Concurrent VA Disability-Military Retired Pay

• August 8, 2009 -- DFAS Retired Pay Newsletter
• June 9, 2009 -- Captured by Twitter
• February 26, 2009 -- President Obama Budget Proposes 2.9 Percent
• February 2, 2009 -- Line In the Sand
• January 22, 2009 -- Navy Nurse Uniform Anniversary

217 Comments »

• While the 2010 defense budget is good news, it does appear that the majority of retired disabled veterans (400,000} under 50% disabled, are not included in the defense budget. That is what happens when the previous administration created classes of veterans by making combat injuries as worthy of compensation, and service connected injuries not worth of compensation. It looks like the Obama administration has bought onto this logic. Even Senator Reid who has been a champion on this issue is silent, will not communicate about the issue, and the current administration will not discuss their true intentions toward the issue of concurrent receipt. Obbama promised during an election speech to the VFW that he would eliminate the veterans disability tax and advocate concurrent receipt for all in his early days in the White House. Such appears to not be the case.

  While it is worthy that Chapter 61 retirees achieve concurrent receipt, the issue will drag on until most of the under 50% retired disabled veterans die of natural causes.

  Such is the way of Washington. Gods blessings to all.

  Comment by Kenneth Hanft (1 comments.) — March 5, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

• I guess you have me a little confused. Only the budget outline has been released and it states concurrent receipt for all – well, at least that is how I am reading it. I guess we will know for sure when the actual budget is released (in April?).

  Comment by Ouch — March 5, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

• As usual, from what i read on various veterans web-sites retired longevity 20 year veterans are going to continue to get the SHAFT when the crooks at VA continue to keep them rated below 50%. Read the Budget, even if passed it only includes Chap 61 retirees rated above 50%, so the ones rated below 50% are going to get SHAFTED too.We need mass protests in the halls of congress by disabled under 50% rated military retirees,longevity and Chapter 61. Retirees also need to go on a anti-recruiting campaign in front of recruiting offices till gongress gives us our earned money.Let them put their children in the military, Right, Ralph!

  Comment by John Bunting — March 15, 2009 @ 9:25 am

• Retired pay not for all permanent disabled retired. I’m on ‘release from active duty and trf permanent disability list’ and receive no retirement pay. Even though I’m PERMANENT RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF :1 MARCH 1974.

  HELP ! I’ve fallen through one of the cracks.

  Comment by ROBERT MADDEN — March 25, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

• I got my CRSC! was in the military 5.5 years wound in veitnam June 12 1969 and was retired by the military. As I said I got my CRSC 59.00$ A MONTH wow if I were in Filipino I would a one time payment of 18,000$ now am 63 years old now a one time payment of 18,000$ does not sound that bad to me.

  Or if had 20% from the military and then worked for a company for 20years and then retired from that company. and then fall back on the roll VA for a 100% hey that sounds pretty good to me. the only thing wrong with that I was rated 100% and was unabled to work.

  And then we the vietnam veterans yes we have the Dole-Shalala Commission who says we should have two methods of pay for Concurrent receipt method A and B. Guess who gets the one with scraps the vietnam veterans. what burn my tail the so call military organizations who let this happened and I think its high time that we vietnam veterans who got only the scraps and slaps
  I think it time to take legal action class A againt these so called military organizations who say we can help you ! the very ones who let dole-shalala act happen I remember dole went he said this is the only way it going to happen.
  for myself I am tired of the slaps and scraps

  Comment by Roger L Lyons — March 31, 2009 @ 11:14 am

• I was forcibly retired at 51 weeks active duty TDRL 5 years then PDRL at 80% so I will never see a dime of my retirement Its only been 29 years C est La Vie

  Comment by keith — April 6, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

• I read your post Ouch and I agree with every thing you said. But their are somethings that are going unsaid.
  like two methods [A]and method [B] If you enter the military before Sep. 7 1980 which is method [A].
  if you entered the military after Sep.7 1980 then you use method [B]Method [B] is a lot more money
  Method [A] is used against vietnam veterans chapter 61 retirees it is discrimination because we never step foot in Afghanistan or Iraq.
  and those congress men or women who are doing nothing to help the Vietnam veterans are going to be voted out of office we Vet vote. We Vietnam veterans are Americans to and we need someone who is going to stand up for us. most of the Vietnam veterans are in their 60’s and have been cheated out of life. stop this discrimination NOW!

  Comment by Roger L Lyons — April 17, 2009 @ 9:20 am

• Hello everyone, I’m currently in the process of being medically discharged from the Navy. I was diagnosed with a heart condition that was only treatable by installing a difibrillator in my chest, so I’m receiving 100 percent disability from the Navy which is something around 2400 dollars. I’ve only been in for 12 years, I’m an E-6/FC1. Now, the VA says if they rate me at 100 percent that they give me 2932 dollars because of my wife and son. So as of right now, because I didn’t serve for 20 years I’m not eligible for both navy and VA pay. So does that mean I would just get the 2400 or would I get 2932? My second question is that if the change in the budget goes through would I then receive both amounts?
  Thanks in advance, its a very confusing process to go through and finding someone who knows this stuff is very difficult.
  Take it easy,
  John M. Croce

  Comment by John — April 22, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

• John, I would contact DFAS for specific information as it relates to your case. I still get confused over what the various methods of pay and who falls under what chapters.

  I received the following in an email from DFAS just yesterday and when I finished reading it I got a headache – It illustrates the why we can get so confused;

  Offset of Pay for Disability-based Compensation (Method A):

  We have received numerous inquiries regarding the offset of pay for disability-based compensation. Legislation states: “The retired pay of a member retired under Chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under Section 1405 of this title, or at least 20 years of service computed under section 12732 of this title, at the time of the member’s retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the member’s retired pay under Chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the member’s service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under Chapter 61 of this title.”

  Put more simply, those retirees compensated based upon disability will have their Concurrent Retired Disability Payment (CRDP) or Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) reduced, or offset, but only by the amount of the difference between their Method A and Method B calculations.

  For example, if a retiree is entitled to $2,200 each month through Method A, disability-based compensation and only $1,400 through Method B, service-based compensation, he will be compensated at the higher $2,200 Method A amount. If the same retiree is awarded $1,100 through CRSC, the $1,100 amount will be offset by the $800 difference between the original $2,200 Method A and $1,400 Method B types of compensation, resulting in a $300 CRSC amount. With the original $2,200 disability-based retired pay and the addition of the $300 CRSC amount, the retiree will receive a total $2,500 monthly compensation. http://www.dfas.mil/rna-news/march2009/offsetpayfordisability-basedcompensation.html

  Comment by Ouch — April 23, 2009 @ 5:19 am

• So, I’ll contact DFAS to find out exactly what I’ll be getting. What about the concurrent receipt status for under 20 disabled vets? Does it look as if its going to pass? And if so when would it become active, this October?

  Comment by John Croce — April 23, 2009 @ 6:35 am

• am somewhat in the same position as John Croce. Was permanently retired from the army after 5 years of being on tdrl. initial meb rating w/ the army was 30%, than after the final tdrl exam it became 70% (that was a surprise); i really thought the army would cut it below 30% and not increase the percentage @all.

  The VA immediately rated me @100% from the first va comp exam. Now it’s tot. and permanent 100%. so I feel thankful and lucky compared to others. I just don’t understand how the ratings are decided especially when others seem to have the same +/much more disabling issues to deal w/. I had thought about some of the reasons behind the ever so elusive rating decisions. It’s almost as if it’s a hit or miss. I also wonder if gender has anything to do w/ it. I’m female as is another buddy of mine who was also va compensated and retired from the military (different branch though since she was navy). wonder if a study was ever done on stats of sex and similar disabilities and the rating outcomes. anyhow, thanks for maintaining this site and for all the helpful responses…I was medically retired @5 years and also wonder if the concurrent receipt would apply to me as well. I initially received army retired pay before the v.a. comp kicked in since it was way higher. was approved for level L (the lowest level) of Aid + Attendance/Special compensation for the VA in dec. 2007, but the funds for A+A are being witheld until the fiduciary process settles…VA comp of 3082/mo for the 100% rating (spouse and dep made it higher)
  VA spec. comp/A+A of 600 something/mo yet to be paid
  i put the above there for others to compare if they’re in a similar boat.
  I once received around 800/mo from the Army retirement pay (50% of an E4 active duty pay) so this all sounds too good to be true if concurrent pay were to kick in, but who can’t use extra $ never expected? It would be helpful to our situation. I wish everyone luck and if anyone has an update/understands what will go on w/ the medical retirees rated @50% or above from their service, pls. respond.

  Comment by lostwon — April 23, 2009 @ 11:55 am

• I think this is the section that you two (John and lostwon) will fall into if the above bill is passed. If anyone clarifies any info with their local VA representative, DFAS congressman or senator please come back here and fill us in! For some reason the VA uses terminology which is different than we are used to, it’s like learning a whole new language

  `(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR RETIREES WITH FEWER THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE- The retired pay of a qualified retiree who is retired under chapter 61 of this title with fewer than 20 years of creditable service is subject to reduction by the lesser of–

  `(A) the amount of the reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; or

  `(B) the amount (if any) by which the amount of the member’s retired pay under such chapter exceeds the amount equal to 2 1/2 percent of the member’s years of creditable service multiplied by the member’s retired pay base under section 1406(b)(1) or 1407 of this title, whichever is applicable to the member.’.

  Comment by Ouch — April 23, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

• Ouch, thank you for your time. I’ve saved this site on favorites and will come back to see updates and update y’all as to what category the military medically retired (blue i.d. card holder), under 20 falls in once something happens. am assuming it won’t happen on it’s own and will have to apply, but I’ll gladly jump through those hoops! getting qualified for A+A/special comp. was actually harder than v.a. comp; hopefully this won’t be as complicated. good luck w/ your concurrent receipt!

  Comment by lostwon — April 23, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

• John keep every record.. any kind of record keep it safe you might even want to copy it and give it to your county veterans officer to put it into your records.

  even someting that you think you will never need use of keep it!!! get a copy of your med. records also because I can tell you..you will need use of it someday and you can count on that KEEP ALL YOUR RECORDS

  Comment by Roger Lyons — April 24, 2009 @ 11:46 am

• Just found this wonderful web site of yours. You Navy guys were always first class. If you have type II diabetes hope that you do not get neuropathy. Our friends at the VA tend to deal with physical aspects of this condition for which there is no cure. They do not deal with the neurological side and how it affects the quality of your life. You must take meds for depression and seizures to help try to control the pain. I was lucky after 2 3000 dollar emg tests I got 10%.Nothing for your hands. You have to be paralyzed to get 40%. Thank heaven for wal-mart shopping carts. My first visits and exams were dismissed as poor circulation. From a grateful nation.

  Comment by john hill — April 29, 2009 @ 6:50 am

• With the passing of the 2010 budget this week, does anyone know if this issue passed as written?

  Comment by Jamie — May 3, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

• Jamie,

  The bill is still sitting in the Armed Services Committee. Once I see any movement I will be updating here.

  The Defense budget in total has yet to be debated, let alone passed.

  Here is the most up to date information concerning the 2010 Defense budget. Article quotes U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates from interviews conducted today.

  http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE54229720090503

  Comment by Ouch — May 3, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

• Ok, just so I can get an idea what I’ll be receiving, I’m being medically retired from the Navy at 100 percent, that means I’m actually going to received 75 percent of my base pay. So what I should recieve is approximately 2400.00
  Then I’m pretty sure I’m getting rated at 100 percent from the VA as well. They have a different formula they use and take into account your dependants. So a member rated at 100 percent with a wife and child would receive 2932.00 from the VA.
  As of right now I would only receive the 2932.00 from the VA, right?
  Then, if the proposed legislation goes through I would then receive both amounts?
  Please, if anyone understands could you help me out. I’m trying to plan for when I get out and its a little nerve wracking not knowing what to expect.
  Thank you,
  John

  Comment by John — May 5, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

• John, Not sure which John you are

  If you are retiring with less than 20 years of service for medical that makes you a Chapter 61 which is addressed at the end of the bill. I would need to do more research to understand the sections of the title listed.

  1-800-321-1080 is the DFAS Retirement Pay contact phone number – I would call and ask them about what to expect so you can get a good idea of a starting point even if the bill doesn’t get approved as written to assist you in your planning. Let us know what kind of guidance they provide.

  Comment by Ouch — May 5, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

• John,

  Under current proposals, your 100% (75% compensable) would be rduced to 2.5 percent per year. So, if you only served 10 years (lets say), it would be reduced to 25%. In addition, if the VA ever re-rated you and lowered the 100% (suspected)award, it would further lower your monthly income. Your VA award would most likely be your main source of income.

  This is what appears to be the legislation up for mark-up on 21 May 09 in the Senate Veterans Committee http://veterans.senate.gov/ I sure hope I’m wrong on this as many veterans (including myself) would loose retirement pay…the math does not add up. In addition, the proposed cost for this program is 5.3 bill over a ten year period. If my retirement goes from $3200 to $900 and I am re-rated to only receiving 1,800 (Not 3,000) VBA compensation (100 to 60 percent). I loose! My retirement was always the higher and guaranteed.

  I sure hope your situation gets better and you get back to some good health.

  To Ouch;
  Don’t get anyone too excited over the proposed Concurrent receipt, just do the math:

  Example: A veteran medically retired at at 10 years (60% rated) receiving $3,000 a month retriement and rated at 60% VBA disability recieving $1700 per month may seem good if the proposal goes as written. Under current Public Law, The veteran recieves a max of $3000 (minus the $1700)

  HOWEVER, at 10 years the “adjusted” retirement would be 25%, or $500 per month in addition to the $1700 from the VBA. That’s only $2300 per month. AND, if the VBA re-rates the veteran at 30%, they loose concurrent receipt, making it worse.

  This plan may hurt veterans!!!

  Comment by Flash — May 6, 2009 @ 4:01 am

• Flash,

  “AND, if the VBA re-rates the veteran at 30%, they loose concurrent receipt, making it worse.”

  The whole point to the legislation is to allow concurrent receipt for all retired veterans who have a service connected disability no matter what the percentage rating. The bill states the any reduction will be the lessor of either the sections in Title 38 OR sections 1406(b)(1) or 1407 of Title 10.

  I am unaware of what prevision restricts your pay to a max of $3000.

  I am adding the sections from title 38 for us to dissect. Here is a downloadable copy of the current Title 10 http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

  The sections from Sec. 5304 and 5305 of Title 38
  http://veterans.house.gov/documents/title38.pdf

  § 5304. Prohibition against duplication of benefits
  (a)(1) Except as provided in section 1414 of title 10 or 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.
  (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection
  and of section 5305 of this title, pension under section 1521
  or 1541 of this title may be paid to a person entitled to receive retired
  or retirement pay described in section 5305 of this title concurrently
  with such person’s receipt of such retired or retirement pay if the annual amount of such retired or retirement pay is counted as annual income for the purposes of chapter 15 of this title.
  (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection
  and in section 1521(i) of this title, the receipt of pension,
  compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation by a
  surviving spouse, child, or parent on account of the death of any
  person, or receipt by any person of pension or compensation on account of such person’s own service, shall not bar the payment of
  pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation
  on account of the death or disability of any other person.
  (2) Benefits other than insurance under laws administered by
  the Secretary may not be paid or furnished to or on account of any
  child by reason of the death of more than one parent in the same
  parental line; however, the child may elect one or more times to receive benefits by reason of the death of any one of such parents.
  (3) Benefits other than insurance under laws administered by
  the Secretary may not be paid to any person by reason of the death
  of more than one person to whom such person was married; however,
  the person may elect one or more times to receive benefits by
  reason of the death of any one spouse.
  (c) Pension, compensation, or retirement pay on account of any
  person’s own service shall not be paid to such person for any period
  for which such person receives active service pay.
  (Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1230, Sec. 3104; Pub. L. 86–495, Sec. 1, June 8, 1960, 74 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 88–664, Sec. 9, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1096; Pub. L. 91–376, Sec. 6, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 790; Pub. L. 95–588, title III, Sec. 304, Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2507; Pub. L. 96–385, title V, Sec. 503(a), Oct. 7, 1980,
  94 Stat. 1534; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, Sec. 701(71), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3297; renumbered Sec. 5304 and amended Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, Sec. 402(b)(1), (d)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238, 239; Pub. L. 102–83, Sec. 4(a)(1), 5(c)(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 403, 406; Pub. L. 108–454, title III, Sec. 308(a), Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat.
  3614.)

  § 5305. Waiver of retired pay
  Except as provided in section 1414 of title 10, any person who
  is receiving pay pursuant to any provision of law providing retired
  or retirement pay to persons in the Armed Forces, or as a commissioned
  officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  or of the Public Health Service, and who would be eligible to
  receive pension or compensation under the laws administered by
  the Secretary if such person were not receiving such retired or
  April 19, 2007
  Sec. 5306 CH. 53—SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFITS 674
  retirement pay, shall be entitled to receive such pension or compensation upon the filing by such person with the department by
  which such retired or retirement pay is paid of a waiver of so much
  of such person’s retired or retirement pay as is equal in amount to
  such pension or compensation. To prevent duplication of payments,
  the department with which any such waiver is filed shall notify the
  Secretary of the receipt of such waiver, the amount waived, and the
  effective date of the reduction in retired or retirement pay.
  (Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1231, Sec. 3105; Pub. L. 91–621, Sec. 6(a)(3), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1864; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, Sec. 701(72), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3297; renumbered Sec. 5305, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, Sec. 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 102–83, Sec. 4(a)(1), (2)(A)(viii), Aug. 6, 1991, 105
  Stat. 403; Pub. L. 108–454, title III, Sec. 308(b), Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3614.)

