Thoughts about the new Blended Retirement System?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

purplefrog13

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
155
Reaction score
123
Just curious what the throughts/feelings are like out there about the new system.

I'll be joining this year, so I don't have a choice in which program, but I've read that current service members do- which are you going to choose and why?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think since the majority of people who join the military never stay until retirement the new system is better. You get a match in your TSP and get to take that money when you leave. It would be a gamble to assume early in a career that you will stay for 20. Even if you do stay, you still have the matching funds so as long as you contribute enough to get the full match then the post retirement gap is less of an issue.
 
Depends how long you stay.

The DOD didn't create the new system so they could spend more money on pensions.

If you stay for 20, it's a terrible deal compared to the current system.

If you get out after your initial commitment, it's an inconsequential deal. Remember, as HopefulPilot pointed out, the match is a percentage of base pay, which is much less than your total pay as a physician. The actual contribution the government will make to TSP on your behalf as a typical O3 or O4 is on the order of $3K per year. Not very exciting. (The TSP annual contribution limit is $18K.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I believe that anyone joining before 1JAN18 can use the high-3 retirement.

The blended is a very bad deal for anyone planning to stay for 20. A better-than-nothing deal for anyone not staying to 20.

VERY simple math I use is an O-5 retiring at 20 years is 8650 x 2.5% multiplier is about ~52k a year. Live 40 years and your retirement is worth ~$2million
blended is 8650 x 2% multiplier = ~$35k a tear. 40 years is $1.4million.

So my simple math, you would need to make up a 600k difference using a maximum 5% BASE PAY match.

I will say a big benefit is the ability to get something out of <20 years service.

You can opt out of BRS as long as you were serving prior to Jan 1, 2017 with fewer than 12 years of service.
 
You don't get the matched deal until after 3 years in service. Most enlisted soldiers get out at the 3rd or 4th year mark. In essence, it's a ripoff.
 
You don't get the matched deal until after 3 years in service. Most enlisted soldiers get out at the 3rd or 4th year mark. In essence, it's a ripoff.

That's not true. They start matching at 2 years. If you are currently serving and switch to BRS, the matching starts immediately.
 
Yes this is the most accurate statement.

1% dod contribution starts within 60 days of entering active duty

Up to an additional 4% is available to match beyond 24 months.


http://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/107/Documents/Blended Retirement/Introduction to Blended Retirement System 08.08.2016.pdf?ver=2016-08-08-101538-827

Yes. That's a really good rough outline. The matching goes up to and additional 4% (it's not exactly one for one after 2%), maxing out at 5% total, plus the 5% (or more) that you contribute.

Honestly, I thought BRS was going to be crap, but after doing the training and then giving training on it, I kind of sold myself on it. The closer your ADSD is to 31DEC17, the better it will be for you. There is an excel file that is really good for comparing the two. I can try to find it later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes this is the most accurate statement.

1% dod contribution starts within 60 days of entering active duty

Up to an additional 4% is available to match beyond 24 months.


http://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/107/Documents/Blended Retirement/Introduction to Blended Retirement System 08.08.2016.pdf?ver=2016-08-08-101538-827

Thanks for the source. 1% is a cheap incentive, which is a pittance, to get people to switch from the old system to the new system. Nevertheless, my experience on the enlisted side tells me that this will bring a lot of enlisted soldiers to the dark side.

The lump sum is overrated, considering that you will get hit with the tax bill at the end of the year.
 
Yeah, the matching cap could have been higher. It's competitive with some civilian programs, but my wife is a nurse, and her employer matches up to like 20%.

The thing I actually like about it is the lump sum option.

How is this thing competitive w/ the civilian programs? The civilian matched side is based on your total compensation. The enlisted side is 4-5% matched based on your base pay which is like 1/2 of your actual pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How is this thing competitive w/ the civilian programs? The civilian matched side is based on your total compensation. The enlisted side is 4-5% matched based on your base pay which is like 1/2 of your actual pay.

Yeah, what I mean is it seems competitive to some civilian programs (and I've worked for places that had worse), but that many civilian employers (like my wife's) are much better. It's still better than 20 or nothing.

Edit: not sure if you did the math, but even with the tax hit, you get a good chunk of change which can be used for all kinds of things (some more profitable than others).
 
Just curious what the throughts/feelings are like out there about the new system.

I'll be joining this year, so I don't have a choice in which program, but I've read that current service members do- which are you going to choose and why?

