The past 30 years have seen several cycles of attacks on military retirement. In 1985, Congress directed the Pentagon to develop a plan to reduce retirement costs. The secretary of Defense reluctantly submitted the required plan, but asserted that reducing retired pay value would hurt retention and readiness.

Congress passed the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, later known as REDUX, anyway; it provided 40 percent of Hi-3 average basic pay at 20 years of service and limited annual COLAs 1 percentage point below inflation. By 1999, the services had growing retention problems among REDUX-eligibles, and REDUX was cited as a primary reason for leaving service.

At the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress repealed the mandatory REDUX system in the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act. The new law allowed REDUX-eligibles the option of reverting to the pre-1986 retirement or accepting a $30,000 bonus in their 15th year in exchange for a commitment to complete 20 years and remain under the REDUX formula.

Today, another group bears watching — the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC). Initial indications are that DACMC will propose initiatives to reduce 20-year retirement value for future entrants. Sound familiar? One would think that past hard-learned lessons would have sticking power as the services again face significant recruiting problems and fear future retention/readiness fallout. One would also think wartime is an inauspicious occasion to send servicemembers a message that the government thinks they don’t deserve their current benefits. But history shows that’s no deterrent.

In the mid-1990s — just a few years following the first Gulf war — there were 17 separate proposals to cut the military retirement system. Among them was a proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that would have cut lifetime retired pay value by about one-third for a 20-year retiree.

Since the 1999 retention problems, the military community has enjoyed six years of major gains, with pay fixes, TRICARE For Life, progress on concurrent receipt, and a big Survivor Benefit Plan victory this past year.

Now, with inflation and the deficit increasing and Defense leaders criticizing personnel costs as being “excessive and overly weighted toward retirees,” we must watch out for budget hawks who forget that the unique military retirement system is an essential and hard-earned offset for a career of arduous service and sacrifice in defense of the country.

Gregg now chairs the Senate Budget Committee. Proposed legislation by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), HR 2290, would impose automatic limits on military retired pay COLAs if federal entitlement spending exceeds certain limits. We must learn from the lessons of the past to be prepared for the future.

Disability Commission Leaves Retirees Waiting — Again

The veterans Disability Benefits Commission has requested an extension beyond its August 2006 deadline to make recommendations to the president. Two new research contracts by the Institute of Medicine and the Center of Naval Analysis could push the timeline for completion into 2007.

The commission was formed after a congressional debate about concurrent receipt in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004. Congress wasn’t willing to act on concurrent receipt for all retirees until after a thorough review of the disability rating methodology.

Because legislative leaders are reluctant to make significant changes before receiving the commission’s report, the new timeline means prospects are dimming for any major action before 2008.MOAA expects Congress will accept the commission’s revised timetable, meaning disabled military retirees will be left waiting — again — for resolution on the debate to eliminate VA disability compensation from military retired pay.

The commission has been sincere about conducting a full and fair review, and we were encouraged when it rejected proposals to consider a veteran’s genetic makeup in disability determinations or reduce disability benefits at some “normal” retirement age. But we’re not anxious to see it go on any longer than absolutely necessary, and MOAA will not defer efforts to make further progress in eliminating obvious inequities under the current disability offset law.