AGNES GEREBEN SCHAEFER, LISA M. HARRINGTON, THOMAS BUSH, THOMAS GOUGHNOUR,
MOLLY DUNIGAN, JOHN D. WINKLER
Reserve Component
Duty Status Reform
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct
for Activating and Compensating
Members of the National Guard and
Reserves
M
ilitary members in the United
States serve in either the regular
component within one of the six
armed forces (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy,
U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Space
Force, and U.S. Coast Guard) or in one of
seven reserve components (the Army National
Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve,
the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve,
the Air National Guard of the United States,
the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard
Reserve). The purpose of these reserve compo-
nents is to “provide trained units and qualified
persons available for active duty in the armed
forces, in time of war or national emergency,
and at such other times as the national secu-
rity may require, to fill the needs of the armed
forces whenever more units and persons are
needed than are in the regular components”
(10 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 10102). The Army
National Guard and the Air National Guard
also have a state role, operating under the
KEY FINDINGS
■ Past efforts to reform the duty status system have
focused on several main problems, including pay,
allowances, and benefits that differ depending on duty
status, which lead to inequities in these areas.
■ Among the many consequences of the current system,
service members may experience disruptions in
pay and benefits from one duty status to another;
the budgeting process is based on duty status
distinctions that complicate the allocation of resources
and obscure the understanding of the work; and the
criteria for determining statuses can make it difficult for
commanders to call reserve component members to
duty.
■ A proposed duty construct of four broad categories
provides for volunteers and members being involuntarily
ordered to duty for a contingency operation. As long as
members carry out assignments in the same category,
even if they move from one purpose to another, they
maintain the same pay and benefits package.
■ Most changes in the proposed construct impose no
change in cost. Cost estimates included early access to
TRICARE, reduced age for retirement, federal employee
differential pay, and reserve income replacement,
among other factors.
Research Report
