will have as much impact on us as will Congress' decision to keep or change the retirement system.

Maj, SWA

8/17/2011 3:07:45 PM ET
Hmmm, one wonders what the definition of "any time soon" is? The cat is, as they say, out of the bag. The very fact that this 'idea' even made it to the table has already broken the faith. A poorly thought-through tactic badly presented. Was the plethora of misinformation on purpose, to muddy the waters, or was this let loose as a threat to force action from agencies who had until this considered themselves above the cuts? Or was this designed to make us all put suggestions into the box -- why not stop the military pay increases for a few years? why not cut out the BX and commissary? why not charge more for Tricare? -- so we would be GRATEFUL to have these cuts instead of lose our future security? Would a president who had served his country even have sanctioned the time to THINK about this let alone plan to put it into action? I think not. Perhaps there needs to be an amendment to the constitution that states not only does he/she have to be a citizen...

Angry Spouse, Sleepless in Hell

8/17/2011 3:01:07 PM ET
Hmmm, one wonders what the definition of "any time soon" is. The cat is, as they say, out of the bag. The very fact that this 'idea' even made it to the table has already broken the faith. A poorly thought through tactic badly presented. Was the plethora of misinformation on purpose, to muddy the waters? Or was this let loose as a threat to force action from agencies who had until this considered themselves above the cuts? Or was this designed to make us all put suggestions into the box -- Why not stop the military pay increases for a few years? Why not cut out the BX and commissary? Why not charge more for Tricare? -- so we would be GRATEFUL to have these cuts instead of loose our future security? Would a president who had served his country even have sanctioned the time to THINK about this, let alone plan to put it into action? I think not. Perhaps there needs to be an amendment to the constitution that states not only does he/she have to be a citizen...

Angry Spouse, Sleepless in Hell

8/17/2011 2:50:26 PM ET
The policy makers will do whatever they please. If any of you think for a second the owners of this country wouldn't slit your throat for the loose change in your pocket because they have your best interest in mind, I would urge you to explore outside the realm of corporate controlled media -- CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX -- who will parrot the talking points handed down from the Pentagon and give you just enough dis/misinformation to keep you arguing about trivial issues amongst your friends and coworkers so their overlapping board of directors can continue to loot the country and keep you ignorant. Have fun.

Common Sense, Whocares

8/17/2011 2:10:18 PM ET
Here's a thought: maybe people planned their life around serving/sacrificing for the country for 20 years and then moving on with their life...knowing that they had a promise to get compensation and healthcare benefits for the rest of their life... what a concept.

Thankfully Retired, USAFA

8/17/2011 12:47:58 PM ET
Thank God I retired last year. I have a lot of friends who are in the 14-15 year area and already counting down to 20. Most of them would jump at the end of their current enlistment if they did that and this is in a chronic critically manned-career field where the Zone C SRB multiple is 3. Way to go leadership.

MSgt Ret, Offutt AFB

8/17/2011 11:57:54 AM ET
A 401K only, really? The U.S. Stock Market has become a complete casino ponzi scheme over the last couple of decades. The big money makes their profits off of things like High Frequency Trading accomplished by computers which skims profits off regular buy and hold investors like us. And the future value of Treasuries after inflation, Oh boy!

I don't , think so

8/17/2011 11:33:00 AM ET
Wow. Vexed Warrior must be fired up He broke out the big words and everything!

Janet Talia, Latrine

8/17/2011 11:27:01 AM ET
What these policy makers seem not to understand is that military personnel can't just stay in the service as long as they like. It's not like they're going to let a staff sergeant or major serve 35 to 40 years just to get close to when their annuity kicks in. Some people retire at 20 because that's as long as they're allowed to stay in.

