Research - Rehabilitation - Re-Employment

Sgt. Shaft 01/22/2001

Dear Sgt. Shaft:
I am a retired USAF E-8 (and former Navy Corpsman as well) and came across your column in my efforts to gain grassroots support for all military disabled.

I wrote a targeted Point Paper on the Concurrent Receipt issue and have submitted it to my congressional representatives and made appointments to see them face to face to discuss it.

It is time for the retired disabled veterans to be counted and addressed. I thank you for sharing the following information with your readers.

Point Paper on Concurrent Receipt, Military Retired/Longevity Pay for Veterans Affairs Disability Compensation

1. Current Public Law and Sections of Title 38 US Code prohibit concurrent receipt of longevity retirement pay and VA disability compensation.

Military retired are the ONLY segment of the disabled population who are denied compensation without dollar for dollar off-set by means of deduction from retired pay. Late in the 19th century, Congress was looking at military retired pay and disability pensions and found the administration of the programs in shambles. There were instances of persons receiving military disability pensions while still on active duty. In an effort to correct the problem, Congress inserted language in the FY 1892 appropriations legislation (now more than a century ago) prohibiting an individual from receiving both military retired pay and a disability pension.

This prohibition, as described in 38 USC 5304(a)(1) reads: "Except to the extent that retirement pay is waived under other provisions of law, not more than one award of pension, compensation, emergency officers', regular, or reserve retirement pay, or initial award of naval pension granted after July 13, 1943, shall be made concurrently to any person based on such person's own service or concurrently to any person based on the service of any other person."

Clearly, this is no longer relevant and should be repealed. This condition no longer exists, nor it is likely nor plausible that any situation like that mentioned would occur in today's military and society.

2. Military retired who are service-connected disabled are discriminated against unfairly and aside from other groups.

There can be no reasonable question that this is, indeed, a discriminatory practice well within the scope and prowess of the Congress to address and correct. The retiree is the sole member of the disabled population who is denied just compensation. Even federal civil service employees are not penalized for their career of choice and service to the nation. Other service-connected disabled are afforded full compensation, regardless of their retirement status and without off-set of any kind.

3. Longevity retirement pay and disability compensation are distinctly different and separable compensations.

Military longevity retired pay is pay for service rendered. Many of us spent our early years in a military career without significant income, the possibility of home ownership, and tax advantages afforded our civilian counterparts. Retirement remained an enticement and goal. Never was disability a serious consideration, nor is it a consideration among other industries and government agencies in regard to disability compensation.

Disability compensation (especially a service-connected disability) is intended to remedy and assist with the likely lessened earning capacity of the disabled member. Nowhere should (nor does, in the case of anyone other than the military retired) longevity "pension" be factored as a formula in determining compensation.

4. Addressing Disability

How is the military retired member's disability somehow less incapacitating than that of his identical counterpart who is NOT retired from the military (but may well be retired with better longevity compensation from another endeavor and career)?

If compensation is afforded to address a reduced earning capacity, then there can be no mistake that the denial of concurrent receipt is unjust and unfair. The notion that a military retiree is somehow less disabled is preposterous, yet the constraints in effect clearly imply that notion.

Can anyone emphatically and unequivocally state that the military retiree is less disabled? If the answer is "no," then concurrent receipt must be authorized and implemented immediately!

Now, I offer some arguments raised against Concurrent Receipt, with my rebuttal:

One argument most frequently presented is that the more severely disabled would be "over-compensated." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many service-connected disabled veterans currently receive disability compensation. Concurrent receipt would have no impact on that group nor on current budget and funding. Those receiving disability compensation who did not complete 20 years or more of service are not included in the concurrent receipt issue at all.

The argument that awarding and authorizing concurrent receipt "costs too much" is unacceptable. Who more than the career military, who suffer a rated disability, deserve just compensation... not a mere tax exemption for some portion of their longevity pension? The "costs too much" debate is just inexcusable, especially in an era where we have a surplus of funds. The right thing to do is remove the concurrent receipt restraint now. It is discriminatory, degrading, unjust, and unwarranted in every regard.

There is no question that concurrent receipt is the right thing to do, long overdue, and an issue that can shed some possible light on how the Congress views its veteran constituents.

Dan McCarthy, SMSgt., USAF, Retired
New Mexico

Dear Dan:
On the first day of this new legislative session, Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) reintroduced HR 303, which would authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.

And I agree with you that the retired military disabled must be afforded compensation commensurate with that afforded their non-military retired counterpart. To do less is a disgrace and insult to these disabled veterans.

Send letters to Sgt. Shaft, c/o John Fales, P.O. Box 65900, Washington, D.C. 20035-5900; fax to 301-622-3330; call 202-462-4430 or email sgtshaft@bavf.org.

BAVF Home | Who We Are | Sgt. Shaft | Flag Week | Links | Financials | Search | Contact BAVF

BAVF - P.O. Box 65900, Washington, D.C. 20035-5900

Copyright BAVF 2001