{ "id": "RL33446", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "RL", "number": "RL33446", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers", "retrieved": "2020-09-07T12:22:21.248148", "id": "RL33446_26_2020-07-17", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-07-17_RL33446_39b1c71d994fbd8256918f0343a1b928a97964aa.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33446/26", "sha1": "39b1c71d994fbd8256918f0343a1b928a97964aa" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-07-17_RL33446_39b1c71d994fbd8256918f0343a1b928a97964aa.html" } ], "date": "2020-07-17", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "RL", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL33446", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 597981, "date": "2019-05-06", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T19:17:39.679287", "title": "Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "From the earliest days of the republic, the federal government has compensated members of the Armed Forces for their services. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. The current military compensation system includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive noncash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. \nSince the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military compensation to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Subsequently, in the earlier part of the 2010s, concerns over government spending generated congressional and executive branch interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Initiatives to slow compensation growth included presidentially directed increases in basic pay below the rate of increase for the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for 2014-2016 and statutory authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost per year from 2015 to 2019 (for a maximum reduction of 5% under the national monthly average housing cost). \nSome have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments. The availability of funding to prosecute contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again.\nDOD spends about $100,000-$110,000 per year to compensate the average active duty servicemember\u2014to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs\u2014although some estimates of compensation costs are substantially higher. However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual\u2019s decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial \u201cpay gap\u201d has existed for decades\u2014with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts\u2014although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this \u201cpay gap\u201d is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. According to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, regular military compensation for officers was at the 83rd percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience, and at the 90th percentile for enlisted personnel. A 2018 RAND report concluded that these overall percentiles were nearly the same in 2016.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33446", "sha1": "3d8f0db1dfabf6b69b08a91fe35d00d54b5e3faa", "filename": "files/20190506_RL33446_3d8f0db1dfabf6b69b08a91fe35d00d54b5e3faa.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33446_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190506_RL33446_images_7d6f7799a0e494d45cfd37542f4e99fee377a012.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33446", "sha1": "33613eac620d915e7dba0c5a73995390b1056a0d", "filename": "files/20190506_RL33446_33613eac620d915e7dba0c5a73995390b1056a0d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4872, "name": "Military Personnel, Compensation, & Health Care" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 584045, "date": "2018-05-08", "retrieved": "2018-08-27T15:15:32.077727", "title": "Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "From the earliest days of the republic, the federal government has compensated members of the Armed Forces for their services. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. The current military compensation system includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive noncash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. \nSince the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military compensation to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11 attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional and executive branch interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Recent initiatives in this regard have included presidentially directed increases in basic pay below the rate of increase for the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for 2014-2016 and statutory authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost per year from 2015 to 2019 (for a maximum reduction of 5% under the national monthly average housing cost). \nSome have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again.\nDOD spends about $100,000-$110,000 per year to compensate the average active duty servicemember\u2014to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs\u2014although some estimates of compensation costs are substantially higher. However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual\u2019s decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial \u201cpay gap\u201d has existed for decades\u2014with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts\u2014although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this \u201cpay gap\u201d is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel. On January 29, 2015, the congressionally established Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission delivered its final report to Congress. It included a variety of recommendations for restructuring military compensation, most notably with regard to the military retirement and health care system, but it did not recommend substantially altering the elements of cash compensation on which this report focuses.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33446", "sha1": "1bfc44f5f169f989461aeca9512254a3235f9512", "filename": "files/20180508_RL33446_1bfc44f5f169f989461aeca9512254a3235f9512.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33446_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180508_RL33446_images_661c973ddd413407751ac1a0bab2984516fff868.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33446", "sha1": "35628b3b7a3be9b6886207c0183c453b8047b50a", "filename": "files/20180508_RL33446_35628b3b7a3be9b6886207c0183c453b8047b50a.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4872, "name": "Military Personnel, Compensation, & Health Care" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460155, "date": "2017-04-03", "retrieved": "2017-04-04T20:01:34.203734", "title": "Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "From the earliest days of the republic, the federal government has compensated members of the armed forces for their services. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. The current military compensation system includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive noncash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. \nSince the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military compensation to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11 attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional and executive branch interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Recent initiatives in this regard have included presidentially directed increases in basic pay below the rate of increase for the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for 2014-2016 and statutory authority for DOD to reduce BAH payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost per year from 2015-2019 (for a maximum reduction of 5% under the national monthly average housing cost). \nSome have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade-off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again.