  Comment by Ouch — May 6, 2009 @ 8:10 am

• Read it before. It simply states that no redundancy will occur and that a “waiver” must be filed to accept additional funds…reduction is a must.

  Now proposed legislature will demand the change in Chapter 61 rating percentage…It will no longer be based upon Title 10 and/or 38 C.F.R., but based upon 2.5 percent times the amount of years that qualified for service (see your DD 214).

  So, a person with 12 years or less will receive no more that 30%. 16 years equals 40%. Ratings from MEBs usually follow the 10, 20 30 (required for retirement), 60, 100 (compensable at 75%). Very few veterans receive permanent 100/75. So we are looking at several people with 30 or 60% mainly.

  Considering the fact that the roughly 155,000 veterans in this category have less that 10 years of service, they won’t even reach the 30% (for retirement money. (It is based upon your calculated pay base–see DFAS for more)

  The main point nees to be understood. Very few veterans will have their disabiliy considered “permanent” or even Total and Permanent” by the VBA. 38 C.F.R. Chapter 3 states re-reating may occur anytime a veteran uses the VA hospital service and Chapter 4 usually has re-rating for “residuals”.

  In helping Med Board service members fight their claims with services, I make sure they understand that re-ratings start occurring at 12 months…some sooner, most within 5 years. So don’t expect your nice “80%” to stay. (your 9000 series PTSD WILL get better with the meds they give you…your shoulder problem will get better when they find that you are working again, etccc–all examples and not fact) I’ve seen it where 100% becomes 30% very quickly…especially in the D.C. 7000 series (Cardiac ratings). FYI, For the fella that has the defibrillator, You are rated 100% based upon D.C. 7011; don’t let the VA try to rate you based upon D.C. 7018 (pacemaker) and make sure they eliminate all reference to “pacemaker” in your award. If so, you have 12 months to appeal…but I would request a DRO, a decision review officer as it is called. It is faster than an appeal. (I have an AICD–its Total and Permanent at 100%). Did not get the USAF MEB rating of 100% though…good for you!

  Ouch, I respect and admire your hard work on this, but look at you own posting on what less than 20 year retirement will be. It clearly changes what the MEBs (Chapter 61)awarded veterans and diminishes it. For most veterans it will go down. If they had disability equal to or more than their rating, CR won’t even matter, but if they loose VBA disability, with the reduction of “qualifying years based upon 2.5″ they stand to loose. The only Agency that wins is the DoD, as DFAS pays retirement; discretionary funds for retirement comes out of DFAS money (basically put). Can you imagine how happy Generals will be whn they realize a 3200 a month obligation goes down to 1100? Cost will be minimal. (FYI–does everyone understand that neither VBA Comp or Retirement will go up this year(proposed) as CPI-W will be less than zero? Its public law, and neither will social security recipients. Hope this changes some how, but this is the projection (reported on NBC this week as well). Funny how AD people will receive at least a 2.9 raise.

  Assume you have a veteran who makes 3254 p/m based upon 60% disability, Chapter 61 rating. Their VA benefit is 3000 based upon 100% VBA rating. The “New” 2.5 would reduce this 12 year veteran to 30% rating (retirement), lowering his/her retirement amount to about 1300 (basd upon the base pay estimated by Title 10. No prob, right? I mean, this lucky guy (disabled, right? lol) WILL receive true CR: the 3000 from VBA AND 1300 (taxable) from retirement.

  HOWEVER, if they are ever re-rated by the VA, lets say 50%, and only recieve 1300 from the VA, they are only now making 2600 p/m, as opposed to the guaranteed 3254 from their original Chapter 61 retirement (minus the 3000 VBA award of course).

  This program has the ability to help some and really hurt others based upon their ratings! REMEMBER folks, The VBA/VA has the authority to re-rate everyone…even 100 TP in some cases (I have case study if requested). If you receive VBA money higher than your retirement…your in the clear mostly. If your retirement is more than VBA, you will be making more (not what you get now as it will be “reduced to…2.5 years…times base pay…”.) But,If this veteran looses ANY VA money, they could loose.

  I’d rather have my retirement protected as is, or at least the option to accept/deny the new changes, or have the ability to change back if I end up loosing. This is what I have sent to the Senate, House, 36 sponsors of the legislation, News affiliates, and VFW, DAV. I expect a meeting with Congressional parties this week.

  Thanks!

  Comment by Flash — May 6, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

• BTW, it looks as if it will be Chapter 61 retirees and the 50% will be eliminated/reduced. Believe someone can’t retire when they want (22 years, on their own) receive 20% for bumps and bruises, and get CR. But we will see after 21 May or so.

  Cheers

  Comment by Flash — May 6, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

• Flash,

  Thank you for some clarification! This post is becoming a worthwhile read

  You said, “I’d rather have my retirement protected as is, or at least the option to accept/deny the new changes, or have the ability to change back if I end up loosing.”

  I completely agree there should be a grandfathering clause the member could use to opt in or out.

  I do think re-rating should occur where it makes sense – the VA currently has a system in place that (from my limited exposure) seems fair – I am not yet ready to believe some big conspiracy to arbitrarily lower ratings will present itself because this bill is passed, I hope those in power would fear any repercussions that type thing might generate.

  Comment by Ouch — May 6, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

• No conspiracy exists. Re-ratings are appropriate when the medical system finds a disabling condition is no longer as significant. These lowerings are usually appropriate and equitable. The ratings could go higher as well. We all hope a veteran with PTSD gets better!! And as time goes on, with treatment, hard personal work, and medications, it usually does. It is my hope that all these categorized veterans get peace in their lives. Still waiting for my shoulder to get better! lol

  Everyone needs to write to their elected officials, call, etc… on this matter. I am only one man, but with a big voice. The committees need to here about this in order to make a proper, equitable, and fair decision. Chairman Akaka seems like a great man. He will listen…but the voice needs to get bigger.

  Scroll down to the bottom of this page and fax questions to the Veterans Committee. (If you e-mail a question using the forms and are not in their district, it will get re-routed.)
  http://www.veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm

  These folks that were rated at 60+% (MEB-military) with less than 12 years will loose that rating. Nice thinking by our officials. Darn, it would have been geat to recieve VBA compensation + Retirement (full, as described on my retirement orders) not a redacted amount. Is this truely Concurrent Receipt? Is there a Breach of Contract? Legal ramifications will be looked at if adverse conditions come out of this legislature

  Again, you have a great website, do an incredible service, and I thank you for your years of service!

  Comment by Flash — May 6, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

• Thanks again Flash! I will be sending a question/comment about the how chapter 61 veterans may experience a lose scenario and the idea of opting in or out based on the individuals needs.

  Comment by Ouch — May 6, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

• Hey Flash, thanks for the info, I appreciate it. At this point I’m about ready to giv up and just wait and see what I get. My retirement date is 31May09 and I’ve been told that I should have an answer from the VA within 60 days of then. I have an ICD because of ARVD, is that why you have one too?
  Take it easy,
  John

  Comment by John — May 11, 2009 @ 7:55 am

• Don’t give up. Remember, you have 1 year to make an appeal…DON’T BUST THAT DATE! Again, D.C. 7011 requires a 100% rating for an AICD as these devices can cause death. Don’t worry, just hurts for a bit if they go off and most devices have a great track record…please don’t stress!

  Your lucky, the USAF MEB only gave me 60%…I was too exhausted to fight and figured the retirement was good enough…wanted others to receive better (guess that’s the officer in me–man do I miss the leadership!!!!).

  Dick Winters (506 PIR WWII) once said to me “Never give up”. He is my leadership idol…so I pass that on to you.

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — May 12, 2009 @ 12:09 am

• Oh no, I’ll never give up, I’m just done trying to figure out what I’m going to get and what concurrent receipt means exactly. I’ve got my 100% rating from the MEB, now I’m just waiting to see what the VA says. The VA counselor said more than likely it would be 100% and I’m just trying to figure out what I’ll be receiving so I can plan for the future. If they come back with something less, then I’ll try to fight it. I’m just trying to decide whether I should start looking for a job or will I have enough coming in to go back to school and finish up my degree. My entire time in the Navy was spent working on CIWS, an electomechanical weapon system and really I just don’t care for electronics, I would like to get my teaching degree in English. It would make it a lot easier to plan for the future if I knew what I’d be getting. Thats what I meant by giving up, I’m just going to wait until I get my letter from the VA telling me what they’ve rated me at and hopefully it explains the benefits. Thank you very much for the concern though. My ICD hasn’t gone off yet, I’ve had it take over a few times and regulate my heart back to a normal rythem, but I haven’t had a shock yet. I’m kinda nervous about that.
  Take it easy,
  John

  Comment by John — May 12, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

• I don’t want to discourage you John, but don’t wait on the VA. They take forever. I would make plans like you aren’t getting anything from the VA, so that when you do it can just be extra money. Also, have you looked into the Post 911 GI bill to cover your school and give you money to live on? That may be an option for you. I am TDRL currently and rated 80% by the VA. It took almost 9 months to get rated and that was apparently on the fast track. The more records you have the longer it will take. Good luck and I hope everything works out.

  Jamie

  Comment by Jamie — May 12, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

• John,

  You are permanent not TDRL. TDRL cases are low priority as the services have not decided what to do with the member and statistic show permanent retirements are very rare. I’ll help with your case, just keep posting here.

  I can go over future prospects with how you want to spend the rest of your life…my forte. Keep up good spirits, don’t stress, and never give up.

  Records, records, records. The more specific relevant data you have, the better. TDRL is based upon non-stabalized members…thus “temporary”. Yours is definative and settled as the AICD is permanent…regardless of your specific ailment in cardio. (I will work with you on this).

  Those members who served with distinction will be taken care of, but it is you that has to push forward. Even I have difficulties with what the DoD/VA, and Congress want to do with us. Don’t depend on any benefits, depend on you.

  Cheers

  Flash “Maj H”

  Comment by Flash — May 25, 2009 @ 12:02 am

• John,

  BTW, the shock lasts less than a second. It hurts, but man it will save your life. Write if you want to know more. We can discuss specifics in another medium if you want. Every case and body is different. Keep fighting (health wise) and move forward. You can do it…so do it buddy!!

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — May 25, 2009 @ 12:06 am

• FYI-

  The following is reported by http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090524/NEWS02/905240304/1009/rss04 on 24 May 09. The accuracy of this information can not be verified.

  Examples of the proposed program and offset info:

  “An E-4 with four years of service is rated 50 percent disabled by DoD and 90 percent by VA. On base pay of $2,200 a month, a 50 percent DoD rating provides disability retirement of $1,100. Because a 90 percent VA rating pays $1,600 a month, this E-4, under current law, would opt for the VA compensation and get nothing for his service time.
  Advertisement

  Under CRDP, however, he would receive retired pay for years served. That’s four years multiplied by a 2.5 percent for 10 percent.

  Apply the 10 percent to base pay of $2,200 for $220 a month in retired pay. This would be paid in addition to $1,600 in VA compensation.

  # An E-7 with 18 years’ service also is rated 50 percent disabled by DoD and 90 percent by VA.

  On base pay of $4,000 a month, a 50-percent rating provides disability retirement of $2000 a month. That’s better than $1,600 in VA disability compensation.

  But under CRDP, retired pay would be calculated on years served (18 x 2.5) for a 45 percent multiple applied to base pay ($4,000).

  The result: $1,800 a month. This E-7 originally would have accepted $2,000 in disability retirement, because it paid $400 more than VA compensation. With CRDP, he would get $1,800 from DoD plus $1,600 from VA, a total of $3,400 monthly.

  # An 0-4 with 12 years of service is rated 70 percent by DoD and 90 percent by VA.

  On base pay of $6,000, a 70-percent rating provides military disability retirement of $4,200.

  This retiree now would take the $4,200 rather than $1,600 payable for a 90 percent VA rating.

  Actual retired pay for 12 years of service would be 30 percent of $6,000, or $1,800 a month. Accepting this $1,800, plus $1,600 in VA compensation, would fail to match $4,200 in disability retirement. So this retiree will not receive any additional retirement under CRDP.”

  To comment, e-mail milupdate[at]aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111

  Comment by Flash — May 25, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

• Well it seems I have stumbled upon a treasure chest of info here. Major Flash, John and I all have something in common it looks like. I too have an AICD, infact I am on my thrid since 1997. At one time I had an ICD and a pacemaker, one on each side of my chest. CRDP and CRSC has been so confusing to me lately, its been a nightmare. As you both probably know I am 100% SC, P&T and have been for nearly 10 years. I went through my PEB and was medically retired at 30%. I guess the magic number when it comes to a MED Board. Anyhow I wad TDRL for 3 years and have been PDRL since then. The VA first rated me at 50% paid at 40% rate (VA Math). When I had my ICD implanted you automatically become 100% and what a gift that was. I became so ill after 2000, I became P&T and Unemployable. A year later I was granted social security. My confusion lies within DFAS and their rules regarding a disabled vet like myself. Am I going to receive any Concurrent Receipt with this April Budget, or am I disqualified because of some other type of rule I am unaware of? If somebody can help me staighten this out, I would be much obliged.

  Thanks,

  Rick

  Comment by Rick — May 26, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

• I can be reached at semperrick[at]msn.com

  Comment by Rick — May 26, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

• Ok, thanks Flash, I think I get it now. Concurrent receipts means I would get 2.5 percent for every year I was in the Navy(12 years X 2.5 = 30%). As an E-6 my base pay was $3226. so the Navy would give me 30% of that($967.8). Then, if rated at 100% from the VA with a spouse and one child I would be entitled to $2932. So, if enacted, beginning January 1, 2010, I would receive the $967.8 and the $2932. Is that correct? Also, where do we stand as far as the legislation? Has it been approved yet? I thought it was going to vote on 21 or 24 May?
  Thanks everyone for your support, I really love this site.
  Take it easy,
  John

  Comment by John Croce — May 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

• John,

  You got the math right, but don’t forget to increase your final computation by the annual COLAs (which was pretty good at 5.8 last year). You have to recompute for every year as it compounds, like interest. You can find out the historical amounts of annual COLAs here:
  http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html

  This is a great site and source of information…

  Comment by DK — May 28, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

• P.S.
  As to when the final NDAA and appropriations will be “approved”, that usually takes place later in the summer or just before October. The “approval” you are referring to were general approvals on budget outlines… Additionally, there are often delays, forcing continuing resolutions until the final bills become law, but with a Congress and President of the same party this year, things may happen a little more smoothly. You should track MOAA.org and other sites to keep up with when the various budget bills are signed into law.

  D.K.

  Comment by DK — May 28, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

• Ok here is my question I have twenty years and 40% disability which I lose 40% of my retired pay to get the 40% now is that going to change in 2010 or 2013? or is it going to stay that way forever more?

  Comment by Rusty SSg Retired — May 30, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

• Rusty,
  There are two different proposals mixed in this thread. One is Obama’s blueprint (the first hyperlink) the other is Senator Reid’s proposal (spelled out below the initial link to the Administration’s budget blueprint). The short answer is that if Senator Reid’s proposal (S 546 )passes in tact, and it’s equivalent passes in House (HR 811, I believe), you would receive concurrent receipt. Under Obama’s plan, as I read it, you would only receive both if you retired under Chapter 61, and then only after the phase in which, for 40 percent, isn’t until 2013 or 14. We won’t know the answer to your question until the final appropriation bill is passed, which is still likely not to happen till later this summer, at earliest.

  Comment by DK — May 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

• Here is the link outlining what the administration’s budget blueprint says (not what Sen Reid’s proposal includes — the current Senate and House proposals are more expansive, and call for immediate repeal of concurrent receipt offsets for all retirees – with a Special Rule for Chapter 61 retirees, which will offset pay based on disability and not length of service):

  http://www.gazette.com/news/pay-54848-disability-percent.html

  Again, bottom line is we won’t which, if either, passes until the final Defense bills are signed into law later in the year…

  Comment by DK — May 31, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

• Thank you for your answer It was more helpful than alot of the sites I’ve been too. again thanks

  Comment by Rusty SSg Retired — May 31, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

• Sen Feinstein [CA] and Sen Udall [CO] became the most recent co-sponsors of the Senate bill bringing the total to 38, this can’t be a bad sign.

  Comment by Ouch — June 4, 2009 @ 7:56 am

• ALCON,

  Again, currently, the offset will be based upon percentage (2.5) times years of service, not on percentage of disability. Please read the actual information that is in the articles I and DK referred to.

  DK, current proposal has not changed since initial write up. Senate bills have had added co-sponsors only, no changes. Your post (May 31st), although informative, is incorrect.

  It is unlikely that any changes to the 2.5% times years of service will change since it is in U.S.C. Title 10: No Member can receive more compensation, including those retired 20+, normal retirement. No change to this has been proposed.

  If passed in the NDAA, this stipulation would mean a retirement reduction based upon years of service, not PEB percentage for Chapter 61 vets. This means that IF your VA ratings decrease or increase, it will affect your concurrent receipt. Currently, bills proposed do not take into consideration this possible latent response to disability conditions. Simply put, under this proposal, the max a Chapter 61 vet could receive for retirement calculation would be 47.5% (2.5 times 19 years). So, if you are currently medicaly retired with 50% or more, you will loose the overage percentage.

  Of course there is the VA compensation calculation as well in this formula in whether concurrent receipt will apply or not (see the websties DK and I posted–both same info).

