Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportAug 3, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Reserve Component Duty Statuses:
Background and Issues for Congress
August 3, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R49056
SUMMARY
Reserve Component Duty Statuses:
Background and Issues for Congress
The Reserve Components (RCs) of the Armed Forces (the Army National Guard, Army Reserve,
Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Coast Guard
Reserve) largely consist of personnel who hold full-time civilian positions and are called to duty
on a periodic basis.
R49056
August 3, 2026
Nicholas M. Munves
Analyst in U.S. Defense
Policy
Reservists serve under a range of duty statuses. The status under which a reservist performs duty
depends on the statute or regulation authorizing the duty, the type of duty performed, whether the service is voluntary or
involuntary, the source of funding for pay and benefits, and other factors. A reservist’s duty status may in turn affect the
scope and duration of their service and the pay and benefits to which they are entitled. Congress has authorized
approximately 29 separate duty statuses, in Titles 10, 32, and 14 of the U.S. Code. Provisions relating to pay and benefits tied
to duty statuses exist in other chapters of the U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), and in the regulations of
the Department of Defense (DOD, which is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order
14347 dated September 5, 2025), the individual services, the National Guard Bureau, and other agencies.
DOD, Members of Congress, think tanks, interest groups, and other stakeholders have expressed dissatisfaction with the
current duty status system. Critics allege that the system’s complexity inhibits the use of the reserve component as an
operational force, complicates budgeting and appropriations efforts, and produces inequities in benefits and compensation.
Numerous proposals to overhaul the system have been introduced. These proposals generally consolidate existing duty
statuses into several categories. Models discussed in this report include those proposed by the 2008 Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves (two duty statuses), the 2012 Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (six duty statuses),
and a 2025 RAND Corporation study (four duty statuses).
RAND developed the latter proposal in collaboration with DOD, as directed by the 2016 and 2018 National Defense
Authorization Acts (NDAAs). Legislation introduced in the House (H.R. 6976) and Senate (S. 4801) in the 119th Congress
would consolidate duty statuses into four categories in a manner broadly analogous to the RAND proposal.
Congress may consider some of the following issues when evaluating the duty status system, for example,
•
•
•
what changes, if any, for the duty status system;
potential costs, tradeoffs, and policy changes that may result from a change to the duty status system; and
whether Congress has sufficient information on the duty status system to weigh policy options.
Options Congress may consider include the following:
•
•
•
Change the duty status system.
Maintain the current system.
Conduct oversight of the executive branch’s plans to implement changes, if any, to the duty status system.
Congressional Research Service
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Reserve Components ....................................................................................................................... 1
Duty Statuses of Reserve Components............................................................................................ 2
Debate Over the Duty Status System .............................................................................................. 3
Legislative Oversight of the Duty Status System ............................................................................ 5
Proposed Duty Status Models: Overview ........................................................................................ 6
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves: Two Duty Statuses .................................... 7
Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC): Six Duty Statuses .......... 8
DOD and RAND: Four Duty Statuses ...................................................................................... 9
Potential Issues for Congress......................................................................................................... 10
What Changes, If Any, Should Be Made to the Duty Status System? .................................... 10
What Is the Appropriate Balance Between Executive Branch Operational Flexibility
and Congressional Oversight of the Reserve Components? .................................................11
What Costs, Tradeoffs, and Policy Changes May Result from a Change to the Duty
Status System? ......................................................................................................................11
Does Congress Have Enough Information to Evaluate the Duty Status System? ................... 12
Possible Options for Congress....................................................................................................... 13
Change the Duty Status System Along the Lines of an Established Proposal ........................ 13
Consider Alternative Proposals for the Duty Status System ................................................... 13
Maintain the Current System .................................................................................................. 14
Conduct Oversight of Implementation Efforts ........................................................................ 14
Tables
Table 1. Selected Duty Status Reform Proposals ............................................................................ 6
Table 2. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves Proposal ............................................. 7
Table 3. Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Duty Status Proposal .............. 8
Table 4. General Organizing Principles of the QRMC Proposal ..................................................... 8
Table 5. DOD/RAND Duty Status Proposal ................................................................................... 9
Table A-1. Utilization Authorities for Reserve Components ......................................................... 15
Appendixes
Appendix. Utilization Authorities for Reserve Components ......................................................... 15
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 16
Congressional Research Service
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Reserve Components
The term Reserve Components (RC) refers collectively to the seven individual reserve
components of the Armed Forces, which include
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.1
The purpose of these seven reserve components, as codified in law, 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 security may
require, to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units and persons are needed
than are in the regular components.2
Members of each reserve component generally serve in a part-time capacity. Reservists may hold
full-time civilian jobs and are called to duty for periodic training, typically one weekend per
month of training (commonly called weekend drill) and two weeks per year of annual training,
though some reservists train under different arrangements.3 Reservists may also be called to fulltime federal service to partake in military operations, support the administration of the active or
reserve components, respond to disasters, or for other purposes.4
The Army and Air National Guard have a dual federal and state role. They may operate as part of
the Army and Air Force respectively, much like the Army and Air Force Reserve. They may also
operate under the authority of the governor of the state or territory in which the unit is located.
