Casey Coane posted on February 01, 2012 13:32
February / March 2012 - Navy
As this issue is going to press, we are
interviewing for the position of Director
of Legislation. CAPT Ike Puzon served
AUSN very well for a number of years
and many of you have come to rely on his work
on your behalf. Nonetheless, as we all know, no
tour lasts forever and we wish him well as he
undertakes a new career at the Department of
State. By the time you are reading this, we are
confident of having another quality individual on
board to educate and look out for your and the
Navy’s interests on Capitol Hill.
In the first week of January, Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta was to unveil his view of
right sizing the Defense Department for the
future. Instead, on the fifth, the President traveled
to the Pentagon to make the announcement. As
expected, his plan moved away from the ability to
fight two sustained ground wars at once toward
the ability to fight one major conflict while simultaneously
upsetting an adversary’s plans in another area of the world.
While details of the reductions will come over the next
six weeks, it is clear that we are going to have a smaller
military. Some have said that the President’s remarks had
a “back to the future” connotation of a military highly
reliant on technology as former Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld had designed––a strategy soon changed as the
need for boots on the ground developed in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Several things are very clear at this point and very
disturbing:
-
The size of our forces will no longer be based on even
the pretense of strategic requirements. It will be strictly a
dollar-driven solution.
- The need to save those dollars for equipment purchases
will focus attention on compensation and retirement
programs in a manner that none of us have seen before.
Real change is likely as the idea that the current system is
unsustainable is gaining real traction. What AUSN believes
is truly wrong here is the constant comparison to civilian
compensation and retirement plans. Incidentally, a House
proposal to acknowledge the unique hardships of military
service was not adopted in the NDAA.
- When it confronts what is considered unsustainable
rising health care expenses, DoD has no intention of asking
those currently serving to pay for a portion of their medical
care. That means, the solution will be found by charging
the bill to the retired. Sad but true, when you are in uniform,
you are an asset; when you are retired, you are a liability.
We recently reviewed the personnel sections of the
National Defense Authorization Act to compare what the
two Houses of Congress did during conference. What they
agreed to do and what they didn’t do is educational
as we prepare to urge our representatives
in the right direction:
-
Navy end-strength was reduced by 3,000.
Navy Reserve end-strength was increased by
700, but the FTS numbers were cut by 351.
(Where did they find that 1?)
- Congress authorized voluntary retirement
incentives (officer), temporary early retirement
authority (officer), early discharge increased
from three months to one year (enlisted), and
voluntary separation pay and benefits (enlisted)
effective through 31 December 2018. As of
now, the services have not indicated whether
they will use this authority.
- The NDAA elevated the head of the
National Guard Bureau to a position on the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since the position was
created at the four-star level, the General has
sat in on meetings of the JCS but not been officially a
member. Sources tell us that ADM Mullen asked the General
to excuse himself on occasion and never called for an actual
vote of the JCS. General Dempsey has always included the
Chief of the Guard Bureau in JCS deliberations and has actually
taken votes of the body.
- SECDEF now required to state a policy regarding
dwell time between deployments.
- If an individual has been found “fit for duty” by a
PEB, that same medical condition cannot be used to deny
reenlistment.
- Sexual assault policies and support programs were
strengthened.
- A proposal to rename the DoN, the Department of the
Navy and Marine Corps was not adopted.
- TRICARE standard for the IRR was not adopted.
n There were numerous proposals in the House version
for PTSD research, cancer research (breast and prostate),
and other medical research that were not adopted.
Indicates Congressional concerns about adding to medical
costs in view of other budget concerns.
- House measures sought to restrict the use of base
chapels for same sex marriages, require Service Chiefs to
once again report on effects of gays on readiness, and other
provisions aimed at gays in the military. They were not
adopted in conference signaling that, for this Congress at
least, the issue is dead.
While we have seen victories in the areas of TRICARE
fees, the dragon never dies and battles will be fought each
and every year to protect what we clearly see as earned
benefits and not entitlements to which they are now
disparagingly referred. Please go to our Web site and use
the “Contact Congress” button to send a message loud and
clear. Your vote does count.