Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Redux Bonus: Government-Designed 'Rip-Off' 

I agree that the Redux retirement plan is a rip-off.

I took it and am now retired and, wow, what a significant loss of income in the long run.

The government should allow you to pay the $30,000 Career Status Bonus (CSB) back and be eligible again to receive 50 percent of basic pay for 20 years of service.

THOMAS M. EASTERLY
USA-Retired
Veteran, Operation Enduring Freedom VIII
Lawton, Okla.

My first sergeant told me to take the CSB deal…so I did.

The Air Force had a website with charts that showed the payoff would catch up over time. I am not an accountant so I took the advice of my leaders.

After reading this article I feel the Air Force and its civilian leaders really took advantage of me and my lack of discipline in economics.  They stole part of my golden years.

I have been in 19 years.  I spend all my time doing my job, and not much time learning about how the government is trying to rip me off.  I have a bad taste now on how the AF sold this to the troops

A lawsuit should be filed against whoever initiated this and we should get the impact reversed.  Maybe this is a question somebody should ask John McCain or Barak Obama before the election.  Let’s get an answer from politicians on whether we are being ripped off for an average of $300K per person.  Then it should be an easy for officials to fix it.

R. L.
Via e-mail

This is just another way for the government to disrespect our military!  It should be illegal.

VIVIAN R. WEST
Sierra Vista, Ariz.

My husband was career Air Force and I too am an Air Force veteran. I wasn't aware of the CSB/Redux and the ramifications it has for career military members.  It is unconscionable, dishonest and a fraud!

It’s another scheme like “creative” home financing intended to rip off people who do not fully understand the long term financial implications of the offer. That people who make a career in service to this country -- at great sacrifice in money, family and risk to life and limb -- are once again being screwed out of earned benefits is outrageous!

Every time I hear these fake ‘patriots’ spouting off about supporting the troops, and judging who is ‘patriotic’ based on whether they wear a flag lapel pin, and deriding those who oppose a preemptive, never-ending war as un-American, I want to barf.

I understand this Redux/CSB choice came into effect in 2001, but I haven't been able to find out who sponsored or promoted this legislation and who voted for it?  I plan on writing to the appropriate members of Congress if I can find out who backed this fiasco.

GAIL NUCKELS
Fox Island, Wash.

The Senate Armed Services Committee devised the CSB at a time, ironically, when Congress otherwise was doing a great service for the same population of military members -- those who entered after July 31, 1986.  These members were stuck under Redux, a cheaper retirement plan passed during the Reagan administration.

By 1999, seeing that these reduced retirement benefits were about to cause retention and morale problems, Congress moved to repeal Redux and to shift all members under the more valuable High-3 retirement. But senators worried about the cost.  So a senior staff member on the committee proposed the CSB, borrowing the lump-sum incentive idea that the services used so successfully during the post-Cold War drawdown.

So the CSB/Redux option was approved as part of the fiscal 2000 defense authorization bill. – Tom Philpott

On your article about the Redux retirement option being a bad deal for service members, I could not agree with you more.

As a Command Financial Specialist, this topic has been brought up in many lengthy discussions.  It is difficult, at times, to convince a young Marine that this option is not in his or her best interest.

I am interested in knowing if we, the military, have anyone in Washington lobbying to have this dishonorable retirement plan removed?

I can think of quite a few better ways to “assist” our service members who may need financial assistance

DAVID A. BLYAR
Master Gunnery Sergeant
III Marine Expeditionary Force
Okinawa

I haven’t detected an effort on the part of the services, or from Defense Department officials, to seek repeal of the Redux/CSB option though, in my opinion, it should be a legislative priority so that more careerists aren’t financially hurt by the option. – T. P.

My husband took the bonus at 15 years, having just made the E-8 list, which meant he could stay in 26 years to make up the difference. Believe me, we looked at this all ways and decided we were looking a gift horse in the mouth if we didn't take [the CSB and accept Redux retirement].

With the bonus money, we paid off debt, started IRAs and the TSP, which we were unable to even consider. Now, seven years later, my husband is a command sergeant major and we look to continue serving until 30. Every year served beyond 20 will add to the retirement percentage so my husband will come out ahead.

I do agree with you that it isn't smart to take the bonus and Redux and get out at 20. That’s what the government counts on.

Thanks for good reading and good advice to the up and coming!

HEATHER H.
Via e-mail

It is true that if your husband retires with 30 years’ service, his starting annuity will be the same as that of peers who retire under the High-3 retirement.  However, annual cost-of-living adjustments under Redux will be capped a full percentage point below inflation.  That adds up and, over time, it will make the value of the $30,000 bonus look small by comparison.  A one-time catch-up COLA will be paid at 62 but then the COLA caps resume and Redux annuities lose ground to inflation every year thereafter. – T. P.

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.