I'm surprised anyone thinking about a pension is willing to join with the new pension. As a USUHS student I would absolutely recommend against any of my classmates who plan on doing 20 taking the new blended system. And yet some will. I would also advise against joining USUHS with the new blended system post 2018. The medical corps is going to get interesting in the next decade. Retention is already horrible, and it will get much worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Yeah, what I mean is it seems competitive to some civilian programs (and I've worked for places that had worse), but that many civilian employers (like my wife's) are much better. It's still better than 20 or nothing.

Edit: not sure if you did the math, but even with the tax hit, you get a good chunk of change which can be used for all kinds of things (some more profitable than others).

I'm not disputing the merit of the lump sum, but I just want to say that the lump sum overstates the take home pay for soldiers especially since the 20 yr pension has the benefit of distributed over time. If you are good with your tax, you can set it up to where you are actually taking home the amount promised by the 20 yr pension net home.
 
I'm not disputing the merit of the lump sum, but I just want to say that the lump sum overstates the take home pay for soldiers especially since the 20 yr pension has the benefit of distributed over time. If you are good with your tax, you can set it up to where you are actually taking home the amount promised by the 20 yr pension net home.

True. It helps that you're still taking home part of your pension with the lump sum, with it returning to full pension at 67. That makes it easier to take the chunk.
 
How does one actually get onto the BRS if they joined a few years ago?

My understanding is if you currently have less than 12 years you'll have the option to opt-in to the BRS from Jan 2018-Dec 2018. Those that join prior to Jan 2018 have a choice between the current legacy system and the BRS, while those that join after 2018 are automatically enrolled in BRS without the option to join the current plan.
 
Just curious what the throughts/feelings are like out there about the new system.

I'll be joining this year, so I don't have a choice in which program, but I've read that current service members do- which are you going to choose and why?

http://militarypay.defense.gov/BlendedRetirement/

Anyone joining before the end of 2017 or who has already joined and has less than 12 years can choose between the legacy system and BRS. The BRS is only compulsory after Jan 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hopefully you all have done some more research. BRS is a good deal if you are smart with your money now and eventual tax strategies for TSP in the future. See The Military Guide's post HERE. I have also summarized my thoughts and my own numbers HERE

You can also find thoughts on NDAA2017 and the future of military medicine on my site. Military medicine is not going away. It is going to be more efficient and integrated in to the civilian sector. There may be limitations in spots for certain specialties and subspecialty training, but that is no different than current situation. You just have to understand the limitations you may face and if it is worth it to you in order to stay out of debt via the military. It is great for some, not great for others and blanket statements based on your own opinion doesn't help young med stud's make a decision.

Bottom Line for RETIREMENT:
  • If you switch to the BRS then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you make it to 20 years and earn the ability to make money just for waking up in the morning. If you were smart with your government contributions then you should have earned at least 5% on them and will make up for the 20% decreased pension in retirement.
  • If you stick with the LEGACY High-3 then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you don’t make it to 20 years, don’t have a pension AND also missed out on over $100,000 dollars of free money from the government via matched TSP contributions and continuation pay along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hopefully you all have done some more research. BRS is a good deal if you are smart with your money now and eventual tax strategies for TSP in the future. See The Military Guide's post HERE. I have also summarized my thoughts and my own numbers HERE

You can also find thoughts on NDAA2017 and the future of military medicine on my site. Military medicine is not going away. It is going to be more efficient and integrated in to the civilian sector. There may be limitations in spots for certain specialties and subspecialty training, but that is no different than current situation. You just have to understand the limitations you may face and if it is worth it to you in order to stay out of debt via the military. It is great for some, not great for others and blanket statements based on your own opinion doesn't help young med stud's make a decision.

Bottom Line for RETIREMENT:
  • If you switch to the BRS then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you make it to 20 years and earn the ability to make money just for waking up in the morning. If you were smart with your government contributions then you should have earned at least 5% on them and will make up for the 20% decreased pension in retirement.
  • If you stick with the LEGACY High-3 then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you don’t make it to 20 years, don’t have a pension AND also missed out on over $100,000 dollars of free money from the government via matched TSP contributions and continuation pay along the way.

I still have to do the training. Thanks for reminding me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How does one actually get onto the BRS if they joined a few years ago?

BTW. At midnight on 01JAN2018 you can sign on to MyPAY to make the switch. If you wait until 15JAN or later you are missing out on free money from Uncle Sam! The matched contributions can go above your $18,500 for the year because it is an "employer contribution". i.e. if I max out TSP and get a match of $3000 bucks that year then my TSP total contribution for 2018 will be $21,500.
 
