A stop-loss policy, which was widely used at the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could temporarily halt some or all troops from separating and transitioning back into the civilian world.

The policy was often criticized as a “back-door draft” that erodes the trust of service members and can threaten the military’s long-term ability to recruit and retain service members.

The service branches have already begun offering to voluntarily extend contracts for some service members, but some involuntary measures may be needed, the Pentagon said.

“Given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nation as a whole and on the military’s ability to recruit and train new service members, the Department is looking at a wide range of options that will ensure enduring national security mission capability,” Lisa Lawrence, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told Military Times.

“While there are many options, stop-loss is one that would only be considered if absolutely necessary and is an alternative that we will work diligently to avoid,” she added. “There have been no formal recommendations for implementing stop-loss at this time.”

She did not elaborate as to which services or service members would be most likely to face a stop-loss order.

Nearly 2,000 service members have tested positive for COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus. Dozens have been hospitalized and one National Guardsman has died.

Military health officials say it is unlikely that the military and its mostly young and healthy personnel will suffer a high death toll from the virus.

But the worldwide measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus are slowing the Defense Department’s pipeline for bringing in new service members.

Most recruiters have stopped meeting face-to-face with prospective recruits, shifting to a virtual effort that could be less effective at meeting the annual goals for bringing in new personnel.

The Army has stopped bringing new recruits into basic training.for a two-week pause starting on Monday. All recruits already in training will continue, but no new ones are being brought in for now.

To keep current soldiers, the Army has offered voluntary, short-term reenlistment contracts with extension options available from three to 11 months. There are about 9,000 soldiers who are within six months of leaving the Army and eligible for those extensions, Army officials said.

The Marine Corps halted the flow of new recruits into one of its boot camp facilities, at Parris Island in South Carolina, but recruit training continues at the recruit depot in San Diego. The Corps is also offering voluntary extensions for Marines with upcoming retirement or separation dates.

The Air Force has shortened the Basic Military Training program at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, in Texas, and are working to reschedule some recruit assessions to better accommodate the social distancing rules and other preventive measures.

The Navy’s boot camp program continues, but there have been reported cases of COVID-19 at the bootcamp facility at Great Lakes, Illinois, and the recruit training staff has been on lockdown there in an effort to prevent the spread of the disease.

Meanwhile, the Navy has also offered to extend service contracts for existing sailors and has also invited recently-separated sailors to return to serve in an effort to maintain the required staffing levels across the fleet.

For example, would 18-year-olds who graduated high school in 2000 be wealthier today if they had enlisted and served through 2018, or would they have made more money if they had spent those years working in the civilian workforce?

It’s a question separate from the many noble reasons that motivate troops to enlist. It’s a straight money question, aimed at calculating the dollars that result from an important life choice

There is no simple answer. Comparing civilian pay to military compensation can seem like apples and oranges. In addition to basic pay, troops get generous tax-free housing allowances as well as bonuses, special pays and more.

Yet troops surrender more control over their career moves, commit to potentially dangerous work assignments and make frequent family moves that can jeopardize spouses’ earning potential.

Moreover, military personnel typically advance along a standardized career path, but in the civilian sector, promotions and career advancements are far more varied and less predictable.

“The general challenge in military and civilian compensation is that we don’t have a way to track civilian earnings like we track service members’,” said Brooke Goldberg, director of military family policy at the Military Officers Association of America.

Nevertheless, it’s a question that generates a lot of interesting discussion.

Military pay got a big boost in the years immediately following 2001, when a surge of patriotism and overseas operations prompted Congress to grant a series of annual pay raises that were quite generous by historic standards.

Yet in more recent years, budget battles in Washington have led to historically small military pay raises that have failed to keep up with civilian wage growth and have eroded the total value of military compensation packages.

Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that service members who joined the military in 2000 are making more than their civilian counterparts. Overall, military pay raises during the past 18 years have slightly outpaced the growth in average civilian wages (as defined by the government’s Employment Cost Index).

