So much for looking out for the troops

[pilotyip]

WSJ 12-28-11 Sounds like the airlines


During the holiday season, Americans especially remember our servicemen and women deployed to faraway lands, serving in harm's way. We send packages abroad, light candles in their honor, and donate toys for military tots. However, what really matters is how we treat them when they come home. Sadly, we don't always treat them well.
A case in point: This holiday season, the Air Force has "separated" (that is, fired) 157 officers on the eve of their retirement, including pilots flying dangerous missions, to avoid paying their pensions. According to Department of Defense Instructions, those within six years of their 20-year retirement (with no disciplinary blemishes on their record) have the option to remain in service. Nevertheless, the Air Force is committing terminations of airmen a few years away from retirement en masse, citing budget constraints.
While budget constraints affect the entire Department of Defense, the other services have found other ways to pinch pennies. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley stands alone on this one. We represent many of these airmen, all of them with stellar records.

Maj. Kale Mosley is one example. He is an Air Force Academy graduate and a pilot who has flown more than 250 combat missions. He deployed to Libya this summer with 30 hours notice. When he returned, the military immediately sent him to Iraq. Just as he was boarding the plane for Iraq, the Air Force gave him his walking papers, effective Nov. 30. Maj. Mosley will not receive a pension or long-term health-care benefits for his family. He is the father of a toddler and a newborn.
In a speech before Congress urging it to pass his American Jobs Act, President Obama spoke of tax credits for companies to hire America's veterans, saying, "We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home."
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently testified before Congress about potential changes to the Military Retirement System. He said: "We've made a promise to people who are on duty that we're going to provide a certain level of retirement. . . . These people have been deployed time and time again. They've put their lives on the line on the battlefield. And we're not going to pull the rug out from under them. We're going to stand by the promise that was made for them."
But the Air Force is pulling the rug out from under these airmen.
In fairness, the blame for this unjust situation partially rests with Congress. In the 1990s, when the military was drawing down, Congress authorized an early retirement program that allowed service members to retire with a prorated pension and benefits. But it allowed the law to expire in 2001.
Congress has proposed reinstating a similar early-retirement program within the National Defense Authorization Act, and the authorization bill is on Mr. Obama's desk. But even if the president signs the bill, it will do nothing to resolve the problem of the 157 officers who were terminated on Nov. 30.
The Air Force should reinstate the 157 airmen so that they can finish their military careers. Or Congress should simply enact a law to cover these 157 airmen.
America's heroes have our backs. Who has theirs?
Mr. Flynn-Brown is a clinical fellow in the Chapman University AMVETS Legal Clinic. Ms. Rotunda is a professor at Chapman and executive director of the university's Military Law Institute, which represents, pro bono, several of the 157 terminated airmen.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Not the Republican Congress, that's for sure.

 

[CrewDawg]

The military does not care about you or your family! You're a number...nothing more. The military will drop you quicker than you could ever imagine.

 

[Fubijaakr]

And that's the ultimate problem. They'll cut people programs to preserve hardware programs. And the Congress goes along with it because they're bought and paid for by the military/industrial complex.

Eisenhower warned us this would happen in 1960. And it has.

 

[pilotyip]

And that's the ultimate problem. They'll cut people programs to preserve hardware programs. And the Congress goes along with it because they're bought and paid for by the military/industrial complex.

Eisenhower warned us this would happen in 1960. And it has.

In 1930 Major D. Eisenhower was drafted to prepare a Mobilization Plan. This was done in response to the Arms Race started by Stalin in 1928. He used the term Mil-Indust complex in that plan to describe the relationship that would be in place to mobilize the US. By the 1950’s there would be no time to mobilize if a global conflict started as there was in the spring of 1940, when the US got an 18-month jump on WWII. Still came very close to losing it. The next war would be a “Come as you are”. If you went into a conflict under his command, it would be total war because of a threat to the vitality of the US. Every bit of US might would be brought to bear, including the use of Nuclear weapons, no target would be spared, and utter compete victory or defeat would be the result. When you use your military you never show restraint or weakness. If you were not ready to take those risks you did not fight. His 1960 speech using again The Military -industrial words are often taken out of context. He said ”Beware of the Mil-Ind. Complex” because they are selling us too much stuff we do not need and placing a burden upon the budget, which he had routinely balanced during his time in office. He was not concerned about the US being a Nazi Germany state.

