Given the rising demands on U.S. forces from the global war on terror, including long, arduous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Department of Defense officials will ask an independent commission to assess whether pay and benefits are right for attracting and retaining a quality force.
The Defense Department plans to announce a seven-member commission of outside pay and personnel experts to study the sometimes confusing mix of pay, allowances, bonuses, special payments and noncash benefits that has evolved out of the Cold War era of large standing forces.
The adequacy of reserve and National Guard compensation also will be reviewed, given the greater reliance today on those components.
The commission could begin work as early as April and make recommendations to the secretary of defense by early 2005.
Making the pay system more flexible to compensate warriors battling terrorists and protecting the homeland will be a goal, an official said. Another will be ensuring balance between pay and noncash benefits, and between current and future compensation such as retirement.
Defense officials say obvious weaknesses have become apparent during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An example is the lingering controversy over Congress’ decision in April to raise the monthly family separation allowance by $150 and imminent danger pay by $75. Lawmakers believed the hikes were the best way to boost pay quickly for deployed forces and mobilized reservists. The increases were made retroactive to October 2002 and were to expire in October 2003.
Defense officials opposed the increases as inefficient for rewarding combat forces. Though lacking a ready alternative, the Bush administration quietly urged Congress to allow the increases to expire. Democrats criticized the administration for trying to roll back pay for troops at war.
By August, the political heat was so high that defense officials held a press conference to dismiss as "absurd" any notion that they would support a drop in pay for members in Iraq and Afghanistan. There just wasn’t a solid plan yet to better target the increases.
David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, noted that the raise in separation allowance, from $100 a month to $250 a month, went to tens of thousands of members not assigned to combat areas, including those on routine sea deployments and receiving stateside training. The imminent danger pay raise went to service members in scores of designated danger areas around the world.
Another problem with separation pay, which is designed to ease extra expenses on a family such as home repairs or additional child care when a parent is absent, is it doesn’t benefit unmarried troops, even in Iraq, Chu said.
The department promised to give Congress a replacement pay plan aimed more precisely at personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would involve higher hardship duty pay, which can vary in amount between arduous assignments, and offset a rollback in the family separation allowance and imminent danger pay in combat areas.
As 2003 came to close, however, Congress voted just to extend last April’s family separation allowance and imminent danger pay increases at least through December 2004.
Defense officials had considered proposing another yearlong extension so the pay commission could tackle the issue. Instead, they decided the department needed to act sooner. Defense officials began shaping a new proposal and softening their former opposition.
The department is soon expected to recommend keeping imminent danger pay at $225 a month, making permanent last April’s $75 increase.
On the family separation allowance, the department likely will recommend only a partial rollback and will protect the pay of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old separation rate of $100 a month had not been adjusted since 1991, and deserved to be raised. But $150 probably was too high. So defense officials are expected to recommend some lowering of the current $250 rate.
For troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as of Dec. 31, the department might recommend that separation pay recipients be grandfathered from a cut until they get back home.
If approved by the defense comptroller and White House’s Office of Management and Budget, the separation and danger pay could reach Congress sometime in March.
The whole flap might have been avoided if the military had had a more flexible pay for troops in combat areas. Individual services also have found themselves handcuffed on occasion by a too rigid pay system.
Comments are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@aol.com or go to www.militaryupdate.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
