Did another read through the current text, and it's a bit alarming to see the definition of combat-related references the CRSC criteria (and we know how that determination by each branch can vary). I'd have thought they might go by the retirement order for the combat-related characterization.
Richard Star
- Thread starter Anyday
- Start date
Here is the CBO estimate. CBO says as written the bill would not limit based on longevity. Long way to go but there is some hope for truly full concurrent receipt.
See page 3
Last edited:
Thank you for posting the CBO estimate. It clarifies some areas that were not so clear before.
Obviously, having combat related disabilities is a primary factor in the proposed payments. I wonder if the determinations made during the PEB/MEB process will prevail OR will a service CRSC board be involved. I suspect it will be the former.
Ron
It has been added as an amendment to the NDAA with full makeup coming on Wednesday - Another positive development.
I don't quite get the statement "capped at longevity". Can anyone give me a dumb guy definition and how it applies in this situation? Not sure what the other option besides longevity applies to the Star Act and I've read through everything and I don't get what the argument is.
For context here are my stats:
DVA Disability % 100
Combat Related Disability %100
VA Compensation %100 permanent and total
Total DOD Career Time 3 years, 6 months, 10 days
CRSC Amount $382.74
Retired Pay Gross Pay $4,284.00
Retired Pay VA Waiver $4,182.74
Net Pay $101.26
For context here are my stats:
DVA Disability % 100
Combat Related Disability %100
VA Compensation %100 permanent and total
Total DOD Career Time 3 years, 6 months, 10 days
CRSC Amount $382.74
Retired Pay Gross Pay $4,284.00
Retired Pay VA Waiver $4,182.74
Net Pay $101.26
Hello @fmstar
Based on the info you provided, your longevity is 382.74 plus 101.26 = 484. CRSC for a CH 61 retiree when combined with residual retired pay cannot exceed the longevity portion of retired pay.
If your active duty equivalent was 3.5 years, then
—3.5 x 2.5% = longevity multiplier (2% for blended retirement)
—Average high three base pay x longevity multiplier = longevity portion of retirement pay
Ron
Last edited:
Thank you, so basically there are people who don't get all those longevity with CRSC and the Star Act fixes that. So CRSC is capped?
That is correct. For my wife to recoup longevity lost through VA offset she needed 50% or higher CRSC. If she had been granted 30% CRSC she would still have had money lost due to the offset all because she wasn't able to hit a 20 year retirement to get CRDP.
So basically, if they pass the Richard Star Act then CRSC will pay up to the cap regardless of the CRSC %. So in a way it will act like CRDP and be a catch all to those who were medically retired and have combat related injuries.
I know you don’t agree, but the way things read to me (at this moment), is there would be no longevity cap with MRSA.
More progress:
www.military.com
Lawmakers Advance Bill to Let Disabled Vets Collect Full Benefits, But Hurdles to Passage Remain
The HASC approved the Major Richard Star Act, which would ensure service members who medically retire before 20 years have full access to both retirement pay and VA disability benefits.
So the way you read it you think I would receive my entire retired gross pay, not longevity. My reading seems to define this as my DOD Disability pay in some places.
Retired Pay Gross Pay $4,284
Yes with the caveat that there’s a looooong way to go on this.
The costs are based by the CBO on capped at longevity + the bills description is based on that verbiage too. Congress has yet to even pass CRDP for those with less than 50% VA disability. It's not going to happen. It has the same chance of that happening as someone hitting the lotto.
Can you show that here? I haven’t been able to find that.
@Provis what was the purpose of the CBO report adding this line re: longevity rule:
For retirees who suffered severe combat-related disabilities after a short time in the military, that rule significantly limits the amount they receive from DOD.
I’m having a hard time understanding why that’s in there, if not to imply MRSA will correct that injustice. Please advise.
Just read the bill. It states the reason for it and plainly states that it is to eliminate the unjust VA offset. That means that the most you can get is the amount lost due to offset. There is no chance Soldiers are getting more than the total of their earned longevity pension + VA compensation.
So why the line in the CBO report?
In the bill it references the cost by the report and that is based on what i said regarding CRSC capped at longevity.
What? That has nothing to do with what I asked. Have a good night.