script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js">

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

tony292

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
You can vote for representatives who support the bill. You (nor I) do not get to directly vote for its approval. You can also write you representatives to voice your approval of the pending bill.

Ron
Ron,

at this point it would be better to just vote against anyone who is currently in office, because obviously, none of them really support us CH 61s. If they actually had an ounce of concern for us, they easily could/would have done so already... they passed a 1.9 trillion dollar spending bill that was 90% pork... they have failed us for decades and continue to fail us.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Ron,

at this point it would be better to just vote against anyone who is currently in office, because obviously, none of them really support us CH 61s. If they actually had an ounce of concern for us, they easily could/would have done so already... they passed a 1.9 trillion dollar spending bill that was 90% pork... they have failed us for decades and continue to fail us.
Hello Tony,

You make a good point and I am not a fan of any politician and I do not belong to a political party. Whether spending involves tax cuts for the wealthy or other self-serving earmarks, issues pertaining to veterans often take a back seat.

I am glad that many citizens will benefit from the new bill, but there are controversial elements within it. I admit that I do have a bias; I would rather assist the "working man/woman" than those who are considered to be wealthy. In any case, most of our elected reprentatives seem to be missing a moral compass.

Sadly, I don't envision things in general to change in my lifetime (I am 75). Perhaps there will be improvement in that of my son.

Excellent post on your part.

Ron
 

Elementglt

Well-Known Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
So, this new bill does not focus on the longevity cap what so ever. If I am reading this correct the only help this would provide is to those who have a CRSC claim that is lower than their longevity cap? I am not against this bill of course, any help to vets is amazing but disappointed that not all expected help is in this bill. I have not read the full text and cross referenced the cited laws, but feel free to correct me. I will be waiting and watching and turning blue holding my breath for proper litigation to take place.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
So, this new bill does not focus on the longevity cap what so ever. If I am reading this correct the only help this would provide is to those who have a CRSC claim that is lower than their longevity cap? I am not against this bill of course, any help to vets is amazing but disappointed that not all help is in this bill. I have not read the full text and cross referenced the cited laws, but feel free to correct me. I will be waiting and watching and turning blue holding my breath for proper litigation to take place.
Hello Elementglt,

I had not read the entire bill until last night. Later, I found a simple analysis on the webpage for a veterans organization. I'll copy the info and post it in the PEB Forum later this morning. I'll ensure you are alerted when it is posted.

CRDP and CRSC:
There are two primary components of the concurrent receipt program: Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP).

Often when "concurrent receipt" is mentioned, a person will only think of Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) because of the word "concurrent." As mentioned, the concurrent receipt program includes CRSC.

Ron
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
@Elementglt ,

You mentioned: "So, this new bill does not focus on the longevity cap what so ever."

Frankly, I don't think that cap will ever be removed or changed.

Rationale: Retired pay in excess of the longevity portion (e.g., AD yrs/equivalent x 2.5% x average high three) is considered disability pay for which one is already receiving another type of disability payment, which is VA compensation.
See Concurrent Receipt Background Issues at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40589.pdf <---LINK

Ron
 

oddpedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
@RonG

People are still claiming that this bill gives them the full offset since no calculation is expressively used in the bill. You state

"...is considered disability pay for which one is already receiving another type of disability payment, which is VA compensation."

Yet the bill states that this rule "5304" is no longer applicable and no waiver is required since no CRSC will longer be paid.

“(i) the retired pay of the retiree is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; and
“(ii) no monthly amount shall be paid the retiree under subsection (a).”.

Am I still not reading this correctly?
 

Elementglt

Well-Known Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Hello Elementglt,

I had not read the entire bill until last night. Later, I found a simple analysis on the webpage for a veterans organization. I'll copy the info and post it in the PEB Forum later this morning. I'll ensure you are alerted when it is posted.

CRDP and CRSC:
There are two primary components of the concurrent receipt program: Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP).