BTW. At midnight on 01JAN2018 you can sign on to MyPAY to make the switch. If you wait until 15JAN or later you are missing out on free money from Uncle Sam! The matched contributions can go above your $18,500 for the year because it is an "employer contribution". i.e. if I max out TSP and get a match of $3000 bucks that year then my TSP total contribution for 2018 will be $21,500.

So we can’t switch to BRS until 01JAN? But we have to do the training before that right?
 
I wasn’t going to switch. Then MedMACRE came into play. My specialty leader has already identified the billets to be lost and the time phase for the reduction, so it’s seeming pretty real. And no matter how many times they say that promotion and continuation will not be affected by it I just don’t trust them. If a person in a specialty needing people is up against a person in a specialty looking to downsize I can’t believe that won’t be taken into account. Being in a specialty that is being reduced by 33% makes me worry so I’ll be looking at this pretty closely over the next couple of weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I wasn’t going to switch. Then MedMACRE came into play. My specialty leader has already identified the billets to be lost and the time phase for the reduction, so it’s seeming pretty real. And no matter how many times they say that promotion and continuation will not be affected by it I just don’t trust them. If a person in a specialty needing people is up against a person in a specialty looking to downsize I can’t believe that won’t be taken into account. Being in a specialty that is being reduced by 33% makes me worry so I’ll be looking at this pretty closely over the next couple of weeks.

If you’ve selected for O5 this is a non-issue. If you haven’t selected for O5 I think this year or next then it could certainly come into play!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
If you’ve selected for O5 this is a non-issue. If you haven’t selected for O5 I think this year or next then it could certainly come into play

Fairly new O-4. People say that making O-4 guarantees you 20 if you want it, but the continuation board precepts can change at any time.

I’m MSC (pharmacy) and there’s nothing my specialty leader can say that will convince me that a FY-22 continuation board will definitely not have have a ‘do not continue less than 14 year pharmacy O-5 nonselects’ requirement if we have still not reached our new billet goal via reduced (read essentially stopped) accession and voluntary attrition.

On another note, I’m also looking forward to the years of gapped experience levels we’ll have by bringing in only one (or zero) new pharmacy officers a year for the next 5 years. And people complain about pharmacy wait times now
 
If you have any doubt, switch to BRS. If you are still 80+% you'll stay until 20 years then STILL switch to BRS. Too many unknowns coming up and I'd rather have my Uncle Sam money now. Plus you can still make up the difference if your matches earn 5% long term so its a win-win
 
You can also find thoughts on NDAA2017 and the future of military medicine on my site. Military medicine is not going away. It is going to be more efficient and integrated in to the civilian sector.

Hmmmm ...

There may be limitations in spots for certain specialties and subspecialty training, but that is no different than current situation. You just have to understand the limitations you may face and if it is worth it to you in order to stay out of debt via the military. It is great for some, not great for others and blanket statements based on your own opinion doesn't help young med stud's make a decision.

Yes, blanket statements - like military medicine getting more efficient and integrated to the civilian sector, whatever that means - based on your own opinion aren't useful. ;)

I find these statements particularly amusing because yesterday VADM Bono visited and spoke to an auditorium full of us about the future of military medicine. The shape of that future appears very much up for discussion, debate, and negotiation.

I would submit that your confidence in which direction we go - and what that means for things like inservice GME 10+ years from now - is misplaced. And that you shouldn't be presenting that opinion as self-evident fact to those young med students you're addressing.

We just don't know.


Bottom Line for RETIREMENT:
  • If you switch to the BRS then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you make it to 20 years and earn the ability to make money just for waking up in the morning. If you were smart with your government contributions then you should have earned at least 5% on them and will make up for the 20% decreased pension in retirement.
  • If you stick with the LEGACY High-3 then your WORST CASE SCENARIO is that you don’t make it to 20 years, don’t have a pension AND also missed out on over $100,000 dollars of free money from the government via matched TSP contributions and continuation pay along the way.

I don't disagree with your basic premise that no BRS and no pension = bad. :)

I also don't disagree that for someone joining the Medical Corps today, BRS is probably the best choice because odds are very high that person won't stay for 20. And leaving with something is better than leaving with nothing.

If we're going to split hairs though, the claim that the BRS match will make up for the reduced pension if you stay for 20 simply doesn't hold up.

