![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumInsideDefense.com
July 12, 2004
Army Tightens Control On Enlisted Retirements
The Army this month began implementing a new personnel policy that could change how quickly enlisted soldiers are allowed to retire.
The policy, a revision to the Army regulation that guides active-duty enlisted “separations,” requires a high-level review of some retirement requests in light of force requirements, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy does not change the obligations soldiers must fulfill to retire.
Enlisted personnel with at least 20 years service are generally eligible for retirement, but soldiers must serve 30 years before being entitled to retire upon request. The policy change does not affect enlisted soldiers at the rank of staff sergeant and below.
The Army's personnel headquarters, or “G-1,” has always had the final say on whether a soldier could retire. In the past, enlisted soldiers wishing to leave the service submitted a request to their commanders, who routinely granted requests from those who fulfilled active-duty obligations. Once the commander granted approval, G-1 would rubber-stamp the request.
But as of July 1, according to a recent Army-wide message, approval authority of these retirement requests must come from the G-1's Army's Human Resources Command, where each request is being scrutinized more closely to ensure the service does not run out of soldiers specialized in tasks needed in operations.
“The forthcoming proposed change in policy is not intended to deny retirement to our soldiers who have faithfully discharged their responsibilities to our nation, but to ensure the timing of their requirements is consistent with manning priorities,” according to an Army-wide e-mail message by the Human Resources Command, which is headquartered in Alexandria, VA.
-- Anne Plummer
That's a shitty sort of stop loss... ten years.
Think about it... ten years.
What I just realised this article doesn't point out is that an E-6 (Staff Sergeant) who has more than 10 years in is listed as, "Indefinite" when he extends.
The idea is that someone who has the rank (enlisted grades only go up to E-9, an O-6 is a Colonel... who has more power, and respect than an E-6, but may have gotten there sooner [depends on the MOS].
Which is screwed a couple of ways. This is the Roman/British long service army model (enlist for 20 years, from the get-go), only they are doing it after they've got one for ten years already.
Tell me again the Army isn't in trouble for staffing. Tell me again we aren't back-dooring the draft.
Tell me again we aren't pissing of the (all important) middle ranks, wherein resides the institutional memory of the Army.
"Fuck," low and disgusted.
July 12, 2004
Army Tightens Control On Enlisted Retirements
The Army this month began implementing a new personnel policy that could change how quickly enlisted soldiers are allowed to retire.
The policy, a revision to the Army regulation that guides active-duty enlisted “separations,” requires a high-level review of some retirement requests in light of force requirements, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy does not change the obligations soldiers must fulfill to retire.
Enlisted personnel with at least 20 years service are generally eligible for retirement, but soldiers must serve 30 years before being entitled to retire upon request. The policy change does not affect enlisted soldiers at the rank of staff sergeant and below.
The Army's personnel headquarters, or “G-1,” has always had the final say on whether a soldier could retire. In the past, enlisted soldiers wishing to leave the service submitted a request to their commanders, who routinely granted requests from those who fulfilled active-duty obligations. Once the commander granted approval, G-1 would rubber-stamp the request.
But as of July 1, according to a recent Army-wide message, approval authority of these retirement requests must come from the G-1's Army's Human Resources Command, where each request is being scrutinized more closely to ensure the service does not run out of soldiers specialized in tasks needed in operations.
“The forthcoming proposed change in policy is not intended to deny retirement to our soldiers who have faithfully discharged their responsibilities to our nation, but to ensure the timing of their requirements is consistent with manning priorities,” according to an Army-wide e-mail message by the Human Resources Command, which is headquartered in Alexandria, VA.
-- Anne Plummer
That's a shitty sort of stop loss... ten years.
Think about it... ten years.
What I just realised this article doesn't point out is that an E-6 (Staff Sergeant) who has more than 10 years in is listed as, "Indefinite" when he extends.
The idea is that someone who has the rank (enlisted grades only go up to E-9, an O-6 is a Colonel... who has more power, and respect than an E-6, but may have gotten there sooner [depends on the MOS].
Which is screwed a couple of ways. This is the Roman/British long service army model (enlist for 20 years, from the get-go), only they are doing it after they've got one for ten years already.
Tell me again the Army isn't in trouble for staffing. Tell me again we aren't back-dooring the draft.
Tell me again we aren't pissing of the (all important) middle ranks, wherein resides the institutional memory of the Army.
"Fuck," low and disgusted.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-14 03:54 pm (UTC)We're scrambling to fill the last of 3000 slots for the newly formed 56 BCT.
I'm still looking at heading back to AD, so I'm not that worried about me, but it's not right.
My folx reall don't get what this is going to do to the morale of the soldiers, since they're of the opinion that when you sign on, you're pretty much in for whatever.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-14 11:45 pm (UTC)But AC, you're screwed.
How goes it, BTW, on filling those last 3,000 slots?
TK