  Bottom line all, is that there is a change coming; who it affects is based upon individual circumstances, but one thing is certain: your retirement calculation will be reduced. It may not be a bad thing. The question is: If it does become a loss scenario, is there a “stop loss” clause. Another words, if a negative situation arises, will a vet currently under Chapter 61 (already retired) receive AT LEAST the same as they do currently…no lose scenario in the future if VA compensation is reduced.

  Recommend all write their representatives and ask this question!!!!

  Maj Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 8, 2009 @ 10:38 am

• ALCON,

  Also remember that COLA for retirees and VA compensation is based upon CPI-W (consumer price index-wages). This year it will be negative, forecasted by Congress to be negative for the next few years. (Last year it was 5.8% of course). Thus, there will be no COLA raise this year at least. Same for Social Security folks too.

  See http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html.

  You cantrack the monthly CPI-W here http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

  Look at the Jul/Aug/Sep rates and compare to last year when they come out.

  FYI

  Cheers

  Maj Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 8, 2009 @ 10:48 am

• Flash,

  Thanks for the clarifications. In my case, the reduction in military pay from the disability method to the LOS method, then adding VA award is a big plus for me. However, I share your concern over what happens to chapter 61 Vets with much less time in service. Writing to congressional senators and reps for clarification is a great idea.

  Comment by DK — June 8, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

• Here’s the lastest from TREA:

  1) HASC Minority Push for Full Funding of Retiree/Survivor Programs-On Wednesday all the minority (Republican) members of the House Armed Services Committee sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Budget Committee urging that he use a reserve fund to fully finance 4 important programs. They asked that the fund be used to finance the end of concurrent receipt (S546); the elimination of the SBP/DIC offset (HR775/S535); improve healthcare coverage for the Reserve Components (HR972); and fully fund President Obama’s initiative to provide concurrent receipt for Chapter 61 medical military retirees. The budget mark up is scheduled for next Tuesday June 16. At that time the Minority is going to offer an Amendment to the NDAA to cover these 4 programs. Please call majority members (especially if they are your district’s representative) of the HASC and urge them to support the Amendment. The Majority members of the HASC are: Rep. Ike Skelton (Missouri) Chairman, Rep. John Spratt (SC), Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (TX), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS). Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX), Rep. Vic Snyder (Arkansas), Rep. Adam Smith (WA), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (CA), Rep. Robert Brady (PA), Rep. Robert Andrews (NJ), Rep. Susan A. Davis (CA), Rep. James Langevin (RI), Rep. Rick Larsen (WA), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Rep. Jim Marshall (GA), Rep. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Guam), Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN), Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA) Rep. Hank Johnson (GA), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Rep. Joe Courtney (Connecticut), Rep. David Loebsack (Iowa), Rep. Joe Sestak (PA), Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Rep. Niki Tsongas (MA), Rep Glenn Nye (VA), Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine), Rep. Larry Kissell (NC), Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM), Rep. Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (MD), Rep. Eric J.J. Massa (NY), Rep. Bobby Bright (AL), Rep. Scott Murphy (NY), Rep. Dan Boren (OK).

  Comment by Doug — June 12, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

• From MOAA’s Update (12 June)

  “Disability Retirees in Defense Bill Limbo
  The House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee’s first draft of the Defense Authorization Bill included several improvements for active duty and Guard/Reserve forces, but didn’t include President Obama’s plan to extend concurrent receipt to disability retirees. MOAA’s sources indicate leaders hope to add that initiative in later House action.
  Meanwhile, some committee members will offer a broad concurrent receipt and SBP/DIC amendment – including full concurrent receipt, SBP/DIC offset repeal and more — when the full Armed Services Committee considers the bill next Tuesday, June 16.”

  Comment by DK — June 12, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

• The plot thickens – thanks for the updates!

  Comment by Ouch — June 12, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

• I was medically retired after 11 years in the navy. I was put on the tdrl and just recently changed to the pdrl (last week). The VA has me rated at 90%, the Dept of the Navy gave me a combined rating of 30%. I am a little confused. Should I expect to get both VA pay as well as retired pay? I was forced into retirement Sept 27, 2007
  Thanks,
  Rich

  Comment by Rich — June 15, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

• Rich,

  Under current law, the answer is no. If the CR bill, as suggested passes, you will receive 2.5 times 11 years (27.5%) for your retirement, plus the 90% VA funds as long as the total is greater than what you receive now. Please review the above postings.

  HOWEVER, the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee’s first draft did not have this in their writings. As DK and Doug posted, it will take further action to implement.

  Sources indicate the Defense Department does not support due to costs. That doesn’t mean that lobbying will keep Congress from initiating. Contact those reps that Doug mentioned.

  In the past four years, Defense Department reps have requested a raise to retiree Tricare premiums but Congress has turned it down. As such, as long as Congress pursues, it can still happen in some form.

  Best wishes all and good luck!

  Comment by Flash — June 15, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

• “VERY Disappointing” update from Army Times – 17 June 09

  Benefits boost for retirees, survivors blocked
  By Rick Maze – Staff writer
  Posted : Wednesday Jun 17, 2009 5:11:06 EDT

  The House Armed Services Committee blocked Republican efforts to provide big boosts in retiree and survivor benefits because there was no way of covering the costs over the next 10 years.

  Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the committee chairman, said there might be a partial solution that covers some expanded benefits by the time the full House takes up the 2010 defense authorization bill in a few weeks, but “it is not for sure.”

  Blocked were some long-time top initiatives for military and veterans groups, including a more generous military retirement benefit for National Guard and reserve benefits and elimination of the so-called “widow’s tax” for survivors and “disability tax” for veterans retired from the military on disability with less than 20 years of service

  Skelton said the widow’s tax and disability tax initiatives could cost $36 billion over the next decade. No specific estimate was provided for the reserve retired pay proposal.

  Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who proposed the amendments, tried to tap into a reserve fund created by the 2010 federal budget plan so specifically cover the two benefits. Skelton and Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman, said the reserve fund has no money. The reserve fund was supposed to be fueled by cuts in federal entitlements, most likely from getting other congressional committees to cut benefits.

  “In our committee, we do not play games,” Skelton said. “We do not accept legislation that we cannot pay for ourselves, and we don’t try and gain political points by raising the hopes of the men and women who sacrificed so much for our country.”

  Skelton accused Wilson and other supporters of the amendment of playing politics with benefits. “The authors of this amendment know these rules and choose to ignore them, hoping no one would notice their lack of sincerity at truly solving the problem.”

  Supporters of the benefits increases said they weren’t playing games but trying to deliver on old promises that year-after-year get rejected for exactly the same reason, strict budgeting rules make it impossible to fund.

  “We have to find the money to do this. We find billions for other things. We have to find it,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.

  Skelton said he agreed. “If you have a way to pay for it, tell us.”

  Skelton’s staff said because of budgeting rules, the only way the committee could cover the cost of Wilson’s amendment would be to ravage other military entitlements, like retired pay, health care benefits for older retirees and Montgomery GI Bill benefits for reservists.

  Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, ranking Republican on the armed services committee, said he thinks Republicans “could find the money” if they were in charge, saying billions spend on economic stimulus and economic bailouts included some projects he considered less important than retiree benefits.

  “We have not been sleeping on this issue,” Skelton said. “It has been very, very difficult for us.”

  Comment by DK — June 17, 2009 @ 8:35 am

• The term “disability tax” is a bit new and does not necessarily mean concurrent receipt. Researching this tonight with my contacts

  Comment by Flash — June 18, 2009 @ 12:06 am

• Flash,
  I think “disability tax” is used here by Rep. Skelton in deference to many Vets’ advocates who call the military pay offset for VA disability receipt a “tax.” I’ve seen that often in discussion threads. His main argument is “pay go” rules. I read Philpott’s careful explanation today, and it made complete sense for the first time (i.e. why they can appropriate tons of money for unwanted weapons systems for a one year period, but cannot approve an expanded entitlement that by its nature implies mandatory expenditures (entitlements) for future years. Fine. Then I read the history of “PayGo” in the U.S. Congress on Wiki (starting in 1990), and it’s abandonment from 2001 to 2007, when Congress re-adopted the rule. However, since 2007, exceptions have been made for the Farm Bill, the Stimulus package, etc., etc., whenever it was “convenient”. So, that argument doesn’t hold much water with me right now. In the case of fixing concurrent receipt, I think a reasonable argument for suspension of this rule could be made, if there was a commitment beyond one inch deep on the issue in Congress. I look forward to reading what you find out.

  Comment by DK — June 18, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

• DEMOCRATS CANCEL ARMED FORCES BENEFIT LEGISLATION
  SPENDING ON PET PROJECTS NOT COMPRIMISED.

  THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WAS IN TODAYS NEWS: Democrats Block Republican Effort to Fund Benefits Promised to the Men and Women of America’s Armed Forces

  In what was a great disappointment, the House Armed Services Committee failed to include the Administration’s proposal to qualify medical retirees (Chapter 61) with less than 20 years of service for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) in its National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010

  we veterans all need to come together as one of the biggest voting force that is the only way we will get any where.
  My Senator is sherrod brown on capital letters for him …now to vote him out of office

  Comment by Roger Lyons — June 19, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

• ALCON,

  It would appear that CR will not be a benefit in 2010. The following is an excert from the Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Davis’ Opening Statement, Full Committee Mark-Up of FY10 NDAA (H.R. 2647). SEE http://armedservices.house.gov/apps/list/speech/armedsvc_dem/davisos061609.shtml

  “Unfortunately, the subcommittee was unable to include the disability compensation provision that was included in the President’s budget. We did not have the mandatory offsets to pay for the $5.1 billion proposal within the subcommittee’s allocation. There are some who believe that the Chairman of the Budget Committee can use the reserve fund within the budget to provide us the mandatory allocation. Unfortunately, this is not true. The reserve fund allows the Chair to adjust the allocations of the committees or the aggregate budget for legislation containing specific initiatives provided that the legislation complies with the House PAYGO rule.”

  Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Military Personnel Subcommittee Ranking Member:

  “Despite support for the underlining bill, it is disappointing that the committee failed to adopt my amendment which would have used funding set aside in this year’s budget to pay for several programs that would have ended the ‘widow’s tax’, provided for concurrent receipt of retirement pay and VA disability benefits, and extended TRICARE to Guard and Reserve members who are already receiving early retirement. There should also have been a more robust debate on providing early retirement credit for Guard and Reserve members who have been mobilized in support of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other contingency operations since September 11th, 2001. All of these issues are of vital importance to our servicemembers and particularly their families who share in the sacrifices made by our military.”

  Rep. John Kline (R-MN): “As a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I consider it an honor and a privilege to play a direct role in crafting and passing legislation that supports our veterans of today and tomorrow. I am pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act ensures that our sons and daughters in uniform will have the resources they need to complete their mission.

  “I am disappointed, however, that the committee missed an opportunity to further increase veterans benefits. Congressman Wilson’s amendment, which I was proud to help introduce and support, would have provided the funds necessary to fulfill the promise of concurrent receipt for disabled retirees; eliminated the ‘widow’s tax’ created by the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities and Veterans’ Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC); improved health care coverage for reserve component members; and funded the Administration’s initiative to provide concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees with less than 20 years of service.”

  Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA):
  “At the same time, I must express my deep disappointment in the failure of the bill to fully fund the ‘concurrent receipt’ of military retired pay and veterans disability benefits. I have long maintained that my service as a Member of Congress pales in comparison to the service of the members of the military who protect our country every day. We must do right by these heroic individuals, including providing them with the full benefits to which they are due.”

  SEE http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=739

  H.R. 2647 is expected to be considered on the House floor in the coming weeks.

  There can still be an add-on when the House meets. Unfortunately, the funding is just not there and CR is not the only issue facing veterans that was left out.

  Comment by Flash — June 19, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

• I wonder where the money came from to pay the Filipinos $18000.00 maybe from the disabled veteran after all he is used up.
  The Democrats blame the Republicans. the Republicans blame the Democrats How many who reads this post knew that HUD was part of the veterans program.in other word the disabled veteran was paying for hud until it was changed 4 or 5 years ago.
  now we pay for Filipinos and slapped the h— out the veterans again
  Why do we let them get by with stuff like like this?

  Comment by Roger Lyons — June 20, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

• This “read” may be premature. Pelosi et al in the Demo leadership have not ruled out CRDP for Chap 61s — yet. Only in this first step. We still have the Senate, where an additional senator (Brownback (R), added his name to Sen Reid’s bill to include and expand CRDP. Plus, there have been hints that the Dem Leadership “may” still find monies to pay for some enhancements.

  Despite GOP grandstanding, and DEM gloom and doom from the House, it’s not over. Keep tabs especially this week, as the Sen. Armed Services committee, and the full House floor vote take shape, to re-evaluate. The president’s raising expectations with his budget has put them in a position that will be hard to push back on. I think the President’s plan, laid out WAY up there at the outset (feb 09) still has a good chance of being what we end up seeing when all is said and done…

  Comment by DK — June 20, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

• DK, I too share your optimism. Will be an interesting couple of weeks.

  Comment by Ouch — June 21, 2009 @ 12:10 am

• Hey DK You might be right My Senator is sherrod brown he has signed in on this and it sounds like he might be for concurrent receipt.

  Comment by Roger Lyons — June 22, 2009 @ 8:48 am

• As I mentioned before, CR has been put to rest by the subcommittee only. Both house and senatorial debate is still open. The question will be who draws it out. Several senators (both parties) have signed on who are not part of the subcommittee and will most definitely ask the question of why. The Obama Administration will support to the extend that it was a platform issue.

  However, be advised that the subcommittee has a stance that will not waiver. Like Tricare, this has happened before and was eventually turned over in vote by Congress. There still is hope off an add-on. In fact, the VA already said CR will start for Chapter 61 starting in 2010. Forward looking individuals from strong positions have stuck their head out and would be very uncomfortable if it was to be chopped off.

  In addition, postureing is always a forefront game. It could be the subcommittee wants something else and needs a bargaining chip. Like the Tricare issue, there was laways a chip used.

  Given the shear number of those supporting, the White House support, and the fact that voting is till to come, we need to keep a positive outlook. The subcommittee did not forward…but they didn’t need to.

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 22, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

• So everyone knows, under the “pay-as-you-go” budget rule, money spent has to have an offset, or come from from somewhere else. In addition, CR and the other initiatives would be an entitlement, which means it requires annual funding, by law. This is the challenge for supporters who have not found offsets yet.

  Skelton and Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. have already stated that any ammendment without an offset will be ruled out of order. Rep. Joe Wilson R-S.C. four part ammendment was given without an offset and rulled out of order by Skelton.

  IF…offsets are found, it is unlikely it would be the 5.1 billion over 10 year, or what Skelton called Wilson’s 36 billion over ten year four part ammendmant plan, that an offset would be found for.

  The Stars and Stripes posed that if offsets are found, the Chapter 61, or CR would be funded first before others such as the “Widow-Tax”, CR for the 430,000 retirees rated under 50%, or the healthcare for Reserve and Guard retirees from last years changes.

  Bottom line, offsets are required and Wilson is working the issue. Without and offset, Skelton will continue to rule out the amendments.
  Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 22, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

• Maybe someone should have blocked 5.1 billion from the 90 billion the Obama Administration gave to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is where Congress needs to be looking at. Just a thought….

  Comment by Flash — June 22, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

• I don’t understand why everyone in Congress says there is no money for Chapter 61 retirees or veterans with less than 50% ratings. We can choose whether to take our retirement (taxable) or VA disability in which case it is not taxed but taken dollar for dollar out of our retirement. It is my understanding that the military retirement trust fund has enough money to pay all of us our retirement if we chose not to go with the VA disability. However, when we choose VA disability which is funded differently than retired pay, the retired pay we don’t get goes to other projects thru some kind of funding transfers. Does anyone know anything about this? I am so tired of congressional excuses and doubletalk. Thanks.

  Comment by Debbie — June 22, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

• All eyes on tomorrow (Tues) and Wednesday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee does its Markup. Keep the fingers crossed. Please share any news tweeted out of the closed conference hearings, if you can. Thanks and good luck,

  dK

  Comment by DK — June 22, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

• HUGE NEWS:
  One week after House Democrats said they did not have the money to pay for long-promised increases in pay for disabled retirees, they unveiled a major military and federal civilian pay package that does even more.

  The source of money for the new bill, HR 2990, is an obscure fund to pay for research into locating deepwater oil and natural gas resources.

  “Congress has been working to find a way to permanently eliminate the disabled veterans’ tax for many years, but fixing this entitlement program is an immensely difficult task,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and chief sponsor of the bill.

  Skelton said the legislation does not go as far as he had hoped, but it “moves us closer to fulfilling the President’s pledge to give disabled veterans full access to the benefits they deserve.”

  It was not immediately clear how much money lawmakers got by tapping into the oil and gas development fund. The money source was not available last week when the House Armed Services Committee was approving its version of the 2010 defense authorization bill, but it is available if lawmakers are writing a separate bill.

  Congressional sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they expect the new legislation will be merged with the defense policy bill into a single measure at some point.

  The bill is called Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act, a name derived from one of its key elements aimed at people who received military disability retirement with less than 20 years of service. These “Chapter 61” retirees — a reference to the section of the U.S. Code covering the military disability retirement plan — would be allowed to receive their full military retired pay plus veterans’ disability compensation, a major change from current law in which retirement pay is reduced dollar-for-dollar by any amount received in disability compensation.

