{
  "id": "RL30487",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30487",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101811,
      "date": "2000-03-28",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:37:34.403941",
      "title": "Military Technicians: The Issue of Mandatory Retirement for Non- Dual-Status Technicians",
      "summary": "Military technicians are federal civilian employees who provide support primarily to wartime\ndeployable reserve units. Unlike regular civilian employees, military technicians are generally\nrequired to maintain membership in the Selected Reserve as a condition of their employment. These\ntechnicians are referred to as \"dual-status\" technicians, reflecting their status as both federal civilian\nemployees and military reservists. The intent of this requirement is to guarantee that when a reserve\nunit is mobilized, the military technicians who support that unit will be mobilized as well. Some\nmilitary technicians, however, are not members of the Selected Reserve. These technicians --\nreferred to as \"non-dual-status\" technicians -- cannot be ordered to deploy with their unit when it is\nmobilized.   \n  The number of non-dual-status technicians, especially within the Army Reserve, has troubled\nCongress for many years. Concerned that the large proportion of non-deployable technicians within\nthe technician workforce was undermining the readiness of reserve units, Congress passed legislation\nin 1983 -- and in every subsequent year up through 1995 -- aimed at reducing or eliminating the\nnumber non-dual-status technicians. These past efforts, however, did not produce the results\nCongress had hoped for. The mandatory retirement provisions of the National Defense\nAuthorization Act for FY2000 are the latest attempt by Congress to ensure that the technician\nworkforce is virtually all \"dual status.\"\n  The mandatory retirement provisions do  not    affect technicians\n in the National Guard; they only\napply to technicians in the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve who do not hold dual status now\nor who lose dual status at some time in the future. (There are no military technicians in the Naval\nReserve, Marine Corps Reserve, or Coast Guard Reserve). Under current legislation, Army and Air\nForce Reserve technicians who do not hold dual status and who are eligible for an \"unreduced\nannuity\" will be required to retire; if they do not hold dual status but are not yet eligible for an\n\"unreduced annuity,\" they  may  be allowed to continue working until they become\neligible for one,\nat which time they will be required to retire. (An annuity, or pension, is a key component of the\nretirement benefits of federal civilian employees. An \"unreduced annuity\" is an annuity that is not\nsubject to reduction by reason or age or years of service. It is important to point out that the annuity\nreferred to here is the one which technicians earn as federal civilian employees,  not  the\nmilitary\nretired pay which they may be entitled as a result of their simultaneous service in the Selected\nReserve).\n  Critics of the mandatory retirement provisions claim that this policy is unfair because some\ntechnicians will suffer financially by having to retire earlier than planned. These critics also argue\nthat it will undermine military readiness by forcing experienced technicians out of their jobs. They\nbelieve that the policy should be repealed, or at least modified in order to minimize the negative\nfinancial impact on technicians. However, supporters of the provisions argue that the policy is fair\nto technicians as it allows them to continue working until they are eligible for a normal pension. \nThey also argue that it enhances the military readiness of reserve units by ensuring that technicians\ncan deploy with the units they support.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30487",
          "sha1": "0d3568d4fedd0f9fabe1a37f2e333724234c7534",
          "filename": "files/20000328_RL30487_0d3568d4fedd0f9fabe1a37f2e333724234c7534.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000328_RL30487_0d3568d4fedd0f9fabe1a37f2e333724234c7534.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}