Improve pay for best performers, study urges

[CommunityEditor]

The Pentagon should overhaul its pay system to attract and reward the best performers and broaden bonuses for those in critical skills, a far-reaching review of military pay released today concludes.

The changes would help address the need to recruit the “best and the brightest” despite wartime demands on the force, a shrinking pool of military-eligible recruits and competition from the private sector.

The 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation said these convergent factors demand that the military be given more pay flexibility — what the report’s authors call “competitive compensation.”

Under the Pentagon-sponsored review, a comprehensive, every-four-years study mandated by federal law since 1965, the services could award enlisted troops and officers promoted early an additional year of service solely for basic pay purposes that would boost their pay above that of their peers and keep it there as they move through their military careers — a permanent award for their fast-track accomplishment.

Re-enlistment bonuses could be sized based upon a member’s performance during the current enlistment period, the report suggests. And commanders might be given a limited pool of bonus money that they could dole out to outstanding performers, such as a “sailor of the year” — or, say, a top recruiting unit.

The 10th QRMC also suggests giving the services broad authority to award “credential pay” to troops who become certified in critical skills.

The report also said the budget for special and incentive pays should be increased relative to basic pay to give the services “greater flexibility in responding to changing mission needs ... offering greater opportunity to use special pays and bonuses to shape the force.”

These are some of the far-reaching conclusions of the 10th QRMC’s first report, which focuses on cash compensation. A second report due in late summer will contain recommendations on non-cash and deferred benefits, such as retirement pay.

The group’s conclusions are only proposals, and have no effect unless enacted into law.

Past QRMCs have produced significant changes in pay, although the changes typically occur slowly. As a result of the early work of the 9th QRMC, the Pentagon launched a five-year series of targeted pay raises that boosted pay for mid-grade enlisted members and warrant officers. A recommendation from the new panel’s work — to consolidate more than 60 special and incentive pays into eight broad categories — also was adopted early and signed into law in January.

“The two big things for us were flexibility for the service, and being able to do good things for service members,” said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Denny Eakle, QRMC executive director and former deputy director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

The goal, she said, was to give service members “the greatest amount of choice we possibly can, within the limits of response to what the department needs.”

“The compensation system should be able to respond quickly to changing force needs, operational demands, or problems in specific occupational areas,” according to the report. “To accomplish this, force managers need the flexibility to adjust resources to reflect emerging issues or shifting priorities. They also need to be able to make targeted adjustments to specific problem areas.”

The Pentagon also needs a greater ability to attract and keep top performers that the QRMC said “often have many opportunities for employment, with high-quality service members lured by potentially more lucrative private sector opportunities.”

And while the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan limit the degree of control many troops have in terms of their assignments, the QRMC said choice isn’t always incompatible with operational requirements and that proper compensation policy can steer the right people to the right jobs.

For instance, the report notes that the Navy has used a program since 2003 that allows personnel to bid on the amount of additional pay they would accept to take certain hard-to-fill jobs.

In addition to the pay-for-performance proposals, the QRMC also suggests bringing Basic Allowance for Housing rates for single service members to 95 percent of the rates paid to troops in the same paygrade with families. Currently, without-dependents BAH rates average around 80 percent to 82 percent of the with-dependents rates, so this proposal could mean several hundred dollars more a month for single members.

The QRMC said the Pentagon should also overhaul partial BAH, a payment to single troops in government quarters that is supposed to reflect the difference in the in-kind value of their base housing and what their BAH would be if they lived off-base.

Partial BAH rates have not changed since 1977, and the value of that payment has eroded significantly. The QRMC suggests a new additional partial BAH payment aimed at the roughly 65,000 single junior enlisted members living in housing that is below the Defense Department’s stated standard — the so-called “1+1” model, where each service member has his or her own bedroom and shares a kitchen and bath with one other member.

Those still living in undesirable conditions — aboard ships or in multi-person barracks rooms — would receive an additional partial BAH payment equal to 5 percent to 25 percent of the without-dependents BAH rate for their location.

The QRMC also suggested a new way to compare military and civilian pay — and a means to better educate the force about the true value of their overall compensation.

The military’s longstanding measure for pay comparability has been “Regular Military Compensation” — the sum of basic pay, housing and food allowances, and the federal tax advantage of those untaxed allowances.

The QRMC suggests a new measure called “Military Annual Compensation” that would include those factors, plus the state and FICA tax advantages of untaxed allowances, the value of avoided out-of-pocket heath costs and a measure of the differences between the value of military and civilian retirement.

The idea, the QRMC said, is to give troops a better feel for how their total compensation package actually measures up against the private sector, allowing them to make more informed choices about their service.

