Bill Overview
Title: Record of Military Service for Members of the Armed Forces Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to create the Certificate of Military Service. The Certificate of Military service will be a standard record of military service for all members of active and reserve components of the armed forces to encompass all duty, including that of National Guard and Coast Guard duty. Under the bill, the document must (1) be standardized, (2) be the same for all members of the armed forces, and (3) replace and serve the same function as a discharge certificate or certificate of release (DOD Form DD-214). The bill also requires that a current record of service be issued to members of the reserve components upon the occurrence of any of the following events: permanent change to duty status (e.g., retirement or transfer to active duty), discharge or release from temporary active duty orders, specified promotions, and transfer to another state National Guard.
Sponsors: Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]
Target Audience
Population: Members of active and reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces, including National Guard and Coast Guard
Estimated Size: 2200000
- The Act affects all members of the active and reserve components of the armed forces, including the National Guard and the Coast Guard.
- The document serves as a standardized certificate of military service, impacting individuals during and after their military service period, ensuring they have an official record similar to a DD-214.
- The implementation of this document standardization will be applicable globally where U.S. military service members are deployed or stationed, as it is a federal U.S. initiative.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to standardize certification of military service, affecting approximately 2.2 million active and reserve personnel across branch lines, which is crucial for accessing veteran benefits and civilian employment opportunities.
- Average members of the military, both active and reserves, are positively impacted as this facilitates a smoother transition to civilian life.
- Members transitioning from active duty to reserves, or those receiving promotions or changing duty status, benefit most because they often have more frequent documentation needs.
- The Department of Defense has a budget of $150,000,000 in year 1, which must cover administrative updates, personnel training, and communication about the new certificate to all affected members.
- The overall cost relative to the target population suggests a moderate expense per capita, making it critical that the process leverages existing systems such as the military's personnel records.
- The standardization may not have a direct impact on day-to-day duties of personnel but will likely influence perceptions of administrative support and post-service opportunities.
Simulated Interviews
Army Staff Sergeant (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it would have made the paperwork for transitioning easier.
- Getting a standardized certificate helps when applying for jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Marine Reserves (Jacksonville, NC)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seems useful for reservists like me with frequent status changes.
- I think it'll cut down on the paperwork and confusion when something changes in our duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Navy Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A good systematic approach to have a consistent document across services.
- Although I'm not transitioning soon, it's reassuring knowing information consistency is there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Army National Guard (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone with a civilian job, a standardized document will help.
- It'll be valuable when explaining my military background to others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Air Force Colonel (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly retired now but standardized documents would have helped a lot during transition.
- Way past my service to see direct benefits but will help others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Coast Guard Reservist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will definitely help with keeping track of my service and relating it to my civilian job.
- I think it's going to be a big help for career changes and promotions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Air Force Active Duty (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Useful, especially for active duty personnel regularly moving or changing roles.
- Can help when dealing with administrative work at new locations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Guard Member (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Simplifies the record for members moving across states, which is great.
- Doesn't affect my daily tasks but gives peace of mind for future moves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Navy Veteran (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retrospectively this policy seems helpful for transitioning veterans.
- Great improvement that can ease out anxiety around documentation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
National Guard Veteran (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Useful for establishing clarity while changing roles and transferring state duties.
- Not directly affecting me now but would have streamlined my transition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial and ongoing costs include design, standardization, and integration of the certificate system.
- Potential cost savings derive from eliminating previous certificate systems.
- Long-term maintenance of the system will require continued funding at lower levels.
- Administrative efficiencies could lead to indirect economic benefits.