\nDOD spends about $100,000-$110,000 per year to compensate the average active duty servicemember\u2014to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs\u2014 although some estimates of compensation costs are higher. However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual\u2019s decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial \u201cpay gap\u201d has existed for decades\u2014with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts\u2014although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this \u201cpay gap\u201d is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. This latter perspective has become more prominent in the past few years. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel. On January 29, 2015, the congressionally established Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission delivered its final report to Congress. It included a variety of recommendations for restructuring military compensation, most notably with regards to the military retirement and health care system, but it did not recommend substantially altering the elements of cash compensation on which this report focuses.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33446", "sha1": "966a39193ffe2bbfeeb4d43bfe552155a0816bd8", "filename": "files/20170403_RL33446_966a39193ffe2bbfeeb4d43bfe552155a0816bd8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33446", "sha1": "7baabac591eef3a31f52e341b783667bb928fd38", "filename": "files/20170403_RL33446_7baabac591eef3a31f52e341b783667bb928fd38.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4872, "name": "Military Personnel, Compensation, & Health Care" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450596, "date": "2016-03-04", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T17:00:37.865292", "title": "Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "From the earliest days of the republic, America\u2019s Armed Forces have been compensated for their services by the federal government. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. The current military compensation system includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive non-cash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. \nSince the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military compensation to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11th attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional and executive branch interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Recent initiatives in this regard have included presidentially directed increases in basic pay below the ECI for 2014-2016 and statutory authority for DOD to reduce BAH payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost per year from 2015-2019 (for a maximum reduction of 5% of the national monthly average housing cost). \nSome have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again.\nThe average cost to compensate an active duty servicemember\u2014to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs\u2014is estimated at about $90,000-$100,000 per year, although some estimates are higher (methodologies vary). However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual\u2019s decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial \u201cpay gap\u201d has existed for decades\u2014with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts\u2014although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this \u201cpay gap\u201d is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. This latter perspective has become more prominent in the past few years. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel. \nOn January 29, 2015, the congressionally established Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission delivered its final report to Congress. It included a variety of recommendations for restructuring military compensation, most notably with regards to the military retirement and health care system, but it did not recommend substantially altering the elements of cash compensation that this report focuses on.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33446", "sha1": "2db9aea2bbfee28f5afc9528fe0235a40e1f3938", "filename": "files/20160304_RL33446_2db9aea2bbfee28f5afc9528fe0235a40e1f3938.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33446", "sha1": "6b834b2417762273ecf4b51c75da9b34620381b7", "filename": "files/20160304_RL33446_6b834b2417762273ecf4b51c75da9b34620381b7.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 221, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 229, "name": "Military Personnel and Compensation" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4531, "name": "Defense Authorization" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501729/", "id": "RL33446_2015Jan20", "date": "2015-01-20", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "The military compensation system is complex and includes an array of cash compensation elements, non-cash compensation (benefits), deferred compensation (retirement pay and benefits), and tax advantages. This report focuses primarily on the cash compensation provided to members of the active component armed forces.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150120_RL33446_b7599b2f14b73632a5bcd38aaf821e8e45d4aacd.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150120_RL33446_b7599b2f14b73632a5bcd38aaf821e8e45d4aacd.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Salaries", "name": "Salaries" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Military pay", "name": "Military pay" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40205/", "id": "RL33446_2011May13", "date": "2011-05-13", "retrieved": "2011-08-27T10:13:38", "title": "Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "This report addresses the role of military pay in manning the Armed Forces, the types of pay increases used in the past, recent reforms in managing pay, and the role of the Employment Cost Index in determining basic pay increases. The report also reviews the compensation benefits specifically available to military personnel participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation New Dawn (OND) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110513_RL33446_3d52e20d01bf393ba52406cfecdf0ed52144f031.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110513_RL33446_3d52e20d01bf393ba52406cfecdf0ed52144f031.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Military pay", "name": "Military pay" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501683/", "id": "RL33446_2008Oct31", "date": "2008-10-29", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": "This report discusses military pay and benefits. Debate continues over what kinds of pay and benefit increases are best for improving recruiting and retention. Of particular interest is the balance between across-the-board pay raises on the one hand, and ones targeted by grade, years of service, and occupational skill, on the other; and between cash compensation on the one hand and improvements in benefits such as housing, health care, and installation services on the other.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20081029_RL33446_63d620718d50ecf5a783c30d15e0c9a1c838739c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20081029_RL33446_63d620718d50ecf5a783c30d15e0c9a1c838739c.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Salaries", "name": "Salaries" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Military pay", "name": "Military pay" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Veterans' benefits", "name": "Veterans' benefits" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813023/", "id": "RL33446_2008Feb07", "date": "2008-02-07", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080207_RL33446_b3995b757cfd07e0187e6dfc93b5b8e162f7bdb6.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080207_RL33446_b3995b757cfd07e0187e6dfc93b5b8e162f7bdb6.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9727/", "id": "RL33446 2006-06-01", "date": "2006-06-01", "retrieved": "2007-06-12T13:43:28", "title": "Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20060601_RL33446_db297a850e4a565f3ebc39951e71f6a052da9c33.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20060601_RL33446_db297a850e4a565f3ebc39951e71f6a052da9c33.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Military pay", "name": "Military pay" } ] } ], "topics": [ "National Defense" ] }