Reforming Retirement?

In recent years, proposals for reforming the military retirement system have been brought forward by the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, the Debt Reduction Task Force and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, DoD’s Defense Business Board and the Obama Administration.

The proposals put forward have ranged in breadth. For example, the Defense Business Board’s plan suggested eliminating the current retirement benefit and replacing it with a defined-contribution plan. This plan would vest after three to five years, instead of the current 20, and the plan would be payable at age 60 to 65 or the Social Security age. There would be no impact on the current military retiree population. The Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, on the other hand, recommended a commision that would reform retirement benefits, as well as active, reserve and retired military healthcare.

In September, the Obama Administration jumped into the fray and said that the current military retirement system “was designed for a different era of work and is now out of line with most other government or private retirement plans.” The White House proposed a commission that would be established to review the military retirement system, working in a manner similar to the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

Advocates Argue for Current System

Advocacy groups, however, do not see any of the current proposals for change as viable and argue that the current retirement program should stay in place.

“It has seen us through the last decade of war when we have imposed more sacrifices on military people than on any other time since the retirement system was invented. Our view is that, if we had not had the current retirement system, we would have almost certainly destroyed retention. If we didn’t have that strong pull until retirement, people would not have been willing to do their third and fourth and fifth combat tour,” said Air Force Col. Steven P. Stobridge, (ret.), director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America.

The issue of retention is a particularly important issue for medical professionals, Stobridge told U.S. Medicine. “There is a shortage of medical professionals anywhere, and the military is no exception. We struggle to retain medical professionals in just about all fields and have to provide big incentive payments on top of the retirement system, but still the retirement system is the big stick for the long term.”

Legislators also have weighed in on the current proposals. At a House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing in the fall, Rep. Joe Wilson, (R-SC), called the Defense Business Board’s retirement plan “radical” and said it would result in “a significant reduction” of retirement benefits for all troops.

“The unveiling of the Defense Business Board proposal injected considerable uncertainty in the force,” he said of the plan.

Some legislators, meanwhile, questioned whether the retirement system should actually be expanded to cover more veterans.

Rep. Susan Davis, (D-CA), said, given that the current military retirement program “was established over 60 years ago,” it is “appropriate for to ask ourselves whether the current program still meets the requirements it was set up to achieve.”

Davis pointed out that some have expressed concern that “the current program does not recognize the sacrifices of those who have served during 10 years of conflict and may not stay the full 20 years to earn a retirement.”

“Is it fair that that person who may have been deployed once and stays until retirement is eligible for a lifetime benefit, while an individual who has multiple deployments and does not stay 20 years, and that person walks away with nothing more than the admiration of a grateful nation?” she asked.

Jo Ann Rooney, principal undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, said at that hearing that “DoD is committed to conducting significant evaluation and in-depth analysis of any proposal” before proposing changes to the military retirement system

She added that DoD needs to ensure any proposed changes “do not break faith with current members” and “must also understand, to the fullest extent possible, the impact of any changes on the future of our all-volunteer force.”

Back to January Articles