  President Barack Obama had pledged during the presidential campaign this year to allow all Chapter 61 retirees to be able to concurrently receive both payments, but the bill would not do that right away.

  The offset would be phased out over several years, beginning with full payments of retired and disability pay on Jan. 1, 2010 for those whose disabilities are rated at 100 percent, including those whose 100 percent disability is based upon a determination that their medical conditions make them unemployable.

  Full concurrent receipt for all Chapter 61 retirees would take effect Jan. 1, 2014.

  The bill contains other provisions as well.

  For the military, it includes a one-year extension of many military bonuses and special and incentive pays that are about to expire, and provisions on re-computing retirement pay for some reservists.

  For federal workers, it includes a credit for unused sick leave, a new process for computing retired pay based upon part-time service and a provision involving the credit given to people who transferred from working for the District of Columbia government to working for the federal government. Skelton described this as “important changes” to the federal retirement system.

  Comment by DK — June 23, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

• As OUCH would say, “the plot thickens…” The new press release from the HASC website indicates the “temporary” nature of the fix. It remains to be seen what the Senate will do today:

  For immediate release:
  June 23, 2009 Contact:
  Loren Dealy (HASC) 202-225-2539

  Skelton Bill Offers Relief From Disabled Veterans Tax

  WASHINGTON, DC – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) introduced legislation today that includes a one-year fix to relieve the disabled veterans tax by expanding concurrent receipt. This change would make more disabled veterans eligible to receive both military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.

  H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009, also extends special pays and allowances for certain members of the Armed Forces and makes several important changes to the retirement system for federal employees.

  “The disabled veterans tax prevents retirees from receiving the full benefits they have earned in military retired pay and veterans disability compensation. Our veterans and their families have made tremendous sacrifices for our country, and this bill moves us closer to fulfilling the President’s pledge to give disabled veterans full access to the benefits they deserve,” said Skelton.

  “Congress has been working to find a way to permanently eliminate the disabled veterans tax for many years, but fixing this entitlement program is an immensely difficult task. I am grateful to all of my House colleagues who have worked to find the budget offsets needed to provide this temporary fix for our veterans. As we pursue this legislation, we will continue to do all we can to honor our country’s debt to our veterans and their families,” said Skelton.

  Comment by DK — June 23, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

• Honestly, I’ll be surprised if they don’t find the money to get this thing done with much closer start times.

  Comment by Ouch — June 23, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

• I forgot to “attribute” my first post (two posts up) to the ArmyTimes, who have been the “go-to” press on this issue.

  Also, yes, let’s watch what happens in the Senate, where there is stronger support (supposedly) for FULL CRDP… We should know how that mark-up ended up by Friday – latest.

  Very intriguing here. I remain optimistic.

  Comment by DK — June 23, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

• I am the widow of a Coast Guard commander who served 36 years. I am currently the wife of a 100% disabled veteran. Good luck and God bless you all! God bless you and the people who help contribute to your web site.

  Thank you,
  Phyllis Jolls
  phyllis687[at]aol.com

  Comment by phyllis jolls — June 24, 2009 @ 10:33 am

• Good posts DK. Remember all, the “full retired pay” is not based upon the rating you received and now have from the DoD. The “full retirement” pay will be based upon 2.5% of your years served (10yrs x 2.5= 25%).

  The stipulation will make CR good for some, useless for others. In addition, when your percentage goes down, your retirement value goes down (say 60% MEB to 25% CR). So, if you are re-rated by the Va AND Lose rating % (say 80% now to 60%) you will lose that money as well.

  38 C.R.F. Chapter 3 discusses how re-ratings occur. Lowering isn’t always the fact, but it is a possibility. The point: CR will be good for some (increase monthly income based upon receiving VA + a portion of your retirement now), Useless to others (If the new calculation is less than you receive now, there will be no monthly change), and could be negative if your rating changes (VA rating goes down).

  The integrity of your discharge orders becomes invalid. If you were rated at 70% MEB, it WILL BE adjusted.

  Advocates are on the Hill explaining this as we speak. Consensus amongst supporters is that no change should lower the monthly income…that there would be a floor to any adjustments. Full results comming…

  Please review my post from earlier which explains the new computations. This wording has not changed in the new legislation.

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 25, 2009 @ 10:47 am

• 24 June 2009

  House Approved HR 2990 by a vote of 404 to 0.

  Next step, Senate and ratification folks.

  Comment by Flash — June 25, 2009 @ 10:57 am

• The section of HR 2990 pertaining to Concurrent Receipt that was passed by the House today.

  Subtitle C–Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and Veterans’ Disability Compensation

  SEC. 121. ONE-YEAR EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY AND VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE ALL CHAPTER 61 DISABILITY RETIREES REGARDLESS OF DISABILITY RATING PERCENTAGE OR YEARS OF SERVICE.

  (a) Phased Expansion Concurrent Receipt- Subsection (a) of section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

  `(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Disability Compensation-

  `(1) PAYMENT OF BOTH REQUIRED-

  `(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who is also entitled for that month to veterans’ disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability (in this section referred to as a `qualified retiree’) is entitled to be paid both for that month without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.

  `(B) APPLICABILITY OF FULL CONCURRENT RECEIPT PHASE-IN REQUIREMENT- During the period beginning on January 1, 2004, and ending on December 31, 2013, payment of retired pay to a qualified retiree is subject to subsection (c).

  `(C) PHASE-IN EXCEPTION FOR 100 PERCENT DISABLED RETIREES- The payment of retired pay is subject to subsection (c) only during the period beginning on January 1, 2004, and ending on December 31, 2004, in the case of the following qualified retirees:

  `(i) A qualified retiree receiving veterans’ disability compensation for a disability rated as 100 percent.

  `(ii) A qualified retiree receiving veterans’ disability compensation at the rate payable for a 100 percent disability by reason of a determination of individual unemployability.

  `(D) TEMPORARY PHASE-IN EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN CHAPTER 61 DISABILITY RETIREES; TERMINATION- Subject to subsection (b), during the period beginning on January 1, 2010, and ending on September 30, 2010, subsection (c) shall not apply to a qualified retiree described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2).

  `(2) QUALIFYING SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY DEFINED- In this section, the term `qualifying service-connected disability’ means the following:

  `(A) In the case of a member or former member receiving retired pay under any provision of law other than chapter 61 of this title, or under chapter 61 with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 or computed under section 12732 of this title, a service-connected disability or combination of service-connected disabilities that is rated as not less than 50 percent disabling by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

  `(B) In the case of a member or former member receiving retired pay under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 or computed under section 12732 of this title, a service-connected disability or combination of service-connected disabilities that is rated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at the disabling level specified in one of the following clauses (and, subject to paragraph (3), is effective on or after the date specified in the applicable clause):

  `(i) January 1, 2010, rated 100 percent, or a rate payable at 100 percent by reason of individual unemployability or rated 90 percent.

  `(ii) January 1, 2011, rated 80 percent or 70 percent.

  `(iii) January 1, 2012, rated 60 percent or 50 percent.

  `(C) In the case of a member or former member receiving retired pay under chapter 61 regardless of years of service, a service-connected disability or combination of service-connected disabilities that is rated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at the disabling level specified in one of the following clauses (and, subject to paragraph (3), is effective on or after the date specified in the applicable clause):

  `(i) January 1, 2013, rated 40 percent or 30 percent.

  `(ii) January 1, 2014, any rating.

  `(3) LIMITED DURATION- Notwithstanding the effective date specified in each clause of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2), the clause shall apply only if the termination date specified in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) occurs during or after the calendar year specified in the clause, except that, eligibility may not extend beyond the termination date.’.

  (b) Conforming Amendment to Special Rules for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees- Subsection (b) of such section is amended to read as follows:

  `(b) Special Rules for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees When Eligibility Has Been Established for Such Retirees-

  `(1) GENERAL REDUCTION RULE- The retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the members retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the member’s service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.

  `(2) RETIREES WITH FEWER THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE-

  `(A) BEFORE TERMINATION DATE- If a member with a qualifying service-connected disability (as defined in subsection (a)(2)) is retired under chapter 61 of this title with fewer than 20 years of creditable service otherwise creditable under section 1405 or computed under section 12732 of this title, and the termination date specified in subsection (a)(1)(D) has not occurred, the retired pay of the member is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the member’s retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount equal to 2 1/2 percent of the member’s years of creditable service multiplied by the member’s retired pay base under section 1406(b)(1) or 1407 of this title, whichever is applicable to the member.

  `(B) AFTER TERMINATION DATE- Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title, or with less than 20 years of service computed under section 12732 of this title, at the time of the retirement of the member if the termination date in paragraph (1)(D) of such subsection has occurred.’.

  (c) Conforming Amendment to Full Concurrent Receipt Phase-In- Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking `the second sentence of’.

  (d) Clerical Amendments-

  (1) SECTION HEADING- The heading of such section is amended to read as follows:

  `Sec. 1414. Concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation’.

  (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is amended by striking the item related to section 1414 and inserting the following new item:

  `1414. Concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation.’.

  (e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2010.

  Comment by Ouch — June 25, 2009 @ 11:06 am

• Be advised…the funding is for 9 months only and only covers a portion of the Chapter 61 retirees.

  June 24, 2009

  Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, this morning delivered the following remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives during debate on H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act.

  …“I would note that since the introduction of my amendment, the Democratic leadership has found a way to fund H.R. 2990, using resources and dollars outside the House Armed Services Committee jurisdiction to provide for just nine months—a very limited concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees.”….

  …“I hope that since the authority for this limited concurrent receipt is for only nine months, that the Democratic leadership makes resolving all the concurrent receipt and SBP-DIC offset injustices a real, not a symbolic priority, next year.”…

  Comment by Flash — June 25, 2009 @ 11:08 am

• Flash, next year is an election year too – should be interesting to say the least.

  Comment by Ouch — June 25, 2009 @ 11:14 am

• ALCON,

  Please read the following link to better understand where you may fit. Looks like %100ers will benefit for a short time for now.

  Sorry all…sounded good at first, huh? Funding must be expanded as I can’t see a benefit for such few for such short amount of time.

  ** http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html then enter bill number.

  Flash

  **Link corrected.

  Comment by Flash — June 25, 2009 @ 11:55 am

• Hi Flash

  Thanks for the update and all your information but, the link you gave us is not working! could you check it out?

  Thanks

  Comment by Steve — June 25, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

• Flash, is comment number LXXIII the same content you were linking to?

  Comment by Ouch — June 25, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

• Obviously, and it’s a good and bad thing — once an “entitlement” is “codiefied” it’s hard for congress not to continue to fund it (re: Chapter 61s get 10 month reprieve). That said, it is still not a “done deal.” Still waiting for the SASC, who finished their bill earlier today. Let’s see where that stands vis a vis the House bill. Bottom line – some progress, but not nearly enough…

  Comment by DK — June 25, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

• Sen Leahy of Vermont added his name to the list of co-sponsors which is now up to 40 members.

  Comment by Ouch — June 26, 2009 @ 9:40 am

• Ouch/Steve…the information is the same. Try link http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html and put the bill number in. Links are changed daily or refreshed which does not allow for bookmarking apparently.

  DK–You are correct! Look at the stipulation for exceptions of 100% Individual Unemployable (IU). The dates were inclusive in 2004 yet it continued in successive leg.; however, this is the first time we have seen reference to a termination “date”. Very unique to say the least.

  In political terms, this can be considered posturing. It allows legislatures a “bargaining chip” to negotiate (as we saw with the offset funding of this bill) future funding of bills either related to veteran benefits or not.

  I am surprised at the lack of reporting by service organizations on this matter…

  What is required to ensure any social issue is validated is a voice at the public policy. It requires highly motivated individuals to organize, plan, and execute a position of change. I believe your aggressive attention to this matter has been admirable…look forward to your postings!

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — June 26, 2009 @ 11:56 am

• According to the Press Release issued at 0900 26 June 2009 from the Senate Armed Service Committee, there was no mention of retiree benefits other than the “gray” area retirees. It may be in a bill not mentioned if any.

  “1. Provides fair compensation and first rate health care, addresses the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured, and improves the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families.

  • Authorizes $163.5 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances,bonuses, death benefits, permanent change of station moves, and health care.

  • Authorizes a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise, 0.5 percent above the budget request and the annual rise in the Employment Cost Index.

  • Authorizes fiscal year 2010 active-duty end strengths for the Army of 547,400; the Marine Corps, 202,100; the Air Force, 331,700; and the Navy, 328,800.

  • Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army’s active-duty end strength by 30,000 above 2010 levels during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 if sufficient funding is requested in the budgets for those fiscal years.

  • Requires the establishment of a task force to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs developed to assist and support the care, management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured service members.

  • Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan by September 30,2013 to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel of DOD and to consider the feasibility of additional officer and enlisted specialties as behavioral health counselors.

  • Increases the authorization for the Homeowners Assistance Program by $350 million. This program was recently enhanced by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5) and now provides relief to homeowners who are military services members, wounded warriors, surviving spouses, and defense civilian employees who are forced to relocate because of Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or permanent change of station orders.

  • Authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Navy to operate jointly the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago and Great Lakes, Illinois.

  • Extends eligibility for TRICARE Standard to gray area retirees.”

  Comment by Flash — June 26, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

• Hi again everyone, its been a while since I posted anything but I have been here every day reading about whats going on. I have to say again, this blog is great. I’ve learned more here than anywhere else. You name it, DAV, VA, etc… none are as informative as this site.
  Now, I’m sorry to say, I’m confused again. I posted once an example of what concurrent receipt would look like for an E-6 with 12 years and 100 percent disability rating from the VA. Is that example still accurate? And is this a phase in thing?
  Just an update for you guys, I’m headed back to school using the Post 9-11 GI Bill, the application is super easy to fill out but I haven’t found any way of tracking it. And you should all check out a program that the VA has called Vocational Rehab. Its not just a job finding service, they have programs to help disabled vets live independantly, they have an alternative to the GI Bill (48 months of coverage versus 36) and several other areas that they can help you with. And its not just for the recently retired or separated, its for any vet. Check it out.
  Take it easy,
  John

  Comment by John — June 26, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

• John, it took 3 weeks for me to get my answer back from the VA concerning the 911GIBill http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/05/21/911gibill-certificate-of-eligibility

  Comment by Ouch — June 27, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

• John, here’s something about the Voc-rehab program the VA doesn’t tell you. Once you’ve completed training and are considered “retrained” you will also be re-evaluated and most likely your disability rating will be lowered accordingly. If your 100% rating is temporary and you go to work your rating will probably be lowered and that will cause a change in your concurrent receipt if that’s ever approved.

  FW

  Comment by FW — June 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

• Wow, didn’t know that, thanks for the heads up.

  John

  Comment by John — June 27, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

• I know that this chat is for discussions about Concurrent Receipt, however I have a different question that someone on this page may be able to help with. I am on TDRL with a VA rating of 80%. I have TriCare and I have only been out for about 10 months. I just learned that my daughter has a major hearing loss. Then to my surprise I find out that Tricare will not cover any of the hearing aid cost because I am retired. They would have been covered for her when I was on Active Duty and now Tricare is saying that I will need to fork over the $5,000 even though it is “Medical Necessity”. The lady at Tricare did say that the VA or some bases may have programs to help with this burden. If anyone knows where I can find help I would appreciate it. I am at a loss right now.
  Thank you for reading this.
  JT

  Comment by JT — June 30, 2009 @ 12:28 am

• To JT
  i dont know if this info will help. IF you feel that you have exhausted all your options and can’t get any straight answers, I would contact my senators and representative. When friend hadan issue with TRICARE helping her while her husband was deployed she finally turned to the Senator Byron Dorgan to get hlep. He helped her very quickly. I have been writing all my reps over the years to push concurrent receipt for all veterans. I am happy to say that I have been getting encouraging letters from them and hope all of us get what we have earned.

  Comment by Debbie — July 1, 2009 @ 7:42 am

• JT
  Without knowing your exact situation I can only offer some immediate suggestions of things to check on. Check with the VA about a program called CHAMPVA, and check with social security about SSI, and your state might have a program for the hearing impaired for children. These are programs that might work for your daughter. Also, the previous suggestions from Debbie are right on, get your representatives involved that’s what they get paid for. Good hunting.

  FW

  Comment by FW — July 1, 2009 @ 11:31 am

• Any updates on what the senate bill is doing?ie the Senate Armed services comm.Any one have a good current link to it besides Thomas which only has March info from Sem Reid.

  Comment by John Wood — July 1, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

• JT do you have the tricare that is provided free because you are retired or do you have the tricare that you have to pay for? Its something along the lines of $38. a month for a family. There is a tremendous difference between the two, basically if you sign up for tricare prime(the one that costs $38) then it should all be covered except for a $12 co pay. If not, if you have the free health care, then it might be a very different story. I don’t know exactly how the free version runs but there seemed to be an aweful lot of out of pocket expense and waiting time if you use a naval hospital. I fairly certain you can still sign up for prime, you can do it online or, if you live near a naval facility, go right to the tricare office. I still live in VA and go to portsmouth medical hospital, the tricare office is right outside the parking garage across from the hospital.
  And just a heads up, the same goes for dental. You have to sign up for retired dental as well. Its just as crappy as the dental program as when you’re still active but its better than nothing.
  Hope this helped,
  John

  Comment by John Croce — July 2, 2009 @ 6:42 am

• Thank you everyone who responded to my post. I will definetely check these avenues also.
  John, I do pay the $38 a month and TriWest said still said that they are not covered at all due to myself being retired and not active duty anymore. Besides the co-pays I also thought that the coverage would be the same as it was when I was Active Duty. According to them this is not true.
  Thank you again, and I will definitely write my Congressman. Thank you to everyone else that has been writing their Congressmen on behalf of getting better benefits and Concurrent Pay. It shows that writing these political figures can make a difference.