CIVILIAN-MILITARY PAY RAISES SINCE YEAR 2000

Average military pay from 2000 through 2018 grew by 76 percent, compared to civilian wage growth over the same period of 63 percent, according to government data. Yet the news is not so good for troops who missed out on those big pay bumps after 2001.

For troops who joined the military after January 2010, pay raises have failed to keep up with civilian sector wages. Since 2010, civilian pay rose a total of about 19 percent, while military pay climbed by about 16 percent.

CIVILIAN-MILITARY PAY RAISES SINCE YEAR 2010

Pay in the civilian sector is highly dependent on career field, while military pay charts standardize pay for service members of all occupational specialties, said Dan Merry, MOAA’s vice president of government relations.

In 2018, an officer at the O-5 paygrade is making more than $105,000. That’s on par with some civilian jobs for people at a similar age and level of experience.

But “a squared-away engineer on the outside could easily be making $200,000 to $300,000 a year,” Merry said. “Our four-star generals don’t make that.”

Merry is familiar with the military vs. civilian choice.

“I’m prior enlisted. I joined late in life,” Merry said. “I tried college, I tried work, I tried whatever. I made as much money as I needed to make.”

Merry said he got his “Eureka” moment years ago when he was working in a construction job under a retired officer. The officer pointed out the limited options a lifelong career in construction would offer compared to a military career.

Merry later joined the Air Force and retired as a colonel.

Goldberg’s family made a different choice. Her husband, an Air Force pilot, graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2000. She graduated from law school in 2002. She gave up a job offer to move with him to Hurlburt Field in Florida, where they spent the next 10 years.

That move impacted her ability to earn for the family, so, in the final year of her husband’s military service commitment, they opted to do one additional year to ensure GI Bill transferability for their daughter. They turned down the extra $150,000 the Air Force was offering for him to remain in the service.

“$150,000 was not enough to allow the Air Force to decide what our potential was,” Goldberg said. Her husband separated from the Air Force in 2013 and they moved to Washington, D.C., to look for work — just as the government shut down and defense contractors froze hiring.

“So, my pilot husband with an engineering degree and an MBA was unemployed,” Goldberg said. “There was a chunk of about two years where we asked, ‘Should we have stayed in the military?’ Was that more lucrative choice? But the freedom factor to be able to choose — to us that had more value.”

Three people remain missing after a C-2 “Greyhound” carrier onboard delivery aircraft carrying 11 crew and passengers crashed into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday while in passage to the carrier Ronald Reagan, the Navy said Wednesday.

Rescue efforts recovered eight personnel southeast of Okinawa at approximately 3:23 p.m. local time. Those eight individuals were taken to the Reagan for medical evaluation and were in good condition, the Navy said.

“Our Sailors are in my thoughts and prayers as we perform search and rescue operations for a downed aircraft in the Philippine Sea,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said. “Eight of the 11 Sailors are safe and sound on USS Ronald Reagan. We continue to search for three.”

The cause of the crash was not immediately clear, Navy officials said.

“Our entire focus is on finding all of our sailors,” said Rear Adm. Marc H. Dalton, commander of Task Force 70. “U.S. and Japanese ships and aircraft are searching the area of the crash, and we will be relentless in our efforts.”

Despite the unknown circumstances, “the fact that at least eight of the 11 onboard have been rescued and are said to be in good condition implies that whatever happened to the Greyhound was not catastrophic, and that the crew had the time and means to ditch the aircraft in a controlled manner,” said Gareth Jennings, Aviation editor of Jane’s by IHS Markit.

The aircraft was conducting a routine transport flight carrying passengers and cargo from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni to Reagan, which was operating in the Philippine Sea as part of an exercise with Japanese military.

The C-2 aircraft crashed about 90 miles northwest of Okinotorishima, a Japanese atoll, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said, according to a ministry spokesman.

The plane was taking part in an ongoing joint U.S.-Japan naval exercise in waters surrounding Okinawa from Nov. 16-26. The Navy called it the “premier training event” between the two navies, designed to increase defensive readiness and interoperability in air and sea operations.

The 7th Fleet has had two fatal accidents in Asian waters this year, leaving 17 sailors dead and prompting the removal of eight top Navy officers from their posts, including the 7th Fleet commander.

