Speakeasy

General discussion

Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 29, 2004 4:00 AM PDT
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers
by Mark G / June 29, 2004 4:23 AM PDT

so your on the # 1 spot huh dave:D

Collapse -
Re: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 4:40 AM PDT

They all volunteered to get to where they are today.

"Retired" is a mis-nomer. They have been receiving "retainer" pay.

Do you suggest they resist, or run away out of the country ?

Collapse -
Re:
by John Robie / June 29, 2004 5:52 AM PDT

Didn't Dave join a protest group & march during the Nam war?

I had thought Canada did away with harboring since Nam, but there is one that I know of:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA051004.1A.texasdeserter.aefba637.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA051104.1A.TexasDeserter2.b423d3f7.html

http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_local/article/0,1874,ABIL_7959_2815474,00.html

Login for SA News: speakuneasy@hotmail.com

Password: speaktime

Understand he is applying for a Canadian work permit and plans on going to college in Canada. Believe his case comes up in September and if refused his stay he can appeal and stay longer.

Collapse -
Re: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers

Hi, Del.

>>They have been receiving "retainer" pay.<<
That's not the case, Del -- everyone is in it for 8 years after separation, and officers until age 60, regardless of pay status (iow, whether drawing retirement pay or not).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Was speaking to those.........
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 10:37 AM PDT

......referred to as "retired", who have served 20 or
whatever years, and get a "retirement" check. The Army
considers these payments as "retainer" payments, until
a certain age.

Those in the "Ready Reserve" and not qualified for "retirement",
don't receive payments, the last I heard.

Collapse -
Rules have changed, Del.
by Paul C / June 29, 2004 11:13 AM PDT

I can't speak to the officers, or for those who are honorably discharged (a prerequisite) before serving 20 years, but enlisted retirees incur a 10 year commitment in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

For example: I left active duty on 31 Dec 1990 and entered the retired rolls effective 1 Jan 1991. My IRR committment was for the period 1 Jan 1991 - 31 Dec 2000. During that period, I was required to maintain uniforms and keep Air Force officials appraised of my address and any other data that they may have required. As of 1 Jan 2001, that committment ended; IOW, there's no way in Hades that I'd ever be recalled under any foreseable scenario I can imagine.

During my IRR time, I received three exercise recall notifications - and almost one real one in the summer of 2001.

Paul

Collapse -
Hi Paul,
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 11:29 AM PDT

As you well know the services do not mimic each other in
as far as personnel management. I was talking of "retired"
Army personnel.

The thing about Hip Pocket Orders I was ragging Dave K about goes something like this:

Army retirees (Regular Army, Army of the United States, USAR, ARNG) are assigned to three categories. Category I consists of persons (nondisability) under age 60 (62 for warrant officers) who have been retired for less than five years. Category II consists of persons with the same qualifications as Category I who have been retired longer than five years. Category III includes persons who retired as a result of a physical disability as well as retirees who are unqualified for either Category I or II. Of the more than 532,000 retirees, over 232,000 are assigned to categories I and II and are eligible to receive involuntary mobilization preassignment (hip pocket) orders under the recall program. These preassignment orders tell the retirees when and where they are to report for active duty during a national emergency and a mobilization of the
forces. The selection of retirees to receive hip pocket orders is based on the grade and skill requirements at the 56 mobilization stations in the United States. Not all eligible retirees receive orders, as there are more retirees than there are requirements at the installations. The program also allows the retiree to volunteer for assignment to an installation of his or her choice, provided there is a suitable vacancy at the installation. Of the more than 232,000 retiree assets, over 122,000 have been issued preassignment orders. This figure includes more than 6,700 volunteers from all three categories and over 3,400 retirees who reside overseas and are assigned to reporting stations in Europe and Korea.

Those hip pocket orders were/are issued.

The individual involved reacts to the instructions in
the order upon the declaration of a national mergency,
or other notification. The order outlines the reporting
time/date based upon the notification. AWOL after that.

Prior to the revision of the mobilization regs, and the
downsizing of the military, personnel were "retired", period.
After the revisions, the "retirement check" was considered
"retainer", until such time as the individual "aged out"
of the program.

