KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE WORTH: ROA Fights to Keep Reserve Benefits

Since Reserve forces entered Afghanistan and Iraq a decade ago, this story has played out thousands of times: A service member returns from combat duty and relies on his drill pay to supplement civilian income. Instead of taking his civilian job's insurance plan (or lacking insurance eligibility at his job), the Reservist opts for Tricare Reserve Select. Now drill pay and Reserve health care are both at risk.

With the Department of Defense expected to cut $487 billion over the next 10 years, the National Defense Authorization Act created a nine-member Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to review military compensation, benefits, and retirement.

President Barack Obama told the commission not to alter the retirement system for those currently serving or in the process of retiring. Military interest groups, including the Reserve Officers Association, will meet with the commission before its report is filed on May 1, 2014.

"The commission's recommendations for change must grandfather any currently serving members and current retirees in the current military retirement systems, but may allow current service members and current retirees the choice to change to your proposed retirement system," President Obama's letter to the commission said. "The military retirement and compensation system should be fiscally sustainable in order to ensure long-term certainty for service members and retirees."

Reservists' Pay Could Be Slashed

If the commission follows the recommendations in the latest Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) report, Reserve enlisted and officers' pay will be drastically reduced. Under the QRMC study, drill-training periods would be redefined from a fourhour period to a minimum eight-hour period, with Reserve and Guard members receiving pay cuts up to 38 percent. The report said suggested cuts are focused on training activities, not operational missions, but would save taxpayers $220 million per year.

The QRMC study carries significant weight because the commission selected it as a seminal piece of research for making its decisions. Since nobody knows exactly what the commission plans to cut, the QRMC is thought to be the guiding recommendation.

In response to the QRMC study, ROA published a white paper, "Drill Pay Under Fire: The Impact of the 11th QRMC on the Reserve Component," in which the organization took a firm stance against the "unfair" compensation system outlined for future Reservists.

Compared to the current system, most Reserve Component (RC) members would experience a reduction in pay for "weekend" training but an increase in pay for annual training and other short periods (30 days or less) of active duty, the QRMC study said. "The combined effect is lower annual pay for 38 days of required training. For enlisted personnel, the reduction in pay is 1 percent at the first year of service and 14 percent at 10 years of service, rising to 20 percent at 30 years of service. For officers, the decrease is larger, ranging from 27 percent at one year of service to 38 percent at 30 years of service."

Recruitment and Retention at Risk

ROA Executive Director Major General Andrew B. Davis, USMC (Ret.), says the measures, if implemented, will be detrimental to national defense.

The QRMC study "suggests that Reservists' drill pay be cut in half by receiving basic allowance for housing, and some unspecified bonus to be paid to Reservists to make up the difference in the pay that they'll lose," MajGen Davis says.

However, the QRMC report does not specify who pays the bonus. Does it come out of the budget for the commander, the service branch, or DoD? MajGen Davis says the QRMC study lacks necessary criteria to offer such specific actions.

If the commission follows the QRMC report, MajGen Davis says, he worries about "paltry" recommendations that discount Reservist contributions.

"The study admitted that were this to be implemented, 20 percent in the Reserve force would walk because they're all volunteers," MajGen Davis says. "That's a huge impact to our nation's defense and national security."

The commission is breaking down its recommendations into three major areas: quality of life, health care, and compensation/retirement. ROA Legislative Director CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.), says changes made to one area will affect something else. "The bottom line is the impact on recruiting and retention, because if you put the wrong compensation package together, you're going to discourage people rather than encourage them to stay for a career," CAPT Hanson says.

Health Care May Be in Jeopardy

In November, CAPT Hanson and MajGen Davis testified before the commission, detailing how its decisions will affect Reserve troop levels if pay and benefits are impacted. They also met privately with commission members, who disclosed they are open to any and all suggestions but did not give any inkling of their potential decisions.

The commission's members include Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Sen. Larry Pressler and retired U.S. Army Reserve officer and former U.S. Rep. Stephen Buyer. Federal law prohibits them from discussing their intent until the report is made public. But, MajGen Davis says, one can discern what the commission is planning by analyzing the members' questions.

One commission member was especially interested in Tricare Reserve Select, the health care plan for drilling Reservists. He inferred that a civilian plan might be cheaper for the government than Tricare Reserve Select, according to CAPT Hanson.

