Q & A RESERVE AFFAIRS
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued DoD’s Operational Reserve policy in 2007. The policy calls for much greater reliance on the Guard and Reserve to perform operational missions.
Recently, the 11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) recommended the conversion of the reserve pay system to an “all active duty” system. Under the proposal, basically, reservists would get one day’s basic pay for each drill day, instead of the current two days’ basic pay for each full day of drill, a system that’s been in place for decades. To offset the pay gap, the QRMC proposes awarding reservists tax-advantaged allowances. The QRMC also recommends the creation of incentive pays to further close the difference between the old and new systems.
Reservists see these proposals as a de facto cut in their compensation at a time when they are being asked to shoulder more responsibilities for national security. The QRMC also proposed the consolidation of reserve duty statuses from approximately 29 to about six. The idea is to streamline the system and clarify when reservists are on active duty versus inactive duty. What are your thoughts on these proposals? Is the department planning to recommend legislation addressing them?
At the end of June 2012, the 11th QRMC presented its report and recommendations to the president, DoD, and Congress. The recommendations in question have been considered in several departmental venues, such as the Retirement Reform Working Group and the recurring Compensation Chiefs meeting. The DoD review is ongoing, and no decisions have been made regarding the recommendations.
Of note, during the course of this review, several associations and congressional members voiced strong opposition to the change in drill pay to Regular Military Compensation (RMC) — one day of pay for one day of active duty — but this QRMC recommendation does not compensate for and take into consideration the other entitlements received by their active component counterparts, nor the disparity between active and reserve retirement systems.
The FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act contains a provision that permits DoD to activate as many as 60,000 guard-members and reservists for up to a year to perform preplanned and budgeted missions. The new authority, unique in our nation’s history, means call-ups under this provision of law will not require a formal declaration of an emergency, a contingency operation, or a state of war — so long as the missions and forces are identified, presumably, in DoD and the services’ planning processes.
Has your office, or another office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the Joint Chiefs, issued guidance to the service secretaries on the allocation of the 60,000 authority? Is DoD actively planning to use it?
Put another way, with the new authority coupled with the operational reserve doctrine, will there be a greater reliance on the National Guard and Reserve for real-world missions as the force drawdown proceeds over the next few years?
We applaud the new authority as it provides the service secretaries with an additional tool to ensure the effective employment of the operational reserve in relationship to specific mission requirements. This tool is win-win for the services and the reservist; not only does it structurally provide the associated skilled manpower to meet future mission outcomes [but it also] allows reserve units and the individual reservist the predictability to ensure military readiness and make necessary career adjustments.
Service chiefs have taken the initial steps to develop implementation plans in alignment with DoD guidance and are providing first-round operational reserve solutions in upcoming planning and budgeting documents. This new authority accomplishes real-world missions, while managing system ambiguity to ensure the appropriate force mix required to effectively protect national security interests. Its use is less an issue of a greater reliance on the National Guard and Reserve and more a tool for effective and efficient management of the overall system in an economically challenged environment and provides the best value to the country.
50 MILITARY OFFICER APRIL 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96