Proposals To Change the Military Retirement System

Gao ID: 128624 December 5, 1985

GAO testified on the structure of the Department of Defense's (DOD) military retirement system, specifically: (1) the recent change to accrual accounting for retirement annuities; (2) DOD proposals to change the system; and (3) the accuracy of the estimated accrual savings that would result from enacting DOD proposals. GAO noted that: (1) unlike common private-sector practice, the receipt of social security benefits does not reduce the level of military retired pay; (2) beginning in fiscal year 1985, DOD was required to account for its retirement costs using accrual accounting; and (3) while both military and civil service accruals are stated as a percentage of total personnel costs, the number of service members who historically received retired pay was lower. GAO found that: (1) the options for reducing retirement accrual funding involved reducing the multipliers for years of service and incorporating 5 years of basic pay as the basis for determining retired pay; (2) under the current system, retired pay is equal to 2.5 percent of the high 3 years of pay; (3) the effect of the changes on the typical enlisted retiree, with 20 years of service, would be to provide 36 to 40 percent of final basic pay during retirement; and (4) DOD used the methodology approved by the board actuaries to determine that the proposals would produce the required level of savings. GAO also found that: (1) it is not just the amount of retirement pay that encourages retention, but the all-or-nothing aspect of the 20-year retirement system and other retirement benefits; (2) although the proposed changes will reduce retired pay, the positive aspects of military life may outweigh any loss of retirement income; and (3) DOD cannot reduce its monthly accrual charge until Congress enacts legislation changing the current retirement system.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.