Collapse -
Hi Again.........
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 1:17 PM PDT

Here's what IRR looks like to the Army:

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) is a personnel pool principally consisting of individuals who have had training and have previously served in the active forces or in the Selected Reserve. The IRR consists of obligors who must fulfill their Military Service Obligation, and those who have fulfilled their MSO and who voluntarily remain in the IRR. IRR members are subject to involuntary active duty (AD) or training and fulfillment of mobilization requirements. Additionally, the IRR also includes some personnel who are participating in officer training programs or in the Armed Forces Health Professions Financial Assistance Programs.

In Army programs, retired and reserves are very separate categories.

Collapse -
PS, Dave.......
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 11:01 AM PDT

The next time you "access" your source of information
with respect to the Army, ask about "Hip Pocket Orders".
That's a formal term, applicable to certain "retired"
Army personnel.

I won't attempt to explain it to you as you would probably
tell me "Not so".

Collapse -
Bubble bursting time
"That's not the case, Del -- everyone is in it for 8 years after separation, and officers until age 60, regardless of pay status (iow, whether drawing retirement pay or not)."

That is wrong Dave and I hope you used to do your research better.

Those enlisting in the military services incur a TOTAL 8 year commitment NOT "8 years after separation". Those who retire have surpassed this committment and in the vernacular "They get women and babies and YOU before they get me again."

ALL retired RESERVE OFFICERS (those holding a Reserve Commission as opposed to an RA commission) are subject to recall to age 60 (Regular army Officers do not have the age limitation and are not in the Retired Reserve). Also, you appear to not understand that while Regular force retirees receive retired pay upon retirement Reservists do not receive retired pay until they become 60 years of age (BUT they are in the Retired Reserve and NOT the IRR and the Retired Reserve is not being called up at this time).

It is only the IRR who are presently being called up (Ready Reserve is NOT the same as IRR) and most will have been recent discharges in specific fields with a "critical shortage".

Several retired regular personnel ALREADY have had their involuntary mobilization preassignment (hip pocket) orders they recieved on retirement invoked and many who didn't volunteered to do so.

This is NOT some new thing it is something that goes back to before VOLAR and is something that was taken into consideration for BRAC conducted under Clinton's Admin.

With VOLAR and especially with BRAC the mission of the Reserve Components was changed to include foreign deployments assisting the reduced Active Components.

This link MIGHT help you better understand the Reserve Components and how the article is misleading and factually incorrect when mentioning RETIRED personnel being called up.

for an even better understanding just read 10 USC 688, 12301-A, 12302, and 12304.

Collapse -
Grant you a wager, Dan..........
by Del McMullen / June 30, 2004 4:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Bubble bursting time

....Dave K has already left the room.

This was just one more instance of him buzz-wording something
so he could conjur up something negative.

Over time he has demonstrated his complete ignorance of
military matters. Some of us, particularly myself, should
be embarrassed by allowing ourselves to become involved in
some of these discussions.

Collapse -
Re: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers
by gearup / June 29, 2004 5:10 AM PDT

Plus as I understand it there are another 6,000 at Fort Dix waiting for re-deployment. We are in up to our necks in the middle east and this comes as no surprise to me.

Collapse -
Re: Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers

Hi, Gearup.

I only dispute your phrase "up to our necks" -- I think "over our heads" may be more appropriate.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Dave, now is your chance!
by Kiddpeat / June 29, 2004 7:36 AM PDT

You can show both your dedication to your country, and your sense of fairness. If you volunteer for the military, you may save some young guy from being called up.

Calling up retired or discharged troops is nothing new. Everyone expected Kennedy to do it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Collapse -
Re: Dave, now is your chance! BS !
by R Bibb / June 29, 2004 7:54 AM PDT

I believe Dave to be slighlty over the age for a call to arms unless gw's daddy's buddy country, China, were to invade us.

Collapse -
Where there's a will, who knows? (NT)
by Kiddpeat / June 29, 2004 10:51 AM PDT

.

