Major Pay Reform Eyed To Support 'Operational Reserve'

To address the strain on U.S. forces, Congress and the Department of Defense formally should endorse the concept an "operational reserve" that would be trained and supported to fight, on rotational basis, alongside active forces in the global war on terrorism and any future conflict.

But for an operational reserve to succeed there must be sweeping reforms made to Cold War-era pay, retirement and promotion laws and policies for both active forces and reserve components.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Those are two key conclusions of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, which delivered its 368-page final report Jan. 31 after more than two years of study.

In an interview, commission chairman Arnold L. Punaro, a retired Marine Corps Reserve major general, said he and other commissioners were skeptical when the concept of an operational reserve was raised as the panel began its work. "Because I knew what a profound change this was," he said.

But Punaro said the commission soon recognized that the Reserve and National Guard were being tasked like an operational reserve without Congress or Defense officials ever having discussed the concept or making the bold and systemic changes needed to make the concept work.

Congress since 2002 has enacted 168 separate pieces of legislation to address the needs of reserve forces, half of them initiated by DoD. But this approach has been timid, incremental and ineffective, the commission said.

"If all those 168 changes had the desired effect, why is it that the National Guard today is less ready than it was when we issued our [interim] March 1 report?," Punaro asked. "It's a patchwork. If you're going to have a true operational Guard and Reserve -- and we believe there's a compelling case in favor -- you've got to make these fundamental changes."

For example, the commission concludes, an operational reserve cannot be sustained relying on compensation and promotion systems developed during the Cold War for an active force of more than two million and strategic reserve components that were expected to be mobilized very infrequently. 

Punaro said it is time to heed the advice of every recent pay study, and many others extending back 40 years to when the all-volunteer military first was conceived. These include:

• Phase out the 20-year military retirement system. Punaro said it delivers benefits only to a small fraction of the force (15 percent of enlisted members) while others leave with no portable retirement benefit. It should be replaced by a plan offering vesting after 10 years; government contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan; new pay gates to encourage longer careers and annuities delayed until age 57 to 62 depending on years served.
• Replacement of the up-or-out promotion system, which forces too many experienced members to leave prematurely. Promotions should be regulated by a less rigid "competency-based" system.
• Replacement of the time-in-grade military pay table, which rewards longevity. A new pay system should emphasize skill level and performance. 

Punaro and Commissioner Patricia L. Lewis, who led the panel's review of compensation issues, said the commission wants all current service members "grandfathered" from any change to retirement. During a five-year transition period, new entrants would be given the choice of staying under the current system or shifting to the more modern alternative.

"We think this five-year evaluation period, and the option to look at a different sort of approach, is so critical," said Lewis, a former senior staff member the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The commission said the all-volunteer military isn't sized for sustained the warfare of Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 600,000 Reserve and National Guard members have had to be mobilized, many more than once. It's a pattern "endangering this valuable national asset," the report said.

One alternative is to bring back the draft, but that is opposed by politicians and military leaders, Punaro said. Large expansion of active forces would be difficult, given youth demographics, and also very costly. Active manpower costs already have doubled in the last five years, Punaro said.

The preferred option is to develop an operational reserve paid, trained and equipped to rotate onto active duty one year of every five or six. But it needs to be managed and fully integrated into the active force, Punaro said.

"We don't want to go into it through the back door," Punaro said. "We want Congress to debate it and explicitly direct that it happens. And then everybody will see we've got to have these fairly sweeping changes over the longer term to make sure that it's truly sustainable and ready."

Recommendations to revise compensation are pulled from various studies including the 2005 Defense Advisory Commission on Military Compensation. But Punaro's panel recommends many other changes. For example, members should be able to leave for civilian life, and return, with greater ease. They should be able to shift from active to reserve, and back, to follow personal goals. There should be no more distinction between an active and a reserve officer's commission. And 29 different reserve and active duty statuses used today should be reduced to two: on duty or off.

"Frankly, we don't consider this to be out in left field at all," Punaro said. "It's very consistent with a lot of innovative thinking and work going on within the Department of Defense right now."

Congress and DoD will need time to approve even a framework for a truly operational reserve, Punaro said. But "without changes to the status quo," he warned, the military is "on an inexorable march back to the draft."

To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.