Lt Col USAF Retired, Offutt AFB NE

8/17/2011 10:53:50 AM ET
This statement is just another ambiguous message from our lack of leadership within the DOD. What does "anytime soon" mean? Does that mean I should be concerned if I retire in 6 years or in 4 or 12? What does this mean? The grandfather statement was discounted by this study. I'm glad this study was released so we know what they are talking about at the higher level concerning our livelyhood. God knows, they wouldn't tell us on their own until right at the last minute. It isn't just about deploying to combat zones and moving every few years but also about the strain this puts on our families and our relationships. The sacrafices we make go way beyond what any civilian does, beyond us volunteering to be shot at when we deploy.

TSgt, Langley

8/17/2011 10:50:53 AM ET
When I enlisted back in the early 50's, I was told we could stay in for 30 years or the age of 55, which ever came first, but then Sen Aspen also came along with the voluteer force. I guess no one makes up their minds.

Pjrwelsh, NY

8/17/2011 10:46:38 AM ET
This is just another blow to the military, epecially enlisted. It doesn't make sense that an E-5 or E-6 makes so much less than 0-1 through 0-3 yet we end up supervising and still accomplishing the mission. Based on the pay difference between officers and enlisted, what's this going to do for their retirement when the enlisted might not be able to put anything into the 401k? Just think about E-1's who get married and enlist because they have a child on the way.

NCO Common Sense, U.S

8/17/2011 10:16:39 AM ET
For those people who believe that a change in retirement benefits will cause a serious retention issue I would counter that there are plenty of other benefits that will motivate individuals to stay and new individuals to join. Also the change wouldn't remove retirement benefits completely. It only modernizes and makes those benefits more sustainable for the future. Pensions are not a sustainable retirement benefit solution at any level of government and place an excessive debt load on our national budget that we can no longer afford. Refusing to modernize retirement now may force decision-makers to consider a more broad-spectrum cut to benefits in the near future including retirement which would be less palatable than what is before us now. The DBB plan is not an unreasonable proposal.

TSgt, ANG

8/17/2011 9:43:16 AM ET
Ok first all, research your facts! Yes, congress gets a good retirement but they have to spend at least 5 years in and don't get it until 65 unless they do over 10 years or something like that. If they spend long enough in, they get it at 55, I think. Now the avg person who retires from congress gets around $35K a year. Yes, that's too much for the little they work. But say they retire and leave. In 10 years they get $350,000. A MSgt who retires at the age of 40 who lives till 75 will collect at least $924K in retirement. Now I am not saying we don't deserve it, because we do. I just keep hearing people bring congress into the mix, saying they should downgrade their retirement. But really, we get more. Also we will get grandfathered in but at the same time we still need to put up a fight and try to keep it the way it is. That way we protect the next generation of military.

Rob Deployed, SWA

8/17/2011 8:30:24 AM ET
When the social security system was created, people would start collecting right around the age of mortality. Similarly, the military retirement system was created in this form when people didn't live nearly as long as we live now. I believe that when people retire from the military they should receive the exact same compensation they do now, starting at 50 percent retirement and medical care for life but I can see a certain logic to this discussion. Here is my suggestion: Anyone with 10 or more years is grandfathered into the current retirement plan. Those with less than 10 years or just entering will receive 40 percent at 20 years and 2.5 percent with each additional year. That means the new group could go to 50 percent retirement at 24 years. With longer lifespan, we would be living as many years on retirement as those who came before us. I don't think this is too much to ask during such a critical time for our country. I would much rather see this than a 401K or TSP...

Paul, Afghanistan

8/17/2011 3:58:08 AM ET
Regarding TJs comment, members of Congress do NOT get a 100 percent pension after only one term in office. This is a fallacy that has been spreading for years.

Greg Arious, SWA

8/17/2011 2:59:36 AM ET
Is someone also forgetting the unlimited liabilty clause. There are no civilian jobs that make you sign to willingly put your life on the line. That alone warrants the current retirement system we have. Oh and of course, let's not forget the glorious places we deploy to and the living conditions there. I bet the board people would cry at thought of being gone for 6 months; holidays too.

