This past December, Congress approved a new income-loss protection plan for mobilized Reserve and National Guard servicemembers who are kept on continuous active duty longer than 18 months.

Reserve advocates pressed for a less restrictive program, arguing that relatively few reservists will qualify for replacement income of up to $3,000 a month because few are activated for 19 months or more.

But a new study from the RAND Corp., a nonprofit Defense think tank, suggests that few reservists will qualify for income-loss protection for a more fundamental reason: Incomes actually increase for most reservists activated for the global war on terrorism.

The RAND study contradicts recent news reports that suggest mobilization is pushing waves of reservists into debt. [The New York Times, for example, published an editorial last March, “Part-Time Pay for Full-Time Service.”] The study also challenges results of DoD personnel surveys in which a majority of Reserve and National Guard servicemembers report income losses from their activation.

RAND researchers say their findings are more reliable.

The study examined pay records of a sample of Army and Air Force reservists activated in 2001 and 2002 for the global war on terrorism. It then compared their military pay to prior civilian earnings using Social Security Administration data. In this way, RAND constructed “an estimate of the effect of activation on the earnings of reservists,” the study said.

About 72 percent of personnel mobilized immediately after the Sept. 11 attack saw personal incomes increase because of activation. The average increase was “significant” too, the report says, at more than $850 a month in 2003 dollars. That represents more than a 25-percent pay hike.

Sixty-five percent of reservists saw total earnings climb by more than 10 percent through mobilization.

Military earnings used for the comparison included basic pay, special pays, tax-free allowances, and the value of tax breaks on those allowances. RAND also considered combat zone tax exemptions. RAND said it only had actual civilian incomes for reservists in 2001 so it extrapolated to estimate what their civilian earnings would be in 2002 and 2003.

The report doesn’t argue against income protection for mobilized forces but suggests the scope of the problem has been exaggerated. RAND found that 28 percent of reservists do indeed see some drop in income. For one-in-five reservists, the drop is 10 percent or more.

But it’s less of a problem than reservists themselves have indicated on surveys. RAND notes that a May 2004 Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members (SOFRC) showed 60 percent of reservists surveyed reported income losses during active duty service for the global war on terrorism and 44 percent said they had income losses of 10 percent or more.

Why the disparity? RAND noted that persons who actually have suffered income losses are more inclined to complete such surveys. Also, this survey failed to ask respondents to consider the tax advantages from nontaxable housing allowances or from pay received while in a war zone.

Although its own findings are more accurate, RAND says, there are flaws. The report does not consider, for example, what would have happened to civilian earnings of reservists if they had not been activated. The RAND pay comparisons also don’t reflect any additional household costs a family might experience as a result of a mobilization. Finally, it doesn’t track losses to a business or the effect on spousal earnings during deployment.

RAND is expanding its study to include all reservists activated since Sept. 11 and newer civilian earnings data. Researchers expect that over time income losses from activations will become even less pronounced. That’s because, before Sept. 11, reservists with high-salaried jobs or small businesses at risk didn’t expect to be called up for long wartime deployments.

With those expectations revised, says RAND, many of these reservists are hanging up their uniforms.

Tom Philpott is a freelance writer and syndicated news columnist. His column, "Military Update," appears in 48 daily newspapers throughout the United States and overseas.