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

 

[pilotyip]

Bad math...4.5 years left.

I read it as he was 2.5 years away from being at 18 years which would allow him to finish 20. He still has the reserve option to save his retirement

 

[Hobit]

Great Post YIP!

 

[cynic]

Not true, the soldiers won the war in Vietnam, the North agreed to a truce much like Korea,

http://www.hark.com/clips/bzmdygxklm-didnt-lose-vietnam-it-was-a-tie

 

[pilotyip]

http://www.hark.com/clips/bzmdygxklm-didnt-lose-vietnam-it-was-a-tie

Funny, but that is all.

 

[CatfishVT9]

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.

You're too stupid to follow a detailed response so I'll make it short. Those of us that are drawing a military pension are doing so because we survived. We've all got lots of dead friends and colleagues who didn't make it. I doubt you've lost many of your co-workers in a french-fry vat disaster.

By the way, you should read up on the concept of CIVILIAN control of the military. It's your politicians who win and lose the wars.

 

[SIG600]

You're too stupid to follow a detailed response so I'll make it short. Those of us that are drawing a military pension are doing so because we survived. We've all got lots of dead friends and colleagues who didn't make it. I doubt you've lost many of your co-workers in a french-fry vat disaster.

By the way, you should read up on the concept of CIVILIAN control of the military. It's your politicians who win and lose the wars.

Shack. I didn't even think this asshat even warrented a response.

 

[DieselDragRacer]

Interesting read Yip.

In the last few months I've had a handful of recently retired Army and recently retired National Guard friends suddenly proclaim the days of staying in the military and retiring are all but over. They say the new plan is to get 4-8 years out of you while you're young, then get you out before you get 'old' and before giving you a pension.

 

[cynic]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/are-military-pensions-too-generous/

It doesn't matter. Obama will be re-elected. I am 99% sure of that. I actually don't like him at all and I'd take Ron Paul but he will never get the nomination.

There is one thing that Democrats and tea party retards can agree on. That is cutting the military.

I expect over the next 5 years our military spending will be cut severely and the people, not crap like automated flying anti missile artillery that is laser guided will be cut.

Did the draconian military cuts go into effect Jan 1 since no debt compromise was reached?

 

[RiddleRat]

I believe they go into effect 1 January 2013.

 

[Big Slick]

I know several of these guys who are getting the shaft. One of them is a friend of mine who is an F-15E backseater with a zillion Air Medals.

They were not promoted to Lt Col, that is why they are being let go. So, in a way, it is performance based.

BUT, the promotion rate to Lt Col is only 75%. While this is a high number, it also means that 25% of the officers in the Air Force will be terminated without a pension after 13-15 years of service.

The sad thing is that the pilot promotion rate is lower than the support officer promotion rate. Keep in mind that being promoted to Lt Col has nothing to do with deploying or fighting in combat. It has more to do with how many staff jobs you have worked, whether or not you have a masters degree, etc. Since pilots/aircrew are often deployed and busy flying and fighting, they don't always have time to fill all the squares.

Here is the real issue: The airlines will be hiring again once the age 65 rule reaches its end. The main attraction of the military, in the past, has been job security. If you have a 25% chance of being shafted by the Air Force, you might as well give the airlines a shot. It's a crap shoot either way.

Getting rid of these folks after 13-15 years of faithful service to their country is just wrong.

 

[pilotyip]

Interesting read Yip.

In the last few months I've had a handful of recently retired Army and recently retired National Guard friends suddenly proclaim the days of staying in the military and retiring are all but over. They say the new plan is to get 4-8 years out of you while you're young, then get you out before you get 'old' and before giving you a pension.

In the early 90's Money magazine did a rating of jobs, and one of the ratings was job security. They rated the military as the lowest in job security. Having been through the post Vietnam draw downs where it was easier to make O-6 that is was O-4, and the pilot promotion rate was 57% from O-3 to O-4, where 5 years earlier it was 99%. Pilots like me being told the only way to stay in was to change designators and become a boat driver. I saw this with almost all of the pilots who flew obsolete airplanes, I flew P-3A's, but I saw Naval Academy Grads who flew F-8's, A-7A's get the same deal. The military response to politics, that is the bottom line.

 

[Big Slick]

pilotyip,

I hear what you are saying.

