How does everyone feel about the prospect of the new retirement system?

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by lisdol

Thanks fb. Yeah, staying in the regular AF is definitely the better deal then instead of doing the same job the same hours/deployments/tdys, with the only diff being no PCSing, and then having no benefits from age 43 to 60. Thanks.

See I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around this one.

I deployed an average of 7 months each year for 14 of my 20 years. Those deployments were under water/ice. There was no mail, no internet, no contacting any civilian during any deployment. My other 6 years were deployed overseas on foriegn soil in two 3-year tours [3 years continously living/working overseas].

Now folks keep saying that NG part-timer/citizens are deploying exactly the same as the military does.

Fine they want to be called citizens, whereas the US military servicemembers are not.

But please show me one NG part-timer who is deploying like I did for FD@#$ 20 years.

Is a NG unit doing a standard 3-year tour in Iraq? Just like a normal US servicemember does?

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Is a NG unit doing a standard 3-year tour in Iraq? Just like a normal US servicemember does?

The Army tour lengths in Iraq has been 12 or 15 months depending on what period your talking about.


Rich

[10,000Lakes]

Originally Posted by TheJagMan

I couldn't find anything in the form a bill...The army times article says in order to save money, the DoD "recommends" changing the retirement...

Granted it would save a ton of $$$, but I don't know who on the enlisted side would stay in past one or maybe 2 terms. I know they get BAH, conrats and all that but honestly enlisted folks do not make enough money, E-6/E-7 with 10-16 years in can still qualify for free/reduced lunches and also get WIC.