The Navy has concluded that the collisions were avoidable and resulted from widespread failures by the crews and commanders, who didn’t quickly recognize and respond to unfolding emergencies. A Navy report recommended numerous changes to address the problems, ranging from improved training to increasing sleep and stress management for sailors.

Mishaps involving the C-2A airframe are rare, according to the Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network database. Since the 1960s, there have been nine aircraft losses, six of which were fatal, killing a total of 59 people.

The last fatal C-2A crash was in 1973, when a C-2A lost both engines and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, killing seven of 10 on board.

The most recent incident came in 2005, when an unsafe landing gear indication light led to the aircrew making a belly landing at Chambers Field in Norfolk, Virginia. There were no fatalities and all personnel walked away.

The worst recorded C-2A crash occurred in October 1969, when six crew members and 21 passengers went down in the Gulf of Tonkin while flying from the Philippines to the aircraft carrier Constellation. All persons on board were killed and are officially listed as Vietnam War missing-in-action, as their bodies were never recovered.

The Army fired 13-foot-long missiles from the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, a long-range surface-to-surface precision-strike weapon system, into South Korea’s territorial waters. according to a statement from the Korea-based U.S. 8th Army

The test came just hours after North Korea’s test of an ICBM which analysts said for the first time displayed the capability to exceed 10,000 km in range, a distance capable of potentially threatening New York or San Diego.

Following the launch Friday morning, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford, and Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris called the Republic of Korea Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Lee Sun-jin, according to the Pentagon.

“During the call Dunford and Harris expressed the ironclad commitment to the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance,” a Pentagon release stated. ”The three leaders also discussed military response options.” Harris joined Dunford in his Pentagon office to make the phone call.

The ATACMS missile launch was a “combined training event to exercise assets countering North Korea’s missile launch/nuclear test,” the Army statement said. 

Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis issued an statement on the launch from the Defense Department. 

“The U.S. Department of Defense detected and tracked a single North Korea missile launch today at about 10:41 a.m. [Eastern Daylight Time],” said Davis, reading the official statement. “We assess that this missile was an intercontinental ballistic missile, as had been expected.”

Davis said the missile was launched from Mupyong-ni, and said it traveled “about 1,000 kilometers before splashing down in the Sea of Japan.”

Mupyong-ni “is an arms plant up in the far north of North Korea, north of Pyongyang,” Davis said. The missile “splashed down inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, about 88 nautical miles from Hokkaido,” Davis told reporters at the Pentagon.

“We’re working with our interagency partners for a more detailed assessment,” he said.

North American Aerospace Defense Command assessed the launch and “determined it was not a threat to North America,” Davis said.

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Defense News that the decision to do a night launch from a new location “demonstrates that we can’t preempt them” from future launches.

[What war with North Korea would look like]

Most worryingly, Lewis noted the reported 45-minute flight time of the missile and other data, which would “be consistent” with longer-range estimates of the weapon’s capabilities — perhaps putting its range in the 10,000 km range — distance enough to put continental U.S. locations at risk.

“Preliminary reports [are] consistent with computer models showing that the missile can hit targets in CONUS,” he said.

David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, wrote on his website that the launch characteristics show that a number of major U.S. cities may now be in range. 

“Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago appear to be well within range of this missile, [and] Boston and New York may be just within range,” Wright wrote. “Washington DC may be just out of range.”

However, Wright stressed that “it is important to keep in mind that we do not know what payload the missile carried on this test. If it was lighter than the actual warhead the missile would carry, the ranges would be shorter than those estimated above.”

Joshua Pollack, a non-proliferation expert with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, was less confident that the 45-minute flight time guarantees a 10,000 km range, but noted that if that range is in play, North Korea would be able to hold naval hub San Diego as a target.

The city appeared highlighted as a potential target on a map that appeared in the background of a 2013 North Korea propaganda film a North Korea.

Pollack added that the launch profile raises the possibility that North Korea has tested an ICBM Ballistic Missile Operating Area, a region of the country where mobile launch platforms would be able to move around freely and securely.