I feel like you sometimes. I was furloughed from my airline job after 9/11. I decided go back in the Air Force, and I have been deploying to the desert ever since. When I talk to young folks about how 9/11 was such a huge part of my generations life, they just look at me with a blank stare. Things don't really hit home unless they happen to you or someone you love.

Since you lived through the post Vietnam draw-down, it resonates with you. For younger people, it does not.

Personally, I would give these guys a 15 year retirement. Giving a retirement to 156 people won't cost the government that much in the big picture.

The younger troops now have time to plan ahead for a second career. The problem with this move is that no one saw it coming.

If you decide to stay in past your initial commitment now, you are fully aware of the chance you are taking.

Overall, the only certain thing in this life is uncertainty.

 

[LUV FLYING]

I'm one of those guys with an uncertain future. My MOS had a 50% selection rate this year to O5. I was not one of the fortunate. For my entire 15 years so far, never thought my retirement option would fade away even if non-selected to O5. Before joining, I remember hearing about civilian jobs and corporate cutbacks, you know the painful story of someone who works their life at company A and is let go 1-2 years before retirement benefits would kick in. So, it is with the military now too. Yes, the US Title 10 says it can happen. Yes, we serve at the pleasure of the government. But, why not keep the faith with the O4 career designated active duty officers. It's been a tradition, (obviously not a guarantee). Several deployments myself, I've paid some dues. Chewed dirt in the fight, etc. What a terrible outcome after all of that. Fingers are crossed that I can make it to retirement.

Bottomline, it has been an honor and privilege to serve. Our military will stay strong. Semper fi!

 

[BornAgainPagan]

Not the Republican Congress, that's for sure.

Since you're not keeping up, the Republicans hold the majority in the House.

 

[pilotyip]

Since you're not keeping up, the Republicans hold the majority in the House.

They have all been pretty good at yielding a "Peace Dividend" Wilson (D)WWI, Truman (D) WWII, Ike (R) Korea, Nixon/Ford (R) Vietnam, Bush I (R) Cold War. Just depends on who is in office when a conflict ends, Like Kippling "Oh! its Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy how your sole?, but it is Tommy to the bridghead when the drums begin to roll" Relating to the British soldier being a whipping boy in peace time, but the savior and first to see battle when things go badly.

 

[Andy]

I'm one of those guys with an uncertain future. My MOS had a 50% selection rate this year to O5. I was not one of the fortunate. For my entire 15 years so far, never thought my retirement option would fade away even if non-selected to O5. Before joining, I remember hearing about civilian jobs and corporate cutbacks, you know the painful story of someone who works their life at company A and is let go 1-2 years before retirement benefits would kick in. So, it is with the military now too. Yes, the US Title 10 says it can happen. Yes, we serve at the pleasure of the government. But, why not keep the faith with the O4 career designated active duty officers. It's been a tradition, (obviously not a guarantee). Several deployments myself, I've paid some dues. Chewed dirt in the fight, etc. What a terrible outcome after all of that. Fingers are crossed that I can make it to retirement.

Bottomline, it has been an honor and privilege to serve. Our military will stay strong. Semper fi!

Stay flexible. Bank as much cash as you can; prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Pay off all debt and cut back on all expenses. If you've got a nice car with a big monthly payment, it's time to drive a beater. You'll sleep much better if you have rainy day money.
Get your ATP and put together an airline resume. Get your logbooks in order. This is a mandatory action item for you; too many things can happen and you need a fallback even if you don't plan on flying for an airline.
15 year retirements have been recently authorized by Congress. They aren't being used yet but keep that in mind as a possibility.
Consider looking for Guard/Reserve jobs - all branches and all aircraft types. Don't rule out anything. I think that you can now take an active duty retirement and accept a job in the Reserves.

I enlisted in 1980 and retired in 2010 - AD, Guard, Reserve. I've seen the pendulum swing between shortages and surpluses several times. I'm not going to sugar coat it - there are some very big DoD cutbacks coming and it won't matter if the gov is controlled by Ds or Rs.
If you can stay on AD to 18, you've got sanctuary. If things look dicey before then, make sure you've got actionable plans in place. Make sure that you have open family discussions about this topic - you're going to want your wife/kids' support and understanding.

All the best.

 

[rettofly]

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.

Dooshbag!