There's been a lot of talk - and a lot of worry - about the recent DoD proposal to change the long-standing military retirement system, which only entitled Servicemembers who ended their service after 20 years to receive full retirement benefits. A top concern is that the current all volunteer military force's numbers will dwindle due to the decreased incentives as younger men and women decide not to join.

Current troops will not be impacted by any possible changes, officials say. The new plan, which was presented by the Defense Business Board in late July, is only a recommendation - not a decision. If executed, it would instead work more like retirement plans in the civilian sector, with yearly contributions from the government into a 401(k)-style account (similar to a Thrift Savings Plan), regardless of how many years they serve before getting out.

Though the change seems dramatic, the retirement contributions for the military would still be higher than those given out in the private sector, which typically range between four and 12 percent of their annual salaries. Conversely, contribution rates for the military would be around 16.5 percent of their annual salary.

However, when factoring in the average corporate employee's salary versus that of a Servicemember, the percentages don't seem to work in favor of those in uniform. Not to mention that with the recent stock market fluctuations, the average 401(k) plan has lost $11,000 over the past weeks and there is no guarantee of when the lost value can be regained, if at all.

"Military personnel who willingly put themselves in harm's way over and over to ensure the rest of us are safe should not have to worry if their 401(k) lost tons of money," said Retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, AUSA President. "They and their families already share the same worries as other Americans about high food and gas prices and plunging home values, not to mention the extreme stresses that come with military service."

The proposed plan is being portrayed as advantageous for Servicemembers who leave before reaching the 20-year mark since they would be entitled to some retirement benefits whether they got out at five, 10 or 15 years.

"Our nation demands much from its military, and the retirement benefits in place are not gifts - they have been earned through blood, sweat, toil, repeated deployments, missed births, birthdays and anniversaries and sometimes loss of limbs or life," Sullivan said.

A subject of debate has been whether existing active duty military would be grandfathered into the old plan or forced into the new one, yet the latest reports have Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta claiming that, if adopted, the new plan would not affect those already wearing the uniform.

While this may relieve current Servicemembers, many still find it to be unfair for those that are coming in.

"I feel that shifting the burden of our nation's fiscal mess onto the backs of our military, the less than one percent of our population who volunteer for decades of service in harm's way defending our way of life, is morally bankrupt," the retired general said.  

A further, more extensive report will be released in the coming weeks before the item is brought before the Secretary of Defense. Congress is in recess until Sept. 6 and then the Legislative Update will resume on Sept. 12.