Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

‘Enemies of the state’

I’m currently stationed in Korea and I’ll be retiring from the Army soon. This letter is in response to the editorial “Retire this bad idea” [Feb. 11]. If the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves convinces Congress to put this idea into effect, they will destroy the military from within.

There is a reason service members who serve in the Guard and Reserve have to wait until they reach age 60 to start drawing retirement pay. They already have civilian employment. For people such as myself, who have served in the military for the past 20-plus years on active duty, this is our way of life, and we have to transition and move on with the rest of our lives. Retired pay is part of that transition. If this commission really wants to make a difference, it should suggest that the government implement measures to ensure those serving in the Guard and Reserve are able to return to the jobs they had to leave behind because they had to serve their country in a time of war.

I strongly agree with the editorial. If this plan goes into effect two things will happen: First, no one will want to serve in the military for at least 20 years on active duty if they have to wait until age 60 to start drawing retired pay.

Second, this commission will be seen as “enemies of the state” in the eyes of every service member who has served this country faithfully and is about to retire. Like me.

Staff Sgt. Shawn McFadden

Camp Casey, Korea

Isn’t it amazing how, in the midst of a lengthy war and difficult recruiting and retention problems, there would be a proposal to drastically alter the military retirement program? There are three serious flaws to this plan.

First, why would people enlist in the military if they understand that they would be ineligible for retirement benefits until age 60? While they are experiencing the dangers, hardships and stresses of military service, their peers are working on careers that will provide lifelong income.

Second, how does the military plan to limit the exodus of many service members at the 10-year mark? There are already complaints about service members retiring at 20 years. The Army will lose vast numbers of mid-career soldiers if they have the option of retiring at 10 years, thus leaving a leadership void. There will be little, if any, incentive to stay past 10 years, since that will only place the service member further behind his civilian peers in regard to employment opportunities.

Lastly, this will likely be viewed as a betrayal. Our elected leaders in Congress have no problem drawing a full pension after only five years in office, with full medical and dental coverage that they never contributed to, but they continuously attack the meager retirement benefits that service members receive after 20 years of service.

Staff Sgt. Joseph Brauchle

Killeen, Texas

Revamp promotions

Has the Army thought about why people are plain-out cheating on correspondence courses [“Cheating Crackdown,” March 3]? One major reason may be because the promotion points for some military occupational specialties are completely ridiculous.

I checked the cutoff score for a 94F in the primary and secondary zone for March posted on the Human Resources Command Web site: They are 657 and 798, respectively. I have been a 94F for about six months, but I have been a specialist for two years and not once have I gone to a promotion board. I must admit that I am a prior Navy service member, and I will be more than glad to go back and take a test (in which I have to know my job entirely), get evaluated and earn awards to get promoted rather than this correspondence and board stuff the Army has.

When they roll out this new system to prevent these cheaters, how many people does the Army think it’s going to lose and discourage because they failed a test and don’t really feel like re-enrolling? Some jobs or commands don’t give enough time during the day to take some Army courses. What the Army needs to do is just revamp the whole darn promotion system from correspondence courses to promotion boards to command evaluations.

Spc. Javier Silva

Bamberg, Germany

Gratuity rules

Regarding Mathew B. Tully’s Feb. 11 “Ask the Lawyer” column [“Grandparent can’t collect death gratuity”], Mr. Tully failed to note that as of May 2007, service members can designate up to 50 percent of their death gratuity, in increments of $10,000, to anyone. Under the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, beginning July 1 of this year, service members can designate up to 100 percent of their death gratuity, in increments of $10,000, to anyone.

If the member does not make this designation, then the federal statutory list of beneficiaries controls who receives the death gratuity, or the amount that is not designated.

It was unclear from the question asked in the column whether the child was the statutory beneficiary. If so, the grandparent could receive the death gratuity on behalf of the child if the grandparent is the appointed guardian of the child’s property.

It was clear from the question that the grandparent was caring for and raising the child. However, a guardian of the child’s property is someone appointed by a court to manage the child’s money until the child reaches the age of majority. The person appointed to care for the child is usually, but not always, the same person appointed to manage the child’s financial assets.

Even if a service member designates in his will who he wants to care for the child and who he wants to manage the child’s assets, that person usually must go to court to be formally accepted as the guardian of the person and/or the property. The military will not pay the death gratuity based on a will; there must be a court document implementing the member’s wishes expressed in the will.

Military legal assistance offices are available to assist next of kin, surviving dependents and those who care for minor surviving dependents with matters related to benefit eligibility.

Lt. Col. Janet H. Fenton

Deputy chief, Estate Planning

Army Legal Assistance

Spouses need no rank

I don’t think that military spouses should wear their sponsor’s rank. I think it is dead wrong.

About 20 years ago, the Veterans Affairs Department’s Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program was changed. It is paid to eligible survivors of active-duty military service members and survivors of those veterans whose deaths are determined by VA to be service-related.

It is a flat monthly payment, independent of the paygrade of the veteran. The 2007 spouse DIC monthly rate was $1,067. This payment is adjusted annually for cost of living increases and is nontaxable. The spouses of generals and admirals get the same amount as the spouses of privates, airmen and seamen.

Now the military wants to attach active-duty military members’ paygrade and rank to their spouses. I refer to the Military Spouse Advancement Initiative for military E-1s through E-5s, and O-1s through O-3s. No NCO, warrant officer or senior officer spouses need apply. Absurd.

The military and Strategic Command hire spouses as civilians and contractors based on their military members’ paygrades and ranks.

And now comes the Spouses to Teachers program. Again, they attach the military members’ paygrades to their spouse. My spouse doesn’t wear my rank or do my job, so why should she be treated any different than other military spouses?

The women of America should be outraged. The military under Bush and his liberal cronies has set the women’s movement back 30 years. My spouse doesn’t need me to cross any finish line, or need my military rank to obtain a good job.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Richard Dickson (ret.)

Papillion, Neb.

Easier E-6

I’m writing in regards to the Feb. 18 issue covering the story of easier E-6 promotions [“Easier E-6”]. I agree with Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin Tucker as far as promotion being up to the unit leaders.

My husband is a very loyal, very dedicated soldier. He’s had nothing but great noncommissioned officer evaluation reports. While in recruiting, he was very successful. He received his recruiter ring (the next-to-highest award in recruiting) in two years. His packet has gone before the board several times for E-7 and so far has been unsuccessful. It’s wearing to watch your husband bust butt and not get recognized accordingly by someone who has never worked with him, or even knows him.

It truly is a shame when soldiers get promoted who didn’t deserve it, while someone who did deserve it was ignored. I know my husband isn’t the only one this has happened to, so I’ll speak up for the others, too. Don’t let this Army go to pot because someone with higher authority calls the shots on who makes rank and who does not.

Karen Thompson

Fort Benning, Ga.