416
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
416 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4359 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did he attain the rank of "Command Sergeant Major"? - Yes.
Did he deploy under the rank of "Command Sergeant Major"? - Yes.
Did he meet the requirments to retire with benefits appropriate for that rank? No. His benefits are for the next rank down.
That doesn't mean he didn't serve under that rank.
Can you explain the last point? Do you have to carry a given rank for x time to earn the veg's Benefits?
According to the Guard you have to have 3 years time-in-service to retire as that rank. He chose to retire as an E-8
That's crazy! When I was in the guard, we had E-7+ that would squat their position just to retire as that rank. I know he had started his family around then, but wow that's almost unheard of.
That dude is fucking dedicated to his family. That, right there, should be enough to prove he's genuine and not just blowing smoke. To give up that pension to dedicate time and safety for family is aspiring! This is what a true Chad looks like.
For what it's worth, having a lower retirement grade shouldn't actually affect his pension at all, at least in so far as I understand it.
Walz joined up in 1981, which was the year after the "High-36" retirement system was adopted. Under that system, the army looks at your career and plucks out the 36 months where you earned the most money. In the vast majority of cases, these are the final 3 years of your career. These are averaged out, and then multiplied by a percentage (2.5% per year of service, e.g. 20 years of service = 50%) to determine your monthly payment.
All of which is to say that his pension calculations do take into account the time he was an E9, even if his paperwork and other privileges rflect the lower pay grade.
Caveat: it's been several years since I retired, and it's a very complex process. I could be off base as it applies to Walz's case specifically, but what I've described is generally true.
which people still don't realize is retiring at one of the highest ranks that can be attained on the enlisted side of the house after decades of service. ridiculous that a corporal and a dodge drafter can have anything to say about it. FUCK THEM. Bullshit pogues.
In order for the promotion to have full benefits, he would have had to have served for 2 years at that rank. He didn't have enough time.
So even though he earned the rank, and served in that rank, his retirement rank is 1 notch lower.
It’s just this kind of petty shit republicans love to split hairs over. It’s like the long form birth certificate all over again.