GI Bill not keeping pace with deployments
Reservists returning from deployments are discovering that they were activated “on the cheap” by the Pentagon, acording to Military.com. Congress gave the Pentagon the tools to cut their personnel costs by not fully compensating Reservists and National Guard troops.
A relatively new and obscure deployment code, a measure the Pentagon created in 2014 to scale back spending on benefits, is the reason. By law, reservists involuntarily mobilized under Title 10, section 12304b, do not receive credit for the GI Bill while they are activated.
The Defense Department intends to lean more heavily on the inactive force in coming years in order to maintain the pace of deployments. Bean counters have been urging the Pentagon for years to cut personnel costs and Congress gave them the section 12304b to do that.
As combat deployments slowed [after the Iraq War], the Pentagon looked to create mobilization authorities that would fill operational needs worldwide, but also trim the budget, Lukas said.
The 12304b authorization was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and stripped most mobilization and deployment benefits, Lukas said, including the accumulation of GI Bill benefits. The Pentagon started activating reservists under the authorization in 2014, she said.
“Mobilization authorities with benefits are expensive,” Lukas said. “And the Pentagon did not have the money to offset the cost. Congress gave them exactly what they asked for.”
That ought to do wonders for retention. I guess if you don’t have any personnel, that would reduce personnel costs, wouldn’t it? I’m sure it won’t affect the transsexual benefits and Manning’s weight reduction plans are still in the offing.
Category: Army News, National Guard
Damn.
Damn. Damn. Damn. Damn. Damn.
Every. Damn. One. Who. Defrauds. Honorable. Men. And. Women.
May they rot under a bridge in Chicago in the winter.
May they develop cankers in their ears, mouths, noses, and all other orifices.
May they sink into the bottomless pit of depression – and be left abandoned in the gutter, without the wherewithal to end their own suffering.
May they have flashbacks of the crimes they have committed and sink in despair at their own perfidy.
May their guilt overwhelm them day and night, sleep escape their grasp as the nightmare of their deception haunts them.
May they live to 100, alone and friendless and penniless and hopeless as their flesh slowly rots on their bones.
You’re far too kind, Graybeard.
May they find themselves on the receiving end of what they are dishing out.
And likewise, may they wake one day to find themselves in a hostile country with no defense and no way home.
This is an issue with the POst 9/11 GI Bill and the restrictions on which types of active duty qualifies (training and ADSW didn’t),
Not the first time Congress passed a law without thinking throug the ramifications.
Easy fix.
The Pelosi’s of the world strike again “you have to vote it in to see whats in it”!!!
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title10/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1209-sec12304b For the slow person in the room, please point out where it states that mobilizations don’t accrue GI Bill benefits: § 12304b. Selected Reserve: order to active duty for preplanned missions in support of the combatant commands (a) AUTHORITY.—When the Secretary of a military department determines that it is necessary to augment the active forces for a preplanned mission in support of a combatant command, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (b), order any unit of the Selected Reserve (as de- § 12305 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES Page 2378 fined in section 10143(a) of this title), without the consent of the members, to active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days. (b) LIMITATIONS.—(1) Units may be ordered to active duty under this section only if— (A) the manpower and associated costs of such active duty are specifically included and identified in the defense budget materials for the fiscal year or years in which such units are anticipated to be ordered to active duty; and (B) the budget information on such costs includes a description of the mission for which such units are anticipated to be ordered to active duty and the anticipated length of time of the order of such units to active duty on an involuntary basis. (2) Not more than 60,000 members of the reserve components of the armed forces may be on active duty under this section at any one time. (c) EXCLUSION FROM STRENGTH LIMITATIONS.— Members ordered to active duty under this section shall not be counted in computing authorized strength in members on active duty or total number of members in grade under this title or any other law. (d) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Whenever the Secretary of a military department orders any unit of the Selected Reserve to active duty under subsection (a), such Secretary shall submit to Congress a report, in writing, setting forth the circumstances necessitating the action taken under this section and describing the anticipated use of such unit. (e) TERMINATION OF DUTY.—Whenever any unit of the Selected Reserve is ordered to active duty under subsection (a), the service of all units… Read more »
It’s the GI Bill which states what codes qualify. The authors didn’t think to include a code that wouldn’t exist yet. However, their intent would be that it would qualify.