Often when "concurrent receipt" is mentioned, a person will only think of Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) because of the word "concurrent." As mentioned, the concurrent receipt program includes CRSC.

Ron

@RonG

People are still claiming that this bill gives them the full offset since no calculation is expressively used in the bill. You state

"...is considered disability pay for which one is already receiving another type of disability payment, which is VA compensation."

Yet the bill states that this rule "5304" is no longer applicable and no waiver is required since no CRSC will longer be paid.

“(i) the retired pay of the retiree is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; and
“(ii) no monthly amount shall be paid the retiree under subsection (a).”.

Am I still not reading this correctly?
That is how I am reading it and I cannot find anywhere that it states longevity.
@RonG

People are still claiming that this bill gives them the full offset since no calculation is expressively used in the bill. You state

"...is considered disability pay for which one is already receiving another type of disability payment, which is VA compensation."

Yet the bill states that this rule "5304" is no longer applicable and no waiver is required since no CRSC will longer be paid.

“(i) the retired pay of the retiree is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; and
“(ii) no monthly amount shall be paid the retiree under subsection (a).”.

Am I still not reading this correctly?
That is a good question by reading that in context I can also see that assumption being practical. I don't know however my legal jargon is not as versed as others.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
@RonG

People are still claiming that this bill gives them the full offset since no calculation is expressively used in the bill. You state

"...is considered disability pay for which one is already receiving another type of disability payment, which is VA compensation."

Yet the bill states that this rule "5304" is no longer applicable and no waiver is required since no CRSC will longer be paid.

“(i) the retired pay of the retiree is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; and
“(ii) no monthly amount shall be paid the retiree under subsection (a).”.

Am I still not reading this correctly?
I will look at it later (seems to be my answer to things today). I will offer that often other laws enter into certain computations.

An example:

The laws governing the computation of retired pay interact with CRSC computations, but they are distinctly separate.

Ron
 

FmrArmyAvatr

Well-Known Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
So, the senate sponsor, Senator Testor, is also the committee chairman for Veteran’s Affairs. Maybe he will actually get this advanced out of committee because it’s his own legislation?
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Hello,

cc: @oddpedestrian @Elementglt

Here is an excerpt from a letter to Congress that was generated by The Military Coalition which includes MOAA and many other veteran groups.

Start
Major Richard Star Act. Under current law, Servicemembers who are medically retired due to combat-related injuries before reaching 20 years of service are prevented from collecting both their service earned retirement pay and VA disability compensation. These two benefits, established by Congress for entirely different reasons, are nonetheless subject to a statutory offset. In recognition of this injustice, medically retired personnel may apply for Combat Related Special Compensation that partially makes up for this injustice. The Major Richard Star Act will authorize concurrent receipt of DoD retired pay, for years of service, and VA disability compensation for injuries incurred in service. This legislation is another small step in correcting a larger concurrent receipt problem. In 2004, Congress acknowledged the injustice of the offset by granting concurrent receipt for retirees with at least 20 years of service who are rated 50 percent disabled or greater. However, those who are 40 percent disabled and below, and those who were unable to complete 20 years of service due to service-connected injuries or illnesses are still subject to the offset. An incremental approach to correcting this injustice should start with those injured in combat in recognition of their extraordinary sacrifices in defending our Nation. Military retired pay is an earned benefit for vested years of service. Service-connected disability compensation is for injury. To deny retired pay because of a disability is an injustice.[end of excerpt]

This site has the link to the letter:--> Senate Reintroduces Concurrent Receipt Legislation, With Strong Support

What is confusing is that there already exists a law for CRSC for combat related injuries.

Ron
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
So, this new bill does not focus on the longevity cap what so ever. If I am reading this correct the only help this would provide is to those who have a CRSC claim that is lower than their longevity cap? I am not against this bill of course, any help to vets is amazing but disappointed that not all expected help is in this bill. I have not read the full text and cross referenced the cited laws, but feel free to correct me. I will be waiting and watching and turning blue holding my breath for proper litigation to take place.
You said, "the only help this would provide is to those who have a CRSC claim that is lower than their longevity cap?"

