The Comprehensive Review of the Future Role of the Reserve Component prepared by the Office of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs has been published.
The review follows the 2010 QDR which called for the Reserve and National Guard to be "...vibrant...seamlessly integrated...trained, mobilized, and equipped for predictable routine deployment...well into the future" and provides recommendations for how to incorporate the Guard and Reserve into the National Military Strategy.
Detailed in the 141 page-long Executive Summary & Main Report are the following:
- Future role and importance of the Reserve Component;
- Using the Guard and Reserve to best advantage;
- Roles for which the Guard and Reserve are well suited;
- Options for rebalancing the Total Force;
- Necessary revisions to law, policy, and doctrine.
ROA's advocacy and strategic education teams are analyzing the review and future coverage in an Officer feature article and DEF reports and events is highly likely.
1 comment:
Interesting that the ongoing reference from the Role of the Reservist on Reserve Retirement is to take advantage of the reserve/reservists and to be concerned about the possible increased costs of retirement! Remember that this is even without the parity with AD that should have been a ROA focus for years....
From the Comprehensive Role...
Vol 1: Furthermore, because Guard and Reserve retirees do not collect retirement until age 60, Reserve Component costs will be lower over the long term as well. When taken in combination, these factors result in career life cycle costs for part-time Reserve Component forces that are lower than those for the corresponding full-time Active Component forces.
Vol 2: Additionally, new terms of Service that allow for more persistent active duty in greater
amounts could lead to more reservists reaching full-time retirement or higher levels of
retirement pay. Potential increased retirement costs...
Vol 3: Remedies implemented - Retirement (differences between RC and AC) WHAT ARE THEY????
Later in the Volume the focus is on further "using but not valuing"...Support could be done in post-retirement “second- career” to retain
and leverage difficult to replace experience and expertise. (Depot-level maintenance, recruiting, training, admin, medical, legal, chaplaincy) Then there is a focus on the Coast Guard - Title 10, USC
• Amend §127321(f)(2)(b) to allow eligibility for early retirement credit for mobilized
USCGR members (USCG). Then the Marines indicate that the Marine Corps’ highest priority issue is to
provide the services with the authority to involuntarily mobilize RC units to support operational
retirements, beyond the current authority associated with overseas contingency operations.
The Commission concludes that the current military retirement does not meet today’s military needs. WHAT ABOUT THE RESERVIST'S NEEDS?
They do realize that proposed changes to military retirement system will not save money and will hurt retention and that there are differences, for which the Coast Guard proposes Change Title 10 127321(f)(2)(b) for the purpose of eligibility for early retirement credit for mobilized members.
The reserve retirement process remains inequitable and hard broke. The 40+ year old point system was intended to create some parity, but the reservist still has to wait until age 60, unlike the AD, and the early retirement did not go back to 9/11/2001. What isn't wrong with this picture.
Where is the ROA?
Post a Comment