So it’s an oversight rather than an intentional policy? The linked article certainly implies that it was intentional. For example, the sentence—
“The 12304b authorization was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and stripped most mobilization and deployment benefits, Lukas said, including the accumulation of GI Bill benefits. “
Until someone shows me evidence in the record that GI Bill benefits were included in the original version of the NDAA and later stripped out, I believe it was an oversight.
I looked in the two original drafts, and the section doesn’t appear to have been included, which leads me to believe it was a late/rushed addition. These late additions to large bill unfortunately don’t get the same care and scrutiny and lead to these bad outcomes.
I’ve got to ask the lady from the Reserve Officer Association where they were when the section was considered? I don’t remember them bringing this issue up to the membership for our assistance in approaching Congress.
Sort of like how service before 2008 does not count for early retirement is also “an oversight”? Maybe it is, but it wouldn’t have been that difficult to fix in the original bill and where were the various reserve associations when the bill was being drafted, in committee or before the whole House and Senate? At the very best they got us half a loaf-and maybe that was the best that they could do-but I am left to wonder how hard they pushed the issue.
I think that was intentional. There was no entitlement prior, so I think they worked hard to get something with the thought of fixing it down the line.
While no reduced retirement had been put in place prior to 2008 there was a lot of talk about how it might be done, I remember it was a hot topic in Army Times on a regular basis and all sorts of proposals were floated. I’m not sure they didn’t come up with a “we have to give them something, but let’s not break the bank” compromise and the military associations shrugged and went along with it as the best they could get.
I’ll give you an example of why I am cynical. A few years ago the whole “90 days within a fiscal year” issue was kind of a hot button topic so Congress voted on how the DOD was supposed to interpret that aspect of the early retirement law and they voted that the DOD was not supposed to interpret it as strictly as they have been doing. But it was a non-binding “sense of the Congress” resolution. That way congressman Schmuckatelli can tell his reservist constituents “I voted for a more generous benefit for you” without having to have to figure out how to pay for it if it had passed.
2014, another loogey in the face of the deployed. B. Hussein 0bama & Company going out of their way to take all they can from Vets while enjoying every luxury and perk they can get and handing all they can as fast as they can to illegal aliens, welfare flunkies and “refugees” from the ME, DITTO to what Graybeard said!
And this is why I continually remind anyone who will listen that trusting either political party is madness. They are both incompetently malicious and as Mark Twain described all the Christian religions, only differ on minor theological points.
Yep. Malicious and incompetent Christians.
Like those malicious, incompetent Christians who established hospitals and orphanages as early as the 300’s A.D.
Those malicious, incompetent Christians who cared for lepers, Black Plague victims.
Those malicious, incompetent Christians who have tried to rescue children sold as sex slaves.
Those malicious, incompetent Christians who established the first universities in America.
Gotta watch out for those malicious, incompetent Christians. Who knows what they’ll do next?
Touche’!
Reading comprehesion dude; he did not describe CHristians as malicous and incompent, he described poloitcal parties as those things, and described them through simile as having only minor differences by quoting Twain describing Christians as being of many minorly different sects. Nothing to do with Christians being malicous or incompetent.
Those Christians some of whom throughout history have been malicous and incompetent enough to judge, smear, be unkind to, and or kill in the name Christ, despite his explicit instructions to love and forgive all, and to understand that the best Christian is a sinner like the worst infidel.
Your religous self rightouesness is more reminescant of a haji than a disciple of Christ.
Yet another reminder that half the population has a below average IQ.
