Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the period during which days of service on active duty or of performance of active service reduce the age of eligibility for members of the Ready Reserve for retired or retainer pay, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expands the period of time during which members of the Ready Reserve can earn credit to reduce the age at which they can receive retired pay. Under this bill, credit may be earned for qualifying types of active duty or active service performed after September 11, 2001. Current law permits this from January 28, 2008 onwards. The bill also allows credit to accrue for such active duty or active service which spans two fiscal years from September 11, 2001, onwards. Current law permits this from September 30, 2014, onwards. The bill applies to retired pay applications pending on or submitted on or after the date of the enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Kelly, Trent [R-MS-1]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Ready Reserve of the US Armed Forces
Estimated Size: 1100000
- The population impacted includes all members of the Ready Reserve of the United States Armed Forces who have served active duty or performed active service.
- The bill extends benefits to those with service post September 11, 2001, which increases the time window for eligibility from the existing law's start date of January 28, 2008.
- About 1.1 million individuals are part of the Ready Reserve, of which many serving post 9/11 will be potentially benefiting from this bill through earlier eligibility for retirement pay.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals in the Ready Reserve who have served on active duty or performed active service since September 11, 2001. This change allows them to accrue credit towards reducing the age at which they can receive retirement pay earlier than previously allowed.
- Not all Ready Reserve members will be directly impacted, as the policy only affects those who have served post-9/11 up until the current date and whose service spans fiscal years.
- The financial constraints will limit the immediate impact and the number of affected individuals who can benefit fully in the initial year. However, over 10 years, a substantial number of Ready Reserve members could benefit within the budget limitations, aligning with the gradual accrual of credits.
- Given the 1.1 million Ready Reserve members, not all will retire immediately, and the gradual adjustment of retirement pay eligibility ages will distribute the financial impact over a decade.
- Diversity in interview responses will help capture a range of experiences, including unimpacted individuals who serve solely stateside or those with no qualifying active duty.
- Since service in the Ready Reserve includes various roles, the range of perspectives encompasses administrative, training-focused, and operational duties, each affected differently by this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Reservist - Marine Corps (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see this bill. It feels like proper recognition for those of us who have been on multiple tours.
- This will help me retire a bit earlier, which is important considering the impact long-term service can have.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Reservist - Navy (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good change, but it doesn't really apply to me. I've mostly been on reserve duty here in the U.S.
- It's nice to know these benefits exist if I ever have to serve abroad.
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 |
Reservist - Air Force (Ft. Worth, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've served long enough to see many changes. This one feels like it truly benefits those who've been past their duty calls.
- My future retirement plan certainly looks a bit brighter now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Reservist - Army (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I don't directly benefit from this, it's gratifying to see the military appreciate our diverse service histories.
- I am close to my intended retirement already, so this won't change much for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Reservist - Coast Guard (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help some of my colleagues who have been heavily engaged post-9/11, but for me, it's not directly relevant at this point.
- I'm hopeful to see more policies acknowledging our contributions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Reservist - National Guard (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Most of my service has been within the country, addressing emergencies at home.
- The thought of additional credits is reassuring if my service scope changes.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Reservist - Marines (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a supportive policy, especially for those who have been on more intense deployments.
- This policy might slightly ease the future but won't drastically shift my retirement plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Reservist - Army Reserve (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My role doesn't qualify for heavy-duty service credits, so I'm happy for those it helps and hopeful I might benefit indirectly.
- It does provide a safety net if future roles demand it.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Reservist - Air National Guard (Columbus, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is commendable yet does little for us not heading overseas.
- It is crucial to consider staggered approaches that could extend to our roles here.
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 |
Reservist - Navy (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this is great for those involved actively, it doesn't touch upon the needs of training-focused roles.
- We hope future adjustments will also extend some of these benefits to different types of service.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $55000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $85000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $106000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $71000000, High: $118000000)
Year 10: $105000000 (Low: $78000000, High: $131000000)
Year 100: $180000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $225000000)
Key Considerations
- Number of Ready Reservists impacted by the changed eligibility requirements due to service pre-2008.
- The administrative challenge and costs associated with recalibrating retirement systems and records for affected individuals.
- Potential need for legislation clarity or adjustments if the cost impacts differ substantially from projections.