Typical service on state active duty (SAD) includes responding to disasters and civil disorders.5
When performing SAD, National Guard personnel are state employees who receive state pay and
benefits. State active duty is not covered in this report.
1 10 U.S.C. §10101. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §20001, full- and part-time members of the Space Force are
“managed through a single military personnel management system, without component.”
2 10 U.S.C. §10102.
3 Training requirements are outlined in 10 U.S.C. §10147 and 32 U.S.C. §502.
4 For a full list of utilization authorities, see Table A-1.
5 For an example of disaster response, see National Guard Bureau, “Maryland Guard tackles Lee storm floods,” press
release, September 12, 2011, https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/613013/maryland-guardtackles-lee-storm-floods/.
For an example of civil disorder response, see Office of the Governor of Minnesota, “Governor Walz Signs Executive
Order Activating National Guard to Protect the People of Minnesota,” press release, May 28, 2020, https://mn.gov/
governor/newsroom/press-releases/?id=1055-433799.
Congressional Research Service
1
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
National Guard personnel may also perform full time National Guard duty (FTNGD), in which
they remain under the control of state governors while receiving federal pay and benefits.6 Guard
personnel typically perform domestic security and disaster response activities in this status.7
Duty Statuses of Reserve Components
When reservists perform duty, they do so under one of 27 provisions in Titles 10, 14, and 32 of
the United States Code.8 A list of these authorities is in Table A-1. These provisions—commonly
called duty statuses or utilization authorities9—vary in the following respects:
•
•
•
•
Number of personnel who may be activated. Some statutes limit the number of
reservists who may be activated under that provision at a given time.10
Duration of activation. Some statutes limit the time reservists may be mobilized
under that provision.11
Authorization requirements. Some statutes require congressional approval for
the activation of reservists, while others allow unilateral activation by the
executive branch.12
Purpose. Some—but not all—statutes authorize duty for specific purposes.
Others do not specify the duties that may be performed under those provisions.13
6 See 10 U.S.C. §101(d)(5), which defines full-time National Guard duty as “training or other duty, other than inactive
duty, performed by a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United
States in the member’s status as a member of the National Guard of a State or territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or the District of Columbia ... for which the member is entitled to pay from the United States.”
7 For an example of disaster response in FTNGD, see National Guard Bureau, “Rescue squadrons provide support for
Hurricane Gustav,” press release, September 4, 2008, https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/573525/rescuesquadrons-provide-support-for-hurricane-gustav/.
For an example of civil disorder response in FTNGD, see “District of Columbia National Guard mobilized,” press
release, June 1, 2020, https://dc.ng.mil/Public-Affairs/Features/Article/2204415/district-of-columbia-national-guardmobilized/.
8 In the following document, DOD stated that it recognizes 29 utilization authorities: Department of Defense, Duty
Status Reform: Modernizing the Total Force of the Future, https://prhome.war.gov/M-RA/Inside-M-RA/RI/DSR/.
CRS identified 27 sections of U.S. Code that authorize reserve component duty. However, 10 U.S.C. §12301(d)
authorizes three categories of duty. The number of utilization authorities listed in Table A-1 may therefore be 27 or 29,
depending on how one counts the duty categories authorized in 10 U.S.C. §12301(d).
9 CRS has identified multiple definitions and usages of duty status in its review of statutes and regulations; 10 U.S.C.
§101(d) provides several “definitions relating to duty status,” without defining the term “duty status” itself.
This report uses the term utilization authority to refer to a statute under which a reservist may be called to duty.
Utilization authority is used in this manner in
Department of Defense, Department of Defense Instruction 1215.06: Uniform Reserve, Training, and Retirement
Categories for the Reserve Components, DODI 1215.06, July 12, 2022, p. 22, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/
Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/121506p.pdf.
This report may also use the term duty status synonymously with utilization authority.
10 For example, Title 10 U.S.C. §12302 authorizes, in time of a presidentially declared national emergency, the
Secretary concerned to call to duty up to 1 million reservists without their consent. Other statutes do not include such
limits.
11 For example, 10 U.S.C. §12302 limits reservists’ active duty service to no more than 24 consecutive months. Other
statutes do not include such a limit.
12 For instance, reservists may only be activated under 10 U.S.C. §12301 following a congressional declaration of war
or national emergency. Other statutes authorize unilateral activations by the executive branch.
13 Some duty statuses cover a range of activities: 10 U.S.C. §12304b authorizes preplanned support to combatant
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
•
Election. Some statutes specify that the duty performed is involuntary, while
others authorize voluntary duty.14
The statutory authority under which a reservist performs duty may affect certain aspects of that
duty, including the following:
•
•
•
Pay and Benefits. A reservist’s duty status may affect their eligibility for pay and
benefits. Duty status may affect the accrual of retirement and Veterans’ Affairs
(VA) benefits, access to TRICARE, access to certain allowances such as Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH), and other benefits.15 As a consequence,
reservists’ compensation may change as they move between duty statuses.
