Stop the Title 5 Repeal!
Public Comments (592)
-
Jul 26th, 2017Someone from Nampa, ID writes:
The 2018 NDA portion of the Title 5 conversion shows that the House bill reducing the conversion rate from 20% to 4.8 % annually. The bill should remain at 20%. This is measure to put the brakes on the inevitable and drag the cost savings of the conversion down the road. -
Jul 26th, 2017Someone from Nampa, ID writes:
The reason the governors want to keep Title 32 Technician is so they can pay their state technicians out of the discretionary portion of the title 32 funding. They do not have the budget in place to keep those State Military technicians.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, Cancel -
Jul 26th, 2017Someone from Noblesville, IN writes:
Please make Title 5 happen. It is so demoralizing to hear of the pushback after years of being told we are going Title 5. I have no intension of leaving the National Guard and I know very few who plan too. Title 5 will mean stability and allow for fair processes to occur. Please make this happen. Also, It would be nice to no longer have to maintain the uniform you are not paid to maintain or no longer see the rank on your chest that the AGR Soldier right next to you is making quite a bit more then you are for the same job. As a civilian, it is just that, a civilian.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, Cancel -
Jul 25th, 2017Alicia T. from Colchester, VT signed.
Jul 25th, 2017Someone from Fuquay Varina, NC writes:
Title 5 needs to happen. There is no justifiable reason why it should not go forward. It would be nice to know that after 20 years of service to the National Guard, (I've done 11 years with an OIF and OEF deployment, and I plan on staying for 20 years) I would able to retire and retain my civilian position. Plus, it would be nice to have access to Tri Care, get re-enlistment bonuses, and have a fair appeals process just like any other Federal Employee that happens to be in the National Guard. Only makes sense. I guess that's why this is such a ridiculous concept to some people, it makes sense!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 25th, 2017Someone from Wichita, KS signed.
Jul 24th, 2017allen m. from Sparks, NV signed.
Jul 24th, 2017Concerned T. from Indianapolis, IN writes:
Can we have an update on the current NDAA 2018! It appears that the repeal/change of the NDAA 2016 and NDAA 2017 is alive and well! Additionally, what is this notion from NGB about Title 5 excepted service?REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 17th, 2017Allen A. from Shafter, CA writes:
Just being a duel status Technician you have already committed yourself and your family to making the Army National Guard a paramount service. By changing to Title 5, Commanders and AG’s will have the added Institutional knowledge and resource to train up and coming soldiers. In my 30+ years as an Army Technician I never met a good Technician that didn’t enjoy training soldiers. And I was involved with many states. Over the years I saw many Technicians not make the QRB because the Commander was more concerned with his promotion than what was “Good for the Guard”. And the Technician had no recourse for appeal. Let’s get this change done. Allen Anderson MSG (USA retired)REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 17th, 2017Damon L. from Boise, ID signed.
Jul 17th, 2017Marc S. from Lawrence Township, NJ writes:
This conversion is in order to support one of the most dedicated work forces. Leaders should not withhold our basic rights to due process and job security. Let the Title 5 conversion take affect as mandated by the NDAA. Certain leaders feel that it will have an adverse effect on readiness but this reliance of the technician work force was never a sustainable model to begin with. Not to mention it is down right unethical to utilize this work force to meet missions that clearly fall outside the scope of our position descriptions.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 10th, 2017Brandon K. from Norwood, NC signed.
Jul 7th, 2017Someone from Melrose, NY writes:
Let T5 go through. We deserve job security past 20 years of service!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 6th, 2017Brian L. from San Luis Obispo, CA writes:
I firmly believe as a CANG 17 year Title 32 technician. Conversion of Title 32 technicians to Title 5 will increase strength and readiness and will allow current dual-status technicians to support the war effort beyond their 60th birthday when they are forced to retire from the service. THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 6th, 2017Someone from Flowood, MS writes:
I sure find it funny that NGB and the AG's don't want to change, but all the Technicians do? Time for a change!!!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJul 3rd, 2017Shawn K. from Louisville, KY signed.
Jun 30th, 2017Michael K. from Lagrange, ME writes:
I urge you to refuse efforts to change the law, as it was passed last year, on this issue. Any arguments for change are about 'control,' not readiness. Conversion of Title 32 technicians to Title 5 will increase strength and readiness and will allow current dual-status technicians to support the war effort beyond their 60th birthday when they are forced to retire from the service.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 30th, 2017Michael K. from Lagrange, ME writes:
As the other comments explain, this conversion will INCREASE readiness, not decrease readiness.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 27th, 2017Someone from Hernando, MS signed.
Jun 27th, 2017Someone from Bismarck, ND writes:
Opponents of the Title 5 conversion claim this will degreed readiness. As a 20 year technician I can tell you it will help readiness. Currently when a dual status technician deploys it leaves a vacancy in their full time position. Other employees in the office have to do the work of the person deployed. A full civilian Title 5 employee will not deploy, either for federal or state duty. This will allow an M-Day Soldier to fill the deployed position, and the full-time employee can continue to support the war fighters doing their full-time job without interruption. In addition, most will stay in the military at least until they hit their 20 years. If the person is a Title 5 employees who decides to stay in the military nothing changes. So all the arguments saying it degrades readiness is very far from the truth. If these title 5 employees retire from the military and stay as full-time title 5 employees, readiness is helped. Both for the military and federal position. More efficient to have an employee do one position instead of trying to do two, and gone from both all the time. Thanks!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 27th, 2017Eric L. from Fresno, CA signed.
Jun 26th, 2017Calos H. from Clovis, CA signed.
REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 25th, 2017Steven B. from Lincoln, NE signed.
Jun 22nd, 2017Someone from East Nassau, NY signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Gina W. from Maricopa, AZ signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Someone from Wasilla, AK writes:
I have served in the National Guard for 22 years, but only been a technician for 11 years. I have meet all requirements to retire from the National Guard, however I have 19 more years until I meet my technician retirement. I have already started going through the QRB's which could eventually lead to my non-retention in the National Guard and cost me my civilian job and retirement. I would say that is one hell of a way to thank those that serve our country that after dedicated serves we not only get kicked out of the military but lose our way of life at the same time. I do believe there needs to be stipulations on going title 5 though. My opinion is that in order to earn a title 5 position the individual should have to successively meet the required time to retire from the military (20 years). once this is meet they should be able to continue their service as title 5. I personally will remain in the military until I am QRB out. However it would take a load of stress off of me as well as others not to have to worry about my civilian job at the same time as trying to serve my country.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 15th, 2017Julio R. from Casa Grande, AZ signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Someone from Incline Village, NV signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Humberto M. from Peoria, AZ signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Angelica D. from Phoenix, AZ signed.
Jun 15th, 2017Justin G. from Casa Grande, AZ signed.
Jun 14th, 2017Someone from Falling Waters, WV writes:
Been a Technician dual status title 32 for 30 years. At end of my career there are concerns of being SRB and being forced out of the military. If this happens, I will lose my fulltime position. I am not ready to retire and see title 5 non-dual status as a way to continue serving my country and unit. Asking you all to stop the repeal of title 5.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelJun 14th, 2017Mike M. from Ada, MI signed.
Jun 7th, 2017Caje D. from Sherwood, AR writes:
The current systems leaves some individuals with many years invested (such as myself) in a bad situation, with no good solution. Title 5 would solve those issues for us.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, Cancel
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.