MILITARY UPDATE
Reserve, Guard chiefs urge end to inequities
By Tom Philpott
Leaders of America's reserve and Guard components have urged Congress to eliminate a host of inequities that mobilized troops face while serving alongside active-duty forces in the war on terrorism.
Compared with active-duty brethren, deployed reserve and Guard members see smaller and fewer re-enlistment bonuses, are ineligible for critical-skill bonuses, face tighter rules on monthly special pays and, by law, can't be offered bonus contracts while overseas, which denies them a tax advantage many active-duty prize while in a war zone.
During hearings March 31 before separate panels of the Senate and House armed services committees, reserve component leaders, all three-star officers, acknowledged recent improvements in benefits, particularly expansion last year of pre- and post-deployment health coverage.
But deployed reservists, they said, still seek "fair and equitable treatment" with active-duty peers. That begins with pay parity between service members of equal rank and identical skills, when one is active duty and the other is an activated reserve or National Guard member.
"There shouldn't be a difference," said Lt. Gen. James E. Sherrard III, chief of Air Force Reserve.
Yet reservists are limited to one small re-enlistment bonus in their careers versus multiple bonus chances for active-duty enlisted. Reservists in some critical specialties have found they aren't eligible for specialty bonuses paid to active duty members in the same jobs.
Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, chief of Army Reserve, said he had consulted staff lawyers before telling reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be eligible for a new $10,000 Army bonus if they re-enlisted. He had 11 signed contracts before he learned the program did not apply to the reserves.
The gains that these officers seek for their troops represent a kind of middle ground in this year's spectrum of possible reserve and Guard benefit enhancements. Other witnesses pushed at opposite ends of that spectrum.
The most cost-conscious was Thomas F. Hall, assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs. Representing the Bush administration, Hall advised the committees not to approve costly new entitlements, specifically not initiatives to lower, from 60 to 55, the age at which reserve retirement pay begins, or to open TRICARE, the military's healthcare service, to all drilling reservists who pay a modest premium.
Analysts for RAND, the defense think tank, are studying how changes in reserve retirement would affect recruiting and retention, Hall said. Preliminary results suggest lowering the threshold to age 55 would cost $7 billion over 10 years without a significant gain in recruiting, retention or readiness.
The Senate's 2005 budget resolution includes fiscal headroom for the armed services committee to vote this year to authorize TRICARE enrollment for drilling reservist and family. That would not be the wisest use of defense dollars, Hall said.
"We only have a certain amount of money to spend," he said. "We need to target it toward those serving and bearing the brunt today."
Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com. Or visit Tom Philpott's Web site.
