(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,606 messages
Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
lotowner
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Military Retirement
|
|
Date:
|
6/29/2010 6:30:31 PM
|
I have a friend whose son is a 26 year veteran in the USAF and is stationed in Korea. He has been at his present rank less than the time required for retirement at what rank. Therefore his retirement will be less than he thought it would be after he agreed to go to Korea, spend his time there, and then return back to Florida where he planned to retire. He will be retiring under duress in Korea.
Yet, I hear today that Gen. McCrystal will be allowed to retire with the 4 star rank even though he has not held that rank for the required time.
Comments from military personnel on the forum!!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Military Retirement
|
|
Date:
|
6/29/2010 11:25:18 PM
|
I'm sure McCrystal will be slotted into some kind of advisory job in the Pentagon until he has enough time to retire. Just because you announce your intention to retire, doesn't mean you are leaving right then. Plus, he probably has leave time to use up too. that will get him over the hump.
My observation is that the GO's take care of each other. I worked for a flat out crazy 2-star that had been fired by the PACOM Commander for insubordination. They let him work out of our office for a year, until he had enough time to retire as a 2-star. (He almost got fired by the Secretary of the Army during that time, but it blew over).
Then there are the GOs that retire and then come back as consultants to the Army. Not as contractors but on a special pay scale. Gen Kicklighter went from assignment to assignment that way.
Don't blame Obama. Blame the Secretary of Defense. Remember too, that McCrystal was not relieved for anything that would get him reduced in rank. Essentially, he "offered his resignation" and the President accepted it.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Military Retirement
|
|
Date:
|
6/29/2010 11:29:13 PM
|
That rule was not in effect when I retired the first time (‘92). The second time, I did not notice the rules as I was out-processing at Benning CRC on returning from Iraq (retiree recall). I believe the rule has something to do with retirement pay being based on the average of the last N years.
That said, I believe one should retain the highest rank held… regardless of how some REMF wants to apportion the beans. It is an honor and a privilege to serve. One should listen up upon hearing the directive, “Attention to orders…” Rank is bestowed based on service and ability.
Rank on retirement is honor retained. Grade on retirement is a budget decision. Our CURRENT military has a curious disconnect when it comes to equating honorable service to retirement pay and benefits.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Military Retirement
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 12:02:03 AM
|
Can you explain what you mean by your statement, particularly the last part? I'm confused. I thought in the Military, you retired at 50% of the base pay of your rank. I didn't think it had anything to do with any kind of averaging.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Correction
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 7:45:14 AM
|
I just read an article that said that Obama did have to waive the requirement that McCrystal have 3 years in rank to retire as a 4-star. He was only a year in.
So I take back everything I previously posted -- except the part about GOs taking care of each other.
This is just wrong. The man was either relieved or he wasn't. In my view he should have to retire as a 3 star (which is not exactly a bad retirement).
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Military Retirement
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 7:54:08 AM
|
Actually, I don't know the current forumula. But, I refer you to the original post in this thread where he is talking about a minimum time in GRADE to receive full compensation based on that grade. I predate that rule or formula... whatever.
Amusing note: my last BPED is in 07JUL74. Now there's some math! That was during a break-in-service... I was not in the Army at that time. But, DFAS stacks all of you time (and points if you have reserve time) and counts backwards. Bingo! They arrive at your date for pay purposes.
|
| Name: |
shirt
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Correction
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 8:19:50 AM
|
There are a couple of retirement systems currently out there. The person referenced that is in Korea is probably under the system that averages your last three years of pay. It has nothing to do with time in grade. That is an entirely different issue. The time in grade issue comes into play as your highst rank held. There is a requirement to have held that rank for a certain amount of time, to keep that rank. or " Highest rank held" As with most things it is waiverable, and usually is.
As for McKrystal, his rank at retirement also can be waived by the president. He resigned, and as far as I know was not charged with anything. That is usually the case in these cases.
Yes, I am a retiree. I retired about ten years ago. At that time there was three retirement systems in place.
You probably would be suprised if you saw what the new folks entering the service have for a retirement plan. As I recall they will have to wait until they reach a certain age to collect.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Correction
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 3:36:05 PM
|
Thanks for that information. I have been honestly thinking all this time that the military retirement was based on the rank you held at the time you retired. Had no idea there was any "formula" involved.
I hate to think what those serving now will face in terms of adequate healthcare and future retirement pay. Most of them are probably too young to even think about retirement, much less worrying about how it will be calculated.
Instead of worrying about "don't ask, don't tell" or "tell but don't ask", they should spend their time worrying about our veterans.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Correction
|
|
Date:
|
6/30/2010 4:36:01 PM
|
For those interested in ancient history....
Don't know what it is now, but when I retired in 1989 it was based on pay at retirement and the number of years of creditied service. One could retire at 20 years and his or her retirement pay would be 50% of the BASE PAY at time of retirement. Base pay didn't include things like housing allowance, cost of living adjustments, flight pay, etc.). For each additional year of credited service up to 30 years total, the retired pay was increased by 2.5% of bas pay. Thus the maximum would be 75% of base pay at time of retirement (for GF that's 50 % plus 2.5% per year for 10 years ). Rank was not a determinat because some enlisted were commissioned after a lengthy enlisted term and didn't retire at as high a rank as someone starting out as an officer.
Nasreddin Hodja
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