Granted, it's not a simple thing to compare cash in hand to a pension. What's $X in TSP (apple) worth in pension (orange) terms? One way is to compare them would be to add a reasonable 4% SWR of the TSP balance to the BRS pension. Another would be to put the TSP balance into an inflation indexed SPIA and add that annual payout to the BRS pension. Then compare to the non-BRS pension. (These are thought experiments; I'm not suggesting that immediate withdrawing at 4%, or conversion to an annuity, are good ideas. Just that doing the math allows apple-to-apple comparisons.)

If you do that, you'll find that you really need about a 10-11% annual real return to match the non-BRS pension. This is wildly unrealistic. (Particularly now, when we're 8 years into an historic bull market.)

Realistic assumptions put about a 10% loss to the BRS side for the person who makes it to 20. And of course this loss makes sense. The whole reason the military is doing the BRS thing in the first place is to spend less money. They know, and we know, that even by giving cash now to a huge cohort of people who never got a dime before, they'll still come out way ahead, by paying much less to the retirees. This isn't even a zero sum game; is a less than zero sum game, because the whole purpose of the game is to generate savings on entitlement costs.

There wouldn't be a BRS if the aggregrate result was a wash. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
New details on the Army side just came out about the HPSP years as a student counting toward the 20 year retirement. A lot more people might stay for the full 20 years than you might think especially physicians on the primary care side of medicine.

Are they saying the HPSP years will count toward the retirement multiplier (like USUHS time does) or toward retirement eligibility?

In any case, there also ain't no way the Army can do either of these things alone. Either of these changes would require legislation from Congress, and would affect all three services. DOPMA is still the law.
 
So, if I'm in the camp who is committed to 13 years because of USMA/HPSP, and I initially thought I'd do 20 yrs active and now more likely considering 13 yrs active, 4 yrs reserve and activate my HPSP time to make that 20 yrs reserve retirement....but can faintly see the writing on the wall that I might also just say no (for family reasons) and leave for the greener grass in the civilian world....

1. If I switch to BRS on Jan 1, should I switch how I've been doing my TSP (e.g. contributing substantial sums early to max out withing 6-9mo so I have more money at the end of year; contributing %'s from all types of pay, not just base pay)? Will they match if my TSP is coming from pay that is not base pay? Does it matter if I max out in 3-6 months vs take the entire year?

2. I'm at the 9 year mark now...can I really get this continuation pay and the three year commitment for it be finished before I serve my commitment (because it says its served concurrently with other commitments)? That sounds too good to be true.

Since I was on the fence of whether I was staying or not, I was worried about switching for ~$16k value that would be the 4 years of matching and then electing to stay on for retirement either active or reserves, but one of the articles wordings really struck a chord with me..."Is it worth locking yourself into a 20 year commitment to earn a High three pension for only an extra $100k over the rest of your life?" I can't say it really is with the way the military 'values' physicians and the questions that linger with DHA/NDAA 2017/Korea/WWIII/current political environment. So much to consider...
 
Yes, blanket statements - like military medicine getting more efficient and integrated to the civilian sector, whatever that means - based on your own opinion aren't useful. ;)

Thanks for your opinion on not liking my opinions. Pretty ironic. I saw the beginnings of the integration first hand, have active duty colleagues operating at civilian hospitals under DOD contracts and am basing "my opinions" off of these facts as well as VADM Bono's article released in JAMA as well as the interim updates related to NDAA 2017. Take it or leave it, but "my opinions" are based off of the most up to date information I have available to me.

I don't disagree with your basic premise that no BRS and no pension = bad. :)
My "opinions" make it very clear that you don't completely make up for the decreased pension based on the rough math, but for a military physician who will have 5x more income than their pension during the early years of retirement are not going to miss out the difference in pension. In fact, I am going to be looking at ways to decrease my tax burden, therefore I would rather have more money in my tax advantaged accounts or taxable brokerage accounts than paid to me as income during that time in my life. Run your own numbers and come up with your own opinion.

There wouldn't be a BRS if the aggregrate result was a wash. :)
Of course the BRS will save the government money! It allows them to use the difference in pension money towards more aggressive investments now rather than it sitting in conservative no-growth accounts. PLUS, most people don't make it to 20 and those that do they will save a lot of money on. That doesn't mean it isn't a good plan, even if you stay for 20 years. If I were talking to enlisted members who may not have high enough income in retirement to make the 20% decreased pension workable then I'd have written a completely different article. But alas, I am talking to smart high-income members who won't be living on a BRS or a Legacy pension anyway.
 
