Source: https://www.airwarriors.com/community/threads/new-rules-block-benefits-for-some-reserve-deployments.44680/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:08:10+00:00

Document:
This looks like a bad deal - if you are going to be activated, make sure you get - in writing - the benefits you think you are getting.
Thousands of reservists who deployed over the past two years, thinking they were entitled to the benefits that mobilized and deployed reservists have typically received for years, have been bitterly disappointed upon their return.
A little-known provision slipped into the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, which took effect in 2014, denies some members of the National Guard and Reserve the benefits to which they had become accustomed and on which they had relied.
The authority contained in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 12304b, Mobilization for Preplanned Mission Support, allows the Defense Department to deny them Post 9/11 GI Bill credit, reduced age for retirement, Federal Civilian Differential Pay, Voluntary Separation Pay recoup protection, pre- and post-mobilization health care, and more.
Yeah, saw this from a different source a few months ago. Bottom line, pending a change in Nat'l Defense Authorization, it's to your benefit to take a voluntary mobilization/deployment due to the different authorities/funding streams. As you mentioned, definitely get everything in writing. I'm looking at this and having a hard time convincing others to stay in.
I'm looking at this and having a hard time convincing others to stay in.
Are you encountering DIRCOM JOs who are already thinking of getting out/going IRR? Or were you referring to enlisted reservists?
I'm speaking specifically of other JOs. Me and the other JOs other basically running a campaign to keep him on the rails.
Hmm. I'd be curious to hear more if you care to post it/ PM it. Are those JOs prior enlisted?
The DIRCOM process is so long, competitive, and bureaucratic that I am curious to hear of non-prior service DIRCOM officers already quitting/ going IRR at JO ranks.
Part of me is saying, "Make your choice and be good with it", while part of me is saying, "Look how many people didn't get selected so you could get selected. Put your Depends on, and get back in there!".
I get it. I learned long ago that there's no use trying to convince anyone (e.g. employees under me) to stay in a job they no longer wanted if there was nothing in my power to change the root issue. If that JO wants to leave and has explored all options, let him/her. There are others to take the billet.
I would think that most of the DIRCOM officers would already have multiple degrees .... so i don't think that would stop them, but the other things are important for everyone! not good... hopefully Mattis and the new leadership will catch this and change it. I did read that some of the california national guard soldiers that were told they were going to have to pay back bonuses that they were "inappropriately" given, have been allowed to keep the money now - for the most part.
There was an email to our DCO community that mentioned how many DCOs have been let go for not taking the schooling seriously and not keeping up with the grade requirements. The letter basically said to take the schooling seriously and don't start any additional education (MBA, JD, MS, etc) while in BQC. Not sure how much of that was due to the above article, or due to the DCOs having unrealistic expectations.
TBH, I have been partially disappointed in the "quality" of applicants that I have experience in the DCO INTEL community. I don't mean on a resume. Many individuals that I have been with during interview etc. are engineers, lawyers, intel guys/gals, and current service people with impressive resumes and references. But many of them have little knowledge of the INTEL program, expectations, or requirements. Ive had many ppl "confess" that they are excited to "get in" just to ________________ (fill in the blank - boost civilian career/pay for civilian education). If this is their mindset going in, I can see how they would get burned out quickly. That being said, most of the people on AW have been awesome and no one has been selected from my NRD in 2 years, so obviously the panel interviewers did their job!! For every applicant like that, I would assume we have other applicants that are good to go!
My initial impression is that this article is oversimplifying the Title 10 authorities peoples' orders can be cut on as it relates to voluntary or involuntary MOBs. I'm not a JAG, nor have I done any time at any of CNRFC's N-codes. But the last time I was MOBed, it was officially an involuntary MOB, and my orders cited Title 10 USC §12302, not §12304a. Reading the two, these seem to be two totally different sets of authorities for MOBing SELRES.
I also find it strange that §12304's title is "Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members; order to active duty other than during war or national emergency." I'd be interested to hear what a greater legal mind than I would have to say on the applicability/legality of §12302 vs §12304 to support ops in support of GWOT, or whatever else it was they were carded as supporting. I thought the whole point of the partial reserve callup we've been using since Bush 43 was to mobilize people under §12302.
But I've got too much school on my plate to dig any deeper into the authorities morass than that.
has this been rectified with the current administration and this years' budget?

References: §12302
 §12304
 §12304
 §12302
 §12304
 §12302