CBO: Better GI Bill would cut retention 16%

[unhappycamper]

Source: Army Times

CBO: Better GI Bill would cut retention 16%
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday May 9, 2008 10:49:14 EDT

A new congressional report supports the Pentagon’s claims that vastly improved GI Bill benefits would hurt retention.

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, said in a report Thursday that enactment of S 22, a bill promising to pay full tuition plus a stipend for veterans attending college, could lead to a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.

The Defense Department could counter that drop only by increasing re-enlistment bonuses. Fully offsetting the draw of a better veterans’ education program would require a $25,000 re-enlistment bonus for every first-term service member, something that would cost the Pentagon about $6.7 billion over five years.

However, that cost would be offset by lower recruiting costs, the report predicts. It estimates there would be a 16 percent boost in recruits, which would allow a cut in enlistment bonuses and in other recruiting expenses that would result in $5.6 billion in savings over five years.

Read more: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/05/military_gibill_retention_050908w/

---

Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/05/military_gibill_retention_050908w/

[bluestateguy]

1. Retention will be just fine if you don't start bullshit wars based on lies

nt

[wmbrew0206]

7. Actually, the retention rate over the last four years has

been above the historic average for the Army and the Marine Corps as far as the junior enlisted. It is the Captain to Major retention that is the problem.

[sofa king]

9. I've heard the same thing.

Specifically I was told that too many vet junior officers are looking at their future prospects and seeing that the ring-knockers (West Point grads) have a lock on the higher brass positions. Combat experience only helps a non-West Pointer's career if there aren't enough West Pointers to fill the open positions, and so far the Pentagon is in no hurry to muscle out those who are already there.

[wmbrew0206]

10. The West Point angle is not quite right

I think that the view that the USMA grads are treated better than non-USMA grads is wrong. The way officers are evaluated is by two different officers, a reporting senior ( a Capt for a Lt) and then a reviewing officer (a Major or LtCol for a Lt). The RO evaluates the LT on his performance and then the RO states whether he agrees with that evaluation. The bottom line is you are judge by your abilities and how much your men/women respect you, not where you went to college.

The USMA grads only make up about 30% of the officer corps, so there is not a very high chance that two USMA gards would be in the same chain of command of a USMA Lt or Capt. That is what you would need for a USMA grad to get the "academy connection hook up."

It is even more unlikely that two USMA grads would work to cover a USMA grad who was substandard.

Now there is the ability of a USMA grad to get a better second tour billet than a non-USMA grad because he went to school with his monitor (the Officer who decides who goes where), but the same could be said of any officer who happened to serve with and get along with his monitor.

Once you get to the full bird Colonel level and are competing for General, then yes being a USMA grad probably gives you a better shot than a non-USMA grad, but even then what you have done, who you know, and who you've pissed off is more important.

[sofa king]

11. Well, that's nice to hear.

I'm sure part of the story I heard is tinged with a little sour grapes.

Do you care to speculate on the reason why the Captains and Majors are bailing out? I'd like to hear your views.

[wmbrew0206]

14. Here is what I'm hearing...

I've listed a couple reasons below. I got out because I didn't like my orginal MOS and got off active duty and switched jobs in the reserves.

Believe it or not, Lt, Captains, and Majors have some of the highest deployment rates.

Here is why:

1. A typical enlisted soldier will stay with their initial units anywhere to four to six years. So in that period of time that unit could possible deploy for at most 36 months (Assuming a 1:1 ratio of deployment to dwell). So your average soldier will deploy at most for three years. Most likely they will do four years and get out. This means about 3 years at a deployable unit and maybe one to two deployments.

2. A typical officer has a four to six year contract. An officer will spend about their first tour with a deployable unit (normally two to three years). After their first tour they go to a "B" billet or transfer to another deployable unit or some try to be accepted into the SF community. The B billets are normally non-deployable, but because combat operations take a lot more officers to run than normal peace time operations, the military has to staff those requirements (like BCT night current operations officer (Captain)). Officers who are in their B billet and think they are going to have two to three years home with the wife and kids are normally the ones asked to fill these requirements. So lets say they do a year in country and then go back and finish up their B billet. The next tour is going to be with another deployable unit. So it is very possible that if you did 9 years in as an officer you could have up to five or six deployments.

3. Enlisted soldier get off of active duty and then go in the reserves and only join a reserve unit or guard unit if they want to. If they don't, they most likely will not get called up unless they have a unique skill or MOS. Officers get off active duty and go into the reserves and either have to join a unit or face the high likelihood of being called up to fill one of those staff positions mentioned above. So they get off of active duty as soon as they can and accepted that they'll have one more deployment in the reserves before they can resign their commission.

Also, a lot of Officers are tired of going to Iraq. If there was a better rotation where units did an Iraq tour and then an Afghan tour, a lot of officers would probably stick around.

Finally, there is also a large segment that is getting out because they don't like the mission. They didn't join up to spend seven months in Iraq doing civil affairs or training the Iraqi Army. They feel this is not what they signed up for and that they have done their duty and aren't sticking around to do more of the same. This is a HUGE problem for the Artillery community.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90200038

[sofa king]

15. Thank you very much!

I really appreciate your insight, wmbrew0206. I'd like to grill you all weekend but it's probably better if I just say thanks and let you do your thing. I hope you're enjoying life back in the world.

[shadowknows69]

12. Could it be because they won't let people out?

retention or detention?

[bluestateguy]

13. Yeah, so say the Bush-neo-con book cookers at the Pentagon

Whatever.

[maddezmom]

2. too bad,Webb's bill should be passed

[rfranklin]

3. It all depends on what your objectives are...live, educated....

veterans or dead and maimed career soldiers who have no other options in life.

[melody]

4. Boy and it's really going to help with future enlistments

That's right, we're trapping you in hell because we need you here -- to hell with your future. That doesn't seem a very successful media campaign to me.

[elocs]

5. According to the article:

House leaders delayed work on the bill until next week because some fiscally conservative Democrats are concerned about passing a veterans’ benefit program without identifying a way to pay for it.

Yet these same House members had no trouble sending our soldiers off to a war that they had no idea how to pay for it. Somebody has a sig which says, "We have no business creating new veterans if we do not take care of the old ones" and this is exactly the case. All soldiers should be made aware of this.

[flashl]

6. Maybe they are viewing this from an investor's point of view?

151 Congressmen Profit From War

Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.

RINF

[pattmarty]

8. So what the hell is this article saying? It starts out saying yes......

....but ends up saying no?