Occasional reader jpr sent in this article from the Navy Times:
The Navy is “aggressively” working on a plan to keep captains who are not in line for major commands in the service to fill other critical billets.
Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John C. Harvey said Tuesday during testimony before Congress that the fleet… wants officers who have already served 25 years to remain on active-duty.
“We are exploring a variety of monetary and non-monetary incentives,” Harvey said in testimony delivered to the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on military personnel at a hearing that focused on recruiting, retention and pay issues.
It’s a good read, and meshes well with what I’ve heard from quite a number of my peers. Most of us joined the fleet when we were building towards a 600-ship Navy, and now of course we struggle to keep nearly 24o “active in commission.” As the fleet gets smaller, command opportunities diminish and it’s command – at sea – that makes the staff work worthwhile.
But I also think it’s true that a 25-year old change in retirement law has had an unintended consequence: My peers at the Severn River Trade School were considered to be on “active duty” when the law changed, so we remained under the “high one” system – our final retirement is based on the last paycheck we’d received. Our colleagues in NROTC and OCS were not so lucky.
It isn’t all about the money, but by the time you get to be my age, totting up the costs of putting kids through four (or five, or six) years of college can make a man feel ret pondersome. There’s a war on of course, but a guy with a quarter century of service can start to think like maybe he’s done his bit for the flag, especially if hanging around is more about polishing PowerPoint briefs than it is manning the guns.
The last major pay rise for an O-6 occurs at the 26-year mark, after which he receives annual additions of 2.5% to the total: 50% of base pay at twenty years to 75% at thirty. An officer putting in the last four years of a 30-year career gains 10% in retirement pay over a 26-year retiree, but the latter has spent those four years earning real money “on the outside” with the added advantage of shopping a resume while still in his late 40′s.
So anyway, in 1981 Congress noted that too many captains and colonels were waiting for that last pay step and then shipping over to do it the civil, so they amended the law to what’s known as a “high three” system: An officer’s final retirement is based on a rolling average of his last three years of service. The intent, I believe, was to encourage officers towards completing a 30-year career. The effect was rather opposite.
We fight the enemy at sea, but among ourselves ashore. With fewer opportunities for captain command at sea, more commanders who were competitive for captain declined their promotions and retired early, while many captains – having sampled at leisure the austere pleasures of work at a major staff ashore, and seeing nothing but more of the same in the future – declined to put in the statutory minimum three years to retire in grade, asking for waivers to retire at the 24-year mark.
And here we are.
Jeez, reminds me of reading of “Half-Pay” in the wooden Royal Navy.
This is just a symptom of a demographic hit across the board in the US. While interning this summer, we had a huge glut of retirements w/o training competent replacements. Chaos and the occasional consultant job ensued.
A cynic would note that this plea to retain superannuated four stripers is being made in the waning days of a mainly pro-military administration.
We face the increasingly likely calamity of a new adminsitration clueless about military matters, and hostile to those in the service defending our country. There is a good chance that in a year or so, there will be a concerted effort to drive out the “wasteful managerial overhead” of the “bloated military.” The better to be prepared for surrender to the Jihadis or any other enemy.
Take the money and run. Quickly.
Then pray for miracles.
I’m sure that the IA monster is also rearing its ugly head in that paygrade, also the beltway bandits are offering up pretty good bonuses, plus 401ks, etc. and there’s definitely something to be said about shooting your resume in your 40s with a promising 20+ year career available, vs 10 years or so.
claudio
This article is just so much crap-at least for aviation officers as long as (redacted) remains at the helm of (detailing).
Sullen and unresponsive-he has taken to himself to make arbitrary decsions about who gets to benefit and who does not, I have friends who have offered to extend or take another tour-and recieved word that the answer was no-or as is mor often the case, no word from the headmaster at all.
Plus go to the BUPERS web site. When was the last time the available CAPT billets were updated? Nothing since December 4th. So even if someone wanted to stay-part of the decision is knowing what is out there.
Plus never a peep from the head of the shop about what’s going on in Millington. The current incumbent does not seem to feel the need to be bothered. He leaves it to his minions to communicate and often they never say the reasons why-for what they are doing.
Plus as was pointed out the IA monster is driving a lot of decisions. Most of these guys are still good Sailors-send them to any O-6 (or even O-5) shipboard assignment and they will pack up and be on their way. However they do not want to go spend a year in Balad or the Green Zone. Instead the current incumbent simply berates them and tells them that he decides what is best for them. So they say “F**k you”-a retirement letter is the best insurance I can buy.
Plus in the end it is simply postponing the invevitable. the 30 year cap is still out there and retiring at 50 or so probably is not as good a thing as being 46 when you go seeking that second career. Chnage that little law-allow people to stay till they hit 55 or so-or 35 +years of service and a lot of folks would stay and go overseas or do what ever else was asked-provided the retirement percentage went up to 100% at that point. Not one person in Bupers advocates that.
Plus in the end its probably good that they don’t-because a lot of guys would end up working for folks very junior to them and who they may or may not respect. The difference? Who was judged flag capable or not.
This is what I know, knowledge at least four years stale:
–BuPers accesses and builds in a way that looks as though its accessions goal is to get just enough COs. In the sub community, for example, in ’03 you got sommat like (IIRC and I don’t) 120% of the required ensigns, then just enough department heads after 60-70% of the first sea tour guys got out of the Navy, then we kill the career of half of those left to get the cut for XO/XO and the leftover guys mostly don’t make O-5 easily without a boat to ride, and then the demand signal for control grade billets (O-5, O-6) goes way way up and you’re out of luck. Other warfare communities do similar things.