TSgt, GUAM

8/17/2011 12:59:25 AM ET
If you must take our retirement and change it to BALANCE the budget, don't you dare take it from those in harm's way. I am talking about the guys and gals outside the wire. America as a whole needs to think this whole process through. This will serverely affect retention and recruiting at a time of war. My challenge is this: Washington, how about you folks take pay cuts and retirement cuts. 1C5

my name here, My Unit

8/16/2011 10:44:08 PM ET
So many comments, so little space... At what point did the world's greatest Air Force change to a business mindset? Our mission is to kill people and break things, so how does sacrificing experience and retention to save a dollar equate with this mission? If they want to gut an organization, they need to look at their own house first.

J 21 years and counting, Manas

8/16/2011 10:10:36 PM ET
This article still does not ease the tension that this proposal has on the current force and especially to those who have served proudly for the last 10 to 20 years. It says a small panel represents the masses. However, are these panels part of the larger force that is currently serving? Does it represent the meat and bones of the force? This quote seems to sum up pretty much what we all feel. It seems to me it does not. Our nation demands much from its military and the retirement benefits in place are not gifts. They have been earned through blood, sweat, toil; repeated deployments; missed births, birthdays, anniversaries; and sometimes loss of limbs or life. Shifting the burden of our nation's fiscal mess on to the backs of our military -- less than one percent of our population who volunteer for decades of service in harms way defending our way of life -- is morally bankrupt. General Sullivan, I for one know the sacrifices that come with being in the military. Grandfather is re

Military BratMilitary Spouse, Overseas AFB

8/16/2011 8:35:24 PM ET
If they cut the retirement do they really think that anyone is going to stay in? Why would they when they can get a corporate job with the same retirement? Why leave your family go get shot at, work extra hours without extra pay, and live to a demanded higher standard that the rest of the population to receive the same benefits you could as a civilian? How can a dumb MSgt. like me see that but high-paid officials can't? Just a thought: if we cut out all the extra flying hours that we do each month, that would cut billions in fuel and MX cost. We fly double what the Air Force requires. Seems to me they should be looking to cut there, not retirement. But what do I know? I'm just an enlisted member. I guess they cut, they will get their force reduction then pay out the behind in enlistment bonuses trying to get recruits, like the last time they messed with the retirement!

MSgt, Japan

8/16/2011 7:21:51 PM ET
Ultimate modern day indentured servant. End game is to extract most from volunteers obligated by military contract but gives little more in return other than a meager wage while serving then just kicks them to curb. Underhanded targeted stealth taxation by razing implicit so called military benefits is a very disconcerting and sinister political tactic. Crass onslaught on all things military continues to swagger forward with utter contempt. Acrimonious agenda to surreptitiously whittle down any lasting tangible entitlements is evident for all to see.

Vexed Warrior, BOHICA Club

8/16/2011 5:32:17 PM ET
Don't believe this for a minute. Read what is being posted on FOX and in the reports from the Defense Business Board. If you let this happen to you it will get involved with advocates such as AFSA, MOAA, NCOA, and others. Let your leaders know how you feel and that you don't appreciate being thrown under the bus to fix what they broke in the first place.

Sceptical SNCO, Edwards

8/16/2011 5:25:40 PM ET
If only they would stop looking at military retirement and begin looking at the retirement for Congress. Compare what we receive after 20 years of sacrificing our lives and families to what congress receives. I think the military deserves so much more than the guys on the hill getting kick backs from the pork anyway.

SSgt, CONUS

8/16/2011 5:01:47 PM ET
Thats it. Lets continue to stick it to the guys who carry the guns and get shot at. Those of you who think the military won't end up on the chopping block if they can't find enough cuts elsewhere, don't hold your breath. Better to grant a no-name professor a million dollars to study the effects of construction on an ant than to take care of the people who raise their hand to be killed in the performance of their duties.

