If you are DOD TDRL/PDRL retired with less than 20 years of service please read.

oddpedestrian

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#1
Right now there is a push to get bill H.R. 333 through Congress it would give Chapter 61 Retirees, that's most of us with a 30% rating from the DOD, with less than 20 years of service concurrent receipt. That is we would get our VA Compensation pay AND our TDRL/PDRL retirement pay. As of now most of us only get the VA portion as it almost always is higher than what the DOD pays, this is called an offset and if for some reason your VA pay ends up being lower than the DOD portion, the DOD pay would kick in making up the difference.

For example, let's say you get VA comp at 80% which is about 1800 a month and your DOD is 50% at 1400 you would only receive one deposit from the VA at 1800 dollars. Now let's say if your VA Comp was 60% at 1200 dollars and your DOD was still 50% then you would receive two deposits one from the VA at 1200 and then one from DFAS for 200 bringing to a total of 1400 because your DOD percentage pay ended up being higher....following? This bill if passed would allow you to collect both the 1800 and 1400 or the 1200 and 1400 see how much money is up in the air? That's 168,000 in retired pay for just ten years!!!

During my time lurking the group, I saw WAY too many people accept an unacceptable reduction in DOD percentages, especially when going from TDRL to PDRL some even opting to take severance. These were and are huge mistakes in my opinion just because you don't want to "fight" anymore or you just want to be finally "done" with the Navy, Army, Air Force is never an excuse to make poor elections that could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay. Even you forum members going through this the first time make sure that your DOD percentage is accurate especially if you are getting PDRL from the jump. I provided two links below so you can follow the bill and read up on it some more.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr333

http://cqrcengage.com/amra/ConcurrentReceiptPlusChap61?0
 

LTJG

Registered Member
#3
The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) is always lobbying congress to get concurrent receipt bills, such as H.R. 333, pushed along the way. Yesterday, they had a big annual event called "Storming the Hill" which drew some attention to it. Concurrent receipt legislation always receives token bipartisan support; the GOP likes to show its support for the Armed Forces, and the Democrats like to strengthen the safety net for disabled veterans. In fact, concurrent receipt has been introduced in some form for many, many years. You can follow who co-sponsors the bills and see that they received the most support before the 2nd Iraqi War. After the war started, more service members started to receive medical retirements, therefore the cost of providing concurrent receipt exploded.

Former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) when he was majority leader pushed hard for this and partially succeeding in getting veterans with 20+ years concurrent receipt. The issue with Chapter 61 retirees with less than 20 years is that deficit hawks in congress will oppose an increases in "veteran welfare" as they call it. As long as the political dysfunction continues, I have to reluctantly agree with Chaps above me. The bills, no longer how many cosponsors they get, will get killed in committee. You will often find that, especially in the House of Representatives, similar concurrent receipt bills are filed by each side of the aisle. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) will get co-sponsors from mostly Dems. Rep Gus Bilkirakis (R-FL) will get cosponsors mostly from his party. Add all the cosponsors together for each side and you can usually get a working majority in favor of the legislative proposal. Not going to hold my breath.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#4
[excerpt] I have to reluctantly agree with Chaps above me. The bills, no longer how many cosponsors they get, will get killed in committee. You will often find that, especially in the House of Representatives, similar concurrent receipt bills are filed by each side of the aisle. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) will get co-sponsors from mostly Dems. Rep Gus Bilkirakis (R-FL) will get cosponsors mostly from his party. Add all the cosponsors together for each side and you can usually get a working majority in favor of the legislative proposal. Not going to hold my breath.
I am in favor of CH 61 retirees with less than 20 years receiving CRDP. However, H.R. 333 was
introduced in the House 5 January 2017 (~16 months ago) and seems to be dying a slow death just as similar proposals mentioned above have done.

Furthermore, if CRDP was expanded in that fashion, there would be a call from regular retirees with less than 20 years to receive the same benefit. This just my opinion.

HR 133 is a worthy cause, but I think Congress is more likely to tighten CRDP eligibility (or eliminate it) rather than expand it.
 