“The word of the day is ‘ICBM BMOA,’” he told Defense News.

A July 4 launch, which Pentagon officials said involved an ICBM-class missile, occurred at an aircraft plant area known as Panghyon. North Korea used a mobile platform to launch that weapon for the first time, Davis said July 5.

In response to that launch, the U.S. and South Korea issued a show of force by firing weapons from a pair of Army Tactical Missile System batteries, controlled by the U.S. Eighth Army. 

The Pentagon had been conducting surveillance of North Korea’s known launch sites in the last week and had said previously it had seen evidence North Korea was preparing for another launch.

Two U.S. Navy ships — the destroyer Momsen and the radar ship Howard O. Lorenzen —were still in the area at the time of Friday’s launch, a defense official said on the condition of anonymity, but it was not yet clear if those vessels were able to track the missile.

The ships tracked North Korea’s July 4 launch.

Friday’s missile did enter space, Davis said, which led to the conclusion it was an ICBM. An ICBM is defined as a missile that can travel farther than 5,500 km.

“It was another high loft,” he said.

According to a statement from U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs, the deceased included:

• Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia
• Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, California
• Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut
• Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas
• Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California
• Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland
• Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

• class=”MsoNormal _wysihtml5-temp-1494016012859″>Ending the practice of “forced distribution” which requires individual commands to “rack and stack” its sailors, ranking them within specific paygrade “peer groups” when divvying up the coveted promotion recommendations.
• class=”MsoNormal _wysihtml5-temp-1494016012859″>Individual timelines for reports, rating sailors after they’ve been at a command for one year
• class=”MsoNormal _wysihtml5-temp-1494016012859″>Changing the current five-point assessment scale to one that grades sailors using a nine-point scale.
• class=”MsoNormal _wysihtml5-temp-1494016012859″>Developing new and objective job grading standards replacing the current trait system
• class=”MsoNormal _wysihtml5-temp-1494016012859″>Regular year-round counseling and feedback.

Together, the changes aim to end the unwritten rules that encourage commands to allocate their limited promotion recommendations and best evaluations to the sailors who have been onboard the longest. Regardless of how well they perform, it’s rare that the “new guy” gets that top spot under the current system.

Burke says the changes have been in the works for more than a year and are based on officer and enlisted focus groups and surveys designed to accurately define the biggest complaints across the fleet.

“This takes out bias in a lot of ways and that is really what we’re after,” he said, speaking of the institutional bias in favor of seniority that the current system has fostered.

The changes to the performance assessments — the enlisted evaluations called “evals” and officer fitness reports known as “fitreps” — will be a cornerstone to the broader personnel reforms underway in the Navy.

That includes the ratings modernization announced last fall, the push to de-emphasize or even eliminate the written test for enlisted advancements and possibly even changing the pay system to include merit-based compensation. Officials say none of these things can happen without a more accurate system of measuring performance.

The Navy’s plan is to have an initial prototype of the system up and running this fall, and the idea, officials say, is to run it in parallel with the existing performance evaluation system as officials put the new details through a shakedown process.

“Our last overhaul was in 1996,” Burke said. “It was designed to get after a lot of things — grade creep, issues on how counseling was working, all sorts of things like that.

“We’re kind of looking at those same sorts of things again, but we’re looking at even more this time around.”

Sailors in a run during weekly squadron physical training on Aug. 19, 2011, in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, in preparation for the biannual Navy-wide physical fitness assessment.

Photo Credit: MC2 Stacy D. Laseter/Navy

Nagging problems

Problems with the evaluation and fitness report procedures have been percolating for years. Burke says the system created “unwritten rules” and “grade creep” that have eroded the system’s effectiveness.

The Navy has developed an unofficial “code” for writing performance assessments. If you are a supervisor, “you have to be able to write in code,” Burke said. “If you are sitting on a [promotion] board, you have to be able to decipher the code. And each of our tribes — for example, surface warfare, submarines, aviators — each one of these individual communities has a slightly different code.”

That code was made up of words and phrases that developed over time mainly because the existing evaluation and fitness reports had very limited space. “You got 28 lines of Block 41,” Burke said, describing the current remarks block on evaluation forms.