1. If I switch to BRS on Jan 1, should I switch how I've been doing my TSP (e.g. contributing substantial sums early to max out withing 6-9mo so I have more money at the end of year; contributing %'s from all types of pay, not just base pay)? Will they match if my TSP is coming from pay that is not base pay? Does it matter if I max out in 3-6 months vs take the entire year?

Front-loading your accounts makes sense from a compounding growth perspective but you miss out on dollar-cost averaging (if you believe in it). To get the match though you need to continue to contribute monthly for the entire year. Once you stop making monthly contributions (if you maxed your limit already) the matching contributions stop too. I don't think it matters where the money comes from...they match whatever member contributions are put in there up to 5% of your base pay amount as long as you make regular contributions each month.


2. I'm at the 9 year mark now...can I really get this continuation pay and the three year commitment for it be finished before I serve my commitment (because it says its served concurrently with other commitments)? That sounds too good to be true.

I've been trying to get the black and white on this but it sounds pretty lucrative so far. For me, I can take continuation pay in 2019. You are right that it can be served concurrently. It isn't like a multi-year retention bonus that is now only available to you after you pay back your commitment. I will take my continuation pay and serve it concurrently with the remaining 4 years I have to payback anyway from USUHS...or so I understand it currently
 
Do we have any specific guidance on continuation pay yet? I have googled around and found nothing.

Just that it "may" be anywhere from 2.5 - 13 x base pay. But that each service has settled on the 2.5 multiplier.

I suspect that the 13x multiplier will be like ECISP (early career ISP) ... technically authorized but never actually implemented. But who knows?
 
Thanks for your opinion on not liking my opinions. Pretty ironic. I saw the beginnings of the integration first hand, have active duty colleagues operating at civilian hospitals under DOD contracts and am basing "my opinions" off of these facts as well as VADM Bono's article released in JAMA as well as the interim updates related to NDAA 2017. Take it or leave it, but "my opinions" are based off of the most up to date information I have available to me.

:)

I just find your confidence amusing, given the very reserved, cautious, future-is-uncertain demeanor of the Admiral.


I also confess skepticism of your motives in posting here. I admit this may not be an entirely fair assessment, but I'm skeptical nonetheless. The name "militaryPHYS", the dollar sign flag as an avatar, the free financial advice in the backdrop of a personal blog to publicize. It's a MO that recurs on SDN from time to time ... people pop in with free advice to tiptoe around the blog advertisement TOS violation, with a door carefully left open for future monetization of the helpful totally-never-going-to-be-for-profit blog.
 
Just that it "may" be anywhere from 2.5 - 13 x base pay. But that each service has settled on the 2.5 multiplier.

Yeah, all services set it at 2.5x for 2018. They also all said that only people who reach 12 years are eligible to take it. I've heard a lot of people assuming they can take it when they hit 8 years of service, but (just like the multiplier can be 2.5x to 13x) the year you are eligible to take it can also be dictated by your service and currently it is set at 12 years.
 
Last edited:
I just find your confidence amusing, given the very reserved, cautious, future-is-uncertain demeanor of the Admiral

I have confidence on where I think military medicine is headed based on the JAMA article and interim releases for NDAA2017 implementation. I have no confidence on what that means for each individual based on specialty. For pediatricians it is going to suck. For general surgeons it should be good. For people who want to subspecialize, who knows?! Her statements have to be generic and reserved because it will suck for many of the people who work under her. If she says everything is going to be rainbows and ponies then that would be a lie for a lot of people. Money will be tighter, hospitals will close or consolidate and civilian healthcare will be more involved. For me, that sounds like a good thing because we have so much waste in military healthcare and are often short on caseloads or complex patients. But just because it is good for military medicine from a business/practice standpoint doesn't mean there won't be cuts and decreased opportunities for certain people...which sucks!

ADM Bono wrote the article herself and published it in JAMA on very specific things that will happen. If I think those things are good and you think they are bad thats fine, but it doesn't change what we know right now.


I also confess skepticism of your motives in posting here

I probably will monetize in the future (free money from internet traffic would be foolish to neglect), I won't deny that. But the primary intent was to serve as a resource for people considering military medicine from someone who has an optimistic outlook. That is hard to come by these days...especially on SDN. But military medicine is a great deal for the right person who understands what they are getting in to.
 
ADM Bono wrote the article herself and published it in JAMA on very specific things that will happen. If I think those things are good and you think they are bad thats fine, but it doesn't change what we know right now.

