(IMOA)
Imagine Pacific Original Article
"Ending the Stigmatic Role of the National Guard: A Call for
Change"
By James E. Faumuina, MBA, MPA
Editor - Imagine Pacific Pulse
11/01/2023
Abstract: This article presents a compelling argument for a
paradigm shift in the perception and treatment of the National Guard. It
advocates for the recognition of the National Guard as a steady-state
operational force with equivalent daily requirements for response and
operational readiness as the active duty, particularly in relation to its
unique Title 32 mission. The argument highlights the disparity in treatment
between National Guard members and active duty members in terms of retirement
benefits. It points out that National Guard members engaged in full-time Title
32 missions, which are authorized by federal law, should be given the opportunity
to accumulate retirement benefits in a manner similar to active duty members.
The argument questions why certain National Guard positions are not considered
for retirement benefits when they may involve less hazardous or non-direct
defense-related tasks compared to active duty positions. It suggests that if
there is enough funding to support retirement benefits for active duty members
without extensive scrutiny, the same opportunity should be extended to National
Guard members to encourage their long-term commitment to service. In analyzing
the challenges posed by current career status regulations, the article contends
that all service members who can reach 20 TAFMS (Total Active Federal Military
Service) should be entitled to do so.
The National Guard has played an indispensable
role in the United States military, evolving from a part-time strategic reserve
to becoming a force that effectively addresses contemporary challenges. However, the prevailing perception of the National Guard as primarily a
strategic reserve has created barriers that hinder its full potential and
restrict opportunities for its members. This article argues for a
fundamental shift in the perception of the National Guard and advocates for its
recognition as an operational regular force. Furthermore, it proposes that
Guardsmen should be entitled to retire, if eligible, with a 20-year active duty
retirement. It prompts readers to consider why institutional safeguards and
gatekeeping procedures prevent rather than enable Guardsmen from attaining this
right.
The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a significant turning
point, highlighting the invaluable contributions of the National Guard in
responding to crises (NCLS, 2020). Guard members have been at the forefront,
providing essential support in testing, vaccine distribution, and aiding
overwhelmed healthcare systems. The nature of the Guard's
capabilities has evolved beyond the traditional categorizations of part-time
versus full-time service. Their vital role in protecting the nation's
well-being renders these outdated perspectives obsolete, as enlistment in the
National Guard is now solely based on voluntary means. Retaining highly skilled
and qualified warriors has become a pressing concern for the military branches,
as experienced leadership is a scarce and coveted resource. Therefore, the retention of human resources, including
experienced Guard members, should be treated with the same importance as other
resource conservation methods.
The National Guard's indispensability stems from the
constitutional requirement for the separation of military and civilian affairs
and the management of the state. Posse Comitatus, established to prevent the
military from being used as a means of domestic political will, ensures that
federal forces are forbidden from enacting domestically militarily unless
federalization occurs. Governors serve as the de facto commanders-in-chief of
their respective states at times of emergency. In the event of a state of
emergency declaration by the Governor, the respective Guard Adjutant General
serves as the State’s Commander General. (FEMA, 2017). Moreover, in the recent
pandemic response, the National Guard played an integral role in executing this
essential homeland defense mission, including protecting national borders, and critical
infrastructure, and responding to emergencies and disasters as they are
mandated to do by regulation (DODI, 2017). Consistently over the years, these
responsibilities have demanded continuous readiness and immediate response
capabilities, necessitating the recognition of the National Guard as a force
with a capacity that requires its Guardsmen to perform active duty far beyond
the set 2 weeks a year, 14 days a year known as the required commitment edict
for the reserve forces of the military.
Title 32 missions, authorized by federal law, grant the
National Guard the authority to undertake specific continuous missions, such as
cyber defense, counter-drug operations, and disaster response (U.S. Department
of Defense, 2020). These missions often require full-time engagement and
specialized skills that only the National Guard can provide. Guard members who
are fortunate enough to attain one of the few treasured active duty positions
under the Active/Guard and Reserve (AGR) program are granted equivalent
privileges as the active duty uniformed members serving under Title-10
(federal) status.
There is a robust operational mission being conducted by the
National Guard actively every day. However, underneath this vested importance
is a conventional logic limiting Guardsmen that needs to be challenged. The Guard
encompasses any and every AFSC/MOS (Air Force Specialty Code/Military
Occupational Specialty) as active duty. In contrast, there are unique missions in
the Guard that require niche units like the CERFP. As it stands today, not
every Guardsman in these programs can attain a 20-year retirement unless they
are in the AGR program. It is unjust that every Active Duty member can attain
20 years of service, regardless of whether their jobs involve hazards or direct
defense of the homeland, while Guardsmen, specifically in programs like the
CERFP, are being forced to cut their orders when they approach the cut-line of
18 years, at which time they would be entitled to receive a 20-year retirement.
