Military officials divided over retirement reforms

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, new chairman of the Senate armed services’ subcommittee on military personnel, has signaled he will defend retirement reforms proposed for a new generation of service members by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.

Graham last week led Commission Chairman Alphonso Maldon Jr. carefully through the logic that fueled its retirement proposals, having him underscore that current retirees would be unaffected and those currently serving would be free to keep their current plan or choose the new one.

link Tom Philpott

Graham then called a second panel of witnesses, representatives of military associations, to share their concerns. But as he closed the hearing, Graham addressed those worries, finding nothing significant to block a plan that would lower annuities for 20 or more years’ service in return for a Thrift Savings Plan with government matching of contributions plus early vesting.

The new plan also would use GI Bill transferability to entice members to serve to 10 years, and offer a continuation bonus at 12 years in return for four more years of service. At 16 years, the plan assumes most members will stay to earn an immediate annuity at 20, though the annuity would be set at 40 percent of basic pay, not 50 percent as under the current plan.

This combination of features, Graham said, would be more “fair” to the vast majority of members who now leave service short of 20 years with no employer-paid retirement benefits. It also would be fairer to the current force because they could stay under the existing plan or shift to the new one.

Robert L. Frank, chief executive officer of Air Force Sergeants Association, challenged the commission’s claim that 80 percent of service members, given such a choice, would pick the new plan.

“Now that everything is in context and we run our survey, I can tell you there’s a stark difference in what people currently serving in uniform today say about the choice,” Frank said.

He blasted how the new plan narrows retired pay for future careerists to provide “easier off ramps” to non-careerists as if they leave now empty handed.

Consider the valuable training, $80,000 in GI Bill benefits, robust veterans’ benefits and thrift savings without government matching, he said.

“To take away from those who have gone the long term — the ones we need to go long term — to give to those who are one-and-done, will have a significant effect on the all-volunteer force,” Frank predicted.

He suggested billions of dollars in savings might be the true catalyst.

Deirdre Parke Holleman, executive director of The Retired Enlisted Association, quoted an economist who said the commission used a “discount rate” far too high to calculate the perceived present value of future retirement money in comparing the proposed plan to the current system.

Also, it seems that if service members perceive the value of the new plan as far more favorable than it really is “then retention will not be harmed. That assumption may be correct but is it appropriate?” she asked.

Graham said he’s more concerned that with today’s plan thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are leaving service or being forced to leave short of 20 years with no government-funded retirement package.

Tom Philpott can be contacted at Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, or by e-mail at:

[email protected]