Funding. Pay and benefits for service performed under a given duty status may
be sourced from a specific appropriations account. For instance, reservists called
to sustained active duty may be paid from active personnel appropriations, while
reservists performing training may be paid from reserve personnel
appropriations.16
End-Strength Authorization. Depending on their duty status, individual
reservists may count toward a range of congressionally mandated end-strength
authorizations. These end-strength authorizations include active duty, selected
reserve, Active Guard and Reserve, and active duty for operational support.17
Debate Over the Duty Status System
Arguments in Favor of Change
In statements, reports, and other publicly available materials, multiple stakeholders—including
some DOD officials, Members of Congress, interest groups, and nongovernmental analysts—
have claimed that the duty status system’s complexity inhibits the use of the reserve as an
commands. Others define a specific mission: 10 U.S.C. §12402 authorizes voluntary service at the National Guard
Bureau, while 10 U.S.C. §12503 authorizes funeral honors duty.
14 For instance, Title 10 U.S.C. §12302 authorizes involuntary activations, while 10 U.S.C. §12503 authorizes
voluntary funeral honors duty.
15 Examples of variances in benefits between duty statuses include the following:
Retirement. Reservists accrue “retirement points” for days of federal service performed. However, service in
some duty statuses (namely weekend drill) may accrue retirement points at a higher rate than does service
performed in other duty statuses. See CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and
Answers.
TRICARE. TRICARE is the uniformed services health care program for military members, retirees, and their
dependents. Reservists performing weekend drill and assignments lasting less than 30 days are generally ineligible
for full TRICARE benefits. Reservists on sustained (i.e., 30 days or more) duty are generally eligible for the same
TRICARE benefits as their active-component counterparts. For more on TRICARE for reservists, see CRS Report
R45968, Limits on TRICARE for Reservists: Frequently Asked Questions, by Bryce H. P. Mendez, Barbara Salazar
Torreon, and Nicholas M. Munves.
BAH. Reservists performing weekend drill are generally ineligible for BAH. Reservists performing annual
training or called to active duty may be entitled to BAH at varying rates.
The list of pays and benefits affected by duty status is extensive. An exhaustive discussion of these benefits, and their
relation to individual duty statuses, is therefore beyond the scope of this report.
16 Department of Defense, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation Volume 2A, Chapter 2: Military
Personnel Appropriation, DOD 7000-R, June 2017, pp. 2-8, 2-33, https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/
fmr/current/02a/02a_02.pdf.
17 10 U.S.C. §115.
Congressional Research Service
3
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
operational force, complicates budgeting and appropriations efforts, causes disruptions to reserve
service, and produces inequities in benefits and compensation. Such observations, which appear
to be prevalent in public commentary on the duty status system, raise issues that are discussed
below.
Use of the Reserves as an Operational Force. Some stakeholders claim that the duty status
system does not support the current needs of the military. During the Cold War, the reserves
functioned largely as a strategic force, meant to be mobilized for low-probability, high-intensity
operations such as a war with the Soviet Union. Utilization was limited during this period: in the
five years prior to 1991, the reserve components contributed an annual average of roughly 3,000
person-years of active service.18 Much of the duty status system was enacted during this period.19
In the years following Operation Desert Storm, the reserve component assumed additional roles
in routine military activities and became a source of additional personnel for contingency
operations. From 1996 to 2001, the reserves served an annual average of 35,000 person-years.
From 2002 to 2010 (during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with domestic and foreign
counterterrorism actions), this increased to an annual average of 146,000 person-years.20
Some stakeholders allege that the duty status system is ill-suited to the frequent activations and
diverse employment of reservists in the 21st century. In the words of RAND authors
Multiple duty statuses produce complex rules and procedures that are highly inefficient,
inhibit volunteerism, and increase the difficulty of accessing reservists to perform
operational missions. The complexity affects both National Guard and Reserve members
and operational commanders alike.21
Budgeting and Planning. Some stakeholders claim that the duty status system complicates
budgeting and planning efforts. A reservist’s duty status may affect the pay and benefits to which
they are entitled, as well as the appropriations account from which those pay and benefits are
funded. In addition, pay and benefits may depend on the duration of duty.22 Reservists mobilized
under different duty statuses—with variable personnel costs—may serve together in the same
unit. As a result, the cost of activating servicemembers could vary, even within the same unit.
Some stakeholders claim that the multitude of duty statuses makes it difficult for senior leaders
and comptrollers to anticipate and track the cost of using these forces.23
According to the 11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC)
18 Reserve Forces Policy Board, Reserve Forces Policy Board Annual Report 2014, July 20, 2014, pp. 99-100.
19 Reserve Forces Policy Board, Reserve Forces Policy Board Annual Report 2014, July 20, 2014, pp. 99-100,
https://rfpb.defense.gov/Portals/67/Documents/Reports/Annual%20Report/
2015%20RFPB%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf#page=109.
20 Reserve Forces Policy Board, Reserve Forces Policy Board Annual Report 2014, July 20, 2014, pp. 99-100.
21 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, RAND, August 12, 2025, p. 5, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA959-1.html.
22 Reservists typically gain access to more generous pay and benefits on their 30th day of mobilization. CRS Report
RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers.
23 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, p. 5.
