Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic.csu.net!csus.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Message-ID: <1990Nov19.001116.8096@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Nov 90 00:11:16 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 40 Approved: military@att.att.com From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) military@att.att.com Subject: Re: Air Guard? References: <1990Nov15.013605.1936@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov17.014636.27782@cbnews.att.com> Sender: amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY In article <1990Nov17.014636.27782@cbnews.att.com> jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu >>From: lsmith@unssun.nevada.edu (LARRY SMITH) >>not all of the unit (a T.R.G.) was sent, just 120 volunteers. >>Is it normal for a unit to be split like this, and when a guard > >Many of these activations were still not really federal activations... >In many of these cases the guardsmen volunteered...some..high...small groups.. > >There are some sensitive issues regarding volunteer versus federalizing >for the guardsman. These issues center on pay and benefits for the >member and his/her family for the most part. It is better from >these points of view to be activated as opposed to volunteering. I don't feel that this point can be expressed strongly enough. The difference (for benefits {themselves, and their families}) is MAJOR. I don't have the expertise to properly explain, and won't try in depth. But in essence, if a gaurd person volunteers, they become essentially a free tag-a-long. The medical & death benefits for their family are virtually non existant. The job protection (for their principal job) is greatly dimished. They don't quality for federal (family) hardship financial help and (credit) protection. What's worse, if or when the unit does become activated (completely--officially) they are like gradfathered OUT of the benefits they deserve (earn). I think the situation is both shabby and shamefull. It only makes sense that units that are virtually assured of being actrivated would have low 'volunteer' rates, since they would loose a geat deal of the benefits they 'need' for their families. This shouldn't suggest (and nobody has, here,) that this reflects or suggests not wanting to go or anything. al