If David did not intend the adjectival phrase “incompetently malicious” to apply to Christians, then apologies are in order, and offered herewith. The interpretation of the written word (especially in quick-and-dirty writing such as occurs in comments on blog posts) is handicapped by the lack of other clues that enable us to discern the intent of the author/speaker. There are better ways to phrase what David was saying, if that is indeed what he is saying, that do not lend themselves to the interpretation that “political parties, like Christian religions, are incompetently malicious.” By mentioning “Christian religions” in the same context as “political parties” the unspoken correlation is that they are functionally or morally equivalent, most especially with the negative adjectival phrase “incompetently malicious” with the identifier “Christian religions”. That there are those who have called themselves “Christians” and have behaved in an unchristian manner is not denied, nor ought one to be surprised by that fact in the light of the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man. And I note, CMM451, that whereas I attempted to reference specific actions by the Christian community throughout history that refute the charge of “incompetently malicious”, you make broad-brush accusations. You say: “…malicious and incompetent enough to judge, smear, be unkind to, and or kill in the name Christ…” In response: a) “judge”: whereas many people love to quote the “judge not lest ye be judged” passage, they tend to ignore those passages where Christians are commanded to judge others. Understanding I) the various Greek words translated “judge”, II) and the activities which are prescribed and proscribed would mitigate that misunderstanding. b) “smear” and “be unkind to” – the activity which most often is currently referred to with these verbs involves calling sin sin. How this is done is important, yes. The phrase most commonly used is “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” However, warning one that their actions are sinful and against God’s command may be the most loving thing one can do. c) “kill in the name of Christ” – again there is the activity, which is contrary to the… Read more »
That has to be one hell of a stretch lumping political parties and Christianity together. Did you give yourself a cranial hernia doing that? GFY.
Y’all need to work on your reading comprehension…in no way did my post take a shot at Christians or any other church. Twain’s comment (from “Letters from the Earth” for the illiterate)was that to an outsider, the theological differences between different branches of Christianity are picayune, much like how most Christians used to regard the differences, say, between Sunni and Shi’a. What I did say was that in the context of treatment of veterans (the subject of the original article) that both parties are untrustworthy and essentially the same regardless of how they talk, so that their differences become as difficult to discern as the differences between sects to an outsider. No cranial hernia needed. (Oh, and I’ll have to tell the pastor about the overwrought over-reactions this week, he’ll get a kick out of it. He’s a Twain fan too.)
David,
As in my response to CMM451, I tender my apologies for the mis-reading of your post.
And as a side-note, I am a Twain fan as well.
I think what I would have said would be more like “They are both incompetently malicious and, to misquote Mark Twain, ‘only differ on minor theological [or positional] points’.”
But that’s just me.
Better phrasing indeed. I thought it unlikely that someone could try to associate the adjectives in the first clause with the comparison in the second, but I was surprised. Stop by sometime and we’ll have a beer on it.
Deal. And I need to buy the first round, your choice.
Think you are also in Houston? Spring-Cypress area for me.
Story is misleading at best. Army was concerned that after the Iraq and Afghan campaigns ended, they would 1) not have enough active duty forces to meet GFMAP requirements and 2) legally they would still need a Presidential Declaration of National Emergency to activate Guard/Reserves to fill that gap – part of the push to cut expenses by moving/growing more force structure in the RCs was the “accessibility” issue. These “pre-planned” deployments could be programmed and budgeted for, and would not be GWOT/OCO/Combat missions.
The fact that they were to be non-combat missions is why all the bennies for combat deployments that were built up over the last decade and a half (9-11 GI Bill being one of many) were not included.
OSD/Pentagon has since been actually trying to get similar benefits for these RC service members that AC members receive. USERRA rights were finally included in the 2016 NDAA. Tri-care coverage, 9-11 GI Bill, reduced age retirement, etc.
Part of the problem is the Bi-partisan Budget Act that declared any increase in discretionary spending (DoD) had to be matched by a similar increase in non-discretionary (social) programs.
As there is a bi-partisan proposal to fix this issue on the floor, I wonder if the story was released to build pressure for passage?
McCain tried to get it into the 2017 NDAA, but the Senate voted for cloture first.
If it does not get inserted in Conference Committee, OSD will recommend it in their report on Duty Status Reform.
Glad to hear that. This seems like a no brainer to make right and retro it to 2012.
It does change the math on having/using RC forces in place of AC. Of course, I could run a very profitable airline if I didn’t actually have to pay the pilots and ground crew.
Do non-combat assignments in the active military get educational benefits?
Yes.
I should have finished with: non-combat assignments in the Guard also get educational benefits if called to active duty under Title 10 with some caveats.
Glad I no longer have to worry about these things. I do feel some sympathy to people who sign up thinking they will get GI Bill benefits and then find out they don’t.