See also statement of Jerilyn B. Busch, Director of Military Compensation Policy at DOD, in U.S. Congress, House
Armed Services Committee, Military Personnel Subcommittee, Reserve Component Duty Status Reform, 116th Cong.,
1st sess., March 27, 2019, HASC no. 116-20, p. 7, https://www.congress.gov/116/chrg/CHRG-116hhrg36881/CHRG116hhrg36881.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
The budgeting process is based on artificial duty status distinctions that complicate the
allocation of resources and obscure the understanding of the work and training actually
being performed. It is difficult to track funding because duty statuses are not linked to how
the budget is organized.24
Interruptions to Service. Some stakeholders claim that the current duty status construct causes
administrative delays and disruptions to pay and benefits. A reservist may need to move fluidly
between duty statuses as the nature or purpose of their service changes. Some stakeholders claim
that these changes in duty status may require new orders to be issued,25 which may result in
breaks in service and subsequent interruptions to pay and benefits.26
Inequities in Pay and Benefits. Due to the multitude of duty statuses—and the differences in pay
and benefits between them—reservists serving together, under different orders and statuses, may
be entitled to different pay and benefits. There may also be differences in pay and benefits
between reservists and active-component personnel serving together. As one stark example, some
observers cite a 2015 helicopter crash in which seven active-duty Marines and four members of
the National Guard were killed. Due to policies in place at the time, there were disparities in
survivorship benefits awarded to the dependents of the Marines and the dependents of the Guard
personnel.27
Legislative Oversight of the Duty Status System
Section 515 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (FY2016 NDAA;
P.L. 114-92) directed the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission’s (MCRMC’s) proposal to consolidate existing duty
statuses into six categories and report to Congress on the assessment.28 This section further
directed the Secretary to submit an alternative proposal, along with draft legislation, should he
find the MCRMC model unsatisfactory.29
Section 513 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (P.L. 115-91) modified Section 515 of the FY2016
NDAA. The language directed the Secretary of Defense to propose a model that would
consolidate the existing duty statuses into four categories containing no more than eight distinct
authorities. These categories were to be (1) active duty for contingency operations or in support
of a combatant command; (2) other types of active service such as training, administration,
operational support, and full-time support to the reserve components; (3) inactive and partial-day
24 Department of Defense, Report of the Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, p. 136.
25 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, Report of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission: Final Report, pp. 52-53. Per a presidential memorandum, the MCRMC served
as the 12th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation.
26 Statement of Major General Bradley S. James, Acting Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, in U.S. Congress,
House Armed Services Committee, Military Personnel Subcommittee, Reserve Component Duty Status Reform, 116th
Cong., 1st sess., March 27, 2019, HASC no. 116-20, p. 54.
27 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, p. 7. See also “Arlington National Cemetery denies burial for guardsman killed in Blackhawk helicopter
training crash,” Florida Times-Union, June 3, 2015; https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/military/2015/06/03/
arlington-denies-burial-guardsman-killed-chopper-crash/15665456007/.
28 P.L. 114-92.
29 The MCRMC proposed a six-category duty status system largely analogous to that proposed by the 2012
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation. See Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission, Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission: Final Report, January
29, 2015, p. 54, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA625626.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
training and service; and (4) remote duty assignments. This provision further specified that the
Secretary’s proposed changes did not alter the purposes for which the reserves may be used, or
Congress’ ability to oversee the use of the reserves. Finally, it stated that this proposal shall
minimize disruptions to reservist pay and benefits.30
RAND and DOD developed an alternative duty status system, as directed in the FY2016 and
FY2018 NDAAs (see the “DOD and RAND: Four Duty Statuses” section).31 RAND released a
report in August 2025 detailing the proposal.32 Legislation introduced in the 119th Congress to
consolidate duty statuses into four categories broadly mirrored those outlined in the DOD/RAND
proposal.33
Proposed Duty Status Models: Overview
Several working groups have proposed alternate duty status models, which seek primarily to
consolidate the existing duty statuses. Three such proposals are summarized in Table 1 and
discussed further in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.
Table 1. Selected Duty Status Reform Proposals
Commission on the National
Guard and the Reserves
Eleventh Quadrennial Review
of Military Compensation
Category 1: On (active) Duty
Category 1: Active Duty
Category 1: Contingency Duty
Category 2: Inactive Reserve
Service
Category 2: Training and Support
Category 3: Federal Service
Category 3: Reserve Component
Duty
Category 4: Full-Time National
Guard Duty
Category 4: Remote Assignments
Category 2: Off (active) Duty
RAND/DOD
Category 5: Inactive National Guard
Service
Category 6: Coast Guard Active
Duty
Source: CRS analysis.
30 P.L. 115-91.
31 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, pp. 4-5.
32 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves.
33 CRS analysis of H.R. 6976 and S. 4801, 119th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
6
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves: Two Duty
Statuses
Table 2. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves Proposal
Category
Description
Category 1: On (active) Duty
All time spent performing duty, regardless
of purpose.
Category 2: Off (active) Duty
All time spent not performing duty.
Source: Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a
21st-Century Operational Force, January 31, 2008, p. 163, https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/
references/CNGR%20Final%20Report.pdf.