“Space is at a premium and you have so many thoughts you have to convey and so reporting seniors write subtle and aren’t as frank to the boards as they maybe ought to be. That also contributes to the grade creep issue. You have a grading system, which over time has become less useful than it was intended because now the grades are inflated and individual grades are less than a reflection of individual traits than they are a component of the overall number.”

That’s because COs have to be aware of their “cumulative average” in grading that they develop over time in writing evaluations, which Burke says has degraded the system.

“We’re not using it the way it was designed in 1996…the only thing that matters right now is the overall report grade relative to the reporting senior’s cumulative average,” Burke said.

“So the typical reporting senior reverse engineers that final trait average to make the final number work out, so the trait averages wind up being rather meaningless today.”

To make this happen, commands must “rack and stack” those within rank-specific “peer groups” and fit them into that reporting senior’s average.

In addition, the Navy’s current system limits the number of top advancement recommendations — including “early promote” and “must promote” — seniors have to give out, leading to more unwritten rules on who gets them and who doesn’t.

These recommendations are crucial today. For enlisted sailors and officers alike, it makes them eligible for advancement earlier, offering an opportunity “break out” against their peers.

For enlisted sailors E-4 through E-6, it’s the only part of your evaluation that counts in the math towards your final multiple score that determines if you advance or not.

Most sailors and officers are aware that right now the key to getting the best promotion recommendation on your performance appraisal isn’t actually your performance, it’s your timing — how long you’ve been at the command.

“So what we defacto have is a seniority ranking system vice a merit ranking system,” Burke said. “Our surveys and our peer groups universally told us that sailors were dissatisfied with that.”

New timeline

One key change that officials hope will help eliminate the bias toward seniority will be a new timeline for individual evals and fitreps.

Under the current system, all sailors in the same paygrade get rated at the same time each year, regardless of whether you’ve been there for one month or 11 months.

The new system proposes a rolling calendar that schedules individuals’ annual assessments after sailors have been on board a year. If you report, say, in September 2017, you get your first formal evaluation in September of the following year.

“That does a lot of things,” said Rear Adm. Richard Brown, the head of Navy Personnel Command, who is helping to oversee development of the new system.

“It removes tenure from the equation and you set a standard that you are rating sailors and officers against,” Brown said

“That’s the core of what we’re looking at — to rate against a standard and not against peers in the small competitive peer group,” Brown said. “Provide that fitness report or eval based on your rank so you are really rating and evaluating what you want them to know at their current level.

New point system

The performance review overhaul will likely end the longstanding use of a five-point rating scale and expand to nine points.

“There’s a lot of science out there that says you get a lot better granularity in reporting when you do something closer to a 10-point system,” Burke said. “Right now the pilot systems we have drawn up, most of the grading scales are zero through nine.”

“In expanding the rating scale to nine points, you can really identify who the real ‘water walkers’ are our in the fleet and who are the ones who are doing better than most,” Brown said.

At the same time, the Navy will expand the traits and characteristics it aims to evaluate. Sailors will be rated on factors customized to their paygrade, rating or warfare community.

“The things you ought to be able to do as a seaman are very different from the things you ought to be able to do as a petty officer,” Burke said.

“We think there’s going to be a different report for seamen, probably a different one for petty officers, there’s probably a different one for chiefs and for master chiefs — different sets of standards we are grading them by,” Burke said.

The Navy’s various communities will have their own individual “standards,” or skills that are evaluated.

“For example on surface warfare officer department head screening boards, you are looking for specific surface warfare professional development attributes there,” Burke said. “So we would build in the ability for the surface warfare community to define a number of attributes that would get evaluated at different parts of their career path.”

Better counseling

While official evaluations occur only once a year, the Navy wants to give sailors more frequent feedback by reinvigorating the less formal mid-year counseling — something the service has historically struggled with, Burke said.

The current rules only require sailors to be counseled at the mid-year point and many aren’t really getting that.

“Some do it well, but for others, it’s just a check in the box,” Burke said. “What we really heard from our feedback was that folks want counseling and very frequently — not only want it from their supervisors, but from their subordinates and their peers — they want it all the time.”

