I'm with you on some of this and not on other bits, so I'm not sure how you're going to react.
I propose the benefit be based a combination of: - how much time one spends deployed and - how much time one spends doing military work not deployed. Whether one is reserve or active duty should be irrelevant. The Reserve used to be a pretty cushy deal, during the 20 year period in which we didn't fight big wars. This is no longer the case and the rules have not caught up with current reality.
I keep hearing about how much the Reserves and the Guard mean, about how it's all one Army/Navy/Air Force, etc., but it's not. I can't figure out a gentle way to write this: You believed that? I've seen it or been close to it from three sides (enlisted, officer, officer reserve). Taint the same at all. I was also shocked at how much work was required from a reserve officer outside of the "two days/month, two weeks/year."
If the brass are really so concerned about the cost of the educational benefit of the GI bill, why the hell make it transferable?!?
no subject
I propose the benefit be based a combination of:
- how much time one spends deployed and
- how much time one spends doing military work not deployed.
Whether one is reserve or active duty should be irrelevant. The Reserve used to be a pretty cushy deal, during the 20 year period in which we didn't fight big wars. This is no longer the case and the rules have not caught up with current reality.
I keep hearing about how much the Reserves and the Guard mean, about how it's all one Army/Navy/Air Force, etc., but it's not.
I can't figure out a gentle way to write this: You believed that? I've seen it or been close to it from three sides (enlisted, officer, officer reserve). Taint the same at all. I was also shocked at how much work was required from a reserve officer outside of the "two days/month, two weeks/year."
If the brass are really so concerned about the cost of the educational benefit of the GI bill, why the hell make it transferable?!?