Last edited:

LTJG

Registered Member
#5
We need a more powerful lobby group. Perhaps we should all chip in a few bucks to MOAA. After all, that's how our political system works now, and they seem to be our best chance for a voice on capitol hill.
 

oddpedestrian

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#6
We need a more powerful lobby group. Perhaps we should all chip in a few bucks to MOAA. After all, that's how our political system works now, and they seem to be our best chance for a voice on capitol hill.
I tried you can only be an officer to join their donations are for scholarships I was going to write them about accepting enlisted members but decided not to maybe they have a prestige motto. Most groups are dying this generation of vets are least active over their benefits than any other generation. Once they win their claim or get what they want they completely drop out of helping other vets and won't resurface until they are facing a benefit cut of some kind it's extremely selfish. I don't know what the answer is, DAV, American Legion, VFW have somehow managed to make enemies of a lot of veterans. My lobby group TREA has lobby this but said h.r. 303 has the better chance of winning and the DOD is aggressively fighting bill 333 since the offset helps them so much.
 

Hawkeye99

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#7
I am in favor of CH 61 retirees with less than 20 years receiving CRDP. However, H.R. 333 was
introduced in the House 5 January 2017 (~16 months ago) and seems to be dying a slow death just as similar proposals mentioned above have done.

Furthermore, if CRDP was expanded in that fashion, there would be a call from regular retirees with less than 20 years to receive the same benefit. This just my opinion.

HR 133 is a worthy cause, but I think Congress is more likely to tighten CRDP eligibility (or eliminate it) rather than expand it.
I wonder what the numbers look like in regards to early regular retirees versus Ch61 retirees. I would think that the # of Ch61 folks would be significantly higher, but who knows?
 

RonG

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#8
I wonder what the numbers look like in regards to early regular retirees versus Ch61 retirees. I would think that the # of Ch61 folks would be significantly higher, but who knows?
I overlooked that the fact that regular retirees (non-disability) would actually be TERA retirees and eligible for CRDP if rated at 50% or more. In that instance of writing, I was thinking about regular retirees with less than a 50% VA rating. No one mentioned expanding CRDP to those with less than 50%, which is an entirely different matter and one that will probably never occur due to its cost.

There are no "less than 20 years retirements" other than CH 61 and TERA, to my knowledge.
 

concernedwife

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#9
wait.

so if my husband receives a 20% rating from the DOD, and....say, an 80% rating from the VA - he doesn't get the 20% DOD pay AND 80% VA pay? [now]

you only ever get the VA pay? [he is at 9 years in, and we have been told the opposite of this by his PEBLO]
 

Chaps_Z

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#10
Concernedwife,

You do not receive both unless the injury was sustained during combat and documented as such.

You receive the higher dollar amount award.
 

LTJG

Registered Member
#11
wait.

so if my husband receives a 20% rating from the DOD, and....say, an 80% rating from the VA - he doesn't get the 20% DOD pay AND 80% VA pay? [now]

you only ever get the VA pay? [he is at 9 years in, and we have been told the opposite of this by his PEBLO]

So here is a real-life example of how it works. Let's say a retiree's average of the highest 3 years' worth of monthly base pay is $4,225. SNM is retired under Chapter 61 (medical retirement) with a DoD rating of 70% and a VA rating of 70%.

DoD Retirement Pay is 4225*70= $2,957.50
VA Disability Pay for 70% (spouse and 1 child) is= $1,566.48

If H.R. 333 was signed into law and retiree was able to concurrently receive DoD+VA pay (2,957.50+$1,566.48), they would get $4,523.98 per month.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is not how that works as of now. Because retiree has <20 years service, for every dollar of VA disability pay received, the DoD pay is taxed or "offset" at 100%.