Burke envisions an online tool for tracking the year-round counseling, offering sailors and their commanders a running picture of what a sailor has accomplished throughout the year. That will make the annual evals and fitreps easier because the supervisers will not have to rely entirely on memory at the end of the year.

“We’re discussing what the right periodicity is to make the minimum, but we’ve had discussions that this might be appropriate after major evolutions or milestones and that it’s quick and easily done,” Burke said.

New technology

The new system for performance assessments will end the current practice of using paper-based documents and scanned copies. Instead, the data on individual sailors will live in a massive database online and will be accessible by phones and other wireless devices. And it will likely be analyzed and used in new ways.

The aim is to better track the full spectrum of sailors skills that can be tapped for matching individual sailors to the assignments and compensation packages most suited for them.

“With the IT systems that are out there now that weren’t available 20 years ago we can really start to facilitate talent matching as well as bring in a formalized mentoring and counseling capability to flip the current equation on its head where you will do 80 percent counseling and mentoring verses 20 percent rating and evaluation,” Brown said.

“It gets to what the focus groups were telling us they were dissatisfied with, but also it gets the Navy to a place where they can really identify talent and then to match that talent to the jobs that are out there.”

Many sailors may see the new system in place by next year.

“We want to be transitioning en mass in 2018,” Burke said, adding that he couldn’t tell exactly what the new system will look like.

“Our intention is to do this right, we’re going to pilot this rigorously and as with everything going into sailor 2025, we’re going to completely understand this before we transition over.”

“We’re going to roll this out pretty quickly,” Vice Adm. Robert Burke told Navy Times in a recent interview.

“We are going be able to make all of our transactions services completely mobile accessible. If you get married, you take a photo of your marriage certificate and upload it and you’re done. You’ll never have to go to the office to do it.”

The Pentagon recently granted the Navy a first-of-its-kind authorization to consolidate service members’ personally identifiable information in a cloud-based system. Until now, all personnel data was maintained on Defense Department servers and internal information systems.

The changes will reach far beyond being simply a more user-friendly app for sailors to file paperwork.

The sweeping IT systems update will consolidate more than 50 existing databases, some of which date back to the 1960s and use a patchwork of antiquated coding languages like Fortran and Cobalt. Those technologies have severely limited the Navy’s ability to effectively manage its modern workforce.

Unlike many military systems that are built from scratch and take years to develop, the Navy plans to contract with a private-sector tech company to use existing systems that will allow an almost immediate impact.

The Navy will begin testing a new pay and personnel system this summer at Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes. Initially, it will run alongside the current system while working out any preliminary hiccups.

After that, the system will be updated incrementally to add new features that will be available to sailors via the My Navy Portal.

Right now, the Portal is a leading resource for pulling from as many databases as possible, but it’s not all inclusive.

The database has long been identified by Navy personnel officials as the key that unlocks future possibilities for sailors. But officials went about it in a measured approach over the past four years and believe that improving what they have is a better choice than starting over again.

In 2013, Navy Personnel Command was just taking control of the Personnel Support Detachments from Navy Installations Command as officials sought to fix problems that resulted in massive personnel cuts for military and civilian workers.

Burke’s predecessor, now-Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran, often referred back to IT modernization as the key to putting record management in the hands of sailors.

Burke believes the new system is key to making progress on the ambitious Sailor 2025 plan that will modernize how the Navy manages and interacts with its personnel.

That plan includes many of the details outlined by officials in the rating modernization plan last fall. Though officials nixed the elimination of rating names, all the other developments remain on the table

—

but will require this new mega-database to pull off.

The new database will easily track subspecialties of each sailor as well as a detailed account of their training history. As a result, officials will be able to project what additional training sailors should receive.

The greater detail of the future IT will also impact reenlistment bonuses and incentives.

“We see this being tied into tailored compensation,” Burke said.

Burke envisions a Navy personnel system where reenlistment bonuses are just one type of incentive. The database can explore enlisted sailor past retention behaviors to “set the market” for present and future bonuses.

“They could say that ‘Hey, staying in San Diego for the next three tours to get my children through high school is more important to me than a higher [reenlistment bonus].’ I think we could achieve that,” Burke said.

The idea here is that incentives currently offered to stay in the Navy don’t always jive with the needs of the sailor. Officials say it’s not always about the money. Instead, being able to mix and match to meet needs of both the Navy and the sailor is the goal.

Sailors might receive smaller bonuses but be guaranteed a home port. Others might accept the Navy’s critical need billet, but net more money and advanced training along the way.

Capabilities of the new technology should also better prepare sailors for their next job. New data can be cross-referenced with the year-old Billet Based Distribution system to identify the skills necessary for every job in the fleet.

Instead of the clunky career information systems of today, they plan to replace job hunting with something more like Linkedin, available to sailors through any number of electronic devices.

The end result is that Navy officials can ensure they’ve got the best sailor for the job, or at least identify necessary training to better qualify the sailor.

In the months to come, the Defense Department will roll out an expansive education program to ensure all troops understand the difference between the two benefits and are prepared to make such a critical personal financial decision. There will be classes, online educational tools and a calculator that will enable military personnel and their families to compare the two options based on their current career status and plans for the future.

The law contains a grandfather clause giving all troops entering the service prior to 2018 the option to keep the legacy retirement benefit, which offers a monthly pension check equal to 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years of service.

The new retirement benefit offers a smaller pension check, 40 percent of basic pay after 20 years, yet also includes monthly government contributions to an individual retirement account that service members own outright after completing just two years of service.

It will be similar to 401(k) contributions for private sector employees, and mark the first time the military offers some limited retirement benefit to troops who separate before reaching 20 years of service. Historically, noncareer service members — more than 80 percent of the force — have received no retirement benefit.

The new system will make individual retirement account contributions equal to at least one percent of basic pay. Beyond that, the government will provide matching funds to troops who contribute their own cash. The maximum is 5 percent, meaning if troops agree to contribute 5 percent of their own pay to the individual retirement account, the government will also contribute 5 percent.

Individual contributions are tax-deferred, meaning the tax is payable upon withdrawal. But money deposited into these retirement accounts, known as a Thrift Savings Plan, is generally not available for withdrawal before the owner reaches age 59½. Early withdrawal comes with significant tax penalties.

Personal finance experts say the most important factor in the decision will be whether an individual service member plans to stay for a 20-year military career. For those who expect to reach the 20-year mark, the traditional pension system is probably a better deal.

Yet for young troops who are unsure about their career plans, the new system promises some retirement benefit for those who might leave after long before 20 years of service.

Current policy requires service members to maintain body fat levels below a key threshold: 28 percent for men and 36 percent for women. If they fail, they must undergo a “tape test” to estimate their body fat percentage.

Critics have long argued that tape test is flawed.

Tape test failures are recorded in official personnel records and can adversely affect troops’ promotion prospects. Repeated failures can result in involuntary separation from the service.

Top military leaders say that while details of the policy might change, underlying fitness standards should not.

“If we do that, we have a potential liability on the battlefield,” Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this year. “The minute we lose that competitive advantage in combat because our enemies are training harder than we are, we’ll have more problems than we have right now.”

The Marines’ use of the tilt-rotor Osprey is controversial in Okinawa, where many residents oppose the U.S. military presence and fear the aircraft and its unique design are dangerous and pose risks to local residents.

U.S. military officials first notified Japanese authorities of their plans to resume flight operations on Friday and delivered a final briefing for the government of Japan on Monday morning, officials said.

“It is very important for Japanese citizens to understand and share our utmost confidence in the safety and reliability of the MV-22, or we would not continue flight operations,” Nicholson said in the statement.

“It is equally important that we ensure our pilots have every opportunity to conduct training, which allows us to remain proficient, and enable us to respond when most needed in support of the Alliance.”

The Dec. 13 crash in shallow water was the sixth major Marine aviation mishap since October. It came only six days after Marine Capt. Jake Frederick was killed when his F/A-18C Hornet crashed into the Pacific about 120 miles southeast of Iwakuni, Japan.