The very first question she fielded last week - and she answered fairly extensively - was about that very JAMA article.

I don't want to accidentally misquote her, so I won't try to be exact. I think she was honest, open, and sincere. One of the things she briefly mentioned was MEDMACRE, something that's now pushing 6 or 7 (?) years old. I think most of us believed it laid out in pretty specific terms what the enterprise's targets were for specialties to be expanded and reduced. Yet she referred to it as just one tool of several that would be used to shape the force. The implication is that none of it is a done deal.

I'm just saying. I think your confidence in where we'll all be in 5 or 10 years is excessive.

We all know that there are economic forces pushing us very, very strongly in certain directions.

We all know that the medical corps' mission goes beyond merely cost effective health care delivery, and extends to supporting a warfighting machine that doesn't need to be "profitable" in the sense that civilian institutions must. Given that, I'm not the least bit convinced that all of these cost-oriented reforms are actually going to happen at all, much less in the ways one might expect, because the Truest thing of all True things said about the military and the medical corps, is that the line gets what the line wants.


With regard to integration with non-military hospitals - again, I'll believe in meaningful widespread integration when I see it, because
1) It's been decades (literally the early 1980s) since Congress directed us and the VA to share resources and staff, and all you've got to do is look at AHLTA and VistA, and count the number of AD physicians and nurses whose daily place of duty is a VA hospital (and vice versa), to see how seriously we've taken that directive.
2) A few years ago I was the DSS at a Navy hospital, and we put together an ERSA to get our surgeons to a civilian hospital in town to do surgery. We essentially invented that wheel - and by that I mean it was a locally initiated, locally driven project, done as our response to the implementation of the Small Hospital Study (which closed our inpatient wards and would've skeletonized our surgeons' practice).
3) Just a couple weeks ago I finalized a MOU to allow me to go work at a VA hospital to keep my subspecialty skills up. Where did the MOU come from? I wrote it. I actually had to take a MOU that our GME office uses to get residents to work at outside hospitals, and heavily edited it so that I could practice as an attending at a VA hospital. If the military and the VA are working so closely together, why was this so hard? Why isn't there an enterprise-wide MOU covering this, or at least a template that's had some legal review?

The simple honest truth is that the handful of locations where military hospitals are well integrated into the local civilian/VA system (e.g. San Antonio) are notable exceptions to the blindingly obvious rule: Army/Navy/AF-wide, at the enterprise level, there is no meaningful organization or push to do any of this integration. There just isn't. If there was, guys like me wouldn't have to write MOUs.

Will this change, as we get purpler as DHA starts leading us all? I hope so.

But the first time I heard the term purple medical corps I was a MS1 at USUHS, over 20 years ago. There's some of it happening ... we have a few Army & AF staff at our Navy hospital, and I was a Navy IA to an Navy unit on an Army base for my last deployment. I hope for VA/civilian integration, but I'll believe it when I see it.



But military medicine is a great deal for the right person who understands what they are getting in to.

I do agree. There's another thread in here started by Perrotfish, the skyrocketing value of the HPSP scholarship, which has a lot of detail and discussion.

I'm actually a bit of an outlier here in that I've had a pretty good run in the Navy, and a mostly positive experience. Some of that is deserved just rewards 'cause I'm a great guy and all, and some of it is pure blind squirrel luck. I'm glad I joined, and I'm glad I'm still serving. A few years ago, I was eligible to get out at 12 years of creditable service, and I stayed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I hope for VA/civilian integration, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I appreciate your realistic viewpoints as opposed to a purely negative one. You obviously have more experience on the ground in regards to the MOU's and integration so I default to your experience and opinion on it. The only reason I think this may be different is the restructuring and actual implementation of NDAA2017 that I've seen since it came out. Did you read the interim reports related to it? It sets timelines and seems productive so far. It's hopefully enough to actually make productive changes as opposed to false hopes many milmed doc's are used to.

I guess we shall see...
 
New details on the Army side just came out about the HPSP years as a student counting toward the 20 year retirement. A lot more people might stay for the full 20 years than you might think especially physicians on the primary care side of medicine.

Any additional word about this?

EDIT: Or link to guidance?
 
Last edited:
Deadline for training is 31DEC2017. OPT IN begins 01JAN2018 at 0001

Happy New Year!
I already took the training and have the certificate. Can I just switch to BRS on the mypay website automatically on jan1st or do i have to submit the training certificate in advance to someone in particular? If so, who do I submit the training certificate to?
thanks!
 
Top