"Our goal is to have continuity of health care," CAPT Hanson says.

In its white paper rebutting the QRMC report, ROA recommended the government establish a Tricare program for RC members who are not covered by Tricare Reserve Select or Tricare Retired Reserve and to allow members covered in Tricare Reserve Select to remain enrolled for up to three years.

"We're a supporter of reducing the number of requirements to enroll and re-enroll," CAPT Hanson says. "If you don't have that problem in civilian health care, why should we have it under the military? You'd think we would be able to correct this complexity in their system."

If Tricare Reserve Select were eliminated, Reservists might face challenges when seeking treatment for service-related injuries, CAPT Hanson says.

"The last thing we would want to see is Tricare Reserve Select eliminated because it's just simpler to go with this other [option]," he says. "If a Reservist is injured on military duty and all he has is a civilian health care plan, the civilians won't treat him. It'll be out of their pocket, or the government would have to step in at some point to provide coverage."

Without Tricare, a Reserve member will be forced to enter the VA system for military-related injuries. Hanson says the Veterans Affairs "processing difficulties" could hinder a Reservist from getting the proper treatment.

"If Private Joe Smith got injured either in training or under orders for the military, and comes back and doesn't get treatment from a civilian source, then he's going to basically have to wait for the VA to process him, and that can be a year and a half," CAPT Hanson says. "Things occur during that time. Bones heal the wrong way. You could end up with more complex health problems than if you kept him under the military system, where they know they're protected while they are serving."

Why Target the Reserve?

In March 2012, the U.S. Air Force released its proposed Fiscal Year 2013 manpower adjustments, calling for a net reduction in force of 3,900 active duty, 5,100 Air National Guard, and 900 Air Force Reserve positions. It also eliminated more than 200 National Guard aircraft, citing efficiency as the reason for the cuts.

The Reserve Forces Policy Board chastised the Air Force for this logic and urged DoD to recognize that active duty costs are "unsustainable." A former national security adviser, Major General Arnold Punaro, USMC (Ret.), whom Forbes characterized as "driving defense reform in Washington," has ridiculed DoD for not realizing the Reserve's cost-effective nature and importance to the country.

"Let me ask you a question: How many family housing units, child care centers, dependent schools, commissaries, barracks, military hospitals, or tactical equipment shops have we built to support the 850,000 Guard and Reserve personnel who have been mobilized since 9/11?" MajGen Punaro said on Military.com in January 2013. "And, of course, the answer is zero."

MajGen Punaro has said it's absolutely necessary for the nation to get a handle on its military pay. But healong with ROA and other organizations-have questioned why the QRMC and possibly the commission are targeting Reserve benefits.

Meanwhile, ROA contends the QRMC authors misunderstand the current role of the Reserve, saying the report is "burdened with the misconception that Reserve and National Guard remain a Cold War infrastructure. By suggesting that incentives can be targeted to improve staffing in high-demand units, the report envisions units as being either strategic or operational."

The role of the Reserve has changed in modern warfare, and ROA says it supports a mission that trains Reservists in advance and prepares them for mobilization and deployments. Yet, DoD appears to be active duty-minded.

"About three-fourths of the QRMC focuses on the active duty, saying that active duty compensation has grown to the point that it's on an equivalence with civilian counterparts," MajGen Davis says. "The decisions before the commission-and ultimately the Pentagon and the administrationare of how much this nation is willing to continue to use its Reserve Force in operational mode. Cutting the Reserve and cutting Reserve pay will do very little to address the stress on the nation's treasury of the cost of military personnel."

For a full breakdown of ROA's position on drill pay and Reserve benefits, read "Drill Pay Under Fire." Visit www.roa.org/ advocacy/position-papers.

"The decisions before the commission-and ultimately the Pentagon and the administration-are of how much this nation is willing to continue to use its Reserve Force in operational mode."

- MajGen Andrew Davis

"The study admitted that were this to be implemented, 20 percent in the Reserve force would walk because they're all volunteers. That's a huge impact to our nation's defense and national security."

- MajGen Andrew Davis

Fred Minnick is the author of Camera Boy: An Army Journalist's War in Iraq (Hellgate Press, 2009). He is a regular contributor to The Officer.