BTW after every war fought, the military comes under pressure to reduce its budget. Talk to Vietnam era guys such as myself who wanted to make a career of the military. Only to be told, we are cutting back, we are over staffed on pilots, if you want to stay in you have to change jobs. Aircraft operations take the biggest hits, because they are the most expensive.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Something is not right here. There gotta be more to the story. I'm not sure if he is a reservist, if there are disciplinary problems, health problems or something else. I am assuming there are performance issues otherwise he would be LtCol. The U.S. Code calls for retention of officers that fail to promote if they are within 2 years of retirement. Now, I ain't no lawyer, and the U.S. Code giveth and taketh away, but here is the section that giveth:

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 36 - PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
SUBCHAPTER III - FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT
FOR YEARS OF SERVICE

-HEAD-
Sec. 632. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: captains
and majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
lieutenants and lieutenant commanders of the Navy

-STATUTE-
(a) Except an officer of the Navy and Marine Corps who is an
officer designated for limited duty (to whom section 5596(e) or
6383 of this title applies) and except as provided under section
637(a) of this title, each officer of the Army, Air Force, or
Marine Corps on the active-duty list who holds the grade of captain
or major, and each officer of the Navy on the active-duty list who
holds the grade of lieutenant or lieutenant commander, who has
failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the
second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended
for promotion to the next higher grade shall -
(1) except as provided in paragraph (3) and in subsection (c),
be discharged on the date requested by him and approved by the
Secretary concerned, which date shall be not later than the first
day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in
which the President approves the report of the board which
considered him for the second time;
(2) if he is eligible for retirement under any provision of
law, be retired under that law on the date requested by him and
approved by the Secretary concerned, which date shall be not
later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning
after the month in which the President approves the report of the
board which considered him for the second time; or
(3) if on the date on which he is to be discharged under
paragraph (1) he is within two years of qualifying for retirement
under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title, be retained on
active duty until he is qualified for retirement and then retired
under that section, unless he is sooner retired or discharged
under another provision of law.

Section 3911 is what establishes 20 years as being retirement eligible. Section 6323 talks about terminal leave, funeral arangements, etc; section 8911 gives SecUSAF the option of waiving the 20 year requirement for retirement to officers with less than 20 years of service (but only between 1990 and 2001).

Again, this qualifies him to get his twenty. Someone else will have to dig up the section that goes into detail about this "unless he is sooner retired or discharged under another provision of law"

 

[mule]

Something is not right here. There gotta be more to the story. I'm not sure if he is a reservist, if there are disciplinary problems, health problems or something else. I am assuming there are performance issues otherwise he would be LtCol. The U.S. Code calls for retention of officers that fail to promote if they are within 2 years of retirement. Now, I ain't no lawyer, and the U.S. Code giveth and taketh away, but here is the section that giveth:

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 36 - PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
SUBCHAPTER III - FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT
FOR YEARS OF SERVICE

-HEAD-
Sec. 632. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: captains
and majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
lieutenants and lieutenant commanders of the Navy

-STATUTE-
(a) Except an officer of the Navy and Marine Corps who is an
officer designated for limited duty (to whom section 5596(e) or
6383 of this title applies) and except as provided under section
637(a) of this title, each officer of the Army, Air Force, or
Marine Corps on the active-duty list who holds the grade of captain
or major, and each officer of the Navy on the active-duty list who
holds the grade of lieutenant or lieutenant commander, who has
failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the
second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended
for promotion to the next higher grade shall -
(1) except as provided in paragraph (3) and in subsection (c),
be discharged on the date requested by him and approved by the
Secretary concerned, which date shall be not later than the first
day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in
which the President approves the report of the board which
considered him for the second time;
(2) if he is eligible for retirement under any provision of
law, be retired under that law on the date requested by him and
approved by the Secretary concerned, which date shall be not
later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning
after the month in which the President approves the report of the
board which considered him for the second time; or
(3) if on the date on which he is to be discharged under
paragraph (1) he is within two years of qualifying for retirement
under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title, be retained on
active duty until he is qualified for retirement and then retired
under that section, unless he is sooner retired or discharged
under another provision of law.

