Bill Overview
Title: No Guardsman Left Behind Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a special rule for members of the National Guard, for purposes of retirement pay, to include in the regular calculation of creditable service state active duty that would normally be credited with fewer than 50 points. Specifically, a member of the National Guard may be credited one point for each day of state active duty during a one-year period, subject to certain limitations.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: members of the National Guard
Estimated Size: 443000
- The primary population affected by the bill is members of the National Guard, specifically those who have served or are serving in state active duty.
- The bill changes the calculation for retirement pay for these guardsmen, allowing them to accrue points for state active duty which previously counted for less or did not count towards retirement.
- The active duty participation is at the state level, hence all National Guardsmen serving in any US state could potentially be affected.
- The change may encourage greater participation or retention in state active duty roles due to the improved retirement benefits.
Reasoning
- The National Guard is a substantial group with varying demographics, including young to older individuals and those with diverse backgrounds.
- Many members might not have their points for state active duty count towards retirement, which can significantly affect their post-service financial stability.
- The act's implementation may not impact everybody immediately, but its long term effects could improve recruitment and retention rates by offering better retirement prospects.
- The policy budget limits imply that while the policy will provide benefits, its scope is structured to be sustainable over a 10-year period.
Simulated Interviews
National Guardsman (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a big relief. I have been on state duty for the majority of my career and this means that finally counts more towards my retirement.
- Knowing this extra work is acknowledged makes it feel a lot more worthwhile.
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 |
Part-time Guardsman (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a good initiative, but it doesn't affect me since I haven't been on state active duty very much.
- It could have been beneficial if I started earlier, but now it doesn't make a difference for my retirement.
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 |
Full-time Guardsman (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is beneficial because state duty should be equally counted towards retirement.
- I hope this will encourage more stability in terms of guard duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Guardsman (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive change, although it doesn’t affect my retirement since it has already been calculated.
- It's encouraging for upcoming guardsmen to see the state roles being valued more.
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 |
National Guardsman (Ohio)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased point calculation is great because it aligns with how much state duty I’ve done.
- It’s good to see these roles being acknowledged.
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 | 8 | 6 |
National Guardsman (Georgia)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is a relief because it potentially secures more for the future.
- I have been worried about retirement due to the inconsistency in duty points.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
New recruit (Illinois)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad they're valuing state active duty more, it makes staying in the National Guard more appealing.
- Hopefully, I can build a strong retirement base with this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Veteran (Nevada)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy wouldn’t have affected my retirement as it was finalized years ago, but it's a good direction for current Guardsmen.
- It's a positive change that acknowledges the state duty contribution.
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 |
Senior National Guard Officer (Alaska)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This acknowledgment of state duty is a step forward for better recognizing the diversity of service within the Guard.
- For younger guardsmen, it's an enticing factor. Retention might see benefits from this.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Guardsman (North Dakota)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State duty often felt secondary, but this gives it the necessary recognition it deserves.
- I believe this will help in maintaining a good retirement plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $170000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy increases the retirement benefits of National Guardsmen, which might encourage greater retention and commitment among service members.
- Establishing a uniform retirement benefit improvement specifically tied to state active duty can set precedence for similar future legislations, impacting the broader reserve forces' retirement system.
- The cost increment aligns with the federal mandate to extend benefits but does not cover possible future legislative changes or external economic factors that might affect the calculations.