Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues

This report provides a general discussion of legislative provisions and proposals relating to the military benefits for former spouses. It is not designed to answer detailed questions about specific issues arising in individual cases. Thus, it does not deal with case law nor does it apply legal or judicial interpretations of enacted statutes to specific situations. Questions that this report seeks to answer include the following: What benefits can former spouses of members or retirees of the uniformed services receive under law? What role do the services play in facilitating delivery of those benefits? What practical problems arise in the implementation of and service involvement in claims on those benefits? How does the current system for a divorce-related division of military retired pay work? These frequently asked questions reflect confusion and controversy over social policy and economic equity issues. The administrative and legal implementation has proven complex, due to the large number of couples affected and the variety of circumstances surrounding their military service and divorce

Women in Combat: Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] Over the past two decades of conflict, women have served with valor and continue to serve on combat aircraft, naval vessels, and in support of ground combat operations. The expansion of roles for women in the armed forces has evolved since the early days of the military when women were restricted by law and policy from serving in certain occupations and units. Women are not precluded by law from serving in any military unit or occupational specialty. However, a 1994 Department of Defense (DOD) policy prevented women from being assigned to units below brigade level where the unit’s primary mission was to engage directly in ground combat. This policy barred women from serving in infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or smaller. On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units and directed the military departments to review their occupational standards and assignment policies for implementation no later than January 1, 2016. This recent policy change followed extensive reviews by various commissions and others on issues regarding women in the military and policies for their assignment and career progression. For example, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission whose mandate was to conduct a study and report on the “establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces.” Among its recommendations, the commission stated that DOD should take deliberate steps to open additional career fields and units involved in direct ground combat to women. The commission’s recommendations prompted Congress to direct DOD, in the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (P.L. 111-383), to conduct a review to “ensure that female members have equitable opportunities to compete and excel in the Armed Forces.” With the cancellation of the policy banning women from serving in combat units, some have questioned whether current occupational standards for entry into these units should be kept in place or modified. Proponents of change maintain that the existing standards are artificially high, and act as a de facto exclusionary barrier to the entry of women into combat occupations. Defenders of the current standards view any reductions to the existing standards as potentially damaging to military readiness. Congress has established requirements, definitions, and criteria for the development and application of “gender-neutral” occupational standards, and has oversight of all DOD decisions in this matter. Congress may also consider additional issues including equal opportunity, equal responsibility (such as selective service registration), readiness and cohesion, effectiveness, and the overall manpower needs of the military

Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments

[Excerpt] The military retirement system is a government-funded, noncontributory, defined benefit system that has historically been viewed as a significant incentive in retaining a career military force. The system currently includes monthly compensation for qualified active and reserve retirees, disability benefits for those deemed medically unfit to serve, and a survivor annuity program for the eligible survivors of deceased retirees. The amount of compensation is dependent on time served, basic pay at retirement, and annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs). Military retirees are also entitled to nonmonetary benefits including exchange and commissary privileges, medical care through TRICARE, and access to Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities and programs. Currently, there are three general categories of military retiree, active component, reserve component, and disability retiree. Active component personnel are eligible for retirement (i.e., vested) after completing 20 years of service (YOS). Reserve personnel are eligible after 20 years of creditable service based on a points system, but do not typically begin to draw retirement pay until age 60. Finally, those with a disability retirement do not need to have served 20 years to be eligible for retired pay; however, they must have been found unqualified for further service due to a permanent, stable disability. In FY2017, approximately $57 billion was paid to 2.3 million military retirees and survivors. Given the size of the program, some have viewed military retirement as a place where substantial budgetary savings could be made. Others have argued that past modifications intended to save money have had a deleterious effect on military recruiting and retention. Military retirees, families, and veterans’ service organizations closely monitor potential changes to the retirement system. When considering alternatives to the current system, Congress may choose to consider the balance among the benefits of the military retirement system as a retention incentive, budget constraints, and the needs and concerns of their constituents

What are the Department of Defense (DOD) Policies on Transgender Service?