In a 2008 report, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (CNGR) proposed a
consolidation of all duty statuses into one “on duty” status, paired with an “off-duty” status for
periods between reserve service (see Table 2 above):
DOD should reduce the number of duty statuses from the current 29 to 2: on (active) duty
and off (active) duty. All reserve duty will be considered active duty, with appropriate pay
and other compensation. The 48 drills should be replaced with 24 days of active duty. A
day’s pay should be provided for a day’s work without reducing compensation for current
service members. The system should be sufficiently flexible to deal with service-specific
training requirements.34
The commission recommended this model as part of a “continuum of service” concept that it
assessed would maximize flexibility in the use of the reserve components:
The future duty status system should simplify the process of bringing a reservist on active
duty. Moreover, the operational reserve requires a structure that can engage reservists over
a career in both an active duty and a reserve status, thereby promoting a continuum of
service. A new duty status system should enable members and units to undertake duty
periods varying from a few days per year up to a full year or more, in ways that meet the
needs of DOD, the service member, and his or her family and employer. Finally, a new
duty status system should take advantage of a reservist’s willingness to serve—building a
more balanced force and providing a better value for the nation.35
The CNGR proposal contained a duty status—“off-duty”—that encompasses time spent in
civilian life. CRS has identified no analogue to the “off-duty” status in current statute or in the
two proposals outlined below.
The House report accompanying the FY2009 NDAA discussed the duty status system in general
and the CNGR proposal in particular. Regarding this proposal, it stated that “reducing the number
of duty statuses brings numerous challenges that were not specifically addressed by the
commission.”36
34 Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21st-
Century Operational Force, January 31, 2008, p. 163, https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/
references/CNGR%20Final%20Report.pdf.
35 Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21stCentury Operational Force, p. 163.
36 H.Rept. 110-652.
Congressional Research Service
7
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC):
Six Duty Statuses
The Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) proposed six categories of
duty status (see Table 3 below).
Table 3. Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Duty
Status Proposal
Category
Description
Category 1: Active Duty
Activation of reserve and National Guard personnel for
federal service under Title 10.
Category 2: Inactive Reserve Service
Activation of reserve personnel under Title 10 for partialday assignments (such as weekend drill and funeral
honors).
Category 3: Federal Service
Activation of reserve and National Guard personnel
under Title 10 to “execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
Category 4: Full-Time National Guard Duty
Activation of National Guard personnel to perform fulltime duty under Title 32 (i.e., under state authority with
federal pay and benefits).
Category 5: Inactive National Guard Service
Activation of National Guard personnel under Title 32
(i.e., state authority with federal pay and benefits) for
partial-day assignments (such as weekend drill and funeral
honors).
Category 6: Coast Guard Active Duty
Activation of Coast Guard reservists under Title 14.
Source: Adapted from Department of Defense, Report of the Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation, p. 145.
The primary factors by which the QRMC categorizes duty appear to be public law title and the
nature of the duty authorized. (See Table 4 for a visual representation of this proposal’s general
organizing principles.)
Table 4. General Organizing Principles of the QRMC Proposal
Title 10
Title 32
Full-Time
Category 1: Active Duty;
Category 3: Federal
Service
Category 4: Full-Time
National Guard Duty
Partial-Day
Category 2: Inactive
Reserve Service
Category 5: Inactive
National Guard Service
Title 14
Category 6: Coast Guard
Active Duty
Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Report of the Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation, p. 145.
The QRMC authors state,
The new duty structure proposed by the QRMC sets the conditions for a continuum of
service. It reduces complexity by separating authorities from purpose, funding streams, and
other characteristics that combine together to create the arduous or—as the CNGR called
it—“byzantine” system that exists today. With simplicity come fewer and more seamless
transitions between duty statuses. Of fundamental importance is that a simpler system
greatly increases the accessibility of reserve component personnel in a total force
Congressional Research Service
8
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
environment. It better enables operational commanders to acquire personnel resources
when they are needed to support operational missions.
And, the system supports both training and operational missions based on a philosophy that
duty is duty regardless of purpose. Although the trend is increased participation in
operational roles, not all members of the reserves are extensively involved in operational
support. Simplifying the system would allow flexibility to support the full range of reserve
participation, essentially making the difference between training and support transparent,
while recognizing the need for both.37
The QRMC proposal also includes a unique category—Federal Service—not found in the CNGR
or RAND/DOD proposals. This duty status would be used “when the president exercises his
constitutional authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions.”38
DOD and RAND: Four Duty Statuses
A proposal developed by RAND Corporation and DOD in accordance with Section 513 of the
FY2018 NDAA would consolidate existing duty statuses into four categories (see Table 5). The
RAND/DOD proposal categorizes duty by its broad purpose and its duration. It subdivides these
categories into types based on public law title.
Table 5. DOD/RAND Duty Status Proposal
Category
Description
Category 1: Contingency Duty
Activation of reserve and National Guard personnel for federal
service under Title 10 for contingency operations. This category
would include military operations, disaster relief, preparations for
and demobilization from those duties, preplanned support to
combatant commands, time spent as a prisoner of war, and several
other activities. It also would include response to insurrections and
invasions, certain types of full-time National Guard Duty under
Title 32, and Coast Guard Reserve activations under Title 14.