DoD Retirement Pay is $2,957.50-$1,566.48= $1,391.02
VA Disability Pay is = $1,566.48

So you would receive two separate paychecks ($1,391.02+$1,566.48) totaling $2,957.50. The VA pay simply reduces your taxable income. This is why you hear so many people on this forum b****ing about their DoD rating. This is especially true with mental illness ratings which are given in increments of 20%. The difference between 70% and 50% in the case study I just gave is $845/month.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#12
I agree with LTJG.

However, if CRDP was implemented for those described in the preceding post, CRDP would restore the amount of the VA offset, but that restored amount could not exceed the dollar amount of the longevity portion of the retired pay. Additionally, the CRDP would be reduced by the amount of the residual retired pay. (CH 61)
 

concernedwife

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#13
so, what you're saying is [so i get this right]

my husband has been in nine years
say he gets a 20% DOD which would be 690.80/month
and he gets a 80% VA which would be 1481.48/month

again, only nine years in the service. he would receive a severance and ONLY the 1481.48 a month?

i wonder why we were told differently? if those were the ratings he got, we were told he would get [with those ratings] 2,172.28 a month in total.

but you're saying he would only get the 1481, correct?

[his referring condition is migraines, his VA list is a laundry list of other things, including sleep apnea with a machine]
 

oddpedestrian

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#14
so, what you're saying is [so i get this right]

my husband has been in nine years
say he gets a 20% DOD which would be 690.80/month
and he gets a 80% VA which would be 1481.48/month

again, only nine years in the service. he would receive a severance and ONLY the 1481.48 a month?

i wonder why we were told differently? if those were the ratings he got, we were told he would get [with those ratings] 2,172.28 a month in total.

but you're saying he would only get the 1481, correct?

[his referring condition is migraines, his VA list is a laundry list of other things, including sleep apnea with a machine]
None of this will apply to your husband if he doesn't at least get a 30% rating from the DOD. If he gets a severance the VA will recoup all that money from his VA benefits since its non-combat related.
 

gsfowler

Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
#15
so, what you're saying is [so i get this right]

my husband has been in nine years
say he gets a 20% DOD which would be 690.80/month
and he gets a 80% VA which would be 1481.48/month

again, only nine years in the service. he would receive a severance and ONLY the 1481.48 a month?

i wonder why we were told differently? if those were the ratings he got, we were told he would get [with those ratings] 2,172.28 a month in total.

but you're saying he would only get the 1481, correct?

[his referring condition is migraines, his VA list is a laundry list of other things, including sleep apnea with a machine]
This is completely off...

Say he gets 20% DOD...

There is no monthly payment associated with this, he would receive a one time lump sum payment equal to 2.5 times his base salary x his years in service (lets assume he is a E6 with 9 years, the lump sum would be approximately $71,361.00 ($3171.60 x 2.5 x 9)

and he gets 80% VA

It really comes down to how many dependents he has and whether or not any additional compensations such as SMC come into play. Based upon what we know you and him are married, so 80% with one dependent is $1587.25 per month

The VA will then recoup the severance pay, monthly, at the same rate as it would be paid to your husband, based upon the 20% schedule $269.30. $1587.25 - $269.30 is $1397.95.

Now, if you husbands injury(s) in which he were getting severance for occurred in a tax free combat zone then there would be no recoupment by the VA.
 

maronedp

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
#17
I have to agree, this is unlikely to ever happen. CRDP isn't intended for Chapter 61 vets. Basically, you are being compensated by loss of military career with your DoD rating and loss of ability to gain civilian employment with the VA rating at a very very basic level. I served just shy of 13 years, went on the PDRL with 100% DoD and !00% VA. As an O-4, my total came out to just over $5,000 with a VA offset of $3300, so the DoD portion is about $1700. As a Chapter 61 retiree, I receive the equivalent of retired pay of an O-6 who leaves at 22 years and I probably pay less in taxes. I would like to see better rules on CRSC and the linkages to some of the unknown instrumentality of war issues like burn pit carcinogens etc. but otherwise, I was really happy with the outcome of the process.
 
data-matched-content-ui-type="image_stacked" data-matched-content-rows-num="3" data-matched-content-columns-num="1" data-ad-format="autorelaxed">