DAL 2010 USERRA Letter
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Anyway, I may have a copy of it in my "files" at home, but unfortunately between work and vaca I plan to be out of town for the next two weeks....
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
All it basically said was they would start tracking mil leave in accordance with the 5 year limit. Prior to that Delta ignored the limit. Heard a rumor the change came because of complaints from pilots that mil leave guys were returning after going over the limit who should have been removed from the list. I suspect the truth is Delta perhaps thought enforcing the limit would reduce total mil leave.
#5
All it basically said was they would start tracking mil leave in accordance with the 5 year limit. Prior to that Delta ignored the limit. Heard a rumor the change came because of complaints from pilots that mil leave guys were returning after going over the limit who should have been removed from the list. I suspect the truth is Delta perhaps thought enforcing the limit would reduce total mil leave.
In the future perhaps it will be harder to obtain exempt orders.
But if anyone is worried about the five-year limit, you need to get real smart on the rules. Involuntary orders are always exempt. Most orders linked to operations are exempt. Orders which support operations indirectly are usually exempt (ex. IP training squadron members to deploy for real-world ops).
Among other complexities, orders DO NOT have to state that they are exempt, or invol, in order to be exempt. That's a nice feature that some organizations add to orders to smooth the process for their members but it has led some employers to conclude that the absence of such language means the orders are not exempt, which is usually incorrect.
Last edited by rickair7777; 08-01-2019 at 12:49 PM.
#6
Such a policy would have very minimal impact from 2010-present... virtually all AD orders would be exempt from the five-year limit due to OCO/GWOT/ONE. Navy at least writes them all as invol anyway, even if you informally "volunteer" for assignment. I can only think of a few niche jobs, plus perhaps some ANG jobs which would not be exempt.
In the future perhaps it will be harder to obtain exempt orders.
But if anyone is worried about the five-year limit, you need to get real smart on the rules. Involuntary orders are always exempt. Most orders linked to operations are exempt. Orders which support operations indirectly are usually exempt (ex. IP training squadron members to deploy for real-world ops).
Among other complexities, orders DO NOT have to state that they are exempt, or invol, in order to be exempt. That's a nice feature that some organizations add to orders to smooth the process for their members but it has led some employers to conclude that the absence of such language means the orders are not exempt, which is usually incorrect.
In the future perhaps it will be harder to obtain exempt orders.
But if anyone is worried about the five-year limit, you need to get real smart on the rules. Involuntary orders are always exempt. Most orders linked to operations are exempt. Orders which support operations indirectly are usually exempt (ex. IP training squadron members to deploy for real-world ops).
Among other complexities, orders DO NOT have to state that they are exempt, or invol, in order to be exempt. That's a nice feature that some organizations add to orders to smooth the process for their members but it has led some employers to conclude that the absence of such language means the orders are not exempt, which is usually incorrect.
Also, Noble Eagle orders are NOT USERRA exempt, note yet anyway. In fact unless you're working on the staff (naturally they've taken care of themselves), most of our orders are NOT exempt...actual contingency ops aside.
#8
Invol (12304b)
- USERRA exemption
- No early retirement credit
- No TAMP
- No Post 9/11 GI Bill credit
Vol (12301d)
- No USERRA exmption
- Early retirement credit
- TAMP
- Post 9/11 GI Bill Credit
#9
Tried digging up the e-mail from our last TSP, it had the breakdown, but I can't seem to find it. There were one or two more, but below is from memory.
Invol (12304b)
- USERRA exemption
- No early retirement credit
- No TAMP
- No Post 9/11 GI Bill credit
Vol (12301d)
- No USERRA exmption
- Early retirement credit
- TAMP
- Post 9/11 GI Bill Credit
Invol (12304b)
- USERRA exemption
- No early retirement credit
- No TAMP
- No Post 9/11 GI Bill credit
Vol (12301d)
- No USERRA exmption
- Early retirement credit
- TAMP
- Post 9/11 GI Bill Credit
They can't deny GI Bill because you were invol.
I've never heard of early retirement having anything to do with whether you volunteered or not, at least not in the Navy.
Many voluntary orders still get USERRA exemption, depends on the duty/funding source.
#10
For us, it's based on the type of order you are on. On the last few "deployments," our choice has been 12304b (invol) or 12301d (vol) orders. I have found the source document provided by our commanders/personnel during our spinup to our last trip, I'd be happy to send it to you. It clearly shows that 12304b (involuntary Combatant Command Mission Support) does not meet eligibility requirements for Post 9/11 GI Bill. In fact, wrt to TAMP, early retirement credit and GI Bill, they're treated the same as AT orders.
Lucky you. We essentially get the dubious choice of picking the red pill or blue pill. They put the carrot in front of voluntary because then it doesn't count for dwell purposes. So they get you for this deployment, but you remain eligible for later invols. Anyway, same document mentioned above, shows invol orders are not eligible for early retirement credit.
Supposedly they're "fixing" it, but the checks been in the mail for over 5 years...
In my ANG fighter squadron, there isn't a single pilot on continuous orders that are USERRA exempt. Even with an alert mission on base (O.N.E.), we have zero exempt orders. But sure stat tours at NGB and various other random assignments may get you exempt orders.
Honestly, wrt to exemption, I couldn't care less for me. I have have absolutely zero desire to go back on full time orders for anything other than squadron TDYs and our deployments. But I can see a problem looming as many of our guys are running out of USERRA time not the mention the desire to put up with all the added BS that continues to stack up. Basically, as with many other things in life, the Commanders up high, don't see it as a problem because we're "plugging the holes in the damn," for now...
Supposedly they're "fixing" it, but the checks been in the mail for over 5 years...
Honestly, wrt to exemption, I couldn't care less for me. I have have absolutely zero desire to go back on full time orders for anything other than squadron TDYs and our deployments. But I can see a problem looming as many of our guys are running out of USERRA time not the mention the desire to put up with all the added BS that continues to stack up. Basically, as with many other things in life, the Commanders up high, don't see it as a problem because we're "plugging the holes in the damn," for now...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post