Four bills are pending in Congress to reduce the age at which reservists can begin to receive retirement benefits. This report provides input regarding these proposals and the broader issues surrounding reserve retirement reform. Although it is important to recognize that deferring some portion of compensation can be cost-effective, the results argue in favor of providing compensation on a current rather than a deferred basis.

As the burden of defense borne by reserve forces has increased, more attention has been paid to differences between the compensation systems for the reserve and active components. One particular emphasis is on the retirement systems, a key difference being that reserve members who complete 20 years must wait until age 60 to draw benefits whereas active members can draw benefits immediately upon discharge. This monograph compares the reserve and active retirement systems, discusses the importance of structuring compensation to enable flexibility in managing active and reserve manpower, describes how the debate over reserve retirement reform has differed from active component retirement reform debate, and considers obstacles to reform and how they might be overcome. It also provides a quantitative assessment of several past congressional proposals to change the reserve retirement system in terms of their effects on reserve participation and personnel costs, concluding that proposals to reduce the age at which eligible members may begin receiving retirement benefits are not cost-effective means of sustaining or increasing reserve component retention. It also concludes that a menu of member options can be a powerful tool to maintain morale and overcome obstacles to reform. Current members could be given the choice of staying in the current retirement system or joining the new one, and the choice might be offered over a period of time, say five years. New entrants and reentrants with few years of service might be placed under the new system.

By one estimate, between fiscal years 1995 and 2005, total compensation costs for current and former military personnel increased by almost 60 percent. The military retirement benefit remains a significant portion of these costs, and every change to accessions, retention, and basic pay today will have a future effect on pension expenditures. This technical report provides an overview of the history of U.S. military retirement studies and associated legislation, with a particular focus on the past 60 years of proposed reforms. It is organized around the following five major issues that have driven attempts at retirement system reform: cost, equity, selective retention, civilian comparability, and force management flexibility. The author finds that cost alone is reason to analyze the current retirement system, and reform proposals of the past have focused carefully on cost. However, he also finds that, as the military's mission evolves over time, it is also important to consider the sometimes subtle incentive effects that the retirement system has on service member behavior. Beyond considerations of cost, reform of the military retirement system necessarily involves ramifications for force structure and operational readiness.

The Commission was chartered by Congress to assess the reserve component of the U.S. military and to recommend changes to ensure that the National Guard and other reserve components are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported to best meet the needs of U.S. nat. security. Contents: Creating a Sustainable Operational Reserve; Enhancing the DoD¿s Role in the Homeland; Creating a Continuum of Service: Personnel Mgmt. for an Integrated Total Force; Developing a Ready, Capable, and Available Operational Reserve; Supporting Service Members, Families, and Employers; Reforming the Organizations and Institutions That Support an Operational Reserve; and Commission for the Total Operational Force. Illus.