Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

Break is good leadership

Navy Times’ assessment that a carefully planned opportunity by the Royal Australian Navy to give some of our people a well-earned leave break “makes the service down under look something like a part-time operation” is mischievous and misleading [“Extra vacation for Aussie navy,” Frontlines, Dec. 1].

Many defense forces take advantage of seasonal opportunities to give their personnel a break. Such breaks most certainly are not a new idea. Christmas and New Year happen over the long summer in Australia, and this time of year has long been the most appropriate time to reduce our operational and training activities. This year is no different. All units that are able to give their people a longer break are being urged by the navy leadership to do so.

It shows clear leadership intent to provide our sailors the space to enjoy their earned leave entitlement during a period of reduced activity over the summer and festive period.

The extended period of reduced activity has zero impact on the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to do what is required of us. We are still within our required readiness levels. It’s a fair assumption that a well-earned break for those with sufficient accrued leave will improve our sustainability over the medium term for those who serve and perhaps give them all a bit more time to let others know about life in our navy. The response to this plan has been very positive from families and sailors alike.

Our minimum duty watch concept over Christmas does not affect our navy’s readiness in any way.

And while those who can are enjoying some hard-earned leave, our ongoing commitment in the Persian Gulf — alongside sailors from the United States and many other nations — the next ship and crew preparing to relieve the ship on station, and our obligations to border protection continue 24/7.

Commodore Vince Di Pietro

Naval attaché

Royal Australian Navy

Washington, D.C.

Double standard at work

I read about the former lieutenant commander who pleaded guilty and testified against the D.C. Madam [“Navy: Call girl actually retired at O-3,” Frontlines, Dec. 15].

The officer got to retire at the paygrade of lieutenant, even though she was an admitted prostitute [while] assigned as a food services officer and occasional ethics instructor at the Naval Academy.

It was only a few years ago that the Navy forced a petty officer to leave the service after appearing in Playboy magazine.

I see a double standard: Officers and senior enlisted should be held to a higher standard, but instead seem to be held to no standard at all.

ET1(SW/AW) Jeremy Todd Welch

Everett, Wash.

Stand by free speech

The article about the Camp Lejeune, N.C., worker disciplined for displaying a “No Quarter – Islamic Terrorist” sticker on his car is yet another piece of evidence that we have lost the war on terrorism [“Freedom of speech?” Dec. 1].

Some Americans are so concerned about offending those who have promised to destroy us that they would rather strip Americans of their freedom of speech instead. Does anyone else find that offensive? Please tell me, why are we coming home maimed or in body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought it was to make the world safe from terrorists.

Cmdr. Richard Maffeo (ret.)

Gig Harbor, Wash.

Responding to Redux

The Fleet Reserve Association commends Navy Times for highlighting the pitfalls associated with accepting the $30,000 Career Status Bonus in lieu of higher lifetime retired pay benefits [“Choose wisely,” Dec. 15]. FRA spearheaded legislative efforts in 1999 and 2000 to shelve the original Redux system that created substantial inequities by offering prospective retirees far less in lifetime retired pay than the High-3 option. The resulting Redux retirement plan that includes a one-time $30,000 bonus with reduced long-term retirement benefits is a tempting option, but not generally a very prudent one.

As the article points out, the CSB may be particularly enticing in the current economic climate, but FRA echoes warnings about choosing quick cash over more enduring retirement benefits. FRA suggests that service members in their 15th year of service consider the Redux bonus a loan that, in effect, must be repaid over the course of their retirement — a repayment that will significantly reduce the value of their overall retirement benefit.

In 2004, nearly half of eligible Navy and Marine Corps enlisted personnel and approximately one-third of eligible enlisted Coast Guard personnel were electing the Career Service Bonus. Although those statistics have shifted somewhat, the high take-rates (24 percent for sailors, 28 percent for Marines and 47 percent for Coast Guard members) continue to surprise FRA’s legislative team. The association calls on the services to educate and counsel their members on the pros and cons of each retirement option, particularly the negative long-term impact of accepting the Career Status Bonus.

Master Chief Joseph L. Barnes (ret.)

National executive director

Fleet Reserve Association

Alexandria, Va.

I applaud your recent articles on the pitfalls of taking the Career Status Bonus, but one article, “Specific plan can make Redux a better option” [Dec. 15], fails to mention that the E-9 who takes the bonus will lose some of his inflation protection — 1 percentage point a year. Since prices triple over the course of a typical retirement, this is not trivial.

It’s also a big gamble for even a successful E-8 to assume that he’ll make E-9. Command Master Chief John Cooper’s strategy for investing the bonus in the Thrift Savings Plan assumes gains in the stock market over time, a very risky assumption in these volatile economic times.

Sgt. Maj. Lewis G. Lee (ret.)

13th Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

Alexandria, Va.