  JT

  Comment by JT — July 2, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

• Hiya Flash

  Anything new on this fiasco with concurrent receipt?

  Comment by Steve — July 6, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

• No new news on CR. Still awaiting words from mark ups. This may not get funded from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

  Folks, don’t concentrate on this much; it will mean something different to each of us if it is passed. Concentrate on moving on, getting better, and finding “your happiness”.

  Also, remember that everyone experiences things different (JT/John). Regulations spell everything out, so when you have a question about something (what is covered by Tricare, Delta Dental, etc…) ask the person on the phone for a reference. If they cant provide you with one, write their names down and begin a file. This will help when you involve legislatures…

  You are not in the service anymore; this year your retirement gets no COLA as the NDAA gave active duty 3.4% and the VA ties ours to Social Security CPI-W which is zero this year…we get no COLA and the value of our retirement just went down. BTW the 5.8% last year was CPI-W and still put retires behind an average 11.7% over the past 10 years. This means that if you were to have retired ten years ago at 50% and the same ranked guy retied now at 50%, you would get 11.7% less than them…

  I’m telling you this as it is a mistake to think your retirement and VA benefits will be sufficient for you…get a second career. I’m highly disabled, but have figured out how to move on and make a living, so can you. You put up with the military crap, you can put up with anything!!

  Comment by flash — July 8, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

• Just found out that Senate bill S.1033 section 621 sponsered by Sen. Levin,Sen. Reid is up for a vote and has our legislation included, looks likes its a battle between the two National Def Acts.Please email and write your reps for support of this newer bill which is in the Senate Armed Services comm.I found it on Thomas under The Retired Pay Restoration Act.Check it out and send your comments.

  Comment by John Wood — July 8, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

• With this new concurrent receipt I was wondering if the same old two methods will be used method [A]and method [B]
  method [A].If you enter the military before Sep. 7 1980
  Method [B] if you entered the military after Sep.7 1980
  Method [A] is used against vietnam chapter 61 retirees veterans
  it’s right down discrimination because we never step foot in Afghanistan or Iraq. after all a veteran is a veteran

  Comment by Roger Lyons — July 9, 2009 @ 9:32 am

• S 1390 is current legislature. There is no mention of Concurrent Receipt. Action is being taken on this bill.
  S 1033 was introduced 13 May and no further actions.

  Sorry

  Comment by Flash — July 9, 2009 @ 11:16 am

• Just wanted to share part of a letter I received from my North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad dated June 4, 2009 concerning concurrent receipt:
  ‘. . . I am proud that the recently-adopted Congressional Budget Resolution, which I helped to author as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, included full funding for this proposal.
  . . . Please be assurred that I will keep in mind your support for this proposal, which I share, as the Senate considers this year’s defense authorization and appropriations legislation.’
  Has anyone else received a response from their congressmen?
  I hope all vets write about this, including those who already receive concurrent receipt. Don’t forget your fellow veterans!

  Comment by Debbie — July 9, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

• Concurrent receipt was written for “disabled” veterans, unable to continue service due to disability over 50% PEBd. It was initiated for those who were able to continue to their 20, 21, 22, etc…years of service then miraculously disabled by the VA because of injuries or problems anyone in the public would receive but not be eligible for under SSI/SSD. It was do to the 10 U.S.C. sections which required 20 years of service.

  Reps/Senators realized the mistake and initiated it for combat disabled vets in 2004. Do to pressure from organizations (VFW, etc…) they included unemployment ineligible in 2008. (Most are debatable and none permanent).

  Current Leg is to allow everyone and will cost billions. The true group, Chapter 61, 50% PEB (Not VA) may lose out to those who really wearn’t meant for the program.

  The fact that everyone may receive this is disturbing. Civilians do not receive such duplicated benefits (police, fire, other law enforcement agencies as well). Considering the cost has created much debate and almost caused the bills to not pass, those not in the 50%+ PEB/Chp 61 should consider themselves fortunate and should use their “good luck” to help others…this country was not based upon the “gimme” crowd.

  Comment by Flash — July 9, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

• Flash, I agree and disagree with the points you make. Yes, if this law changes Chp61 retirees will be fortunate, but to say unless you’re 50%+PEB Chp61 you don’t deserve to benefit from the change in my opinion is wrong. The law states that 30%+PEB Chp61 qualifies for full retirement. What you’re telling me is that a vet who was retired with 30%+PEB Chp61 and 6 years later is rated 100% permanent by VA because the injuries have worsened, is less deserving then a vet who was retired with 50%+PEB Chp61 and 6 years later is rated by VA at 70%? We shouldn’t stand for any division in the ranks, Chp61 vets have to and should be considered equal in all aspects of any law. What’s next, if a vet receives VA disability he/she shouldn’t get Social Security Disability?

  Comment by FW — July 9, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

• FW,

  PEBs per 10 U.S.C do rate a permanent disability as 30% or more. The 50% rating was based upon standard and poor Labor Department classifications of SSD/PPD. That is what Congress initially changed.

  Remember, you are only retired under PEBs for a single “sole stand alone” disability (unless directly connected to another DC–Diagnostic Code). The VA combines ratings (not directly) to decide a veterans complete disability.

  In regards to the SSD and VA compensation; I am only aware of the stipulation in 38 C.F.R. (Chapter 3) (VA) does not allow for compensation if SSD has been applied for and approved. VA Appeal Boards have re-couped for Veterans receiving both in some cases. I have little knowledge past this.

  Comment by Flash — July 9, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

• Well, I finally got my results back from the VA. Actually, it was super fast, I just retired(after 12 years under chapter 61) on 31JUN09 and my results came back today. Anyways, the VA rated me at 100%. So, since I’m rated 100 percent by both the VA and the PEB, does that mean that I’ll receive 2.5 X 12(Number of years in service) of my base pay AND the VA disability payment? Or has this changed?
  Thanks and take it easy,
  John

  Comment by John — July 13, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

• John,

  First, congrats. When I retired under Ch. 61 w/ 17 years of service, it also took about a month for VA to process me. The process is much quicker when you go from MEB to VA while still on AD.

  If Concurrent receipt is passed per what is now in the House Bill (and, I understand, introduced as an amendment by Sen. Reid yesterday, but not yet voted on in the Senate), then yes, you would receive the 100% VA pay (about $2680 plus a bit more if you have dependents), and the 2.5 X 12 X (high three avg) base pay. (The computation is different if your service-connected condition that made you unfit is combat related or caused by an instrumentality of war and you apply for CRSC.)

  But the “if” is the key word. We won’t know FOR SURE until we see what comes out of the final conference report of the appropriations committees — and that’s weeks/months down the pike.

  Comment by DK — July 14, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

• Also – I should add, the CR payment for you would begin on 1 Jan 10 and is not “retro-active” per se. The current legislation, if approved, begins 1 Jan for Ch. 61 Vets rated 100%, 90%, or IU. If you re-read this entire thread, you should be pretty clued in — lots of good insights here.

  Comment by DK — July 14, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

• Hello. I am 100% rated disabled veteran with well under 20 years service. I was disabled during my first training exercise. From what I read in HR 2990 which was passed in the house, 100% and 90% disabled veterans with fewer than 20 years service will receive their retired pay. Obama said he would sign the bill but the senate has to approve similar legislation by a 2/3 vote or 67 senators. All veterans need to contact their senators and request they pass the language in the house bill. If this passes, you military people with lower disability rating will be next for increased benefits. Help the 100%’s and the door will be opened for you of less disability ratings! Veterans need to help each other.

  Comment by Bill Starcher — July 15, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

• Bill –
  Not sure where you got the 2/3 equation. No such provision exists. If you are referring to overturning a potential presidential VETO, it has nothing to do with the CRDP provision…
  Also, if you have “well under 20 years” the new legislation, even if passed, might not increase your pay. Your retired pay will be recalculated based on years of service (not the current disability retirement pay DFAS says you earn, which is offset by the VA payments)… The greatest beneficiaries of the proposed legislation are those will under 20 years, but closest to that Time in Service.

  That said, your larger point, that veterans should support veterans, is valid and right on!

  Comment by DK — July 16, 2009 @ 10:38 am

• My crsc payment is 59.00 dollors per month discharged with 90% permanent 1969 over 2.5 years credited years. because of method [A]and method [B]
  method [A].If you enter the military before Sep. 7 1980
  Method [B] if you entered the military after Sep.7 1980
  I get less then those who entered after Sep.7 receive alot more money I dont think its fare.

  Comment by Roger — July 17, 2009 @ 1:25 am

• According to MOAA, although the F-22 funding has gotten all the oxygen this week in the senate, there are more than 100 amendments to be offered in the coming week. They urge everyone to contact his/her senators via email, phone, or snail mail urging support of the amendments to be offered by Senator Reid. According to MOAA:

  Concurrent Receipt – Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is offering two concurrent receipt amendments. The first mirrors the Administration’s five-year phase-in proposal to extend concurrent receipt to all medically retired servicemembers, regardless of years of service. His second amendment would correct a calculation “glitch” for certain recipients of Combat-Related Special Compensation.

  Stay tuned…

  Comment by DK — July 17, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

• Well, concurrent receipt passed the senate! Does anyone know the details of the bill in it’s final writing? For instance, does it just involve the 100%ers with less than 20 years? And, is it just funded for 9 months? Seems we have a lot of knowledge out there providing us with information. Thanks people and God Bless!!!!

  Comment by alvasteve — July 24, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

• Alvasteve:
  No, CR did NOT pass the Senate. Reid’s bill was entered for consideration but did not make the final cut… VFW and others sent out an early, (incorrect), note that it had been included… it wasn’t. See MOAA’s site for current update.

  It still has legs, as the House approved it so it could be part of the final conference report… but it is now much less certain…

  Comment by DK — July 25, 2009 @ 8:15 am

• Thanks DK:

  Hope springs eternal!

  Comment by alvasteve — July 25, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

• Gentlemen – Where is Senator Webb of Virginia in all of this? I did not view his name on the list of sponsors? And, are there actuall any known senators adverse to passage of this act? Thank you. Godspeed. RBA

  Comment by Richard Abell — July 26, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

• While no one will ever “lead the charge” against any veterans program, there are many senators who will argue against the larger issue of expanded entitlements and so effectively, do nothing to support this legislation.

  Webb has been silent. I think since he was so instrumental in the formation and passage of the “new G.I.” bill, he’s sort of immune from criticism on veterans issues for now. I did write to him some months back and like Warner, I got a vague “I continue to support our men and women in uniform…” sort of response from him.

  I think that if there is genuine support for the improvements for Ch. 61 retirees, the Senate committee will simply defer to the House version, thereby avoiding giving much credit to Sen. Reid. His support of the “gun” amendment and especially, his altering the debate schedule to highlight the hate crimes issue during the NDAA floor debate irked both McCain and Levin, so there may have been some “pay back” in not acting on his signature contribution to this years’ authorization bill. Just my 2 cents…

  Comment by DK — July 27, 2009 @ 8:27 am

• DK I believe you hit it right on,so ch 61’s hang in there, I do believe they are doing a little “PAY BACK” SANDY

  Comment by sandy — July 27, 2009 @ 8:41 am

• ALCON,

  DK is right on the ball with his informative detailing. Although stalled in the Senate, the House bill will generate debate and force the issue for review. I wish I could say more, just know discussions are continuing….

  At this point, I urge those of you to take an active role. Here are some examples:

  1.) Don’t just write your Sen/H.R., send them a list of “co-authors”: Have people that support the cause sign on to the letter…this gives the reader more reason for thought (it works for staffers, trust me).

  2.) Consider calling your local media outlets. Give them a brief overview and directions for research. Stay away from “telling them whats going on”. Media interns, writers, etc…will do the work and report on the issue. Too much “one sided conversations” turn them off. Give them an idea for a story, and watch them run. Point to MOAA articles, cite bill numbers, etc…

  3. Write the VFW, DVA, MOAA, etc…and tell them “we need their support”. Its interesting how a little pushing can re-vitalize a movement. Contact staff writers, authors of previous articles on CR, etc… Rememember, this is a hot story…

  4. Look for local party meetings. Bet there is one in the next couple of weeks. They are usually free, have influential people there, and generate questions for lawmakers. Most small networking happens there and crucial points find their way to larger party members (i.e. state and federal members). It may seem trivial, but experience has shown, well, lets just say some large voices have been heard this way!!

  One thing I can assuredly teach everyone that its not the CAUSE that wins, its the degree of VOICE the cause has. Simply, this is important only to the extent that it reaches attention at the appropriate level.

  Keep praying, staying active, and supporting each other. Their is hope all!!

  DK, thanks for all the input. Unfortunately, conflict of interest keeps be at a minimum. You are an intelligent and diligent resource for fellow veterans.

  A news report was just out on British vet support (or lack thereof by the British government). It was done by the CBC…has anyone thought of contacting the British media, NPR, CBC. Do you see where I am going here. How about Lars Larson, Glen Beck, etc…

  I suggest an approach as such:

  CR was intended to support “disabled” veterans…period. It was initiated at an obscure direction: towards those who served 20 years, and not discharged for being “disabled”. Then it was broadened for those combat related “disabled”. Then for the IU…but what about those ACTUALLY retired for a service-connected” disability (Chp 61)?

  See, the point was reached simply, in one paragraph, and asks for further thought. Bias is left out. The reader does not turn off.

  If one stays away from conjecture, points to the fact, and really asks the question…there will have to be an answer. I recently asked this question. It was followed by “Sure would be an interesting story, huh? Maybe I should think of this more”. I recieved a concerned response.

  There is still a movement here. Maybe not this year, but presidence has been set all!!!

  Comment by Flash — July 29, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

• Concurrent Receipt Order of Battle:

  I am one of the Chap 61 retirees w/ 14 yrs los. This affects me directly. (Full disclosure)

  NDAA 2010 conferees from the senate are: Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall (CO), Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter, and Collins.

  House conferees haven’t been announced yet. Conference committee not expected to convene until after August recess. Everybody has plenty of time to make their voice, their family’s voice, their friend’s voice, and their enemy’s voice heard.

  Funding offset for concurrent receipt is less than ONE PERCENT of the NDAA appropriation (number I saw was .014).

  Worst case scenario for pay out was less that $5 billion per anum for 10 years.

  This is a cool website. Since Skelton got this thing off the ground with at least “start-up” money, we should be howling (in a tightly-reasoned, polite way) at congress and the media for the “right thing” to get accomplished here.

  Happy hunting.

  XSpook

  Comment by Loki — July 30, 2009 @ 2:33 am

• Today’s update from MOAA explains a lot. It seems that even with the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid leading the charge, and no apparent objection for inclusion of Obama’s proposal for Concurrent Receipt for Chapter 61 retirees, it only takes one senator to block a “unanimous consent” motion, which was the vehicle intended to include Reid’s amendment in the Senate’s NDAA. It turns out that Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK) was the lone voice that blocked the amendment from being included. MOAA has the full story in the link below, but here’s the “money quote”:

  “Coburn Stymies Concurrent Receipt Amendment
  We were surprised to learn that Sen. Harry Reid’s concurrent receipt amendment in the Senate version of the NDAA was stymied by Sen. Tom Coburn just before the final vote on the bill.
  Sen. Reid’s amendment would have phased out the disability offset for all chapter 61 retirees over a five year period. But concurrent receipt progress in this year’s defense bill is still a very strong possibility, despite the failure of the Senate amendment.”

  The full link is here:
  http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_major/lac_issues_major_retired/lac_issues_major_retired_coburn.htm

  Comment by DK — July 31, 2009 @ 11:38 am

• Veterans organizations and every veteran in the state of Oklahoma shold rise up and demand that Coburn be thrown out of office. He has no problem sending our sons, daughters, grand children to fight a war he supported then turn his back on them when they return broken….. Members of any veterans organization should contact their National headquartes and strongly encourage them to demand a public accounting from this person, take his anti veteran position to the public…..

  Comment by FW — July 31, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

• What I email about oeveryother day to whitehouse and congress…

  Sir/Ma’am

  Imperatively needed is a Bill or AMMENDMENT to help in paving a way to helprelieve the blatant inequity towards military retirees with service connected disability. The unfair reduction of Military Earned Retirement pay [which is a Right of Earned blood, Sweat and Sacrifice for all AMERICA]and the compensation from VA for disabilities associated from Service connected injuries, should be separate in of themselves – not combined. It is unfair to reduce one’s retirement pay by the disability dollar amountearned.

  Did I mention – It is unfair and has no equal in the BELTWAY. I am sure the stipends and pensions the Senate and House have for themselves – are without reductions.

  Please enact legislation AND repeal immediately the 50% VA rule, in order to allow all Retirees to receive concurrent full retirement and any portioned VA disability they have earned thru Sacrifice – “Concurrent Receipt of Retirement Pay.”

  The ACT should allow for retroactive payment from Sep 2001, for a
  Grandfathering point. It would provide constituent vote and needed AMERICAN STIMULUS.

  I plan to email about every other day my senators and the whitehouse with this.

  V/r Dan Anders II, MSgt, USAF (Ret.)

  Comment by Dan — July 31, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

• I sent the following email to Senator Tom Coburn.