Category 2: Training and Support
Active and full-time service under Titles 10 and 32 for purposes
other than contingency operations. This category would include
sustained training activities, full-time support to the reserve
components, administrative assignments, disciplinary proceedings,
and several other activities.
Category 3: Reserve Component Duty
Partial-day activities under Titles 10 and 32 such as weekend drill,
funeral honors, and administrative tasks.
Category 4: Remote Assignments
Tasks that may be done remotely and/or without direct military
supervision under Titles 10 and 32. These may include
educational activities or certain work assignments.
Source: Adapted from Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component
Duty Status Reform: Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the
National Guard and Reserves.
Note: This proposal subdivides each of these categories into duty types for each public law title. For instance,
Category 1 contains three duty types for Titles 10, 32, and 14. Other categories contain two duty types, for
Titles 10 and 32. There are nine duty types, by U.S. Code title, in total.
37 Department of Defense, Report of the Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, p. 146.
38 Ibid., p. 142.
Congressional Research Service
9
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
The authors state,
These four broad categories cover and consolidate several of the dimensions of the current
duty statuses (type of duty, election, mission, and status) while preserving distinctions
between Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. In addition, the new construct retains active
duty performed by Coast Guard Reserve members under Title 14. Taking these differences
into consideration results in nine duty types…. This organization of duty types and their
corresponding authorities provides a more rational and systematic way of organizing
activities for National Guard and Reserve members.39
Potential Issues for Congress
What Changes, If Any, Should Be Made to the Duty Status System?
Congress may evaluate to what extent to modify the duty status system, if at all. In its
considerations, it may weigh the system’s potential defects and attributes along with the potential
challenges of implementing changes to the system.
Should Congress decide to modify the duty status system, it may consider its objectives in doing
so. These may include reducing personnel costs, equalizing pay and benefits among
servicemembers, increasing efficiency of activations, increasing congressional oversight of
servicemembers’ operational employment, and altering the role of the reserves in military
operations. These objectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but a given proposal may
cause unintended outcomes. For instance, a proposal to standardize pay and benefits may increase
total personnel costs.
When deliberating proposals, Congress may consider the scope of recommended changes to the
duty status system, in part to assess the feasibility of such changes. Proposed changes range from
narrow (e.g., the addition of a new duty status for a specific purpose) to broad (such as the
consolidation of 29 duty statuses into two, as proposed by the Commission on the National Guard
and the Reserves).
A narrow change to the duty status system could be easier and/or simpler to implement and could
carry a lower risk of unintended consequences but may not address the systemic issues raised by
stakeholders (see the “Arguments in Favor of Change” section). A broader change may address
these issues but may require the modification of many statutes and regulations may carry
unforeseen aftereffects.
When evaluating a proposal, Congress may consider the degree to which it changes statutes and
regulations. Since much of the duty status system is enacted in the U.S. Code, a change to the
system may entail changes to statute. DOD and the services may need to alter their regulations in
accordance with these changes.
39 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
10
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
What Is the Appropriate Balance Between Executive Branch
Operational Flexibility and Congressional Oversight of the
Reserve Components?
When evaluating the current duty status system—and proposals to modify it—Congress may
consider the balance of executive and legislative control over reserve forces. Congress may grant
the services greater flexibility in their use of the reserve components. This could be done by
loosening or repealing the statutes that limit the scope, duration, and purpose of reservist
mobilizations, and the requirement for congressional approval in some circumstances.40 Such a
change may allow the services to activate reservists at will and thereby facilitate the use of the
reserves as an operational force. It may also allow the services to more finely tailor the structure
and function of the reserves to their needs.
However, such changes may diminish Congress’s role in defense policy. The statutory limitations
on activations—especially those requiring congressional approval for full mobilization—provide
a check on the President’s ability to tap military personnel resources. More broadly, Congress
may find its ability to shape the structure and use of the reserve components reduced if it
delegates additional utilization authority to the executive branch. This action may also limit
Congress’s ability to regulate the personnel and operational tempo of the reserves.41
Congress may weigh the relative importance of operational flexibility against congressional
oversight when considering changes to the duty status system. It may further consider ways to
minimize tradeoffs between these two objectives.
What Costs, Tradeoffs, and Policy Changes May Result from a
Change to the Duty Status System?
Congress may consider costs, tradeoffs, and policy changes that may result from a change in the
duty status system, including some that may be unintended.
Costs. The cost of changes to the duty status system may include the development of new IT
systems, retraining staff or hiring additional staff, and changes in pay and benefits relative to the
current system. Congress may also consider the long-term cost implications of alterations to
retirement and VA benefit eligibility, among other factors.
Tradeoffs. Some changes to the duty status system might create real or perceived disadvantages
for certain stakeholders. Potential impacts include the loss of pay and benefits to certain
categories of reservists, reduction in state governors’ control over National Guard forces, and
greater use of the VA health care system.42
Unintended Consequences. A proposed change to the duty status system could produce
unintended and undesired outcomes. Broad changes may involve the modification of many laws
and regulations governing the operation of several federal agencies. For instance, the
DOD/RAND proposal “identified 275 provisions of law in 21 of the 54 titles of the U.S. Code,
40 Namely 10 U.S.C. §12301(a), commonly referred to as “Full Mobilization.” This statute authorizes the mobilization
of an unlimited number of reservists, for the duration of a “war or national emergency” declared by Congress. As the
name suggests, this is the broadest mobilization authority, but its use is regulated by Congress.
