Do we happen to know for a fact whether or not this bill will help those who do not have their pay reduced by their VA compensation due to being 100% plus SMC categories? From what I can tell, this will not help someone who is restricted by time in service, even though that time was cut short due to their combat injury, do I have that correct? And how also, what justification goes with that… I get that we did not do our 20 years, but some of us wanted to, some of us fought to stay in, but our injuries forced us to be medically retired. So just wondering if we are sure that we will be restricted by YOS even with this bill. Thank you in advance for all your inputs! And for everyones time and service
Richard Star
- Thread starter Anyday
- Start date
It’s tough. There is no clear language yet in the bill. The optimist believe that there will be no longevity cap like there is for CRSC. However, reading the tea leaves it sure seems to be heading that way to help this thing pass. The short is we don’t know yet.
Thank you for your reply. I hope it gets rid of the longevity too, because if it doesn’t then this bill doesn’t seem to help the people who are the most disabled due to combat… because for me it is the longevity that holds me back from gaining any more money from my retirement as I don’t have anything deducted. And that little bit more money is a difference between struggling and living paycheck to paycheck or maybe even slightly comfortable. So I hope they consider opening it up to maybe the whole percentage of COMBAT disability
They got the Text up now, and it reads:
"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."
"(a) Inclusion Of Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation.—Section 1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—"
"(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “In the case of” and all that follows and inserting “The retired pay of an eligible combat-related disabled uniformed services retiree, who is retired under chapter 61 of this title with fewer than 20 years of creditable service, is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.”.
(b) Technical And Conforming Amendments.—"
"(1) SECTION HEADING.—The heading of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:
(1) SECTION HEADING.—The heading of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:
“§ 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for veterans’ disability compensation: concurrent receipt”.
From Congress Gov site:
[ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1282/text ]
Things that stick out the most:
1) "to expand eligibility to certain military retirees"
2) "Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation"
3) "is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38"
Draw your own conclusions of that noise.
"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."
"(a) Inclusion Of Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation.—Section 1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—"
"(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “In the case of” and all that follows and inserting “The retired pay of an eligible combat-related disabled uniformed services retiree, who is retired under chapter 61 of this title with fewer than 20 years of creditable service, is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.”.
(b) Technical And Conforming Amendments.—"
"(1) SECTION HEADING.—The heading of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:
(1) SECTION HEADING.—The heading of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:
“§ 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for veterans’ disability compensation: concurrent receipt”.
From Congress Gov site:
[ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1282/text ]
Things that stick out the most:
1) "to expand eligibility to certain military retirees"
2) "Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation"
3) "is not subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38"
Draw your own conclusions of that noise.
It's super hard to pin point that, it could be the end of this year or the end of next year.
This bill also needs the 290 Cosponsors, so it will be put on the Consensus Calendar to get on the floor.
Right now, it has enough to pass and that number is 218 Cosponsors in the House.
In the Senate, it also has enough to pass and that number is 51 Cosponsors.
Usually, when a bill passes it takes around two months after the fact, for it to start taking affect: if memory serves me right.
Major Arguments Against:
Costs, CUTGO, and No Offset
Counter to the Argument:
Consensus Calendar (Forced to the Floor, for vote)
H.R. 1282
[ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1282/all-info?s=6&r=53 ]
S. 344
[ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/344/all-info?s=1&r=23 ]
As of today I read that the bill is picking up momentum, HR 1282 in the House has 276 House co-sponsors and SB 344 in the Senate has 62 co-sponsors. I’m hopefully optimistic, but money moves legislation in the US and VSO lobbyists have the moral high ground here in my opinion, but not a lot of money to fund their efforts. I’ve never contacted my representatives before, but I did concerning this bill. I urge you all to consider doing the same.
That’s great news.
This video answers your question and yes, its for longevity. But remember, this will increase the annual budget that will be added to and paid for by the taxpayers. You had some states that their pension programs have failed and their pensioners had to take a reduction (ie. California and Kentucky). My advice is to work with a financial planner to help create an acceptable budget and see if there is something you can do to bring in earned income. Some part-time or full-time gig that is within the confines of your disabilities.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwJM3Ta0fo4
and
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0htm5uHPQ
and
There is nothing in the current legislation that addresses whether it will be capped at longevity. It is something that is likely to be hashed out in the final iterations of debate before full passage if it makes it that far.
Then that defeats the purpose of pushing legislation for the Richard Star act. That is what the MOAA video explains.
Many many would benefits even if it was capped at longevity. I would not be one of them due to a high CRSC percentage. I am rooting hard for this to pass with no cap at longevity, however we just don’t know that yet.
