Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off

Reservists Irate, Confused By '07 Limit on Early Retirement

I am quite upset about a provision in the 2008 defense authorization act (HR 1585) related to retirement age for certain reservists and National Guard personnel.  House-Senate conferees agreed to lower the age at which reservists can retiree by three months for every 90 days of active duty in support of a contingency operation including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, as you reported, this change would apply only to assignments after September 2007.

I feel like I have been slapped in the face. I was assigned to the first
reserve unit activated in support of Desert Storm in 1990 and spent 10 months in Saudi Arabia. Many times I heard fallout from Scuds raining down on our roof.  We were less than a mile from the Pennsylvania unit that lost so many in a Scud attack.

I received numerous awards for my service there to include the
Bronze Star.  Does my service mean any less than those who are assigned after September 2007?

SHARYL STAPLETON
Major, North Carolina Army National Guard
New Bern, N.C.

Am I correct that you've states that only reservists participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom after September 2007 can lower their retirement age by three months for every 90 days activated in support of these wars?

Retirement age for reservists is 60. Do I read this correctly: I'm activated for 18 months in support of OIF, therefore I can draw my retirement pay at age 58½, but only if I served after September 2007?

If this is so, I lose. I was activated and participated in OIF from December 2003 to May 2005.

Is this correct?

BARRY R. ALLEN

Correct. Only if the mobilization for a contingency occurs after that date does the lower retirement age rule apply. House-Senate conferees decided that they didn't have the money to make the change retroactive to earlier deployments.
– Tom Philpott

Does this mean only in future mobilizations will my active duty
count? My earlier service is second class to that of others, now
being called, while I duck mortars and rockets in Iraq?

It's a way for Congress to appear to being do something and actually giving nothing. What a crock! I've been screwed again.

Tell them to send me home and call me up later.  Better yet, just send me home.

JOHN P.
Sergeant, USAR
Iraq

You wrote:  "However, this change only would apply to assignments after September 2007."

I am assuming you meant to type "September 2003" or perhaps even "September 2001."  Because our illustrious Congress would never make irrelevant the service of Reserve and Guard members who stepped forward at the beginning of our War on Terror -- honoring their commitment by fighting, bleeding and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tens of thousands of American warriors who left their civilian occupations, dropped college courses, said goodbye to spouses, children, parents and stood side-by-side with active duty counterparts in a foreign land. Certainly, those first few years in combat are just as noble, just a relevant, just as valuable as the years following September 2007.

I understand how Congress might not want to go all the way back to the beginning of Reserve and Guard mobilization in modern warfare. I wouldn't expect, for instance, that my 11-month deployment to Kuwait in 1989-90 to count towards earlier retirement.  But I would think my last two combat deployments to Iraq -- a total of about 18 months from 2003 to 2005 -- would be covered. Wouldn't it?

Therefore, I am certain you must have typed the date of September 2007 in error.

Semper Fidelis,
J.W. KEYES
First Sergeant
USMCR-Ret.

This does not make sense! Congress needs to make this rule retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, at a minimum. Lawmakers basically are telling the Guard and Reserve that their service, to this point, does not matter. I predict a mass exodus if this additional time is not made retroactive.

It is a very small thing to ask of the nation. Lawmakers are not using their brains. The motivation to the reserve components would be overwhelming if the law is made retroactive. The change would boost morale, retention and recruitment, all of which will worsen if the proposed law is not amended.

Conversely, applying the reduction in retirement only for deployments after September 2007 will reduce incentives to serve and will create greater problems for politicians because this issue will not be laid to rest. Congress needs to re-think this one before the President signs the bill. Our national security depends on it.

TIMOTHY H. WRIGHT
U.S. Army
Via e-mail

While I am happy to see the subject of early retirement for reserve component soldiers surface, I am very upset by the decision to apply the reduction in age at retirement only to those who serve after September 2007. For those of us who served earlier in the war, even before the 12-month "boots-on-the-ground" rule was established, this is a slap in the face. Were our 15-plus months of service not worthy of benefits that soldiers who go after use will receive?

Of all the good things I see happening to support our combat troops, this one bad decision counters much of it. I hope someone will work to get this stipulation changed.

BRIAN McMANUS
Major, Alabama Army National Guard
Via e-mail

I know several reservists who did five years of deployments starting in 2001. Perhaps when the next "event" occurs, reservists should balk at serving until about six years into the conflict, and wait for benefits to catch up. What a bunch of crap. 

C. F.
Lieutenant Colonel
Via e-mail

For the last six years many reservists have answered the call, volunteered and served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Passing this law with a September 2007 start date seems to negate service rendered so honorably by reserve personnel since 9/11.

I pray this law will be changed to recognize the service already done and not create a divide of benefits between those who have served during the past six years and those presently serving.

GEORGE ORTIZ-GUZMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR
Via e-mail 

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.

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