Apparently Stars and Stripes won't accept my lengthy comment: Here it is:
Below is my reply to a congressional staffer who confirmed only chapter 61 disability retirees (even if rated 0% disabled) will be protected from the COLA reduction. Beyond what I wrote below, there is another scenario that demonstrates the inequity. Once a Chapter 61 retiree is placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL), they are a Chapter 61 retiree for life even if they are completely cured of their disability. If a member is permanently retired for cancer and that cancer is cured, the member remains a chapter 61 retiree for life and is protected from the COLA offset. However, a length of service retiree who develops service connected cancer post retirement (e.g. from agent orange) is subject to the COLA reduction. The military disability system is not designed to compensate for disability. It is designed to compensate for a career lost due to disability. This is an important distinction that Congress needs to understand. The VA rating (or SSDI eligibility) is better relative barometer for current disability rather than if or if not the member is a chapter 61 retiree. Now, my response to the congressional staffer:
Based on what you are telling me, there are huge inequities in the proposed fix:
A fully employable chapter 61 disability retiree rated at 0% by DoD and the VA will not be subject to COLA reduction.
An unemployable length of service retiree rated 100% P&T by the VA effective the date of retirement will still be subject to the COLA reduction.
An unemployable length of service retiree who sustains a non service connected disability post retirement (e.g. paralyzed from the neck down in a car accident) will still be subject to the COLA reduction.
Many members found unfit by a PEB and rated less than 30% were given the option of receiving a T...ERA retirement in lieu of a disability separation and severance. A TERA retirement is a length of service retirement. These disabled retirees, deemed by a PEB too disabled to continue military service but became TERA length of service retirees, will still be subject to the COLA reduction.
An unfit member who is eligible for disability retirement under the DES can waive DES processing because they are already eligible for length of service retirement. Many unfit wounded warriors have waived DES processing because they wanted to move on with life and did not want to clog the already stressed DES timeline given they receive the same benefits as a length of service retiree. These disabled retirees will not be protected from COLA reduction.
Military members are not medically retired (Chapter 61) unless they are deemed unfit by a PEB. Fitness is individualized based on one's rank and duties. An infantryman can be deemed unfit for a relatively low impact knee injury that makes him unfit to be an infantryman yet has minimal impact on civilian employment. Conversely, an admin clerk can have a very serious condition that has huge impacts on civilian employment but is deemed fit by a PEB. This disabled retiree, who does not meet military retention standards but nonetheless is deemed fit by a PEB, will not be protected from the COLA reductions despite being rated 100% P&T by the VA and granted SSDI.
You can have two service members, one with 14 years of service and one with 20 years of service, with the exact same level of service connected disability and impact to their fitness. The 14 years of service member receives a chapter 61 disability retirement and is protected from the COLA reduction. The 20 years of service disabled member is deemed fit by presumption, reverts to a length of service retirement, and is subject to the COLA reduction. See the presumption of fitness rules in DODI 1332.38.
My concern is that Congress does not understand the important nuances of the DES system. It appears they only consider chapter 61 retirees to be the only truly disabled retirees deserving of protection from COLA reduction. I personally underwent a MEB and a PEB for reactive arthritis and severe migraines in 2005. My MEB stated both of these conditions failed Army retention standards. My PEB stated I was fit for duty despite the fact I was non deployable, I have physical limitations and I could not take required immunizations. I am also required to suppress my immune system with a FDA black box drug to combat the effects of the reactive arthritis. I retired for length of service and have been rated at 100% P&T by the VA effective the date of my retirement.
History has shown there are huge inequities with the military disability evaluation system. It simply cannot be the barometer of the level of disability worthy of protection from COLA reduction. As you should be aware, the DES timeline is unacceptable long. As a wounded warrior advocate, I (and other advocates) often advise wounded warriors eligible for length of service retirement to forego DES (MEB/PEB) processing because they would receive the same level of DoD/VA compensation as a length of service retiree. Because only chapter 61 retirees will be protected from COLA reductions, the truth has changed. I will now be advising such members to insist on DES processing to gain disability retiree status to protect their retirement from COLA reduction. This will put a additional burden on the already overburdened DES.
It is clear to be that the original legislation and the proposed fix were constructed by members who do not possess a sufficient understanding of military disability issues. Congress is creating two separate classes of disability retirees without consideration of the actual degree of disability and its impact on their post retirement employability.
V/R,
Michael A. Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate