Navy Selected Reserve (SelRes) pay problems are not new. In fact, they are so common a culture exists in which pay problems are expected, with final resolution not only elusive, but often impossible. This is not an acceptable consequence of service in the Navy Reserve. One of many famous Navy quotes is “Don’t give up the ship.” How is it that sailors so frequently give up on resolving pay issues?
If a sailor is overpaid, the government comes with a vengeance, even in the form of nonjudicial punishment at times. But when a sailor is underpaid, it becomes his or her responsibility to resolve. And the system to resolve this issue is anything but efficient. The Navy should not perpetuate a system in which sailors give up trying to resolve pay issues. What a tragic leadership failure to allow a culture in which pay, the most basic human resource issue, must be fought for with such intensity and lack of success that giving up becomes sailors’ option of choice.
The Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS), the current legacy system used to transition a SelRes member from reserve-component (RC) status to active-component (AC) status when a sailor is being activated or mobilized, requires multiple human actions, none of which are particularly difficult. The lack of a seamless, automated system, however, requires rigorous attention to detail and oversight to ensure accuracy. The process is as follows:
1. The Navy Reserve Activity (NRA) processes the “loss” from the RC.
2. The Transaction Support Center (TSC) processes the “gain” to the AC.
3. The TSC “builds” the pay account.
4. The pay account undergoes a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) audit.
When steps 1 to 3 are completed quickly and accurately, and step 4 reveals no issues, the SelRes sailor can be paid. Pay account and all appropriate entitlement accuracy is paramount. Unfortunately, far too often a pay problem arises, usually involving an unopened pay account or inaccurate pay. An unopened pay account occurs because of one, or more, of the following:
1. The member is not properly gained to AC (the loss or gain transaction is not completed or NSIPS failed to process the same).
2. The DFAS audit reveals an existing pay account from previous AC duty that has not cleared audit. This occurs if multiple sets of AC duty occur in a short period. A closed pay account is subject to DFAS audit before final closure, which happens at the end of the calendar month. If the account is closed early in the month, it is likely audited the same calendar month, allowing a new pay account as early as the first of the next calendar month. Accounts closed later in the month are audited the end of the following calendar month. Until that audit is complete, NSIPS/DFAS cannot open another account for the sailor.
3. The DFAS audit reveals the sailor owes a debt to the government. This situation must be addressed between the sailor and DFAS before a new account can be created.
Pay inaccuracies after a pay account is established can be caused by many things. Examples include incorrect dependent status, incorrect zip code to establish basic allowance for housing (BAH), and failure to process special pays and/or other entitlements such as family separation allowance (FSA). These errors can occur because of an outdated Page 2, an administrative tracking error at TSC, a lack of substantiating documentation, a human error at the time the initial pay account is created, or an NSIPS error. Fixing these errors requires human actions between the SelRes sailor and TSC personnel, in which the SelRes sailor identifies the inaccuracy, notifies TSC, and provides supporting documentation.
The process to activate a SelRes sailor and establish a pay account should be simple but is not easy because it involves several human actions vulnerable to error. Oversight and frequent quality checks can prevent a minor inaccuracy from becoming a financial hardship for the sailor. This approach was taken during the recent process to activate SelRes sailors by compelling them to spend a week in Norfolk at the Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center (ECRC). ECRC is not unique beyond its understanding of the activation process, relationship with the local TSC responsible for creating all SelRes pay accounts, and tenacious approach to addressing pay problems. This approach was provided a major “shot-in-the-arm” when, in 2018, then–Chief of Navy Reserve Vice Admiral Luke McCollum directed the Navy Reserve to get after the problem. It was exhilarating to see how fascinated the O-6 and below levels were when the O-9 was interested. Pay problems became rare when all parties met weekly to oversee and address issues. Unfortunately, that fascination has waned.
When ECRC is used in accordance with Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) Instruction 3060.7C to process SelRes activation, pay issues have been almost entirely limited to inaccuracies not unique to the SelRes: dependent status, special pays, FSA, etc. However, with such little margin for error, and the unpredictability of the real world, special attention must be given to ensuring pay account creation is complete and accurate within the first week of activation, regardless of a sailor’s location or command. When pay accounts are not established and accurate from the onset, correction is slow, unpredictable, and ineffective in far too many cases. Correcting pay issues is more urgent with the SelRes sailors because their AC period is limited and the account for that period of AC service is disestablished on returning to RC status. That creates additional hurdles, barriers, and challenges in correcting errors and providing earned pay to SelRes sailors. Further, a SelRes sailor may separate prior to error correction, even further complicating remedies.
The COVID-19 Response Example
In April 2020, the Navy required the rapid deployment of more than 1,000 SelRes medical personnel. The typical ECRC process was assessed to be inappropriate because a week in Norfolk could not be spared and the restriction-of-movement requirements made additional stops onerous. This eliminated onsite access for the SelRes sailors to address discrepancies. It also eliminated the direct interaction with TSC. These two realities reintroduced the full spectrum of pay issues and challenges in properly addressing them. SelRes sailors could not fix Page 2 discrepancies at the TSC, even though it was two blocks away from the ECRC. The layering of supporting commands with an ill-defined chain of command created additional challenges to ensuring accurate pay. There were many other challenges, including the fact that NSIPS is not user friendly, with “quirks” in the system rendering it nearly impossible for SelRes sailors, alone in New York City with limited or no Navy–Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) access, to update their Page 2s. I made at least two dozen unsuccessful attempts to update the Page 2, only to discover that NSIPS requires a character entry, a simple period, in a non-descript dialogue box—not in any way relevant to the required information, and not in any NSIPS user guide—to submit the information. As a result, Page 2s were not fully corrected in NSIPS and by Navy Personnel Command (NPC) until months after sailors returned to RC status.
That COVID-19 response mission lasted approximately one month and retrograde commenced quickly. Pay accounts were not completely accurate, FSA had not been processed, and proper pay was the exception rather than the rule for assigned SelRes sailors. On returning to RC status, which occurred approximately three weeks after retrograde and seven weeks after activation, SelRes sailors were notionally “separated” and pay stopped, in violation of 10 U.S. Code § 1168, which stipulates a member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until a DD-214 is provided. These DD-214s were delayed two months or more with pay stoppage despite the SelRes sailors remaining in Duty Status Code 100 (DSC-100, active duty). The AC pay accounts were being turned off in accordance with deactivation standard procedures, without processing loss transactions and without all pay discrepancies being remedied. Once a pay account is turned off, corrections become very difficult. The work to push pay without an open pay account requires laborious manual interventions by NPC through the DFAS.
The argument often is made that pay accuracy is sailors’ responsibility, as no one will care more about their pay than themselves. But SelRes sailors are not pay experts or orders writers and cannot endorse their own documentation. Why do Navy leaders not realize the tremendous importance of this basic human-resources function and engage? Is this how the Navy honors sailors’ service?
Pay issues require time to address. Any sailor who experiences a pay problem is aware that the correction process is complex and inefficient. Many sailors give up, as working through the system is frustrating, lengthy, and often unsuccessful. When sailors and unit leaders stop being tenacious about resolving a pay issue, that issue dies on the vine. No one cares more than the sailor, true, but when the system leads the sailor to “give up the ship,” that error will never be corrected. That is unacceptable. It can be remedied by good leadership. Anything short of that devalues sailors and Navy core values.