Petition2Congress logo

330 Public Comments So Far

View More Comments:
January 13, 2017
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
2 months ago
David M. from Columbia, SC signed.
2 months ago
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
2 months ago
MICHELE H. from ALEXANDRIA, VA signed.
2 months ago
John L. from Herriman, UT signed.
2 months ago
john d. from Madison, TN writes:
Quotation mark icon
I strongly support title 5. I'm a supervisor being forced to non-retain a technician because an O6, who is located at JFHQ 2 hours away and does not directly supervise this airman, refuses to extend him. He meets every requirement of the USAF to serve. He can pass his PT test, has no DAV codes/medical problems, and is a superior performer. He is simply being non-retained because he has over 20 years technician service and 30 years military service. He is 55 years old. The maximum age for the military members without waivers is 60. I also support a moratorium on non-retention of technician forces who are fit for duty until this title 5 business is concluded by congress. i excluded my name for fear of reprisal within my state which has touted 100% officer membership in NGAUS for several years.
2 months ago
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
2 months ago
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
2 months ago
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
January 24, 2017
Someone from Blackstone, VA writes:
Quotation mark icon
DO NOT repeal!! Please extend to ALL title 32 technicians!
January 25, 2017
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
January 25, 2017
Guillermo M. from Columbia, SC signed.
January 27, 2017
??????? ???????`?????? ???? twitter ?. writes:
Quotation mark icon
?????å??????`??`????` ???`??`????`????????????`????`?????????T??. ?????å??????`??`????` ?????????????å???????????,?_?I2????g???????, ?????å???????`???????N???????????????????????g????????????????????? ??|???o???e???!?????|?? ??????2????|???^,????????????o??. [url=http://www.bag78.net/brandcopy-l-54.html]??????? ???????`?????? ???? twitter[/url]
January 28, 2017
Someone from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
After 20 years in the guard a lot of us would love to get out of guard and retain our fed tech job but we are being held hostage by the dual status handcuff. So we clog up slots that a younger man should have in the guard. Its a real incentive killer on both ends.
January 30, 2017
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
February 1, 2017
Someone from Wauseon, OH signed.
February 2, 2017
Someone from Okeana, OH signed.
February 5, 2017
Someone from Halethorpe, MD signed.
February 6, 2017
from Browns Mills, NJ signed.
February 6, 2017
from Somerset, NJ signed.
February 6, 2017
Someone from Maple Shade, NJ writes:
Quotation mark icon
With due process long overdue, this modernization of the Federal Technician Workforce is beyond needed.
February 7, 2017
Someone signed.
February 8, 2017
VM from Greenwood, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
With the modern reduction of the armed forces and as a DS I am looking at least five years left in the Guard to hit my 20, only 10 on the FED side. I think it's unfair that I should have to worry about getting kicked out because I decided to serve my country for the full 20 years, follow orders and leave my family for deployments and worry if I my body can take it for another 20, which barely anybody will see 30+ years anymore unless you are a GO. It's a slap in the face for a dedicated workforce. I support Title 5.
February 9, 2017
Someone from Sioux Falls, SD writes:
Quotation mark icon
The current and expected future optempo of our National Guard makes the expectation of staying in the military until age 56-60 (normal civilian retirement eligibility) unrealistic. This is related to many of the other comments I have read. Because of this, many of our folks are being forced out of their full time positions even though they have served honorably for many years. It is the only situation I know of in which your full time job is contingent on you keeping a part time job and ironically, the requirements for the part-time job are often much more stringent. Add to that the fact that if you are released medically from the military, it automatically qualifies you to receive a civilian medical retirement even if you are fully medically qualified to perform the civilian job. Although this is necessary because of the circumstances, it amounts to a taxpayer ripoff. If you read the NGAUS counter to this, most of it has been addressed in the new 2017 NDAA and most of the rest is simply inaccurate. For example, a counterargument is that the governors have less personnel to respond to state emergencies. This is simply not true as nothing in this conversion has any effect on numbers of military members. Technicians are not activated as civilians, they are activated in their National Guard military capacity. If a technician retires from the military under this authority they will be replaced by another military (often younger and better able to handle the physical demands of an emergency) and that person will be subject to a call-up by the governor. Virtually all of the resistance to this is either from a misunderstanding of the truth or a misrepresentation of the truth.
February 10, 2017
allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
February 10, 2017
Someone from West Hartford, CT signed.
February 13, 2017
Someone from Topeka, KS signed.
February 14, 2017
Someone from Douglasville, GA signed.
February 15, 2017
Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
Quotation mark icon
Backfill for deploying Title 35 employees is generally expensive, disruptive and ineffective for the first 3-4 months while this temporary employee learns what is expected of him/her. Make the technician workforce Title 5, keep the experience in-house, don't force talent out because they served and were used/abused by their service and then thrown away (Med Board) by the Armed Forces.
March 6, 2017
Someone from Los Angeles, CA writes:
Quotation mark icon
Title 5 would be great for technician across the board.