  Sen. Coburn
  I would like an explanation as to why you did not vote unanimously along with your fellow senators on the Concurrent Receipt bill? Your answer to the MOAA that there is not sufficient funding lacks argument as the other senators do not see this as an issue worth stopping the bill for even though they are aware of this concern. I am a 100% disabled Viet Nam veteran with only 12 years of naval service. Therefore, I am one of those left out of collecting, in my case, about $800.00 more a month as income. I am 71 years old and gave my health to my country. All I and the rest of us chapter 61 retirees are asking is that we be allowed to collect retirement for those years we served. That is what Concurrent Receipt is all about. It is not about you, it is not about the government nor is it about those that manage our government. It is about paying the men and woman the money they earned while defending this country. Period!
  Respectfully,
  Steve PO1 US Navy Retired

  Comment by alvasteve — July 31, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

• alvasteve:
  Great letter. Thanks for your service.
  I’m trying to find news outlets in OKLA (and Ft. Sill) to pick up this story. If Colburn wants the money offset up front, FINE, but WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS WHAT HAS “HE” DONE TO FIND IT? I bet the answer is “NADA.” But the question should be asked/ANSWERED.

  Comment by DK — August 1, 2009 @ 6:49 am

• Bully for all who support Veterans and their families. I am a disabled widow of a 100% disabled Veteran who died of a service-connected injury. I have been turned down once in the SS automated system and am applying yet again. There are no resources I can find in Oklahoma that I can get to as walking is a difficulty. How many other spouses in Oklahoma are finding it this hard to survive? I want to talk to them, find out if anything worked. Homeless, poor and struggling in Oklahoma. On good days I can make it to the Library. lesdamess

  Comment by lesdamess — August 2, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

• Lesdames, I highly recommend you send a letter to the editor of every news paper in your area, write it to all of the spouses like yourself and ask for a reply from them via the news papers. What you sent here would probably do just fine. Keep sending in your letter until they publish it. A separate letter naming Senator Coburn as an anti-veteran politician might help to create some very good feed back. If memory serves me right, the people in Oklahoma like the Military, at least they did when I was stationed there.

  Comment by FW — August 3, 2009 @ 11:16 am

• Team – I have been emailing and sending my request everywhere for the last 4 weeks – the Bastards are at recess…Hence no one is runing the daycare…What now do we do???

  I will keep sending, but what else…is there any hope?

  V/r Dan Anders II, MSgt, USAF (Ret)

  Comment by Dan — August 4, 2009 @ 8:51 am

• Dan, keep mailing, their office staff keeps up on all the incoming mail, a lot of them have town hall meetings, call their home town offices. Talk to the staff when ever you can, they do the foot work and pass on the message. Don’t give up hope, that’s when they beat us………..

  Comment by FW — August 4, 2009 @ 11:19 am

• Lesdamess,

  Go to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City (believe of of 4th street), first floor is the VA. Talk to Rhonda (Service Rep.) and ask what to do. Take every bit of paperwork you have! In addition, contact the DAV or VFW (located around Oklahoma and in the VA hospital in OKC). They will need all the available documents you have. If you have been turned down for benefits you are eligible for, it is because the right paperwork probably hasn’t been filled and supported by your documentation.

  Remember, in most cases you only have 12 months to file an appeal, in some cases even lease. I’m not clear on what you require, so I don’t know for sure. You can also request a DRO (Decision Review Officer). This is faster and may help process your request. Muskogee is your regional office. Look them up or get there and ask questions…they are very supportive.

  Flash

  Comment by Flash — August 6, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

• i also sent a email to Senator coburn.. i am a 100% disabled and was much looking fwd to getting my retirement check back and what a slap in the face by one senator that wants to play politics with our earned money.. I am going to email bill o’reilly and glen beck of FOX news.. They seem to be able to get the msg out for Veterans. I encourage other to do the same and maybe they can put the heat on congress..

  Comment by Eddie — August 9, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

• I contacted Senator Coburn’s Office today to voice my disbelief that he was the only Senator not to support us Chapter 61 veterans with HR 2990. I ask they we stand together on this and please contact his offices in Washinton as well as Oklahoma. If he gets enough complaints for lack of support for us Vets maybe he will start to re think his views.

  Washington office 202-224-5754
  Oklahoma office 405-231-4941

  Comment by Jerry Barbee — August 10, 2009 @ 8:51 am

• I found this website that will generate letters to your senators.
  All you do is put in your zip code and click go.. You can also add to the text..

  http://capwiz.com/naus/issues/alert/?alertid=13474241

  Comment by Eddie — August 10, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

• Question to all – will we see or expect to se concurrent receipt for 20 year reitrees at 40% or lower. And would those who had to be medically reitres see concurrent receipt?

  V/r Dan Anders II, MSgt, USAF (Ret)

  Comment by Dan — August 12, 2009 @ 9:58 am

• That is their question isn’t it? I’ve been waiting for the answer to that one sense 1998 and must say if it hasn’t happened by now chances are it more than likely won’t. Seems like everyone is on board when the pres ain’t and when the pres is they aren’t spouting spend spend spend till its for ,vets then its we can’t afford it but end the end its wait and see hope for the best expect the worst have a great day best wishes to all. SSG.(R) Rusty

  Comment by Rusty — August 12, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

• I received this email from another site. Email Coburn and tell him what we think of his anti-disabled-veteran position……..

  08/10/09 14:41:25
  Well, I just contacted Sen. Coburn’s office in Oklahoma and spoke to a very cordial gentleman by the name of Gregory Treat. After explaining my displeasure with the Senator’s actions to block Ch. 61’s to receive CRDP he forwarded me this response from Sen. Coburn (in RED) which am posting below, enjoy:

  Mr. Taylor,

  Thank you for your service and sacrifice on behalf of our country. Below is the response that Dr. Coburn sent to me pertaining to the amendment that would have provided concurrent receipt benefits. If you have any feedback it would probably be easier if you sent it as an email so I could forward it to Senator Coburn.

  Thank you,

  Gregory Treat
  Office of United States Senator Tom Coburn

  Office: (405) 231-4941
  Fax: (405) 231-5051
  Cell: (405) 397-0920

  Email: greg_treat[at]coburn.senate.gov
  Web: http://www.coburn.senate.gov

  During debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, I opposed an amendment that would have provided concurrent receipt benefits to certain medically retired disabled veterans. This provision, submitted by Senator Harry Reid, identified no wasteful or duplicative government programs for elimination in order to pay for it. The cost as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office is an increase in federal spending of $5.1 billion over the next 10 years. The proposal, while worthy, is an example of how the United States Congress refuses to make tough choices between competing priorities. This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee earmarked 426 projects for over $9 billion to the Defense Authorization Act. These projects are not subject to competitive bidding process, are for parochial interests, and are of unknown relevance to our men and women in uniform. I would fully support rescinding these earmarks or eliminating other wasteful or duplicative spending to pay for concurrent receipt for medically retired disabled veterans.

  Senator Coburn

  Comment by FW — August 13, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

• I think us Veterans would have been better served if Senator Coburn would have come up with ways to find the money for us Chapter 61 vets , rather than voicing against receiving our earned benefits. Just another unfriendly in the Senate.

  Comment by Jerry — August 14, 2009 @ 6:07 am

• Rachel Maddow of MSNBC will be on Meet the Press this Sunday. One of the other guests is the disabled veterans #1 enemy Senator Tom Coburn, thought I’d give it a try……..

  FW

  Rachel,

  Looking forward to Meet The Press this Sunday, kick ‘em where it hurts. If you get a chance please ask Senator Tom Coburn why he cast the lone no vote that killed Senator Reids amendment that would have approved the Senates Concurrent Receipt benefits for thousands of Severly Disabled Veterans of all wars past and present. Ask the Senator how he can sleep at night knowing he’s turned his back on Severly Disabled men and women who stood watch at night so he and his family could safely sleep in their safe secure home. As these wars continue there are thousands of young men and women everyday who are becoming Disabled Veterans. They’re the ones he’s harmed the most.

  Regards,
  FW

  Comment by FW — August 14, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

• Sen Coburn,

  WE THE PEOPLE feel you need to fix the problem, the earmarks are one thing but Disability Veterans deserve better. Retired pay is earned – just as you assume yours is. In our case, we take the hit for you, so we get injured and disabled on top of the Sacrifice. The concurrent reciept for all retirees is a JUST and DESERVING funding. The other stuff is political horse-&^&*!

  We the People, are not happy with your performance on this very Rightous issue. I hope you do not sleep well knowing many others continue to suffer becuase of your action and inaction.

  Please re-initiate the concurrewnt receipt ammendment into the NDAA 2010 for all retirees effective Jan 2010.

  Our Lord will be Judge of our Life – We the People are Judge of our Representives in Congress.

  I pray you feel to do something RIGHT because it is RIGHT versus “beltway politics as usual.”

  Please call anytime to discuss,

  V/r
  Danny Anders II, MSgt, USAF (Ret)
  937-564-2342

  Comment by Dan Anders II — August 15, 2009 @ 9:35 am

• I think President Obama’s reiteration to the VFW of his support for Concurrent Receipt — repeated yesterday — can only be a good thing as Senate and House conferees and staffers haggle over the final NDAA product. Here’s part of what President Obama said on August 17, 2009, with a link to the full speech following:

  “We’re keeping our promise on concurrent receipt. My budget ensures that our severely disabled veterans will receive both their military retired pay and their VA disability benefits. And I look forward to signing legislation on advanced appropriations for the VA so that the medical care you need is never held up by budget delays.”

  http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/143101

  Comment by DK — August 18, 2009 @ 8:01 am

• I received this from the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA).

  Putting a hold on a Senate floor amendment would not be reflected in his voting record. Coburn was elected to House of Rep. in 1994. He promised to serve only 3 terms (6 years) and actually kept his word. When Senator Don Nickles announced he would not seek re-election in 2004, Coburn ran and won. He is a “budget hawk” and is famous or infamous for stopping the “bridge to no where” in Alaska in 2005. He is up for re-election in 2010.

  John R. Davis
  Director, Legislative Programs
  Fleet Reserve Association
  125 N. West Street
  Alexandria, VA 22314
  tel. (703) 683-1400 x-110
  fax: (703) 549-6610

  Comment by FW — August 20, 2009 @ 10:40 am

• The 5 Billion Dollars that will be used for the next 10 years that Senator Coburn said is required to finance Bill H-R 2990 is a missleading statment. The July 6,2009 issue of the Air Force Times disected the percentage that would be dispursed with in the Bill. The concurrent section is only 6% of this entire amount. The amount of Veterans that it would be recipiants is 121,000. The rest of Bill HR-2990 is for goverment employees benafits and National Guard issues. I think Senator Coburn could eliminate quite a few Billion from this Bill alone. Enter it as a seperate Bill. Deal with the Gov. employees bennies. Concurrent pay is a D.O>D, Military issue. Why are Goverment workers include with the military section of the 2010. Stop using the medicaly retired as a place to crap.
  I have been medicaly retired from the U.S.A.F. since 1968 at the rate of E-3. Since then I had 26 surgaries and was on dialyses for 18 months. My son, Andrew at the young age of 23, who was also in the Air Force, donated his kidney so I could live. My family has to sacrifice quite a bit for my disabilaty. The Vets. that are disabled undestand my plite. The depression is unexplainable.
  I will stop the emotions are to great.
  Senator Coburn do the right thing. We are Americans that have felt the patriotism flow in our vains As we all took an oath to defend this great country.

  Comment by Edward A. McGIlly — August 22, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

• I sent an e-mail to Senator Coburn encouraging him to look at this site to understand the magnitude of his decision on this bill. Hopefully he will look at this site and reconsider his stance.

  Comment by JT — August 23, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

• I’m not sure if Senator Coburn has any more to say in this matter since Senator Coburn was the loan voice to stop this before it could go to vote in the Senate.

  It will be hashed out in September with committee’s on both sides The House and the Senate. I’m not sure if Senator Coburn will be on the Senate committe. ( Let’s hope not ) We already know his take on us Chapter 61 Vet’s.

  I could be wrong on this . Anyone know if he will be on the Senate committee in September. If he is God help us all.

  Comment by Jerry — August 26, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

• TEAM – CALL TO ACT NOW!!! CHARGE!!! See below from MOAA and SEN BROWN. V/r Dan Anders II

  Dan,

  Thanks again for the advocacy. We posted the following in our legislative update on Friday to our members and others with an imbedded “alert” so they also can write their legislators.

  http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/lac_issues_update_090828.htm#issue4

  Please see the Coalition letter that outlined the recommendation of 5.5 million members on concurrent receipt.

  As for what else you can do…I’d recommend forwarding either your letter or they can use ours to write their legislators and have their voices heard.

  We’re close…hopefully a little pressure will help keep the House provision in the final bill.

  Sincerely, Mike

  Michael F. Hayden, Colonel, USAF (Ret.) Deputy Director, Government Relations Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)
  201 N Washington St, Alexandria, VA 22314-2539
  (800) 234-6622, ext 123; (703) 838-8123; fax (703) 838-8173 http://www.moaa.org

  One Powerful Voice.® For every officer at every stage of life and career.

  NDAA 2010 > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf

  Here is what I rec’d from Senator Brown (D_OH) :

  Dear Mr. Anders Ii:

  Thank you for sharing your views on concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability compensation. I appreciate your advocacy on this issue.

  Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their military service may receive retired pay from the Department of Defense (DOD) and may be eligible for veteran’s disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Current law requires military retirement pay be reduced by the amount of the veteran’s benefits.

  The 110th Congress extended the Combat Related Special Compensation program to include those who were medically retired prior to completing 20 years of service rather than a normal longevity retirement. In addition, those with a 100% VA Unemployability rating were granted full concurrent receipt, retroactive to December 31, 2004.

  I also joined Senator Harry Reid’s efforts to sign into law S.439, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. This legislation would allow concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and disability compensation for military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated less than 50 percent. It would also eliminate the phase-in of concurrent receipt benefits for retirees’ rated 90 percent or less and allow individuals who were forced into retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority to apply for Combat-Related Special Compensation.

  On September 27, 2007 the Senate passed this legislation as an amendment to H.R.1585, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 and the President signed this bill into law in early 2008.

  As the Senate considers the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, I will be sure to keep your views on this issue in mind. Thank you again for writing.

  Sincerely,

  Sherrod Brown
  United States Senator

  Comment by Dan — August 31, 2009 @ 8:06 am

• HEY – WHERE IS EVERYONE!!!!

  http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/lac_issues_update_090828.htm#issue4

  Input the URL and click on take action – it send email letters to your SEN and REPS.

  GO!!!

  V/r DAN

  Please see the Coalition letter that outlined the recommendation of 5.5 million members

  Comment by Dan — September 3, 2009 @ 11:36 am

• Mine has been sent – everyone else on board yet?

  Comment by NCCM(ret) — September 3, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

• Mine has been sent and forwarded to my friends.

  Comment by JT — September 3, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

• I have waiting for 41 years. I am 81.(CMSgt,USAF(retired,1968,23 years,with 30 percent permanent disability) Congress doesn’t have the right to make a law without due process. The military are the only one’s who have our constitutional rights violated. The US Constitution, “Admendment 5:”–No person shall — without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,without just compensation”. Veterans’ disability compensation is an entitlement program,like medicare and social security; that creates a property interest protecdted by the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. Once a veteran has been approved to receive disability pay, he or she is entitled to receive annual payment andcost-of-living adjustment 38 USC, Section 1104. I wonder
  if Senator Corbin,(R-OK)is aware of this? I think they believe we will just fade away like those who had “Agent Orange.” Seantor Reid said: “It is simply absurd to deny disable veterans every dollar they deserve.” We are the only one’s in this nation who are considered “second class citzens”. How does make us feel?

  Comment by Lon Z. Shuler — September 4, 2009 @ 1:14 am

• Mine went out last week. We all need to do this to get a shot at Justice. Let’s band together. Strength in numbers.

  Comment by Jerry — September 4, 2009 @ 6:26 am

• found this web site when looking up info on concurrent for chapter 61 vets. also the pic of the IKE really got me my old ship i served on . emailed all my US senators Spector an casey which are both co sponpser and are really for it but my repensative glenn o thompson is not for it so any one in PA who is repensatine by thompson should write him and askk him for his support

  Comment by tom — September 5, 2009 @ 9:39 am

• Just my 2 cents, but I’ve heard that an old-fashioned, hard copy letter has more impact. MOAA has templates of letters, ready to print, but a personalizing note (handwritten) doesn’t hurt either. I would encourage everyone to use three of their 42-cent stamps and, in addition to the emails, send written notes to all your senators/representatives. Some of their offices breakdown tallies by email/ phone messages/ letters.

  Comment by DK — September 5, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

• To all concerned sponsors,
  I was medically retired in the Navy back in Sep 07 due to the massive stroke I suffered in April 07. That was 2 months happened after my deployment from Iraq. I s it too much for you fellows to realize that being in the service, our time with our family instead. We took care what we supposed to accomplished and now cannot work no more. What am I gonna tell my daughter, that even to receive our benefits that I or we need to beg? Please approve this and let us make it happen for us, because the word us is we the American people. And God bless us all. thanks Chief Quitoriano

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 5, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

• Response to Chief Quitoriano. Hang in there Chief. We have a good shot at this for January 2010 although there are no guarantees. As for your Daughter Tell her you served Honorably I’m sure she is very proud of you. Jerry

  Comment by Jerry — September 5, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

• United we stand, divided we fall fellow veterans, I thank each and everyone of us for coming forward and speak for the same mission. We stood the watch, and truly if they care for what we did for this beautiful nation, hand in hand, let us march together to get our voices heard. Thank you all and looking forward for the President of this beautiful nation. May our Heavenly Father bless us all. President Obama. your word is your face. v/r
  ENC(SW/AW)USN Retired of San Diego California

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 5, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

• I sent this to all of my local media outlets.
  FW

  “A New Bonus Army” Returns to It’s Roots

  “A New Bonus Army” Returns to It’s Roots Take Action!

