Freeper help needed! Question on retirement benefits for U.S. military personel & veteran

1-4-05 | myself

[GOPcapitalist]

Freepers -

I just got an email from an old friend asking for some help in writing Congress about a bureaucratic regulation dispute that is apparently hurting a lot of military servicemen in getting recognized for their promotions and rank when they reach the mandatory retirement date.

I do not know much about the laws or procedures in this area so bear with me, but here is the situation my friend described:

He is a life-long serviceman and reservist who participated in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as many other missions all over the world. Late last year, not long after returning from the middle east, he reached mandatory retirement. At the time his rank was full colonel - a position he was promoted to about 4 months earlier while actively serving.

From what I am told there is a procedure being applied right now for mandatory retirements that says reservists may only retire at ranks they've held longer than six months - called "retirement in grade." He says that another regulation that he called "consideration of records by promotion board" says 90 days though. In other words, if the first regulation is applied his retirement will only recognize his rank of Lt. Colonel even though he did his service and was properly promoted to full Colonel.

He also spoke of a statement from Michael Dominguez, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Personnel Affairs that read "I am directing the Deputy Chief of Staff (Personnel) to initiate dialog with the Armed Services Committee staffs to either clarify this intent or to amend statutes, as appropriate."

Since this particular case was a Texas case he asked for assistance from Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, but so far hasn't gotten any response. He asked me to find people to email and write them urging a rule clarification that would permit armed services retirees to retire with their rank including promotions obtained up to 3 months prior

Their addresses are:

Senator John Cornyn

Email: cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Mail Address: 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington DC 20510

Phone/202-224-2934 Fax 202-228-2856

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson:

Email: hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm or Sen._Hutchinson@12022283973.iddd.tpc.int or you can use her web site and send a message.

Mail Address: 284 Senate Russell Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone 202-224-5922 Fax 202/224-0776

I'm told that Hutchison is on the comittee that handles this sort of thing as well.

Any freepers who have a moment to spare writing these senators or anybody who is knowledgeable on this sort of thing please respond. It undoubtedly affects hundreds if not thousands of servicemen in our armed forces today and the one I know is fully deserving to retire as a full colonel after a distinguished three-decade career and veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan where he was deployed up until right before his retirement. Thanks for any help

[conshack]

I can speak from the active duty side of the house and regarding enlisted retirement. You must have two years in grade to retire at that grade with 20 years service. If not, your retirement will be increased to "hightest grade held" successfully at the 30th anniversary of your initial enlistment or commission.
I am surprised that they required him to retire due to mandatory age in this time of war, but without knowing all the circumstances, it's hard to comment. However, it is actually unusual for somebody to be promoted within 3 months of retirement. Promotees are usually required to have service retainability to be promoted.

[Cindy]

Ping

[GOPcapitalist]

From what I can gather by his comments the late promotion had to do with something he was doing in the middle east. He was in a very specialized unit that did something with airfields that only a few units can do (he's said he's not even allowed to talk about most of it due to security) so that may have been the reason why. He was over there right before retirement last year and had been back and forth a couple times on special trips.

The way I understand it is he would've been fine for retaining the promotion at retirement had they included the 90-day review period that is the unclear regulation Congress needs to clarify.

[PhiKapMom]

I thought it was odd too that he was promoted within three months of mandatory retirement. Here is what I found from the AF Reserve Personnel Center:

Involuntary Retirement
The time in grade for Lieutenant Colonel and above is reduced to 6 months, if involuntarily separated due to Mandatory Separation Date or age.

http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/retirements/highestgradeheld.htm

[conshack]

That being the case, his commander should have got or granted him a waiver to stay on for three more months. There is a considerable difference in retiremnt between a Lt Col and a Colonel. The Army isn't very accomodating at times though.

[GOPcapitalist]

Thanks for the link - that seems to be the regulation they're reviewing that causes the trouble.

I think the promotion so close to retirement has something to do with his unit being active up until right before the mandatory retirement date. It's also apparently a very specialized unit that does some airfield security thing that only a few units are capable of doing. I suspect that with the war on and a need for his unit arising they may have also needed a promotion and he was in line for it. That they'd give it to him and then deny it in his retirement on a technicality is upsetting - especially if the retirement benefits b/w Lt. Col and Col are as different as they say. I mean, here's a guy whose given most of his adult life defending the country and set aside his normal job and routine several times to put his life on the line. He does it for three decades, fights in the two biggest hotspots in the world today - Afghanistan and Iraq - and earns a very commendable rank for all his service only to see it snatched out from underneath him come retirement due to some bureaucrat regulation.