[Excerpt] On July 13, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that DOD will review its policies on transgender service. As part of this announcement he issued two directives: 1. DOD will create a working group composed of military and civilian personnel to study the policy and readiness implications of allowing transgender persons to serve openly. 2. The decision authority for administrative discharges for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender will be the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments

The military retirement system is a government-funded, noncontributory, defined benefit system that has historically been viewed as a significant incentive in retaining a career military force. The system currently includes monthly compensation for qualified active and reserve retirees, disability benefits for those deemed medically unfit to serve, and a survivor annuity program for the eligible survivors of deceased retirees. The amount of compensation is dependent on time served, basic pay at retirement, and annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs). Military retirees are also entitled to nonmonetary benefits including exchange and commissary privileges, medical care through TRICARE, and access to Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities and programs. Currently, active component personnel are eligible for retirement or “vested” after completing 20 years of service (YOS) and have a choice between two options (High-Three or Career Status Bonus/Redux) based on career expectations and the individual’s financial situation. Reserve personnel are eligible for retirement after 20 years of creditable service based on a points system, but do not typically begin to draw retirement pay until age 60. A third category of retirement is disability retirement. In FY2015, $56 billion was paid to approximately 2.3 million military retirees and survivors. Given the size of the program, some have viewed military retirement as a place where substantial budgetary savings could be made. However, others have argued that past modifications intended to save money have had a deleterious effect on military recruiting and retention. Military retirees, families, and veterans’ service organizations closely monitor potential future changes to the retirement system. When considering alternatives to the current system, Congress may choose to consider the balance between budget constraints and the needs and concerns of this constituent group. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2013 established a Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) to provide the President and Congress with specific recommendations to modernize pay and benefits for the armed services. The commission recommended changing the current retirement system from a purely defined benefit system to a blended system of defined benefits and government contributions. Many of the MCRMC recommendations were adopted by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92). The new system under P.L. 114-92 will allow more servicemembers to accrue retirement savings earlier in their careers through contributions into the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) coupled with government matching and early vesting. It will also reduce the defined benefit multiplier for calculating the retirement annuity from 2.5% to 2.0%. The new multiplier will provide servicemembers retiring at 20 years of service with 40% of their base pay at retirement rather than 50% under the current system. The new changes will go into effect on January 1, 2018. At that time all entering servicemembers will be enrolled in the new system, existing servicemembers and retirees will be able to remain in the old system, and those with less than 12 years of service prior to January 1, 2018, would be able to opt into the new system

Military Survivor Benefit Plan: Background and Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] This report describes the categories of beneficiaries eligible for survivor benefits under the military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), the formulas used in computing the income level (including the integration of SBP benefits with other federal benefits), and the costs of SBP participation incurred by the retiree and/or the beneficiary. While this report focuses primarily on SBP, survivors of military members may be eligible for other benefits, including life insurance, TRICARE health benefits, Annuity for Certain Military Surviving Spouses (ACMSS), the Minimum Income Widow Annuity, Department of Defense (DOD) death gratuity, commissary and exchange privileges, and other federal benefits, such as Social Security

FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

[Excerpt] Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. This report provides a brief synopsis of selected sections in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018 (H.R. 2810), as passed by the House on July 14, 2017, and the Senate on September 18, 2017. The FY2018 NDAA conference report was passed by the House on November 14, 2017, and the Senate on November 16, 2017. On December 12, President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 115-91). Issues include military end-strengths, pay and benefits, and other personnel policy issues. This report focuses exclusively on the NDAA legislative process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, or tax implications of policy choices, topics that are addressed in other CRS products. Issues that have been discussed in the previous year’s defense personnel reports are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report

Opening the Gate: The Steven Case and the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations

The Article focuses on Justice Tobriner\u27s activism in such areas as freedom to contract, adhesion contracts, and the doctrine of reasonable expectations. The author emphasizes Justice Tobriner\u27s deep concern that the law protect the individual from the abuses of economic power

FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

[Excerpt] Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the regular use of the reserve component personnel for operational missions, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on H.R. 1735 as passed by the House and by the Senate and the final bill, S. 1356, as enacted (P.L. 114-92). This report provides a brief synopsis of sections in each bill that pertain to selected personnel policy. These include major military retirement reforms, end strengths, compensation, health care, and sexual assault, as well as less prominent issues that nonetheless generate significant public interest