  Please send to your local media outlets.

  On September 21 – 23, 2009, members of the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees (USDR) will convene in Las Cruces, New Mexico to decide the future of their 28 year-old organization. The USDR was founded in 1981 by six disabled military retirees from the State of New Mexico, to repeal an unjust law enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1944, known as Public Law 78-314, (Title 38 USC, Sections 5304 and 5305). The law had prevented career military retirees from receiving their earned retirement annuity entitlement if they were disabled during military service and received a VA compensation for their disability.
  Ironically, this unjust law was passed only twelve years after the infamous “Bonus Army March” on Washington, DC. In the summer of 1932, in the depths of the first great Depression, some 45,000 World War I veterans (Bonus Army) descended on Washington, D.C. to demand immediate payment of a cash bonus promised them eight years earlier for their war-time service. Despite their efforts, the Bonus Bill was defeated in the Senate after passage in the House. Consequently, then Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur, under orders from President Hoover, drove the Bonus Army out of Washington, D.C. on July 28, 1932. Douglas used active duty soldiers wielding bayonet-tipped rifles, tanks, Calvary with drawn sabers and tear gas. Never before or since has our government used such an array of armament against its own citizens and veterans.
  In greater contrast, USDR members, disabled military retirees from subsequent wars, will return to its founding state to decide the future of the organization. After fighting a similar battle with the U.S. Congress for over twenty-eight years, they are battle weary of fighting with legislators and/or their staff, making phone calls and sending emails.
  Tony Nathe, the current USDR President, will drive from Sauk Rapids, Minnesota to Las Cruces to attend the event. “Even though our entitlements were earned through a lifetime career in the U.S. military, promises made by military recruiters and career counselors are continually broken by politicians who have come and gone,” said Nathe. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case and told the six New Mexico disabled retirees “Congress made the law, Congress can change the law”, however, the Congress continues to deny some decent, hard working, disabled military heroes their earned retirement.
  There will be no “tent city” where thousands of veterans were camped out in Washington, nor millions of compassionate citizens calling upon the Congress to immediately repeal this unjust law. Just a small meeting room, in an American Legion post, the remnants of “A New Bonus Army” will decide on their best course of action. How will they continue their fight for justice began in 1981 by their New Mexico predecessors? Maybe they will plant the seeds for a new “Bonus Army March on Washington, D.C.?
  For more information on joining USDR or to register for the 27th Annual Meeting of the USDR visit: usdr.org

  Comment by FW — September 6, 2009 @ 10:17 am

• Please help,

  I am a veteran who got out with 30% service connected dissability for my feet two years ago. I just recently got diagnose with arvd and got an ICD implanted on Mar 20. I experience symptoms in the military but I was never taken seriously and was never checked for my heart. My questions is for the gentlemen who have the same desease as me if they were diagnose while they were in or after? I have already been to my examination and I am supposed to hear back from the va in the next couple of weeks but I am curious to see if there is anyone else like me outhere who was diagnose after and still got the service connection?

  I know that this is a little off topic but this is the only website that I found that talks about service connection and people with arvd!

  Thanks

  Lenny

  Comment by Lenny — September 6, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

• Lenny,
  Try going to vets.yuku.com, click on Veterans Benefit Network. You might find some info on this site. Good luck.

  Comment by FW — September 6, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

• Lenny, also try watchdogdotorg This site is also very helpful for all kinds of information for veterans.Best of Luck , Jerry

  Comment by Jerry — September 7, 2009 @ 6:43 am

• Stop sending troops in Kuwait and all part of Middle East, to live under a tent when the heat @ 130degrees farenheit is unacceptable for our crew, troops you name it. The hope is only from the grace of Heavenly Father, not man. Please President Obama, how about a few days visit in Camp Patriot, Kuwait, where young men and women, from all branches of the Armed Forces of the US. Once you see them, you exactly feel how they live their lives as soldiers, sailors, and not as Adam and Steve. Adam and Eve I should say, not to offend anyone out there sorry. thank you.

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 7, 2009 @ 10:17 am

• Thanks for the information I just joined the youku website and i am in the process of submitting a tread.

  Thanks

  Lenny

  Comment by Lenny — September 7, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

• still everybody is sleeping safe and sound. hello America. wakeup

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 7, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

• I emailed this today, please feel free to send it to your representatives if you choose.

  DR. Coburn,

  As a U.S. Senator you have acted in a fashion that is more fitting to our enemies than our representatives. You have voted for appropriations that authorized and funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (at an annual rate of 200 billion +), part of this is getting our wounded warriors home and taking care of them once they return. They are not to be treated as “no deposit, no return” economic “collateral damage”. They are American soldiers, our nation’s sons and daughters and if you don’t stand with them, then you stand against them. Your quibbling over the need for “offsets” is sheer sophistry and you know it. These men and women have often fought multiple tours and now you can’t find 500 million a year to compensate them at a minimum level so they can start to rebuild their lives at home. As a vet, I brand this treason, and so do my brother and sister veterans, and by the way, 99 out of 100 Republican and Democratic senators agree with us on this one. Your lone negative vote on concurrent receipt legislation for severely disabled veterans has slowed down what should have been a unanimous vote of support for our military men and women. This is no time for you to play partisan politics against Senator Reid for your PERSONAL political agenda. If you plan to grandstand over wounded/disabled bodies, then remember that our memories are long, our allegiances across generations are unbreakable and our vote is powerful. You will pay for your perfidy and we will rally to win just support for our dead and severely injured. I am really not interested in the justifications of the flack catchers in your front office. I want commitment to economic justice for the men and women who fight when their commander and chief asks for their whole hearted allegiance (NO MATTER WHAT PARTY IS PRESIDENT). We expect nothing less than respect and fair treatment when we return home and the argument that “we can’t afford it” is not acceptable. Maybe you can cut a few presidential helicopters and congressional junkets from your budget to come up with the necessary and I stress “NECESSARY” money for this duty. I suggest you talk to your colleagues John McCain and Jim Webb (who’s sons are on the battle field), and to the thousands who have fought been wounded and had their families suffer because of their sacrifice. Please stop sending us the same glib nonsensical excuses you and your staff so disgracefully peddle to the press.

  Sincerely,

  Fred Parkhurst USN (ret), Everett, Washington

  Chip Hollister, Columbia Cross Roads, Pennsylvania

  Comment by FW — September 7, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

• Well Said.

  Comment by Jerry — September 8, 2009 @ 6:06 am

• Lenny,

  Be advised, AICD is rated under Diagnostic Code 7011. Since it is permanent, it is rated at 100%. Your service records should show complaints of heart issues, that is what you need to provide to the VA doctor. Good luck!

  Comment by Flash — September 8, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

• Lenny, I was diagnosed with ARVD as well but I was in the Navy at the time and was medically retired due to it. If you complained about your heart and chest pain or the rapid pulse that comes with the disease then it should be in your medical record and if it is there then its considered service connected. If its not in your record then you’re going to have a rough time proving that its service connected. For example, while on the ship I was carrying something with a senior chief, he dropped his end causing me to drop mine and it landed on my foot. It completely blew out my steel toe boot. I went to the corpsman and he said I broke my big toe but there wasn’t anything he could do for me. That event never made it into my medical record. As it turns out I did more than break my toe, I also broke part of my foot, but I can’t get a rating on it because there is no record of it.
  As for the ARVD, I was diagnosed and implanted in December of 08. I received my first shock this past june because I was being stupid, I forgot my meds and I went for a jog. Both are big no-no’s as it turns out. There is a great group on yahoo for ARVD, lots of info and other people with the disease. Just look up ARVD under Yahoo groups, its the one called mmetra.
  Good luck and take it easy,
  John Croce

  Comment by John Croce — September 8, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

• Thank you all for your responses. I did complaint of fatigue nausea, cold sweat and palpitation and there is records of me complaining for those things, I was never told what it was wrong with me. I never complaint of heart pain because at the time I did not know that those symptoms could be caused by my heart. Because I stop exercising because of my legs and my other symptoms stopped, because I was not exercising. I know that my case can go ethier way but I hope that they see the correlation and that they understand that because they never did as much as an ekg was why my condition went untreated and undetected.

  Thanks,

  Lenny

  Comment by lenny — September 8, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

• Lenny, ARVD is a hard disease to diagnose. I had several EKG’s while in the Navy and I kept getting told that everything looked great. What finally caught their attention was when by heart rate jumped to 290bpm AND I was able to get to the ER. They had to use the paddles on me to get my heart back into a normal rhythem, that was when they brought in an EP instead of a cardiologist and after a week of tests I was finally diagnosed.
  What branch were you in? Are you living near the East Coast? Johns Hopkins has a great ARVD group and if you can you should go there, see if you can get a referral. I’m taking 80mg of Sotalol 2X a day, what meds did they give you?
  If you want to ask any questions at all you can write me at johncroce[at]yahoo.com (replace [at] with @ for correct email address)
  Take it easy and good luck
  John

  Comment by John Croce — September 8, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

• Thanks for your reply,

  I am in the east coast in tampa to be exact, I was never diagnose in the military they just told me that my body was overworking itself and as for arvd you know that if you don’t catch the episode in the moment everything looks fine after. I had a couple of episodes back to back that reminded me of the military but they seem to get worse and worse. When I finnaly went to the doctors after having palpitations for three hours they told me that everything was ok and to resume my normal life. A week later I had another episode and I went to the hospital I had my hr at 248 and they had to shock me to get me back to norma. I started with 80 mg of sotalol but I got shocked already and was moved up to the 120 mg twice a day. This has all been withing 6 months. I hope to level off an not be shocked anymore as this is not a pleasant experience. My only hope is that the va can see the correlation of my symptoms and my desease and can award me the much needed help I need.

  Thank you all for your comments.

  Lenny

  Comment by Lenny — September 8, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

• First and foremost, it’s alright to miss taking your meds, but please don’t miss giving thanks and praise to the giver of life. God bless. Mel

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 9, 2009 @ 10:57 am

• so how much should I be recieving soon, being medically retired @ 100% by DOD and VA rated me 100 % also permanent. time in service 20 years and 11 months. Date of retirement was 13 september 2007. please help me out. I will soon be transferred to PDRL. severely disabled. please I need brains here.

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 9, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

• I was medicaly retired in 1968 as an E-3 at 50% from the U.S.A.F. My time in served on active duty was 2 years and 8 months, which was State side only. My disabilaty was inflicted during my training school which was for the support of B-52 bombers S.A.C. Squadrones.
  In 1998 I was rated at 100% permanent and total by the V.A. with Cronic kidney disease, service conected. I received a kidney transplant in Aug.of 2001. I have been in the V.A. hospital more times than I can count for relater problems from the disease,kidney diyolases and transplant. The amount of surgerys I have had is 26.
  With this information I would like to know if I meet the requierments for concurrent retierment pay and V.A. compensation.
  I ahve been following this HR-2990 debate since it was introduced to the House of Representatives. It is to confusing to comprehend. I have contacted Air Force presonel in San Antonio Tx. All it did was confues me more. They patched me over to a Gov. service that has all the info. on concurrent pay. I think it’s all a big monkey #^$#@#. Plaese help.
  Ed U.S.A.F. Retired
  P.S. I was shipped to Chealse Navey Hospital in Boston Mass in 1968. My stay was for 1 year 2 months. My longest time in service was spent at Chelsea N.H.. I Thank God every day for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corp. They saved my life more than once.

  Comment by Edward A. McGIlly — September 10, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

• John in reference to your remarks of the incident of droping something on your foot. Do you have a MRI or X-ray to verify the condition of your foot. You can also get a statement from the Chief who was with you. He will be an eye witness to the accident. That is your proof that it happened. Further, get statedments from your buddies that knew the about the accident. Good luck. Lon

  Comment by Lon Z. Shuler — September 11, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

• Has anyone read comment CLXV111. If I could get an anewer to my question, anyone please. It would be greatly appreciated.
  Thank you, ED

  Comment by Edward A. McGIlly — September 12, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

• Ed, If I read this correctly then you would be eligible for the Concurrent Pay with the reduction applied from the lesser of the 2 following reductions:
  A) the amount of the reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38; or

  `(B) the amount (if any) by which the amount of the member’s retired pay under such chapter exceeds the amount equal to 2 1/2 percent of the member’s years of creditable service multiplied by the member’s retired pay base under section 1406(b)(1) or 1407 of this title, whichever is applicable to the member.’.

  With that said, I am not an expert on this and this is only the way that I read this.

  Good luck,
  Jamie

  Comment by JT — September 12, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

• so what i should be getting for 20 yrs and 11 months. medically retired both dod and VA@ 100% permanent. I need clarification please. please refer to question CLXVII thank you for your feedback.
  Chief Q Retired

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — September 13, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

• Jamie;
  Thank you for your help. I will ivestigate chapter 38 and use the sections as you sujested. I sent away for the application for concurrent pay. There is not enough questions asked to explain your disabilaty and how this was incurred. There is a phone number given if you need help.
  Again thank you Jamie. Ed

  Comment by Edward A. McGIlly — September 14, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

• http://www.dav.org 15 Sep 09- GAry Senise (actor is leading a DAV Virtual March today.

  Join now…have your voice noted…

  V/r Dan Anders II

  Comment by DAN ANDERS II — September 15, 2009 @ 9:36 am

• Today, I received a response to my letter to Senator Corker of TN. Here is an excerpt from his response;

  “I would have supported Senator Reid’s amendment concerning concurrent receipt of both military retired pay and disability compensation but this amendment was not brought before the Senate for a vote. As you mentioned the House has a similar provision in its version of the bill.

  The House and Senate have yet to reconcile the differences in their respective bills. However, the insight you have provided in your letter will certainly help my staff and me more effectively consider these issues when the FY2010 Defense Authorization bill conference report comes before the full Senate for a final vote and I thank you for your input.”

  Comment by NCCM(ret) — September 17, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

• Has anyone seen H.R.2647 I think This passed if iam redind it right

  Comment by Robert — September 17, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

• Division D – Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009
  Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009 –
  Title I – Compensation and Benefits for Members of the Armed Forces and Military Retirees
  Subtitle A – Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
  Section 101 –
  Extends through 2010 specified authorities currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2009 with respect to certain special pay and bonus programs within the regular and reserve Armed Forces.
  Subtitle B – Retired Pay Benefits
  Section 111 –
  Provides for the recomputation of retired pay and adjustment of the retired grade of reserve retirees recalled to an active status in the Selected Reserve for at least two years. Authorizes the Secretary of the military department concerned to reduce the two-year service requirement for a member so recalled to serve as an adjutant or assistant adjutant general in the National Guard when the member serves for at least six months but fails to serve for two years as required by the laws of the state, district, or territory in which the member is serving.
  Section 112 –
  Allows members who serve in an active reserve status in the Selected Reserve for at least two years after becoming eligible for active-duty (regular) retirement to elect a non-regular retirement for which they are qualified in lieu of the active-duty retirement. Authorizes the Secretary concerned to reduce the two-year service requirement for a member so recalled to serve as an adjutant or assistant adjutant general in the National Guard when the member serves for at least six months but fails to serve for two years as required by the laws of the state, district, or territory in which the member is serving.
  Subtitle C – Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and Veterans’ Disability Compensation
  Section 121 –
  Extends through 2013 eligibility for the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation for veterans who were retired or separated due to physical disability, regardless of their disability rating or years of service.

  THIS IS IN H.R. 2647

  Comment by Robert — September 17, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

• Hey guys, I need help and I didn’t know where else to post this. I was medically retired in June and decided to use the GI Bill to go back to school since the nature of my injury prevents me from working in the field that I was trained in. So, I submitted my application electronically on 28May09, the GI Bill folks lost it until 13July09, they then sent it to the wrong office, St. Louis instead of Buffalo, and filed it in the wrong category, supplemental instead of original. So, I find all this out just a few days ago and the GI Bill folks tell me they now have it in the correct office etc… The problem is that they say its still going to take the normal eight weeks to process. That means that a process that is only supposed to take 8 weeks is actually taking six months. Do any of you know of someone to call in the VA that can expedite this or at least look into it? It might sound silly or frivilous, but retirement pay isn’t enough to live off of and buy books, tuition etc…
  I appreciate any suggestions you guys have,
  thanks,
  John

  Comment by John Croce — September 18, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

• I just want to update you guys I got a phone call from the va stating that they did give me the service connection for my arvd they gave me 70 percent. They missed the defibulator part but I will do a letter of recosideration since according to dc7011 it’s an automatic 100 percent. Thanks for all of your imput and for helping me through this.

  Lenny

  Comment by Lenny — September 18, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

• John, Are you using the Post 911 GI Bill? If you just got out you should be qualified for this and this will give you living expenses in addition to your tuition. This also may be the cause of the confusion in the VA. They are so slammed right now with the Post 911 Gi Bill applications that it has really bogged them down. I am not sure how the confusion started. You can talk to the VA Rep at the school that you want to go. They will have contacts at VA that they can call or give you to call. I have used the VA website under the Gi Bill Contacts. I have asked questions through the e-mail contact and they have responded pretty quickly.