41 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11007, Defense Primer: Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO), by Kristy N.
Kamarck.
42 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10555, Introduction to Veterans Health Care, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala and Jared S. Sussman.
Congressional Research Service
11
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
and separate stand-alone acts passed by Congress that must be amended to … align pay and
benefits packages within each category.” 43 A similar DOD initiative, discussed at a March 2019
House Armed Services Committee hearing, “identified more than 450 separate provisions of law
that would need to be changed across 21 titles of the U.S. Code and across other uncodified
statutes.”44
Given the scope of the changes and the diversity of affected stakeholders, the implementation of
these proposals may trigger unintended administrative disruptions. It may also create incentives
and disincentives that produce undesired outcomes. Congress may consider the extent to which a
proposal may cause disruptions, whether and how Congress might prevent such disruptions, and
should disruptions occur, whether and how Congress might monitor and mitigate them.
Policy Changes. Any given proposal could result in changes beyond the scope of Congress’s
objectives. For instance, in a March 2019 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Members of
Congress expressed concern that a DOD duty status proposal reduced state governors’ degree of
control over their National Guards. 45
Does Congress Have Enough Information to Evaluate the Duty
Status System?
Congress may consider whether the executive branch has provided sufficient information to
weigh potential changes to the duty status system. The report (H.Rept. 119-698) accompanying
the House-passed version of an FY2027 NDAA (H.R. 8800) contained a provision directing the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs to brief Congress, on
(1) additional recommendations of consolidation to the current duty status system;
(2) how changes recommended in the report will ensure servicemembers performing
similar jobs receive equitable benefits and pay;
(3) estimated cost-savings or cost-burden to the Department of Defense on implementing
a duty status consolidation; and
(4) current barriers to implementation.
(5) any barriers to implementation in coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs
and;
(6) estimated cost savings or cost burden to the Department of Veterans Affairs.46
43 Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component Duty Status Reform:
Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the National Guard and
Reserves, p. 11.
44 Jerilyn B. Busch, Director of Military Compensation Policy, Department of Defense, quoted in, U.S. Congress,
House Armed Services Committee, Military Personnel Subcommittee, Reserve Component Duty Status Reform, 116th
Cong., 1st sess., March 27, 2019, HASC no. 116-20, p. 11.
45 Rep. Debra Haaland, quoted in, U.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Military Personnel
Subcommittee, Reserve Component Duty Status Reform, 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 27, 2019, HASC no. 116-20, p.
12.
46 U.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Report of the Committee on Armed Service House of
Representatives, to Accompany H.R. 8800, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., June 15, 2026, H.Rept. 119-698 (Washington: GPO,
2026), p. 197.
Congressional Research Service
12
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Possible Options for Congress
Change the Duty Status System Along the Lines of an Established
Proposal
Congress may change the duty status system along the lines of an already proposed model (for
examples, see the “Proposed Duty Status Models” section). Congress may adopt these models as
presented or modify them. Congress may also consider alternate proposals or maintain the current
system.
Consider Alternative Proposals for the Duty Status System
Congress may consider other duty status models, such as those employed by other nations’
militaries or other services of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress may examine the reserve
component management systems of other countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, or
Australia. When making international comparisons, Congress may focus on countries with allvolunteer militaries. Nations that practice conscription, such as Israel, South Korea, and Finland,
tend to have reserve component policies that differ fundamentally from those of the United
States.
The Canadian Reserve Force uses three duty statuses, each with a distinct pay and benefits
package.
•
•
•
Class A, which encompasses reservists training part-time while working full-time
civilian jobs.
Class B, which encompasses reservists working on fixed-term contracts of varied
length. This class covers short-term activations for training or limited-duration
assignments, and multi-year activations in which the reservist works full time.
Class C, which encompasses reservists mobilized for operations.47
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) maintains service options (SERVOP in ADF terminology)
for reservists to perform full-time service for a year.48
The Reserve Forces of the United Kingdom maintain a category of Sponsored Reservists. These
are “civil servants or private sector employees whose employers have an agreement with MOD
[Ministry of Defence], usually a contract, for the provision of support services.”49 These
personnel may be mobilized as reservists to support the armed forces under certain circumstances.
Congress may also consider the personnel management system of the U.S. Space Force and
whether its policies are applicable to the other services. Full and part-time Space Force personnel
are managed through a unified command structure. Current statute authorizes the Secretary of the
47 See Canadian Army, The Army Reserve in Canada: Soldier Information Handbook 2023, R-PM-007-000/AF-001,
April 2023, pp. 107-108, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/army/lineofsight/articleimages/2023/08/R-PM007-000-AF-001.pdf; and Queen’s[sic] Regulations and Orders (QR&O[sic]) Volume I - Chapter 9 Section 3
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1administration/ch-9-reserve-service.html#cha-009-06.
