U.S. Military (Ret.): Voice for vets in D.C. fights to preserve retirement - Military Retirement - Army Times

U.S. Military (Ret.): Voice for vets in D.C. fights to preserve retirement

Top Defense Department officials — and a number of lawmakers — have made it clear that they believe any potential changes to the military retirement system should apply only to future recruits.

Even so, all the talk about overhauling retirement benefits understandably has retirees feeling nervous. So it’s reassuring to know that we have advocates in Washington looking out for us, like my friend retired Air Force Col. Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for the 370,000-member Military Officers Association of America.

Strobridge, a former director of compensation for the Air Force, testified Oct. 25 before the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel and reminded lawmakers what the military retirement package is supposed to be all about.

In a summary of the hearing posted on the MOAA website, Strobridge noted that recent proposals to scrap the 20-year “cliff vesting” model in favor of a 401(k) model similar to most private-sector plans likely would have destroyed the career force if it had been in effect over the past decade of war.

He reminded lawmakers that the primary purpose of the military retirement package is to induce top-quality people to serve 20 to 30 years or more under conditions few Americans are willing to endure.

The inducement is a substantial payoff at the other end — without which retention would suffer.

“The past decade only highlights the enormous demands and sacrifices that have no counterpart in civilian employment, including frequent relocations that disrupt spousal earnings and children’s education, and the prospect of being deployed to a combat zone time after time after time, with ever-increasing odds of coming home a changed person,” Strobridge said.

The discussion also touched on whether it’s fair that the 83 percent of troops who don’t serve for at least 20 years leave with nothing, and whether they also should be vested to some degree in the military retirement system, as they would be under most private-sector plans.

Strobridge’s view: “It’s an odd concept of fairness, and a perverse retention incentive, that would dramatically cut compensation for those who serve and sacrifice longest to pay more to those who leave early.”

Jo Ann Rooney, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said that while the Pentagon is considering possible retirement alternatives as part of a broader review of the total military compensation package, a top priority is to protect recruiting and retention.

She said DoD has tasked the Rand Corp. think tank to do a study on alternatives to the current system that focuses on precisely that goal.