Skip to main content

We Need Uniformity Across the Military Components

The United States was facing, until recently, an historic recruitment crisis within the Armed Services. It is likely still facing a similar retention crisis. Much of the twin problems within our fighting force can be chalked up to the social engineering pressed upon the service members by the Pentagon and the White House from the prior Administration. However, a significant portion, particularly in the National Guard and Reserve components, is due to its disproportionate treatment relative to the Active component.

There are three primary areas where Active and Reservists (collectively referring to the Reserve component and the various State National Guards) diverge in treatment, (1) Pay, (2) Benefits, and (3) Duties. From the outset, it is important to acknowledge that there is a major difference in the Active and Reserve components. The Active-duty service members are engrossed in the military bureaucracy 365 days a year for the entire length of their obligation. They get reassigned whenever the military decrees and have far less control over their living situations or duty assignments.

However, for most active-duty service members, they do only work five days a week, during normal business hours, with clear exceptions, and have thirty days of leave, federal holidays, and fifteen days of potential holiday leave each year. Reservists have far fewer obligations then Active Duty, but they do have to manage disruptions to civilian employment for monthly drills (often exceeding the two days) and for annual trainings (often exceeding the two weeks). They have little control over their drill schedule, their annual training, and their deployments, similarly to active duty, with the exception that it isn’t their sole, or even primary, employment.

When an active-duty service member deploys, it is a hardship on the family from a personal perspective, but it isn’t a departure from their primary employment. The pay structure for the family doesn’t change (it may actually improve). That is not the case with the Reservists, who likely, and commonly do, experience a decline in household income during these obligations.

The Department of Defense should treat a day in uniform as a day in uniform as it relates to pay, benefits, and assignments. That is unfortunately not currently the case.

If an active-duty service member is employed in uniform for a standard duty day, he or she receives his or her basic pay, basic allowance for housing (unless quartered), and basic allowance for sustenance. However, when a Reservist attends drill, they receive solely payment on MUTAs that are calculated off of basic pay. They do not receive BAH or BAS in their payment. The idea is that the unit will provide quartering and sustenance, but in practice this is never the case due to funding issues. Regardless, the Reservists still has a mortgage/rent that needs to be paid.

Reservists either purchase their own lunch/dinner, pay for their own hotel, or return home to their families at their own homes, much like active-duty service members when the duty day is over. Incorporating BAH/BAS into the calculation of drill pay would significantly bolster the pay of Reservists.

Similarly, to pay, Reservists are treated disproportionately in-kind as it relates to benefits. The retirement pension is reasonable in how it is calculated. Reservists do not do as many days in uniform as active-duty personnel, so it is fully reasonable that they wouldn’t have as many retirement points, and therefore wouldn’t retain as much of their pension as if they were active duty. However, active-duty retirees receive their pensions immediately (adjusting for paperwork) following retirement. Reservists, alternatively, have to survive a grey period that stretches until age sixty (excluding deployments) before they receive their benefits.

The reservists is already being discounted on their pension to reflect their fewer days in uniform relative to the active component. They still did twenty years of service to the United States Armed Forces, which carried differing but related emotional, financial, and personal sacrifice. It is not reasonable to make the service member wait an arbitrary amount of time to collect their earned benefits.

Likewise, while the active-duty service member is given access to Tricare Select or Tricare Prime upon retirement, the reservist has to live on the incredibly expensive Tricare Retirement Reserve Select throughout the grey period. The active-duty personnel was reasonably given a better version of Tricare Select during their active service, while the reservist had to pay a premium for Tricare Reserve Select. This makes sense, the active personnel is giving more time in uniform during their service than the Reservists. However, both still provided twenty years of service to the country and should not have as large a discrepancy in the retirement years. Tricare Select/Prime is astronomically more affordable than Tricare Retirement Reserve Select.

During their service obligations, the active-duty family will have no premiums for Select, but will have an annual family deductible of $300 and a catastrophic cap of $1,000. The reservist, enrolled in the Tricare Reserve Select will have a monthly premium of $274.48, an annual deductible of $348, and a catastrophic cap of $1,288. This, again, is a reasonable disparity given the differences in uniform obligation.

However, during the grey period of retirement, when the active-duty retiree is in Tricare Select and the reservist is in Tricare Retirement Reserve Select, the cost differential is astounding. The annual enrollment fee for a retired active-duty family is $364.92. The reservist family will pay $18,156.48. That is an insane disparity that doesn’t incentivize reservists wanting to stay for twenty years.