Section 3911 is what establishes 20 years as being retirement eligible. Section 6323 talks about terminal leave, funeral arangements, etc; section 8911 gives SecUSAF the option of waiving the 20 year requirement for retirement to officers with less than 20 years of service (but only between 1990 and 2001).

Again, this qualifies him to get his twenty. Someone else will have to dig up the section that goes into detail about this "unless he is sooner retired or discharged under another provision of law"

You're right...something isn't right. What isn't right is all of the articles claiming he has 19.5 years of service. He only has 15.5 years on active duty. They are counting his 4 years of USAFA time. He's a 1996 grad.

He's not six months from retirement (but that does make a good story), he's 5.5 years away...or 4.5 if he went to the P-school...

 

[cynic]

What???? A bullcrap story on the internets?

Our soldiers are overpaid and get generous pensions not available to the private sector. As a result they lack any real incentive to fight and that explains why we have lost wars in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan.

What these guys need is a reality check, not more pay and free benefits.

 

[mule]

You're right...something isn't right. What isn't right is all of the articles claiming he has 19.5 years of service. He only has 15.5 years on active duty. They are counting his 4 years of USAFA time. He's a 1996 grad.

He's not six months from retirement (but that does make a good story), he's 5.5 years away...or 4.5 if he went to the P-school...

Bad math...4.5 years left.

 

[pilotyip]

we have lost wars in Vietnam,

Not true, the soldiers won the war in Vietnam, the North agreed to a truce much like Korea, Nixon said I blow you to kingdom come if you come south again. Then congress gave the North a victory.

James Webb says that we won the war, but in 1974 the anti-war dems voted to cut off all support to SV, they basically sent a message to "SV it is yours take it". SV did not fall to a bunch of rebels in Black PJ’s, but to a modern military with mechanized infantry, tanks, etc. The build a four-lane highway down the Ho-Chin-Min trail, and put in petroleum pipeline to supply their operation in SV. The very military we were designed to destroy in spades.

Does anyone care about the horrendous human rights violation carried out by the North in the South, where over 2,000,000 elected to escape by sea at a risk to their lives than stay in the South? The US turned its back on the freedom loving people of Vietnam subjected them to some of the grossest violations of human rights. But anti-war left could care less about anyone except themselves.

A 1980 Harris survey commissioned by the Veteran's Administration, the most comprehensive ever done regarding those who served in Vietnam, revealed that

* 92% of those who served in combat were "glad they'd served their
country,"
* 74% "enjoyed their time in the military," and
* 80% disagreed with the statement that "the U.S. took unfair
advantage of me."
* Nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again even if they knew
how the war would end.

And from James Webb

Would I Do It Again? Others are welcome to disagree, but on this I have no doubt. Like almost every Marine I have ever met, my strongest regret is that perhaps I could have done more. But no other experience in my life has been more important than the challenge of leading Marines during those extraordinarily difficult times. Nor am I alone in this feeling. The most accurate poll of the attitudes of those who served in Vietnam – Harris, 1980 – showed that 91 percent were glad they’d served their country and 74 percent enjoyed their time in the service. Additionally, 89 percent agreed that “our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win.”

On that final question, history will surely be kinder to those who fought than to those who directed – or opposed – the war.

Our soldiers are overpaid and get generous pensions not available to the private sector. As a result they lack any real incentive to fight
What these guys need is a reality check, not more pay and free benefits.

BTW You would fit into the 60's campus anti-war scene with no problems. made me feel like I was back in the 70's where you hid the fact you were a Vietnam Vet