48 Australian Government Defence, Strategic Review of the Australian Defence Force Reserves, 2024, p. 33,
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/strategic-review-of-the-adf-reserves.
49 Ministry of Defence, Regulations for the Mobilisation of UK Reserve Forces Part 1: Directive, JSP 753 Pt 1,
London, United Kingdom, March 2023, p. 14, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/
6477698d5f7bb7000c7fa2b3/JSP_753_Part_1_V5.0_Mar_2023.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Air Force to create regulations under which Space Force personnel serve in “active status” but not
on “sustained duty,” and are required to drill and train periodically in a manner analogous to
members of the reserve component.50 Congress may consider whether this integrated personnel
system could be applied to the other services and their reserve components. Such considerations
may include the extent to which implementing this proposal may require changes to statute.
Congress may also weigh the potential flexibility of the Space Force personnel system against the
unique features of the Space Force (namely its relatively small size and its integration with
civilian intelligence and DOD agencies).
Maintain the Current System
Congress may determine that the current duty status system is sufficient—or that the potential
challenges of changing the system outweigh the potential benefits—and make no changes to it.
Conduct Oversight of Implementation Efforts
Congress may conduct oversight of the implementation of any changes to the laws or regulations
governing the duty status system. Congress may consider whether the executive branch has an
adequate plan to implement any changes to the duty status system, particularly given how many
agencies could be involved across the federal government. Likewise, Congress may consider its
own oversight plans, given that the affected agencies fall under the jurisdiction of several
committees.51 Congress may enact reporting requirements and directives for the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and inspector-general evaluations to assist in oversight of policy
implementation.
50 10 U.S.C. §20101.
51 The Duty Status Reform Act (H.R. 6976) was referred to 12 committees of jurisdiction.
Congressional Research Service
14
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix. Utilization Authorities for Reserve
Components
Table A-1. Utilization Authorities for Reserve Components
Statute
Status
10 U.S.C. §12301(a)
Full mobilization during war or national emergency declared by
Congress.
10 U.S.C. §12302
Mobilization of up to 1 million ready reserve members for up to 24
months.
10 U.S.C. §12304
Mobilization of reservists for up to 365 days at President’s
discretion.
10 U.S.C. §12304a
Mobilization in response to a major disaster or emergency at the
request of a state governor for up to 120 days.
10 U.S.C. §12304b
Activation for preplanned missions in support of Combatant
Commands for up to 365 days.
10 U.S.C. §251
Mobilization to suppress insurrection in a state at request of state
government.
10 U.S.C. §252
Mobilization to enforce federal law in event of insurrection.
10 U.S.C. §12406
Calling of National Guard into federal service.
10 U.S.C. §2301(g)
Reservist may be placed in active status if in captivity.
10 U.S.C. §802(d)
Reservist may be placed in active status for disciplinary
proceedings.
10 U.S.C. §10147(a)
Requires at least 48 drill periods and up to 30 days ADT per year.
10 U.S.C. §12301(b)
Activation for up to 15 days per year.
10 U.S.C. §10148
Up to 45 days of additional training per year if training performance
deemed unsatisfactory.
10 U.S.C. §12303
Recall to active duty for reservists whose performance deemed
unsatisfactory.
10 U.S.C. §12319
Annual muster of ready reserve personnel.
10 U.S.C. §688
Recall of retired reserve personnel to active duty.
10 U.S.C. §12301(d)
Additional training;
Operational Support;
Active Guard and Reserve.
10 U.S.C. §12301(h)
Activation of reservist for health care purposes.
10 U.S.C. §12322
Activation of reservist for health care purposes.
10 U.S.C. §12323
Activation of reservist who alleges sexual assault in line of duty
pending determination.
10 U.S.C. §12402
Voluntary activation of commissioned officers to serve at the
National Guard Bureau.
10 U.S.C. §12503
Voluntary activation for funeral honors duty.
32 U.S.C. §502(a)
Requires at least 48 drill periods and up to 30 days ADT per year
for National Guard personnel.
Congressional Research Service
15
Reserve Component Duty Statuses: Background and Issues for Congress
32 U.S.C.
§502(f)(1)(A)
Involuntary Full-Time National Guard Duty.
32 U.S.C.
§502(f)(1)(B)
Voluntary Full-Time National Guard Duty.
32 U.S.C. §115
Voluntary activation for funeral honors duty for National Guard
personnel.
14 U.S.C. §3713
Activation of Coast Guard reservists.
Source: Adapted from Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Lisa M. Harrington, Thomas Bush, et al., Reserve Component
Duty Status Reform: Analytical Contributions to a New Construct for Activating and Compensating Members of the
National Guard and Reserves, p. 6.
Notes: CRS has identified 27 statutory provisions authorizing reserve component duty. However, 10 U.S.C.
§12301(d) authorizes three categories of duty. The number of utilization authorities listed in this table may
therefore be 27 or 29, depending on how one counts the duty categories in 10 U.S.C. §12301(d).
Author Information
Nicholas M. Munves
Analyst in U.S. Defense Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R49056 · VERSION 3 · NEW
16
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.