The reserves are also discounted regarding educational benefits. Reservists and National Guardsmen are provided tuition assistance, but the benefit is limited to only tuition, which is a fraction of the actual cost of attending higher education. They have access to the miniature version of the Montgomery GI bill which offers $481 per month during academic periods. This is far and away less than the Post-9/11 GI bill that active-duty service members receive. An active-duty service member needs to do 90 days of active duty for partial eligibility and three years for full eligibility. However, they don’t need to deploy to acquire that benefit. Merely serving in uniform grants them eligibility. However, reservists have to serve under Title X to have their uniform service count towards eligibility.

This is a ridiculous distinction. There is no difference between doing a typical day in active-duty and doing a drill or annual training day. It should be day-for-day for eligibility for the GI Bill for reservists. It will obviously take longer for the reservists to accumulate eligibility than the active component, but that’s reasonable. But their service in uniform should still be measured as a day in uniform. This is important because the Post-9/11 GI bill doesn’t just pay for tuition, but also provides a housing stipend and annual textbook stipend. Most importantly, it can be transferred to dependents to assist in educational planning for children.

The reservist is also disparaged beyond pay and benefits. The active-duty service member actually gets to do their operational specialty on a daily basis, along with applicable training. The reservist has at minimum twenty-four days of drill and fifteen days of annual training to maintain occupational and service readiness. However, the Department of Defense, and the subordinate service departments, place so many administrative requirements on the reserve units that virtually all available times are eaten by power-points trainings and various forms/reviews that need to be accomplished to ensure bureaucratic readiness. The reservists don’t actually get the time needed to ensure occupational proficiency. This leads to unnecessary pre-mobilization time being exhausted to “catch-up” the reservist personnel for deployments.

If we want to actually incentivize retention among reservists, we need to treat them financially like active-duty service members for the time they spend in uniform, and restructure the training schedule to actually emphasize training, and not administrative completeness. The mission of the Reserve Component and the National Guard should be to fill the gaps of the active-duty and to protect the homeland. We can be doing so much more to actually make that happen.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The OBBBA: The Great, The Good, and The Disappointing

  As of the time that I am writing this the House appears set to approve the final provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. President Donald Trump appears set to secure his landmark legislative achievement 164 days since the commencement of his second term. There is no doubt that this piece of legislation will be the centerpiece of his presidency, likely surpassing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in his future presidential biographies. Although I have not been shy in recent days critiquing specific provisions of the bill, I do wholeheartedly believe that on net, the OBBBA will be a positive step for the United States of America and should be applauded. However, in a 940-page bill, in a Congress with the narrowest of majorities, from a Republican Party that has become a broad coalition of anti-leftist, oftentimes contradicting, interests, that there will be provisions that pass that aren’t ideal. Nevertheless, let’s breakdown the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with the great, the goo...

I'm Proud To Be An American

It is a strange thing to be born into a nation that both saves and sins. Stranger still to love it. Stranger still, perhaps, not to. In April of 1945, U.S. soldiers liberated Buchenwald. What they found—bodies stacked like cordwood, children too weak to stand—shattered the postwar illusion that history had been moving gradually toward progress. It was a revelation not just of evil, but of its capability to flourish in silence. The United States did not discover evil in Europe. But it confronted it. And more importantly, it resolved to restrain it—not through imperial dominion, but through the creation of institutions, alliances, and post-war norms built on ideas. That moment—when force was met with order, when liberty stared down nihilism—is one of many reasons I am proud to be an American. Because to be an American is not merely to occupy land within borders. It is to be formed by a proposition. And to be responsible for it.

Deportation Isn’t Genocide. Let’s Stop Pretending It Is

Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of people compare President Trump’s deportation efforts to Nazi Germany. Honestly, it’s getting out of hand. It’s not just inaccurate—it’s offensive, too. This isn’t about politics for me. It’s about facts. We can’t let our emotions run wild and twist reality. Deportation is not the same thing as genocide. Not even close. Let’s Start With the Basics Deportation isn’t some new, cruel invention. It didn’t start with Trump. It didn’t start with Bush. It didn’t even start with Obama—although, for the record, Obama deported more people than any president in U.S. history. Millions. He was literally called the “Deporter-in-Chief” by immigration activists. But suddenly now, when Trump talks about deportation, it’s being painted as the start of a fascist regime? Come on. There’s a difference between disliking a policy and misrepresenting it completely. You can be against deportations. That’s fine. But calling it “Nazi-like” is not just wrong—it’s ridiculous. Histo...