Replies

I have posted this paper in numerous places and sent it to the politicos...please feel free to distribute and fire for effect!

POINT PAPER
CONCURRENT RECEIPT
MILITARY RETIRED/LONGEVITY PAY
VETERANS AFFIARS DISABILITY COMPENSATION

1. Current Public Law and Sections of Title 38 US Code prohibit concurrent receipt of longevity retirement pay and VA disability compensation.

Discussion:

Military retired are the ONLY segment of the disabled who are denied compensation without dollar for dollar offset by means of deduction from retired pay.

The parent directive for this denial is:

Late in the nineteenth century, Congress was looking
at military retired pay and disability pensions and
found the administration of the programs in shambles.
There were instances of persons receiving military
disability pensions while still on active duty. In an effort
to correct the problem, Congress inserted language in
the FY 1892 appropriations legislation prohibiting an
individual from receiving both military retired pay and a
disability pension. Currently, the prohibition is
described in 38 USC 5304(a)(1) and reads as follows:

§ 5304 (a) (1) Except to the extent that retirement pay is waived
under other provisions of law, not more than one award of
pension, compensation, emergency officers', regular, or reserve
retirement pay, or initial award of naval pension granted after July
13, 1943, shall be made concurrently to any person based on
such person's own service or concurrently to any person based
on the service of any other person.

Clearly, this is no longer relevant and should be repealed! This condition no longer exists, nor is it likely nor plausible that any situation like that mentioned would occur in today's military and society.

2. Military retired who are service connected disabled are discriminated against unfairly and aside from all other groups.

There can be no reasonable question that this is, indeed, a discriminatory practice well within the scope and prowess of the congress to address and correct.

The retiree is the sole member of the disabled population who is denied just compensation…even federal civil service employees are not penalized for their career of choice and service to the nation.

Other service connected disabled are afforded full compensation, regardless of their retirement status and without off set of any kind.

3. Longevity retirement pay and disability compensation are distinctly different and separable compensations.

Military longevity retired pay is pay for service rendered. Many of us spent our early years in a military career without significant income, without the possibility of home ownership, and without tax advantages afforded our civilian counterparts. Retirement remained an enticement and goal. Never was disability a serious consideration…nor is it a consideration among other industries and government agencies in regards to disability compensation.

Disability compensation (especially a service connected disability!) is intended to remedy and assist with the likely lessened earning capacity of the disabled member. No where should (nor does, in the case of anyone other than the military retired!) longevity "pension" be factored as a formula in determining compensation.

4. Addressing Disability.

One significant and pointed question arises here: How is the military retired member's disability somehow less incapacitating than that of his identical counter part who is NOT retired from the military (but may well be retired with better longevity compensation from another endeavor and career)?

If compensation is afforded to address a reduced earning capacity, then there can be no mistake that the denial of concurrent receipt is unjust and unfair!

The notion that a military retiree is somehow less disabled id preposterous, yet the constraints in effect clearly imply that notion.

I simply ask this of you: Can you emphatically and unequivocally state that the military retiree is less disabled? If the answer is "no", then concurrent receipt must be authorized and implemented immediately!

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONCURRENT RECEIPT

One argument frequently presented is that the more severely disabled would be "over compensated". Nothing could be farther from truth.

Many service connected disabled currently receive disability compensation. Concurrent receipt would have no impact on that group nor on current budget and funding! Those receiving disability compensation who did not complete 20 years or more of service are not included in the concurrent receipt issue at all.

Many with high disability ratings incurred them and retired before completing 20 years of service, and thus are retired for disability rather than longevity. Without longevity retirement, there seems no basis for concurrent receipt, since all their compensation is for disability.

The argument that awarding and authorizing concurrent receipt "costs too much" simply is unacceptable. Who more than the career military who suffer a rated disability more deserves just compensation…not a mere tax exemption for some portion of their longevity pension? The statement that "it costs too much" is just inexcusable, especially in an era where we have a surplus of funds!

With the issue here being solely the retired military disabled, the right thing to do is remove the concurrent receipt restraint now! It is discriminatory, degrading, unjust and unwarranted in every regard!

Example

One example is illustrated here. The two parties cited are assumed to be 70% disabled…one a non military retired receiving full allowance, the other a military retired disabled. The difference is striking…and appalling!

RETIRED MILITARY DISABLED CIVILIAN DISABLED

Base pay (taxable): $2194/mo Base pay (taxable): $2194
Less VA 70% rate with two Tax: - 147
dependents (1114) Gross w/o VA Comp 2047
Taxable Balance: 1088 VA Comp Added: 1114
Tax (1/2 of full tax on
the full longevity for Net Pay: 3161
simplicity: -75

Net pay: 1013
Added VA Comp: 1114
Total Net Pay: $2127
Difference between military retired
Pay w/o Comp and counterpart non military retired
but with tax: $2047
$1034
Difference with VA
Compensation and No
Concurrent Receipt: $ 80

This example clearly demonstrates the disparity and irrationality of this concurrent receipt denial for our military retired disabled. If compensation is afforded to address reduced earning capacity, it is inequitable as long as concurrent receipt constraint remains in effect. Again, can you state that the military retired is somehow less disabled and less deserving of adequate and fair compensation? Does this disparity and discrimination seem just in any manner? The illustration makes it graphically clear that denial of concurrent receipt makes no sense, is not necessary for the reasons it was initiated in 1892, and must be afforded our military retired now!

In the 106th congress, the Senate included a modification of S2357 in their budget. This measure affords the military disabled $100, 200 and 300 monthly in "special comp0ensation" for those in the 70, 80/90 and 100% disabled ratings respectively. It in no way addresses concurrent receipt and is viewed as a "stop gap" measure of dubious note.

The House introduced HR 303, a legislation awarding concurrent receipt. To my dismay, this legislation went to subcommittee and remained there for 17 months with no action! Yet, fully half the House "co-sponsored" this legislation!

Why and how does a significant piece of legislation, co-sponsored by half the House remain idle for such a period?

To be brutally frank, we do not need a ghost of "co-sponsors" who sign on for the cause and then remain absent and idle when the opportunity lies in front of them in subcommittee!

As an active military retiree and a disabled veteran, I am asking each and every retiree I know to personally contact the retirees they know, and so on. We will be following this issue closely and actively in the 107th congress.

I ask your full and committed support and active effort in reaching the objective of repealing the constraint that impacts those most deserving and in need of concurrent receipt…the retired military disabled. To do less is a disgrace and insult to these disabled veterans. They paid one of the ultimate prices in service to the nation. They must be afforded compensation commensurate with that afforded their non military retired counterpart!

We do not ask for special compensation or treatment because of a service connected disability. We ask simply that we be unshackled from denial of concurrent receipt. There is no question it is the right thing to do (the rest of the population remains unaffected by such discrimination and targeting), long overdue, and an issue that can shed some positive light on how the Congress views its veteran constituents.