  Good Luck,
  JT

  Comment by JT — September 18, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

• I have actually been writing a bit about the GI Bill – http://www.navycs.com/blogs/category/benefits

  It will be up to your school to let you start and wait for the VA to pay the tuition, books – the VA will pay $41.67 per credit hour to a max of $1000 per year, you don’t have to save receipts – it is automatic.

  It does sound as if you may also qualify for a federal grant (free money) http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/ You must be enrolled in school to get the money after they verify your income / getting the GI Bill is not a determining factor when they determine if you are qualified to get the grant.

  Comment by NCCM(ret) — September 18, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

• Anyone have anything to add about CRDP of late? Hope you all are still fighting.

  V/r Dan

  Comment by DAN ANDERS II — September 22, 2009 @ 8:38 am

• Congress may wind up the NDAA negotiations this weekend for a vote Tuesday night on the final bill that could authorize concurrent receipt for Ch. 61 retirees with less than 20 years service. MOAA has the following:

  “House and Senate leaders are working NOW to finish action on the FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill — and will be making final decisions soon on many issues that affect you and your family.

  There are important differences between the House and Senate bills on health care, manpower levels, concurrent receipt, SBP/DIC, Guard/Reserve retirement, and many more personnel and compensation issues.

  Please send the MOAA-suggested message urging your legislators to make these important fixes in the final version of the defense bill.”

  You can still send your Senators and Congressman a final email encouraging support for this and other important personnel policies, here: http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/alert/?alertid=13943701&type=CO

  Comment by DK — September 25, 2009 @ 7:16 am

• I know that I don’t know much about how the budgeting system in congress works, but I do know that today is the first of the fiscal year. Doesn’t that mean that the budget has to be done? So do we have an answer as to whether or not Concurrent Receipt for chapter 61 Vets was approved in some form or other?
  Just wondering.
  Thanks,
  John

  Comment by John Croce — October 1, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

• John,
  I have been all over the internet and calling my senators and congressmen to get an update. From what i’ve been told it is still being hashed out between the house and senate. They have to look at what is different between the 2 defense bills and vote to keep it in the defense bill or not. I dont think we will find out until they they read the final bill.. We need to keep our fingers crossed and keep on our congressman and senators to make sure they know we mean buisness..

  Eddie

  Comment by Eddie — October 1, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

• John,
  There are two separate bills every year that deal with the defense department programs and budgets. The appropriations bill is the one that has to be passed by 1 October or the government stops. Congress did pass an extension (continuing resolution) on Weds., which funds the government as a stop gap until the appropriations bill for defense is passed. That said, the bill to watch is the NDAA (defense authorization bill), and entirely different law that “authorizes” programs and expenditures. It is this bill that will determine the CR for Ch. 61 issue. While the Appropriations bill is being debated now, the Authorization bill is in committee still. According to the newspaper, “The Hill”, the staffers working on that bill have been instructed to be prepared to work through this weekend. That’s a good sign that the compromise bill may emerge next week. Long story short, keep an eye out for the Authorization bill and ignore the Appropriations bill (the one in the general news). We should know Yea or Nay I’m guessing by the end of next week.

  Comment by DK — October 2, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

• Oct 5, 2009:

  An update from today’s “TheHill”, the newspaper on Capital Hill. Looks like another week before we know what’s in the NDAA conference report and, hence, the status of the Ch. 61 issue:

  “Defense authorizers are on the cusp of announcing a conference agreement on the 2010 defense policy bill.

  The final conference report likely will be ready next week—but not before the House formally appoints its conferees on the bill. So far negotiations have taken place informally between the leaders of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee.” Full article is here:

  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/61479-defense-conferees-close-to-deal

  Comment by dK — October 5, 2009 @ 9:32 am

• RE: My last note (above). The dateline on the article was last Friday, not today, so I guess this means we should “probably” know something THIS week, not next… Fingers crossed.

  Comment by dK — October 5, 2009 @ 9:41 am

• excited and still waiting what’s up
  hope for the best for all of us.
  r/ Chief Quitoriano of San Diego

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — October 6, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

• not looking good for us 2010 ndaa

  Comment by tom — October 7, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

• looks like our only hope is a presidental veto and we know that isnt coing to happen..

  Comment by Eddie — October 7, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

• I was wondering where you saw this (Eddie)? We have been following this issue closely. Thanks!

  Comment by Beth — October 7, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

• here is highlight of 2020 ndaaa http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/HASCFY10NDAA061709.pdf

  Comment by tom — October 8, 2009 @ 6:06 am

• oops2010 not awake yet other release out there stating adminstration didnt consider on how to finance this samething thats said every year always next year or the president vetos it and ask for it and i do not see that happening

  Comment by tom — October 8, 2009 @ 6:09 am

• Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see one word in that military plan about retirees. Is there another plan that covers retirees or did they just leave us out entirely?

  Comment by JT — October 8, 2009 @ 9:20 am

• still waiting on president barack hussein obamas promise to us.

  Comment by melchor Quitoriano — October 8, 2009 @ 11:45 am

• You are looking at the H.R. write up, not the P.L. or joint resolution folks

  Comment by Flash — October 8, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

• I hate to say this, but this time around I think its time for the fat lady to sing.

  Comment by sandy — October 8, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

• Where is the P.L or the joint resolution?

  Comment by JT — October 8, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

• Here’s a part of the MOAA update on the 2010 NDAA:
  Unfortunately, the new legislation also produced some significant disappointments in that it:

  Dropped the House plan to phase out the disability offset to retired pay for medically retired (chapter 61) members. This is a particularly devastating setback because, for the first time, the President’s budget had included this measure, and House leaders had found funding for the first year. Some in the Senate objected to the specific funding sources identified by the House, and leaders could not find other offsets to comply with Senate budget-scoring rules.

  Sad day – god bless all.

  Comment by JH — October 8, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

• Looks like another year before CRDP changes…….Oh well

  Comment by Gary Ballard — October 8, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

• See you guys next year

  Comment by JT — October 9, 2009 @ 12:29 am

• Defense bill has gains, losses in benefits
  By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
  Inpatient Fee Hikes Blocked; Obama’s ‘CR’ Plan Rejected

  The last decision made by House-Senate conferees negotiating final details on a fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill Tuesday was to insert language that will rollback an announced Oct. 1 increase in fees charged to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries for stays in civilian hospitals.

  Related Military Update: “Small” Inpatient Fee Hike Is 21%

  The surprise fee increases, which were reported here last week, gave lawmakers a chance to ride to the rescue and, in effect, put a cherry atop the $680.2 billion defense policy bill, at least for working-age military retirees and their families who would have seen a $110-a-day bump in hospital bills.

  That was a fortuitous opportunity for the armed services committees because other pay and benefit initiatives in the bill are relatively modest compared to past years. And the gains are dampened by some too-familiar legislative disappointments for service members, veterans and their families.

  One new disappointment is that the Democratically-led Congress couldn’t find money to support President Obama’s call to phase in “concurrent receipt” for disabled retirees who are forced by ailments or injuries to leave service before completing 20 years’ service.

  Learn more about TRICARE.

  His plan would have boosted the pay of 103,000 “Chapter 61″ retirees at a cost of $5.4 billion over 10 years. The House alone had voted to take the first step, using dollars freed up from an energy appropriation, to expand the Concurrent Receipt and Disability Pay (CRDP) program Jan. 1, to retirees with fewer than 20 years and disability ratings of 100 percent or 90 percent.

  But Senate conferees concluded it would violate Senate budget rules to take even a first-step in Obama’s phase-in plan without proper funding.

  The principle behind concurrent receipt is that the Department of Defense should pay retirees an annuity for total years served and VA should fully compensate them for their disabilities. For many thousands of disabled retirees, retired pay still is reduced or “offset” by disability compensation.

  Obama promised in his presidential campaign to extend concurrent receipt to all disabled military retirees. But White House budget officials were stunned to learn the cost — $45 billion over 10 years – and so lowered their first-term target to all Chapter 61 retirees, clearly an unpopular compromise.

  House-Senate Conferees also rejected two familiar Senate-passed initiatives as unfunded. One would have ended a reduction in Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) payments to 54,000 widows who also draw Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  The other provision tossed would have made 140,000 more reservists mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001, eligible for earlier reserve retirement. In 2007, Congress had lowered the age 60 start of reserve retired pay by three months for every 90 consecutive days that a Reserve or Guard members is called up for war or national emergency, if they otherwise qualify for retirement. For lack of funds, Congress made the change applicable only for deployment time after Jan. 28, 2008. That restriction will remain will remain.

  Conferees did clear for final passage dozens of other initiatives: to raise or extend special pay and bonuses; to improve support for wounded warriors, reserve component personnel and their families; to protect and improve the military health program and to strengthen voting rights for service members. Here are some highlights:
  http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=65276

  Comment by KH — October 9, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

• I just found this action that looks to have happened in the house on the 7th:

  H.RES.808
  Title: Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes.
  Sponsor: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] (introduced 10/7/2009) Cosponsors (None)
  Related Bills: H.CON.RES.196, H.R.2647
  Latest Major Action: 10/8/2009 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 – 188 (Roll no. 765).
  House Reports: 111-289

  Anybody know if this means CDRP for CH61’s still has some life this year?

  Comment by JH — October 9, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

• Does anyone know if 20 Year retirees with 40% or less get any concurrent out of this “Lying administration”….

  V/r Dan

  Comment by Dan Anders II — October 10, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

• 20 Year retirees with 40% or less get concurrent receipt only if their injury is “combat related”. The over 400,000 retired disabled veterans who have a service connected disability that is not combat related do not receive concurrent receipt. This created the categories of worthy and unworthy for those who do or do not receive concurrent receipt.

  Comment by KH — October 11, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

• Hi guys, I’m retired Air Force and I found out two months after retiring that I had parathyroid disease. I eventually had the surgery and also developed osteoporosis from this. Since it’s within one year of retiring and I most likely had this for who knows how long will both diseases be service connected. I’m rated at 30% right now for shoulder and hearing. Thanks
  Mike

  Comment by Mike — October 11, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

• Mike, You just need to contact the VA and they will most likely make it service connected. I had a friend that got out of the military and a little less than a year later he collapsed from a brain tumor. It took a little while for the processing but it was found to be service connected since it was a short time after getting discharged.
  Good Luck and stay on top of the VA to get your paperwork complete.

  Comment by JT — October 12, 2009 @ 4:22 am

• Dan (Anders):

  When you use terms like “Lying Administration” what do you mean? Obama’s promise, which he reiterated, was to include CR for Ch. 61 retirees. He included that in his budget. The president cannot “order” a new entitlement. The congress let us down big time. Let’s be sure we know who we mean. The congress is NOT part of the administration, so I think we can find various congressmen who promised to get us the bill this round who didn’t come thru. Obama is not one of those.

  Comment by DK — October 15, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

• Anybody think the second aircraft engine and no CRDP is enough for the President to veto the 2010 NDAA? I haven’t been able to find any reaction or expressions of outrage in the media to this other than Hill at the Legion.

  Comment by JH — October 15, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

• A very good question, where are the veteran organizations who spend millions of dollars on conventions every year? Why aren’t they using their media power to jam the airways with outrage? It would appear to me they’re more concerned about their public image and not the welfare of veterans they’re supposed to represent. Keep sending in your dues, someone has to attend the yearly conventions……..

  Comment by FW — October 15, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

• Just providing the following info to show that President Obama made his initial promise to grant concurrent receipt to “all” groups not receiving the benefit. He later changed it to Chapter 61 only as a cost saving measure. If anyone wants the source for that information would be glad to provide it. What follows is his promise to support concurrent receipt for all retired disabled veterans:

  Searching the internet on the AMVETS web site the magazine can be found which has the article by Isaac D. Pacheco, titled “The Case for Hope”, in which then President Obama was interviewed on may questions facing veterans in our country.

  Seven questions were asked of President Obama. The second question is as follows:

  AMERICAN VETERAN: Concurrent Receipt is currently a step-in model. All VSOs have called for an immediate change to full concurrent receipt. What are your feelings on this issue?

  PRESIDENT OBAMA: I support immediately and completely ending the veterans disability tax and providing full concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits. Both forms of compensation are provided for different purposes. One is for a payment for a lifetime of service, the other is compensation for disabilities sustained in the line of duty.

  Comment by KH — October 16, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

• HI,
  Will full concurrent receipt still be phased in by 2013 regardless
  for all retirees rated at 40% and lower if not combat related? Or is
  this just a possibility that may happen after everyone gets their welfare checks, free access, and other BS bail out programs. There wouldn’t be any bailout plans if not for the sacrifices of our
  brothers and sisters in arms.
  Mike ret. MSgt

  Comment by Mike — October 17, 2009 @ 11:37 am

• President Obama wanted to extend concurrent receipt to chapter 61 retirees, as far as I know there is only the regular retired and the chapter 61, I’m not aware of any other group of retirees. I also want to remind you that it was Tom Colburn(R-OK) that put the k-bosh on concurrent receipts for us. For some reason people keep looking to blame this administration and the democrats for this failure, it wasn’t them. Obama cannot just unilaterally grant concurrent receipts, the “power of the purse” lies with the legislative branch. Senator Reid was looking out for us but it was a republican senator that squashed it. There seems to be a misconception that the republican party is for the military, and its only partly true. They believe in military spending in the form of R&D, new ships, more weapons, more troops, etc… They don’t look out for the actual military member. The last republican to do that was Reagan, that was over 20 years ago. Since then our largest pay increase came from a democrat(Bill Clinton) the only reason we had a few good pay increases in the early 2000’s was because the payraises that Clinton signed were not done. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/138109/ Bush did nothing for our troops in the form of compensation, he milked congress for money to fund the war while offering the smallest pay increases for our troops since before Reagan took office. And thats not even bringing up the moral question of putting American lives in danger for whatever his cause or crusade in the middle east was. For some reason people here are trying to politicize this topic and it shouldn’t be about that, it should be about the government doing what is right, blaming one party or the other doesn’t help especially if you don’t have your facts straight.
  V/R
  John

  Comment by John Croce — October 23, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

• There are now 43 sponsors for S-546. Saw and October date for one senator who added their name. Least there still is new support for this legilsation. Maybe they can pass it as “stand alone” legisation and get it passed. What follows is the list of the 43 supporters.

  Sen Baucus, Max [MT] – 10/15/2009 Sen Begich, Mark [AK] – 5/4/2009
  Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 5/19/2009 Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 5/19/2009
  Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 3/16/2009 Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 3/10/2009
  Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 6/17/2009 Sen Burris, Roland [IL] – 3/23/2009
  Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 3/12/2009 Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 4/20/2009
  Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 3/19/2009 Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 4/20/2009
  Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] – 4/21/2009 Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] – 3/12/2009
  Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 3/10/2009 Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 6/3/2009
  Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 4/2/2009 Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 5/14/2009
  Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 3/10/2009 Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 3/10/2009
  Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 3/10/2009 Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 3/16/2009
  Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 6/25/2009 Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 3/10/2009
  Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] – 3/10/2009 Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 4/1/2009
  Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 3/12/2009 Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 9/23/2009
  Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 3/11/2009 Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 4/20/2009
  Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 5/4/2009 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 3/12/2009
  Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] – 3/25/2009 Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 3/10/2009
  Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] – 4/20/2009 Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] – 3/17/2009
  Sen Tester, Jon [MT] – 3/23/2009 Sen Udall, Mark [CO] – 6/3/2009
  Sen Udall, Tom [NM] – 4/23/2009 Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 3/18/2009
  Sen Warner, Mark R. [VA] – 9/22/2009 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 3/10/2009
  Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 3/10/2009

  Comment by KH (1 comments.) — October 23, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

• This website has had no action since the fall of HR-2990 Concurrent pay. So to get your blood boiling how about this; Nancy Pallocie is the Speacker of the House. Her husband owns 47% of Star Kiss Tuna Comp. Star Kiss owns Dole food products. Dole Food’s has plantations through the Islands of The American Samoa. Dole employs 95% of Samoas workers. The last unemployment insurance increse went fron $5 and change to $7 and change. Nancy, using her clout, did not allow the work force on the Samoan Islands to get this nation wide bennie. A plus for her hubby. Dole was exempt from paying the raise. That’s not all; in this years vote to pass the 2010 budget Nancy, some how pushed in a multi, multi, million dollar fund to be given to the work force of the People of The American Samoans.
  This fund paid by the American tax payer is subsedising the unemployment insurance that Nancys husbands company, Dole was exempt from paying. That puts more profit in the pockets for Dole and Star Kiss. This should be an inpecable cause or jail time for Nancy. She has the balls to call Republicans “robbers”.
  This type of tit for tat has been rampid for a long time in our state and federal capitals. So what’s new????
  I would like to know why Nancy and the majority leader of the house put the kabosh on concurrent military and V.A.bill HR-2990?? We the people were told the budget cant skim any more cash off the 2010 budget for it’s Disabled Military retired veterans. i guess the media still has stars in their eyes and kisses all around for the Dems. We;again got the shaft big time. Ed

  Comment by Edward A. McGIlly — November 2, 2009 @ 11:57 am

• John (Croce)
  Excellent post a couple entries above. But reading further on past your FACTS, it seems that facts can be inconvenient. Now Nancy Pelosi is the one who torpedo’d CR for Ch 61? Yikes. This is why we will continue to make so little progress.

  Thanks also to this thread. It has been (overall) the most informative place on the web, IMHO. I hope we’ll keep up the fight — it will be harder, but that’s no reason to quit.

  Don

  Comment by DK — November 3, 2009 @ 7:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

Leave a comment