USAF MSGT, Alabama

8/16/2011 3:29:08 PM ET
Can you imagine the influx of people over 20 that will drop paperwork before the deadline to keep their retirement, not to mention that retention is gone? There won't be anyone who will want to stay in. The military will have to give huge incentives to stay or even join. Why add a 401K plan when the TSP is basically a failed version of that? Ha ha. There goes the only certain thing left in this world. No, this job is no better than any other civlian job.

Sgt Snuffy, Abound

8/16/2011 3:18:13 PM ET
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military's retirement benefits system is the kind of thing you have to consider. During a televised conversation at the National Defense University Panetta said a decision has not been made yet about a proposal from a Pentagon task force that would abandon the traditional pension system in favor of a 401k-style contribution program. But he said if retirement benefits are changed, you have to do it in a way that doesn't break faith with the military. Panetta added that the Pentagon would have to grandfather in current benefits.

MM, FL

8/16/2011 1:41:30 PM ET
Show me a corporation that goes to some of the most barren dangerous places and gets shot at, mortared daily, to help make other people's lives better. It's not just the new Airmen you'll be losing. You're going to lose half your knowledge base by the exiting 12-14 year NCOs and officers.

Not Gonna Stay, IF Ain't Getting Paid

8/16/2011 1:33:22 PM ET
Define "anytime soon."

Maj, Living Room

8/16/2011 1:30:39 PM ET
Prepare for a mass exodus when...if it goes through. Of course we can all expect Congress to lead from the front and revise their 100 percent pension after only one term in office as well.

TJ Batchelor, Oklahoma City OK

8/16/2011 1:28:42 PM ET
Just wait until the back room drug deal goes down at the 11th hour.....the military will sacrifice again while the Social Justice types reaps the rewards/benefits of getting something for nothing....

Nate, Ga

8/16/2011 1:17:43 PM ET
When the 12-person super committee fails to reach an agreement and the DoD is left with an additional $500 billion to cut, I'm sure the DBB proposals will be front and center.

Maj, Staff tour

8/16/2011 12:04:00 PM ET
Well that's a relief. I know lots of younger airmen that would separate immediately if they changed the retirement plan. So much for retention!

TSgt, Air Force

8/16/2011 11:29:30 AM ET
This is just a statement to backtrack on what they were planning to do behind our backs. Luckily someone leaked out the original plans and people rose a HUGE ruckus. I think some parts are good but the 16 percent you put into a government 401k plan is NOT! The TSP is bad enough but at least we have some control over it.

AD_NCO, worldwide

8/16/2011 10:52:39 AM ET
This has been an ongoing debate for a number of years with countless studies and reviews about how to change the military retirement system. What scares me is this report is presented against a backdrop of unprecedented economic uncertainty with alarming national debt. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and recommend that those currently serving can be grandfathered. But what is unclear is how any changes to the retirement plan will affect non-pension retirement benefits like lifetime medical care. To lose that benefit would be tough.

Not Close Enough , 2 Retirement

Add a comment

Inside AF.mil

GeneralImagesVideo

View All RSS

Subscribe AF.MIL

More Headlines

New training facility opens in Wyoming

Solar power lights up Southwest Asia

Separate paths bring brothers together for Christmas  1

All I want for Christmas ... Daddy!

Osan community brightens holidays for Korean orphans  |  VIDEO

Deployed Airman receives Christmas phone call from President Obama

Air Force Week in Photos

Premier AF concert band 'wows' fellow musicians at Midwest Clinic  11

Pararescue, security forces Airmen train as one  10

Through Airmen's Eyes: High school reunion ... above Afghanistan

Space Fence program moves forward  1

Kunsan AB, Hurlburt Field Airmen unite to spread holiday cheer

Operation Christmas Drop  1

Air Force Week in Photos

Commentary

Legacy of valor 1

There IS an I in team 3