WHy retire so young? I can see this rule being in place 60 years ago when 40 was considered OLD, but today 40 year old men who stay in shape can easily outperform younger soliders in the PT test. Seems to me the US Military is giving up YEARS AND YEARS of experience for the sake of an outdated rule.
thoughts?
2007-08-06 13:51:33 · 10 answers · asked by Deangelo H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Looks like many others missed the point, you're point was not that you must retire at 40 but that you retire a lot younger than in most jobs, with the loss of guys who have served for 20+ years you also lose valuable knowledge...or do you?
You don't lose as much knowledge as you would think, as an NCO you are SUPPOSE to be teaching the people under you how to do your job, if you do your job correctly and teach all their is to know to the younger guys then they will be able to do your job when you are gone.
The only thing you really lose (IMO) is washed up narrow minded NCO's who refuse to change the way things have been done for the past 20 years...
If you notice most enlisted guys who have been in 25+ years are in positions like Chief Enlisted Manager and First Sgt, important jobs, but not "mission" jobs.
2007-08-08 14:05:31 · answer #1 · answered by Colbert Nation 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Military Does not "force retirement at the age of 40... I should know I'm 45 ad still serving. Some Generals are still in the military into their 60's. But the Military has a limit on rank. In other words if you are at a certain grade of rank at a specific time in service you have to promote or get out. That is to keep personnel from stagnating. and to insure a person has a chance to better themselves. The military believes in most cases that as long as a person can conduct their assigned duties and physical testing they can stay in...
2007-08-06 22:38:43 · answer #2 · answered by eldertrouble 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can see when you sacrifice knowledge and experience but for a good majority of Soldiers who have served a hard 20 + years...it is time to go. A lot of times the older Soldiers ARE in better shape but across the board, they cannot phsically do all the things the younger guys can. This doesnt appy to everyone but personally I am glad the rule is in place.
Another thing, I believe if the retirement for the military was 40 years of service, less people would want to make it a career. It might have a snowball type of effect, draft, who knows.
2007-08-06 21:07:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You don't have to retire at 20 years, depending on your rank you can stay in for 30 years. It's just that after 20 years you have to weigh your options and what you want.
I have a friend going through this now. Her husband has 22 years in. He was going to stay in, but they wanted him to extend his 18 month PCS to 24 months. The extra 6 months and next rank are not worth it to them. They need/ want him home. So he's going to retire next year. He'll be early 40's, still young enough to have a 2nd career.
That is another reason. People can retire as early as 37 with 20 years military experience and retirement pay. 37 is young these days and to work else where for 20 more years would be no big deal, they'd still be 57 when completely retire and have 2 retirements.
It's just a matter of choice, not forced out.
2007-08-06 20:58:21 · answer #4 · answered by Just me 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I retired at age 43. It was my decision to do so. Those years take a lot out of you. It isn't getting in your car and commuting to the office for a nine o'clock show time then leaving at five o'clock. And many of the chores in the military simply take younger men to do it. Next time you see video footage of flight operations on an aircraft carrier, consider that the average age of those guys moving those planes around, refueling them and loading them with bombs and missiles is about 22 years old. I don't know of any civilian industry or firm which gives a young man that much responsibility.
You also lose some mental flexibility as you age. Not memory loss. I mean the ability to be flexible in your thinking and accept new ways of doing things. I even see it during my visits to a local air base where I run into old codgers like me who think they have the answer on how to defeat our current enemies. But, they buttress their positions with outdated and obsolete ideas of strategy and tactics. I once was part of a command suite group where one of the key people had spent seven years in that assignment. It took us the better part of a year to undo all of the "empire building" he had engaged in. Simply put, he was there too long.
I'll leave the job to the young men and women who currently serve. I left some ideas behind that they can still use. That's good enough for me.
2007-08-06 22:21:08 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a good question. I retired at 37. But to be honest, I was ready - twenty years is a long time in that kind of life. I don't know how many who enlisted young -- say, 17-23 -- would want to stay past twenty, but I agree with you that the services should look at making that option available.
'Course then you have the problem of old-timers clogging up the upper ranks and not leaving, so those beneath them can't get promoted because there are no openings...
2007-08-06 20:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well 20 years in a military life style is pretty rough. and plus a lot of times 20 years isn't monday thru friday 8-5 like when they are deployed, it's a year and a half straight. it can be depressing.
2007-08-06 21:14:25 · answer #7 · answered by candace b 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Doing 20 is a long time and especially if you consider that you're not working "8-5" hours.
2007-08-06 21:00:36 · answer #8 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't force you out @ 40. force out for enlisted is 60 and Warrent Officers and Officers is 62.
2007-08-06 20:55:34 · answer #9 · answered by gbpackers_fan1 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
a rule is a rule
2007-08-06 20:56:19 · answer #10 · answered by bigdogrex 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