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

Reservists Share Hope, Doubts over Retirement Gains

My wife and I read your article [on reserve component leaders calling for better reserve retirement benefits] with subdued interest. We've read the same thing more than once before.  We'll believe it when we see it.

Also, a better retirement plan would be bittersweet for my family. We joined the Navy Reserve late in life; I was 36. Our family has been recalled to active duty three times, two of those times before 9-11 when there were no ombudsmen to support reservists. That didn't change until after 2001.

My wife is an ombudsman, seven years now. She wanted others to have support that recalled reservists had not experienced in previous recalls. Reservists invented the term "Individual Augmentee."

As a reservist, I've been ridden hard and put up wet too often, and find myself on tap again. I'm tired. I want to retire with benefits but need almost four more years to reach 60.

Even if this proposed bill, to reduce retirement age retroactively based on deployments since 9/11, I'd still have to wait until 59 to retire because some prior recalls wouldn't count.

I'm not sure I want to hold on another three years. Though I thoroughly enjoy my work and the people I serve with, my family wants me to leave.  The missed birthdays, graduations, weddings and educational opportunities have tempered my spirit.

Yes, I too ask, "After giving to our country the past 20-plus years, what is our country willing to give back? Don't my service mates and I deserve something better?"

NORMAN BANTA
Oak Harbor, Wash.

The flag and general officers' words were way too measured for my
liking. I talked to a staff member for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) about reserve retirement reform during the Bush administration. He cited the administration's resistance for why the senator couldn't get her proposal passed to lower the start age for reserve annuities to 55.

Okay, now a Democrat is in the White House and Democrats dominate the Congress. Why can't there be some action?

BILL WALSH
Lieutenant Commander, USNR
Via e-mail

The Reserve Force has been begging for reconsideration of age-60 retirement for as long as I can recall. Congress hasn't been listening.

I served 31 years and two months – four years, eight months active and the remainder as a reservist – with no broken service. Though the Navy typically does not allow warrant officers to stay past 30 years, I was fortunate to perform for more than 31 before I received mandatory retirement orders. But now I must wait for another ten years before I "see a penny" for my years of service.

As Shakespeare wrote in Henry V, "O hard condition."

We have come far in looking after our Citizen Soldiers (Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guard members). But we can do better.

J. E. JOHNSON
Chief Warrant Officer-4, USNR-Ret.
Via e-mail
 

When I write to my representatives in Congress about improving reserve retirement, I still get the same answer: "There is no funding." They've come up with money to help a select few but not the rest. If they can't improve retirement for all, then don't do it.

Instead of receiving retirement at 60, I suggest we be allowed to apply for it, regardless of age, after our 10-year window for involuntary call-up has expired.  So, for example, if someone became a gray-area retiree in 1996, their retirement pay would have started in 2006.

JOSEPH DUTTON
Oklahoma Army National Guard
Via e-mail
 

As a career Army Reserve officer forced to retire after 30 years, though willing to serve a few more, I know the commitment of our soldiers and their civilian employers.

I get laughed at by two brothers-in-law who were career Navy officers, each of whom put in 20 years of active duty. They will draw their retirement for 18 years before I draw a dime.

So I put in 10 more years, and held down two jobs all that time while they held one, and at age 55, three years after leaving service, I still have to wait five more years to get a retirement check. I hope I live to age 60!

ART HAGG
Colonel, USAR-Ret.
Sioux Falls, S. D.
 

I'm all for reducing the age when retired pay kicks in but it's not correct to say there is no incentive for reservists to serve beyond 20 years. I refer to pay increases after 22 and 26 years of service.

These raises benefit enlisted personnel more than officers because many officers end up leaving after 22 year because of failure to selection to O-6 or lack of a pay billet.

KARL D. SPENCE
Commander, USNR-Ret.
Via e-mail

What about all of us "Cold Warriors" who retired after 30 years but never were mobilized? Is our service not worthy of early retirement benefits? Did we not stand watch valiantly against the former Soviet Union and its minions?

Thirty years of drill weekends, annual deployments to our wartime tasking sites and exercises all took time from family and employers.  Post-9/11 we burned thousands of hours supporting our aviation packages, security forces and other who deployed.  It takes a huge home station effort to get reserve units ready to go, and support them while they are gone.

Yet, because of budget or tasking code restrictions or even rank, some of us were never deployed or even placed on mobility orders.  We supported the folks in the field on the cheap, doing man-days and annual tour time and still maintained our critical position civilian jobs.

I know many of my reserve brothers and sisters who retired after 30 years of service, five to 10 years before their 60th birthday, only to die and never enjoy a penny of their retirement.

Single folks like me with no children have no survivor benefit option.  I am determined to stay healthy and, when my checks start rolling, in four years, to stay alive and to spend as many of them as I can.  I've earned them too.

BRIDGET BAUER
Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR-Ret.
Kansas City, Mo.

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.