It is a fruitless and dangerous debate to compare positions
based on perceived importance, and that is not the intent of this argument. A
more productive rationale would be to consider how the active duty finds it sufficient,
without any need for justification, for every position to warrant retirement
without scrutiny. If there is no issue with granting this privilege to Active
Duty members, then why can't Guardsmen, with the caveat they can attain 20
years of active duty, enjoy the same benefit? What is the harm in a Guardsman
piecing together their Active Duty service in order to reach a 20-year Active
Duty retirement?
It all revolves around the concept of “sanctuary” and how it
is used as a tool to hinder Guardsmen from attaining the same rights and
privileges that every active duty member has in obtaining an active duty
retirement. As mentioned earlier with the CERFP, a preventative practice being conducted is the curtailment of orders based on proximity to 20 TAFMS (Total Active Federal Military Service) when they get close to sanctuary, essentially preventing them from ever attaining the coveted 20 year active duty retirement. (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). This practice of creating barriers to
attaining 20TAMFS restricts Guard members from attaining career status and the
associated benefits.
By enabling Guardsmen to reach 20 TAFMS, regardless of their
part-time or full-time status, and based on mission requirements and resource
availability, we can effectively address and alleviate the challenges and
inequities they face. This proposed change to the career status rules not only
addresses the inherent injustices within the system but also enhances the
operational readiness of the National Guard. This paradigm shift also aligns
with the evolving nature of military operations and the need for flexible and
integrated forces to tackle contemporary challenges. Recognizing the full-time
commitment of Guard members will go a long way in ensuring they have access to
the necessary resources, support, and career opportunities, enabling them to
maintain the highest levels of readiness and effectiveness.
In conclusion, the time has come for a transformative shift
in the way we perceive and treat the National Guard. The Guard, once considered
a strategic reserve, has proven itself to be an indispensable force in our
modern world. The COVID-19 pandemic and the tragic wildfires in Maui have
demonstrated the vital role Guard members play in safeguarding our nation's
well-being and security. They are no longer simply part-time soldiers but
dedicated professionals, ready to respond to crises at a moment's notice.
This article has attempted to make a case for recognizing
the National Guard as an operational regular force. It argues that Guardsmen,
engaged in full-time Title 32 missions, should have the opportunity to accumulate
retirement benefits, just like their active-duty counterparts. It questions why
certain Guard positions are denied retirement benefits, even when their roles
may be less hazardous or defense-related than active-duty positions.
The solution is simple: we must reform the career status
rules to allow Guardsmen, based on mission requirements, to reach the 20-year
active-duty retirement threshold. This change addresses not only the inherent
injustices within the system but also enhances the National Guard's operational
readiness. Again and again, the National Guard has served as a linchpin of our
national security and community resilience. It goes without saying that they deserve
the same rights and privileges as their active-duty counterparts. This paradigm
shift will not only ensure the Guard's long-term commitment to service but also
provide the necessary support and resources to maintain the highest levels of
readiness.
The time has come to recognize and invest properly in the
Guard's proven value and unwavering reliability. This is not just a call for
change; it's a call to acknowledge the unwavering commitment and sacrifices
made by citizen soldiers who take on the mantle of Guardsmen. To ensure a
strong, agile, and effective National Guard that is prepared to meet today's
demands, and those that will be even more demanding in the future, a radical
systems revision is needed and unabashedly long overdue.
James is the owner of Imagine Pacific Enterprises and the Editor of Imagine Pacific Pulse (IMPULSE). He is a retired Lt Col, Hawaii Air National Guard. Former medical administrator, planner, program manager, and operations officer. Graduated from the USAF Air War College and is a graduate student at the University of Hawaii studying Disabilities Studies and Diversity. He can be contacted at jamesefa@hawaii.edu.
Keywords:#NationalGuard, #paradigmshift, #recognition, #operationalforce, #Title32,#COVID-19,# pandemic,#careerstatus,# homelanddefense,#20-yearretirement,#equity,#readiness,#citizensoldiers,# systemschange,#IMOA,
References:
NCLS. (2020). National Guard Response to COVID-19. Retrieved
from [insert URL]
U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). ANGI36-101, Air National
Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. Retrieved from [insert URL]
U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). U.S. Code Title 32,
Chapter 1 - Organization. Retrieved from [insert URL]
(1)NIMS: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf
(2) Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302522p.pdf
