THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, April 26, 1995 TAG: 9504260488
SECTION: MILITARY NEWS PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: TOM PHILPOTT
LENGTH: Medium: 67 lines
Why do officers receive a pay raise of $355 per month when promoted to the rank of O-2 (first lieutenant or lieutenant j.g.) but only an extra $160 a month when promoted to O-4 (major or lieutenant commander)?
Why do senior enlisted with 23 years in service receive a raise of $293 a month when they make E-8, but those who remain E-7 reach that level anyway at the 26-year mark?
Why do some E-6s draw more in basic pay than some E-7s?
The answer to all of the above, say Pentagon officials, are serious flaws in the military basic pay table, the result of piecemeal adjustments over the last 45 years. Built-in longevity increases - those tied to years of service - now provide at least as much financial reward over a career as do performance-based promotions. Critics say this has weakened the effectiveness of the pay system.
One way to relieve the problem is to stop providing ``across-the-board'' pay raises each January and begin to target the adjustments, giving bigger raises to certain ranks at certain career points, and smaller raises to everyone else.
Frederick F.Y. Pang, assistant secretary of defense for force management policy, told ``Military Update'' he hopes the Pentagon can do just that, starting as early as next January, if a Pentagon study verifies that targeted raises make sense.
Top enlisted members from each service met with Pang this month and endorsed the concept as a way to boost promotion incentives and to eliminate ``pay inversions'' - instances of lower-ranking service members earning more than higher grades because of time in service.
Pang said he agrees with those goals, but it isn't clear yet who should get more, and who should get less, than the overall 2.4 percent pay raise proposed by the Clinton administration for next year.
A Pentagon study group, the Eighth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, is examining the issue and will make recommendations later this year. Any targeted pay raise plan would have to be cleared by Pang's boss, Edwin Dorn, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and Defense Secretary William Perry.
The White House and Congress too would have to approve the plan.
For that reason, some service officials doubt a targeted raise can be developed in time for 1996. But Pang said that's his goal, in accordance with Perry's guidance to consider targeted raises.
``We have a commitment from the president for full military pay raises through the end of the century,'' Pang said. ``We ought to take the opportunity to examine the pay scale and see what corrections to make.''
An earlier pay study, the 7th QRMC, criticized the pay table in 1992, saying promotion raises were too small, particular to O-4 and advancement to E-4 and E-5. In contrast, the study said, some longevity raises are too generous. For example, an O-2 receives a $415-a-month raise after three years of service. That's bigger than any promotion raise through the rank of O-6.
It's customary for service leaders to complain about pay on behalf of junior enlisteds. This time, as senior enlisteds told Pang, they favor larger raises aimed at careerists.
``We very much want to see pay scales that make entry into the career force so darn attractive we end up getting to choose who we keep,'' said one service's top enlisted. MEMO: Reader comments and suggestions are welcome. Write to Military Update,
P.O. Box 1230, Centreville, Va. 22020. by CNB