March 7, 2017
Someone from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
A NG positions need to and probably will be converted to Title 5 or AGR. Let's break it down like this... Almost all your higher up GS positions are filled by LTC, COLs, generally LTC's are GS12 or GS13's and COL are GS13's to GS15's. So by default, even if your education and experience exceed that of the LTC or COL you will not be afforded the opportunity to even apply for said job because they will put a rank restriction on it "Restricted to current on board federal tech in the grade of O5 or O6". Not to mention you can't really enforce the standards, say you are a middle grade supervisor, if your weekend boss who is the COL and GS14 at USPFO calls you and tells you to make it happen. If you tell him/her to "pound sand" you might get away with it for that week but come time for your OER you can bet that you are doomed.
March 7, 2017
Someone from Queens Village, NY signed.
March 8, 2017
David S. from Jackson, TN signed.
March 8, 2017
Someone from Elgin, IL writes:
Quotation mark icon
we all believe repeal is wrong
March 9, 2017
Camp s. from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
we are civilians being forced to adhere to active duty standards for half the pay and benefits. very few techs can make retirement age because of the "have to be in NG to hold job", We are faced with no other choice but to cover up and hide injuries or other issues that would kick you out of the guard in order to keep our job. Just because you cannot stay in guard does not mean you cant perform the federal technician duties. No other federal job in existence shafts you out of not being able to retire like the DUAL STATUS TECHNICIAN does! So, you end up with a system that forces you to seek medical discharge and disability.
March 9, 2017
Camp s. from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
we are civilians being forced to adhere to active duty standards for half the pay and benefits. very few techs can make retirement age because of the "have to be in NG to hold job", We are faced with no other choice but to cover up and hide injuries or other issues that would kick you out of the guard in order to keep our job. Just because you cannot stay in guard does not mean you cant perform the federal technician duties. No other federal job in existence shafts you out of not being able to retire like the DUAL STATUS TECHNICIAN does! So, you end up with a system that forces you to seek medical discharge and disability.
March 10, 2017
Joe P. from Gulfport, MS writes:
Quotation mark icon
I have been in the Military for 33 years. The guard is worried about end strength but they continue to have retention boards. Yet they fight to keep the conversion from happening. I say let it happen. I would leave the guard tommorow but I can't because I am dual status. I would retire from the guard and it would allow for other soldiers to move up. They shuld look at the big picture and allow those of who want to convert to do it now.
March 14, 2017
Someone from Camarillo, CA writes:
Quotation mark icon
As a title 32 technician I have all of the burden of wearing the uniform with none of the benefits. We fall under the UCMJ since we are forced to wear the uniform, however, we are considered to be in a civilian status. So we are only considered military when it is convenient, most often for punishment purposes. I have seen many Civilian technicians lose their job due to being discharged from the military regardless of how well they have performed their civilian duties. This transition needs to happen. The argument that readiness would be reduced is such a ridiculous and outlandish claim and has no merit. If anything, readiness would be improved. If a title 5 employee left the military, they would continue to work and support the mission at home while at the same time opening up a new slot for a new military member to join the unit. The only reason the above agencies are fighting this bill is because they lose power over their members. Any other argument they have is not supported by any sound evidence.
March 15, 2017
Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
Quotation mark icon
I've been in the guard 7 years and think converting to title 5 is a step in the right direction. All the fuss is about control....Period. I believe at the end of the day there will be less turnover and a healthier NGB. The arguments of limiting the response in emergencies is false. 20 percent of support type function jobs would be too easy to convert for even a dumb enlisted guy like me. Convert Oct 2017 Don't let the generals or governor's bully you! Don't even bother to compromise to lower than 20 percent.
1 week ago
Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
Quotation mark icon
Title 32 dual status positions severely limit the talent pool our state can draw upon for administrative positions. Additionally, we constantly face retention and training issues as departments have become "revolving doors" as Soldiers and Airmen separate, retire or take AGR positions or promotions else ware in the state. The reduction in emergency responsiveness cited by NGB, AGAUS, the NGAUS, and the CoG is a farce. If I am performing my Title 32 administrative function, it is illegal for me to be ordered to go fill sand bags or fight fires unless I am placed on state active duty orders. I can still be placed on state active duty orders if I am a Title 5 civilian. It is frustrating to be held to the same standards and expectations as my AGR counterparts. Commanders do not think about what status you are in because you are in uniform and therefore they believe you are AGR. I've been directed to perform duties outside of my PD multiple times. I don't receive the pay and the benefits but I get all of the taskers and the additional duties. Furthermore, Title 32 enables higher ranking officers and SNCOs to intimidate and pressure lower ranking personnel to bend and/or break the rules if it is convenient for the superiors. The lower ranking member has to deal with the fear of reprisals and discharge in his or her military career. The conversion to Title 5 would help decrease this horrible practice. Lastly, why hasn't anyone from NGB, AGAUS, the NGAUS, and the CoG polled Title 32 employees and asked what they want? I find it ridiculous that leaders haven't sought the opinions of the very workforce that the conversion would impact. The are most likely fearful of the resounding support for the conversion.