The concept of competitive cash compensation is not a new one; it was earlier broached in the April 2006 final report of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation, which the 10th QRMC used as a jump-off point for its work.

The DACMC recommended that the military replace its current time-in-service pay table with a time-in-grade table in order to better encourage and reward performance and motivate others to strive for excellence.

But while the QRMC said paying troops based on how long they have been in a given paygrade would yield a permanent advantage in pay, it cited past reviews that found promotion speed is not always based on performance, and also varies from service to service.

Promotions generally come faster in some occupations and slower in others — and sometimes are driven simply by supply and demand.

The report also notes that without a significant budget increase, a time-in-grade pay table would reward the best performers at the expense of others. Based on the QRMC’s own calculations, 25.2 percent of enlisted personnel would get a raise, but 22.8 would get a reduction. Among officers, 20.6 percent would see pay increase, but 28.5 percent would see less.

A quick fix that would prevent such losses would cost about $1.1 billion in the first year alone, the QRMC said. And such a change would require a radical overhaul of the pay system, yet would benefit relatively few.

Instead, the QRMC recommended keeping the time-in-service pay table and limiting rewards to the relatively small portion of the force that is promoted early.

For instance, an E-6 with 14 years of experience who was promoted a year early to E-7 might be paid at the 14-year level in his first year in that grade, but his service might have the flexibility to bump him the next year into the 16-year pay cell, permanently moving him one year ahead of his peers.

This would only be used to calculate basic pay; it would not count toward years of service needed to qualify for military retirement.

Use of such “constructive credit” would also allow the Pentagon to address the problem of properly compensating “lateral entrants” — mostly medical professionals who come in as officers.

Such people are now brought in at a rank commensurate with their private-sector experience. A doctor with eight years of experience typically is made an O-6. But O-6s often command troops — something in which a doctor likely has no experience.

A better plan, the QRMC said, would be to bring in the doctor at a lower rank but at an advanced time-in-service pay cell that adequately recognizes their experience.

To read the full article, go here ---> http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...c_pay_031208w/


The Study: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...b2008_VolI.pdf
A Briefing: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...lIBriefing.ppt

IMO, it's a good idea on paper, but in practical use I see it going the same way as EPRs and the awards programs. People in higher visability jobs reap the benifits while those that do excel in more obscure jobs will not benifit as well.

[FLAPS]

Paying members in the next higher TIS pay bracket will not work for everyone, such as prior-enlisted officers (which there are many). There are plenty of deserving CGOs who have so much TIS that they are already at the highest level of pay possible for their rank. Of course, the QRMC doesn't address this issue at all.

Also, don't let anyone be fooled into thinking this isn't another way to cut costs in one form or fashion...especially at a time when every major wpns sys program, let alone personnel accounts, are severely strapped for cash. Unless the AF gets a huge boost in its budget (outside of supplemental funding), it's safe to assume that our personnel benefits will slowly (but surely) disappear.

[FLAPS]

Originally Posted by Pessimistic

IMO, it's a good idea on paper, but in practical use I see it going the same way as EPRs and the awards programs. People in higher visability jobs reap the benifits while those that do excel in more obscure jobs will not benifit as well.

I'd agree that this looks good on paper, but even the plan as spelled out doesn't address the many special case (ex- prior enlisted officers maxed out on the pay scale) personnel. As for your comments on Awards and EPRs, I work in a 700+ person sq where personnel at all levels get recognized. You can be working in a "low vis" job, yet still be a stand-out and get recognized. At all levels, there are plenty of opportunities to do more than the minimum requirements of your job, such as getting involved with the Airman's Advisory Council, Top-4, Top-3, Honor Guard, or other avenues of volunteerism.

As for EPRs, the new version is just as inflated as the old one; however, myself, SNCOs, and Sq leadership make the extra effort to ensure our stand-out superstars (you know, then ones who do more than the minimum) are taken care of.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by FLAPS

I'd agree that this looks good on paper, but even the plan as spelled out doesn't address the many special case (ex- prior enlisted officers maxed out on the pay scale) personnel. As for your comments on Awards and EPRs, I work in a 700+ person sq where personnel at all levels get recognized. You can be working in a "low vis" job, yet still be a stand-out and get recognized. At all levels, there are plenty of opportunities to do more than the minimum requirements of your job, such as getting involved with the Airman's Advisory Council, Top-4, Top-3, Honor Guard, or other avenues of volunteerism.

In Pessimistic's defense, I've seen some ridiculous stuff over the last eight years for people working in high vis jobs. Three examples:
1) A TSgt with not one, but two MSMs, solely for doing their job.
2) A SMSgt receive an AFCM for planning an awards lucheon.
3) A whining, do-nothing, ALWAYS bitching TSgt receive a DMSM while deployed.


What did all of these people have in common?