–All line officers are trained to want to be the CNO. (Sort of.) There is only one CNO every once in a while; with the DOPMA “up or out” system this results in a pyramidal structure that narrows very quickly right about the point the desire for control grade billets goes up. Army shifted to a different personnel model more like other large organizations in that their pyramid looks a lot more like a set of stovepipes after the initial tour or two; guys get into a field and then right before the control grade level stay in that field for the career, ensuring career mobility and deep knowledge. Navy does this with AP and now FAO: you get a guy into the program and he knows he isn’t slated for CJCS but has a known future and is comfortable with being in a useful field that requires specialization.
–We really do have more admirals than ships.
–Nobody punches a time clock in uniform in the Puzzle Palace; hourly work is free when you pay by the month. There’s almost always a manning bogey out there and “bottom up” reviews that aren’t and so forth. But if you don’t have the power points in place Air Force might get the money.
–I sure see a lot of O-6s retiring who then say they continue to work mainly because their kids need college tuition money. I wonder if that is a lever people would use…
On the subject of IAs: we get a lot coming through the USO–has something to do with the relationship of the local personnel office to IA billets, I believe. Anyway, they’re apparently told to announce to us why they’re here because they usually don’t have a clue, and we at the USO are supposed to know to send them off to the appropriate base.
We get at least one IA almost every time I’m at the USO. I make it a point to ask if they’re volunteers and teasingly inquire whether they ticked off the wrong person. Every single one I’ve asked has proudly said he volunteered. Certainly not what I had expected, based on discussions around here…
I think there are some updated retirement policies that aren’t reflected in Lex’s post or in the discussion. First, O6 longevity pay increases now tops out at 30 years, not 26 years. Second, there is no more 75% cap at 30 years. The 2.5% per year increase continues for as long as you are able to remain on active duty. CO EWTGPAC (a man of vast prior enlisted experience) remarked to me some time ago that he expects receive 105% of base pay every month upon retirement.
Sorry to hear about the Pers 43 performance. I’m receiving great support from Pers 42 for a retire/retain option. In fact, three different assignments have been discussed at one time or another.
In today’s financial environment, with (for the moment) falling interest rates, I estimate $50k would have to be added to your 401k every year to equal the additional retirement pay generated by that 2.5% per year increase in your final retirement pay multiplication factor.
Your mileage may vary.
FbL-On the subject of IA’s it can be a voluntary assignment but many of times it is not a choice. Here recently it seems the latter is gaining popularity. From my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) The Navy was having a lot of “issues” because they were pulling people off of “shore duty” in order to IA them. Now they are tacking it on to the end of Sailor’s sea duty billets. So when a person is up for a new billet they must 1st serve as an IA and then after doing so will be sent to their next assigned duty station.
Different people have different reasons, but here are two to ponder.
1. Having children in the critical teen-age years, the prospect of moving every 18-24 months gets old after awhile – especially if you can get even-money on the outside in a position where you have geographical stability.
2. Every time I see a MSC manned ship alongside a warship I think, “That used to be a Major Command opportunity at one time….” When you have Admirals doing CAPT’s jobs and civilians doing CAPT’s jobs, many CAPT are just being better paid CDRs on a Staff filling in another layer in the bureaucratic onion. Doesn’t fit many personalities right.
$.02
HSN,
The experiences I have seen are no where near as nice. Correct me if I am wrong-retire retain is still required to go past 30 and even if the 75% cap has been removed that still only benefits someone with Academy or prior enlisted time. If your counter starts at 0 when you come in or even if you are prior enlisted you still only get 30 years commissioned service. I don’t think they have changed that.
FbL-On the subject of IA’s it can be a voluntary assignment but many of times it is not a choice.
Yes, yhat’s why I was sharing the anecdotal evidence–it seems contrary to what I am hearing from other sources.
fbl,
Everyone is a volunteer on AD today. Seems to me on IAs they get some choice in the matter (IE- choose GITMO, Horn of Africa, Qatar, Afghan or Iraq-etc.) LOL.
Hence they are volunteers.
b2
Skippy – The whole point of retire/retain is staying beyond 30 years commissioned service, which leads to getting more than 75% of that (now) last step up in the O6 paychart at 30 years.
But there are still more Admirals than ships.
Why not get rid of most of them? Let the best remain at the pleasure of the President and open up some billets.
Some Admirals will have 15 years service as Flag officers. How many Captains can say the same?
I don’t know about the other URL communities, but for the surface guys, IAs aren’t the issue. You can currently count on your fingers the number of surface captains that are on IAs, and well over half of them are volunteers.
The issue is filling the joint billets at the O6, and to some extent, the O5 level. Currently, approaching 75% of the joint O6 billets coded for surface officers are either gapped or filled by another community (mostly aviators). The surface community is working hard to try and make more captains, but some of the constraints imposed by DOPMA are tying our hands.
For the good, bad and ugly on the surface community, try this and this.
I would still submit that the detailing process is broken-at least for senior paygrades. How many people on this list know of someone who either still does not have orders, or received them maybe a month before PRD. Or this one: “Officer is at risk of losing promised assignment because there is no officer identified to fill his current position. Detailer and Placement are in a standoff therefore over issuing orders”.
Seems to me FFC and BUPERS ought to be able to match numbers of available bodies to billets better.
I’d also be curious to know how many retire retains are being approved versus the total number of folks who agree to do it. I bet the approval rate is low due to Navy requirements to reduce end strength this year and next.
Smaller communities have similar problems to Skippy’s on a regular basis. If you only have 80 guys and someone says “rip and fill 10 now” above service level, things get entertaining.
I wonder if our optimization by warfare community causes us to pay a too-high price in overall suboptimization.