I don't see that happening. The most anyone can get is all of their VA compensation and the longevity earned amount through serving.
I hear you. Doesn’t stop me from hoping lol.
I'm rooting for MSA to pass as well.
How it will unfold, I hope will be advantageous for Veterans, but Longevity is the brick wall that can't be broken or one would assume anyways.
Seeing how this bill is talking about "retirement" and only retirement: suggests "Longevity".
One side will argue that because the military broke them they couldn't get to 20 years and so they take the lesser, but then again if the Military didn't break them they would probably still be at the same position they are now, just depends, because you can't predict future outcomes.
VA disability is a neat thing, it brings some small justice to an injustice, thereby suing the government for a month-to-month settlement that is guided by a percentage equal to the damages incurred, so that in itself is amazing, because your average person/citizen doesn't have that option, and this is what is supposed to make up for the time lost or not made.
If we didn't have VA disability, people would be trying to sue to government on their own and would never be heard (along with ambulance lawyers trying to shark people in this situation), so I personally appreciate what we have currently, and it's a system that is constantly changing.
With MSA, it would mark another development of small progress that hasn't been seen since 20 years or so (back in the early 2000s), so I'm happy to see this happen even if it is small, big or nothing at all.
What I personally hope, is when MSA is passed, it will open the door wider to such bills as H.R.303, and finally pay just dues to our service men and women: past and future.
My thoughts though.
How it will unfold, I hope will be advantageous for Veterans, but Longevity is the brick wall that can't be broken or one would assume anyways.
Seeing how this bill is talking about "retirement" and only retirement: suggests "Longevity".
One side will argue that because the military broke them they couldn't get to 20 years and so they take the lesser, but then again if the Military didn't break them they would probably still be at the same position they are now, just depends, because you can't predict future outcomes.
VA disability is a neat thing, it brings some small justice to an injustice, thereby suing the government for a month-to-month settlement that is guided by a percentage equal to the damages incurred, so that in itself is amazing, because your average person/citizen doesn't have that option, and this is what is supposed to make up for the time lost or not made.
If we didn't have VA disability, people would be trying to sue to government on their own and would never be heard (along with ambulance lawyers trying to shark people in this situation), so I personally appreciate what we have currently, and it's a system that is constantly changing.
With MSA, it would mark another development of small progress that hasn't been seen since 20 years or so (back in the early 2000s), so I'm happy to see this happen even if it is small, big or nothing at all.
What I personally hope, is when MSA is passed, it will open the door wider to such bills as H.R.303, and finally pay just dues to our service men and women: past and future.
My thoughts though.
Attachments
Reference: “VA disability is a neat thing, it brings some small justice to an injustice, thereby suing the government for a month-to-month settlement that is guided by a percentage equal to the damages incurred, so that in itself is amazing, because your average person/citizen doesn't have that option, and this is what is supposed to make up for the time lost or not made.”
Opinion: Using the metaphor, “lawsuit”, suggests an adversarial relationship between the disabled veteran and the VA. It is not.
Sure, there are cases for which the evidence submitted for a claim might be flawed and a claim(s) is denied , but that is simply following the rules and laws that guide the VA.
Ron
Opinion: Using the metaphor, “lawsuit”, suggests an adversarial relationship between the disabled veteran and the VA. It is not.
Sure, there are cases for which the evidence submitted for a claim might be flawed and a claim(s) is denied , but that is simply following the rules and laws that guide the VA.
Ron
Last edited:
Morning Ron,
My situation was, but that's between me and the VA.
Others are different though, and the "lawsuit metaphor" would actually be aimed at the Government as a whole or directly at the DoD(because that's where the money is coming from, "technically"), and not the VA.
The VA is a Veterans way to get at the government for compensation, so "technically" the VA is a "middle-man" who acts on your behalf to "talk" to the massive giant looming over you casting a shadow of discontent. ;]
Last edited:
Hello,
Each individual has their view and opinion regarding certain issues.
I distinctly remember a fellow Texas teenager having the unshared opinion about whether pouring ketchup all over the very fine Mexican dinner in front of him was a good idea.
I sat stunned at the impropriety and obviously, have never forgotten.
I am not comparing your position to the ruined Mexican dinner; I just like telling the story. Anyway, he was born in Odessa so he probably did not know better.
Ron
Each individual has their view and opinion regarding certain issues.
I distinctly remember a fellow Texas teenager having the unshared opinion about whether pouring ketchup all over the very fine Mexican dinner in front of him was a good idea.
I sat stunned at the impropriety and obviously, have never forgotten.
I am not comparing your position to the ruined Mexican dinner; I just like telling the story. Anyway, he was born in Odessa so he probably did not know better.
Ron