Guard and Reserve members are eligible for GI Bill benefits while in the SELRES (MGIB-SR). It ends when they are discharged vs the AC version which is good for several years afterwards. Tuition assistance is available for all current service members (though being scaled back due to funding restraints – demand for money is always greater than the supply). Many States have free or reduced tuition for their National Guard members at State colleges.
The 9-11 GI Bill comes with more benefits (BAH, etc) that Chapter 1606 (MGIB-SR) but it is still relatively easy to get a degree gratis of the taxpayer. You just need to know what programs are available and use them.
I still think it’s a mistake to give benefits to dependents of those who are pay grade E-4 with less than 4 years of service. Anyone who serves on active duty should get GI Bill benefits.
Wow, screw the troops while the politicians still get their fat checks. That’s fucked up.
This is beyond shameful. The 18-24 y/o kid who enlists promises to do as Uncle Sam asks for the duration of their service. If they reneg on that promise, they go to federal prison. But the government can casually refuse to hold up its end of the bargain made with said young enlistee with no consequences for anyone except the kid who gets ratfucked. If that’s how it’s gonna be, why should anyone want to enlist?
Even more fun is when they activate you on “ADSW” or “ADOS” so they don’t have to provide tri-care and other transition benefits after you come back.
Hey forgive a stupid question, but does this affect just Army Reservists or is this an equal opportunity screwing for all branches of Reservists? Not that it makes it any more right or wrong, this is still a bitchslap to every serving member protecting our freedoms… and this is how Barry and the Dumbocrats (coming to a theater near you!) say “thanks”. Please God, is it January yet?
Repubs, there, fixed it for you.
All reserve component members. RC members are eligible for MGIB-SR while in the SELRES. To get the AC version of 9-11 GI Bill you have to go downrange.
This may change soon, but the original intent of Congress was to up the benefits for those going into harms way, and the AC units (speaking for the Army) were spinning out at a much higher rate then the RC units.
But remember kids, Obama stood up in front of the VFW and said he wouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans!
And he wouldn’t lie, now would he?
The Post 9/11 GI Bill is a good idea and has helped and is helping thousands of service members get a college education. However, there is a glaring issue with the bill in regards to National Guard and Reserve members. To qualify for the 100% payment of tuition and the full living expense, a service member has to have at least three years of active duty–no matter where they served. As retired guardsmen with a with 16 months of activation and a year deployment in Iraq, I only qualified for 60% tuition payment. So if a service member served their three years never deployed they get more benefits than a service member who may have served less but was deployed. I am not saying that the non-deployed service member should not get the benefits, I am saying that the deployed service member with less time should get the full amount. The way I see is that the government saves money in the long run by using reservist and guardsmen for deployments. Just my two cents
Its hard for me to say, but I like how the French military handle retirement. Deployed days count double, and combat days carry an additional bonus. Certain types of other hazardous duty also get extra credit, such a jumping.
Be on your toes regarding your benefits. The more you know about how the laws work, the better off you’ll be. For example, the reduced retirement age for reservists that passed a few years ago allows you to claim time off your retirement if your orders are coded a certain way, but unless you have specifically looked into the law you may not know that some service can be counted. In my case I was able to get some of my ADOS time to count because I had the orders and I knew what the codes were. I downloaded a pdf from one of the reserve associations that explained the process and attached my orders and wrote a friendly e-mail to the guy who handled retirement for my state and I got back a nice new RPAM statement crediting me with another year and a half knocked off my retirement age.
These new orders may screw Joe or he may be able to use them to his benefit, depending on his ability to navigate the bureaucracy.
Unfortunately the retirement age reduction for Guard and Reserve only applies to orders after 2008. So us guys with deployments prior to that get no credit. Also, in order for those orders after 2008 to count, they must be in blocks of 90 days and cannot cross 1 October. I did a 9-month (minus 7 days) deployment in 2011 and got credit for only 90 days. My deployment didn’t start until April and ended before the end of December.
I’m all too painfully aware of the limitations under the law. I have over 900 days of deployment before 2008 that I get no credit for and a grand total of five days over the course of two deployments cost me 270 days off of my retirement after 2008.