They all worked on an O-7 or above's staff.

[THELADYKT]

Until they can get the inflation system of the EPR/OPR system under control, this will not work. As is, there is no real way to diliniate between all the people who get firewall 5s. I work IM for the last 12 years or so of my career and in most of them was responsible for doing OPRs/EPRs. Unless you REALLY messed up, fives were pretty much automatic. Was the exact same way under the old APR system. So long as EPRs count towards promotion points and they want to try programs like the one above, there will be no change.

[kojack]

The pay has been leveled a bit to ensure equality. We now have many NCOs who earn far more than company grade officers and commanders and in many cases, even majors. Is anyone really "entitled" to a biger paycheck just they are promoted or become an officer? We recruit a 19 year old private with a nonworking wife and two kids who is walking point in Iraq. Why shouldnt that soldier receive a bigger paycheck than his platoon sergeant who isnt? We now have enlisted soldiers making majr decisions in the field that have international impacts.

Another thing we need to look at is WHO is really doing the work, the decision making, and the directing in a unit and WHO has the legal accountability and responsibilty? Things have changed anf it really isnt the officers anymore. Why cant we consider salary REDUCTION for some of these ranks and use the money to level things out with the enlisted soldiers who now run the companies and battalions? Why should a LT be paid more than a private? by the officers corps own admission there really isnt a difference and guess what? we dont hold Lt's accountable for the platoon, we hold the platoon segeant! We dont hold the company commander accountable for the company, we hold the 1SG and by the way, it now takes GO's to fire a senior NCO. Field grades cant touch an NCO and thats because the officers have really stepped out the picture. So...compensation needs to be adjusted.

[THELADYKT]

Originally Posted by kojack

The pay has been leveled a bit to ensure equality. We now have many NCOs who earn far more than company grade officers and commanders and in many cases, even majors.

What????? Where are you getting this. Basic Pay chart, 2008 rates.
http://www.militarytimes.com/project...08/basic/0_20/

Let's look at what a chief makes compared to your CGOs and Commanders.

E-9 with 20 years service: 4,990.50
O-4, 3 years of service: 4,785.60
O-5, 3 years of service: 5,410.50
O-6, 3 years of service: 6,307.80

Leveled....I think not.

[kojack]

Another idea is that you just "sweeten the pot" as needed to keep people in with time to time lump sums. They just did it with the captains to keep them in when they felt there was a shortage. Thats b really what bonuses are and a bonus is PART of a soldiers total compensation.

Along with compensation, i believe they should look at the current pension plan changing it to make COMPLETELY portable. Think of the power soldiers would have. Do your enlistment, take all of your money ans walk, if you find it is not your career. You would have something for retirement for a 4 yr hitch, rather than a piece of paper' Granted I believe its about service but having something for your retirement as a one termer would be great.

Originally Posted by kojack

The pay has been leveled a bit to ensure equality. We now have many NCOs who earn far more than company grade officers and commanders and in many cases, even majors.

Another thing we need to look at is WHO is really doing the work, the decision making, and the directing in a unit and WHO has the legal accountability and responsibilty? Things have changed anf it really isnt the officers anymore.


Why cant we consider salary REDUCTION for some of these ranks and use the money to level things out with the enlisted soldiers who now run the companies and battalions? Why should a LT be paid more than a private?


by the officers corps own admission there really isnt a difference and guess what?

We dont hold the company commander accountable for the company, we hold the 1SG and by the way, it now takes GO's to fire a senior NCO.

Field grades cant touch an NCO and thats because the officers have really stepped out the picture.

Wow...these statements are way off base. First of all, I'm an O-3E over 18 years and there isn't an E-9 on this planet who makes more in base pay than I do. Also, as for decision making, although I typically consult my expert SNCOs and Chief, when it comes down to it I make the final decisions on ALL major issues in my 300+ person Aircraft Maintenance Unit. The only people who may trump my decisions are either my Ops officer (major) or commander (Lt Col).

As for LT pay compared to Privates, you seem to suggest that a Private right out of HS deserves the same pay? Who are you kidding? It's because through their commissioning programs, education, and the mere fact that they ARE in formal leadership positions, they've earned their pay....which by the way isn't always competitive with their civilian counterparts with the same education and responsibilities.

What officers stated that there isn't a difference between the NCO and Officer? I've been in over 20 years (11 enlisted) and I can assure you there is a difference. That's how our military is structured.

Finally, you state that only a GO can fire a SNCO. Wrong again! It takes a GO to take rank away from an E-9, but an O-6 can take rank from an E-6 or E-7. As for "firing," as a CGO I can fire most SNCOs who aren't pulling their weight in my unit. All I need to do is work with the Chiefs, CC, etc to figure out where to put the slug.