Thus far, that is my understanding too.

Ron
 

armyaviator

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
@armyaviator

Thats not the same bill this bill is HR 1282 Committees - H.R.1282 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility to certain military retirees for concurrent receipt of veterans' disability compensation and retired pay or combat-related special compensation, and for other purposes.

HR 333 has very slim chance of succeeding because of costs I attribute the costs to retirees with 10-19 years in since they would be collecting a substantial amount of retired pay over those with five or less. This is bill is cheap since CRSC already allows the retiree to recoup most of their longevity retired pay most will just see modest increases of a few hundred or so, for Major Star it was significant because he was an officer with a lot of time in.
That makes sense. I was thinking 333, which, like you said, would be astronomical.
 

PurpleHeartTanker

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Howdy, I'm new to this forum, but stumbled upon it because my wife learned about the Major Richard Star act on one of her caregiver forums.

I'm a medically retired Army Major at under 12 years that was wounded by a suicide bomber in 2007. I was medically retired in 2015 at 90% (I have since been moved up to 100% T&P).

I got approved for CRSC as well since my injury and condition was combat related.

Looking at my CRSC Pay Statement it is as follows:
Retired Pay before deductions: $5,286
Retired Pay offset by DVA compensation: $3,562.06
CRSC Amount: $ 447.06

My eRAS reads gross pay: $5,286
VA Waiver: $3,562.06 NET Pay: $1,723.94

My question is if this passes would I get the retired pay and VA pension amount listed with the CRSC going away? Would this be correct?
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Hello,

I am in the process of printing the current laws and intend to mark them up with the proposed changes. Hope to finish in a few hours...have several things going on.

Now: You receive a combination of CRSC & residual retired pay that should equal the longevity portion of your retired pay. added: unless the CRSC % amount was less than the longevity.

I will leave a link later in this thread for a path to the mark-ups with comments.

Regards,

Ron
 

PurpleHeartTanker

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Hello,

I am in the process of printing the current laws and intend to mark them up with the proposed changes. Hope to finish in a few hours...have several things going on.

Now: You receive a combination of CRSC & residual retired pay that should equal the longevity portion of your retired pay. added: unless the CRSC % amount was less than the longevity.

I will leave a link later in this thread for a path to the mark-ups with comments.

Regards,

Ron
Ron,

Is this in response to my question? If concurrent receipt is passed for 20 years and below, does this mean I get both my full DoD retirement pay and full VA pension? That would be awesome! I'm 90% DoD and 100% VA T&P.
 

RonG

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Ron,

Is this in response to my question? If concurrent receipt is passed for 20 years and below, does this mean I get both my full DoD retirement pay and full VA pension? That would be awesome! I'm 90% DoD and 100% VA T&P.
Sorry...yes it was intended for you.

I am not finished. An area in development is at
Sen. 334 Amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for Concurrent Receipt for Disability Retirees--‘‘Major Richard Star Act’’ <--LINK
Ron
 

brianmatt31

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Ron,

at this point it would be better to just vote against anyone who is currently in office, because obviously, none of them really support us CH 61s. If they actually had an ounce of concern for us, they easily could/would have done so already... they passed a 1.9 trillion dollar spending bill that was 90% pork... they have failed us for decades and continue to fail us.
I definitely agree! I've looked back and this has been a bill submitted every year since 1993. This is craziness not to SUPPORT our Veterans but lets support illegal immigrants and give away billions to other countries first before Veterans!
 

PurpleHeartTanker

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
You folk's know of any updates? It looks like it has been referred to the House Armed Services committee in the House version and the referred on April 12, Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.

I wonder if this will ever gain real traction?
 
Top