Collapse -
(NT) Would you prefer the draft?
by C1ay / June 29, 2004 8:15 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: prefer the draft? -- I'd prefer not to need more men...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 29, 2004 8:34 AM PDT

Besides, Clay -- if Bush gets elected (note I didn't say "re-elected" Sad ), just wait a year, and a draft we'll have.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: prefer the draft? -- I'd prefer not to need more men...
by Paul C / June 29, 2004 11:31 AM PDT

I'd prefer not to need more men too, Dave. Two of my late uncles would have rather the U.S. Army not have needed more men in 1950 when, after having plowed their way up the Italian peninsula in one case, and across France starting from a C-47 carrying the 82nd Airborne in another, they were recalled and wound up in Korea.

Collapse -
Re: prefer the draft? -- I'd prefer not to need more men...

Hi, Paul.

Yes, but Korea, like Afghanistan, was a war that needed to be fought. Iraq, like VietNam and Granada, wasn't.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: prefer the draft? -- I'd prefer not to need more men...
by C1ay / June 29, 2004 1:10 PM PDT

That doesn't answer the question. Regardless of your preference we need more men. Again, would you prefer the draft instead of recalling the IRR?

Collapse -
That is a non-answer (total evasion) BUT...

perhaps it is simply because you do not have any understanding of the military and the changes brought about by downsizing and BRAC.

This little link http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/DAHSUM/1987/index.htm#Contents should help you if you READ rather than skim it and since you are such a busy man I will suggest that you start with chapter 6.

Do you really think Bush will be wanting to follow the lead of all those Democrats who are the driving force behind re-instituting the draft? I actually hope so and this time NO AMNESTY for the dodgers and crash callups of protestors.

Collapse -
Re: prefer the draft? -- I'd prefer not to need more men...
by Roger NC / June 30, 2004 4:50 AM PDT
note I didn't say "re-elected"

I'm sure more than he did.

The debate over the rules and regulations about recall I'll stay out of, since I don't know hardly anything about them. I am under the impression that there has always been a recall clause to military service, varying over the years.

The continuing insistence that the 2000 election was not an election is getting tiresome, espcially when the next one is only 5 months away.

I have no problem with someone preferring a different person to win 2004. I do get tired of yammering of stealing the election. To repeat myself again, there were bad problems, the system did what it could to resolve them. There should have been improvments made to correct the most obviously procedural problems. I doubt there has been.

Your anti-Bush stance is your choice. Continuing to deny one election in the past was valid as a means to express that sentiment is a waste of your energy and time, IMO.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
BTW Dave.........
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 12:27 PM PDT

.....you mentioned "retired" in your headline, but where
in the linked article does it refer to retired personnel ?

Big, big difference between retired and reserves as far as
the Army is concerned.

Collapse -
Re: BTW Dave.........
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 29, 2004 1:08 PM PDT
In reply to: BTW Dave.........

>>where in the linked article does it refer to retired personnel?<<
Reread the headline, Del!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
No mention of Retired anywhere
by Del McMullen / June 29, 2004 1:14 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: BTW Dave.........

in the headline or in the article. The article addresses
those who have left the service with remaining reserve
obligations unfilled.

Collapse -
Re: BTW Dave.........
by C1ay / June 29, 2004 1:42 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: BTW Dave.........
Reread the headline, Del!

Which headline Dave? The headline of the article you linked to says, "Army Recalling Thousands Who Left Service", but the headline YOU made up says, "Army to call back 5,000+ retired, discharged soldiers". In fact, no where in the article that you linked to is the word "retired" even mentioned. Fabricating your own fiction from the news?

Collapse -
Re: BTW Dave.........
by SE Moderators / June 30, 2004 4:33 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: BTW Dave.........

Hi, Clay.

Apparently the headline changed -- I did reword the one for the post so as not to repeat exactly the same words in two places, but the headline on the link was cut and pasted from the article at the time I posted it. Yahoo (and some other news sites) tends to do that fairly frequently -- they keep the same link, but change the text of the article itself. It gets annoying in cases like this, but overall it's probably better than getting a 404 error after four hours if they completely replaced the old version with the new.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Shortage?
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Tech Tip

Tired of your tricky Wi-Fi password?

Stop trying to memorize a complicated sequence of numbers and letters. Learn how to change the default password.