Chapter 61 Military Retired and Disability Pay

Concurrent Receipt in 2011?

February 1st, 2010

Last year, in his budget, President Obama proposed “to expand concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation to all retirees receiving disability retired pay.” We tracked the progress of the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2009 closely, and we were disappointed when we found the bill failed, even with overwhelming support, because, from what it boiled down too, the bill did not meet the “PAYGO” rules.

This year, a similar proposal is in the 2011 budget – but, unlike last year, the verbiage actually states, “The 2011 Budget also includes the additional funding required to expand this program to include military members retired under the disability rules codified in Chapter 61 of Title 10 of the United States Code.”, “Legislative proposal, not subject to PAYGO.”

Are all the bases covered this time?

Excerpt from the 2011 budget proposal;

The 2011 payment to the Military Retirement Fund includes funds for the amortization of the unfunded liability for all retirement benefits earned by military personnel for service prior to 1985. The amortization schedule for the unfunded liability is determined by the Department of Defense Retirement Board of Actuaries. Included in the unfunded liability are the consolidated requirements of the military departments to cover retired officers and enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; retainer pay of enlisted personnel of the Fleet Reserve of the Navy and Marine Corps; and survivors’ benefits.
The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108–136) created additional benefits for certain retirees who receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs and moved the responsibility for payments under the Combat Related Special Compensation program to the Military Retirement Fund.Any additional funding requirements for retirees with service prior to 1985 will be included in this payment. The 2011 Budget also includes the additional funding required to expand this program to include military members retired under the disability rules codified in Chapter 61 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

PAYMENT TO MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND
(Legislative proposal, not subject to PAYGO)
Program and Financing (in millions of dollars)

Download the rest of the document in PDF format (HERE)

An update published in the Army Times:

Plan would boost pay for Chapter 61 retirees

By Rick Maze – Staff writer
Posted : Friday May 21, 2010 14:55:24 EDT

House Democratic leaders unveiled a plan late Thursday to provide a temporary increase in retired pay for about 30,000 people whose military careers were cut short by severe service-connected disabilities.

For 22 months — from Jan. 1, 2011, until Sept. 30, 2012 — people with fewer than 20 years of service who are receiving military disability retired pay for service-connected disabilities rated by the Veterans Affairs Department at 100 percent would be allowed to receive full veterans’ disability and military retired pay.

Also eligible would be people who are formally rated as 90 percent disabled but are considered fully disabled because their injuries prevent them from holding a job.

For nine months — from Jan. 1, 2012, until Sept. 30, 2012 — the right to receive full veterans disability compensation and military disability retired pay would be extended to those with fewer than 20 years of service who have disabilities rated at 70 percent or greater.

On Oct. 1, 2012, payments would cease to these so-called Chapter 61 retirees, named for the section of law that covers military disability retirement.

Chapter 61 retirees with more than 20 years of service who are covered by existing law regarding concurrent receipt of military and benefits would not be affected by the change.

How much additional money would be received would depend on several factors, including an individual’s rank and years of service when medically retired and how much the Veterans Affairs Department is paying that person in disability, said Michael Hayden of the Military Officers Association of America.

For example, a medically retired E-7 with 16 years of service with a disability rated at 100 percent would see about $1,500 more a month. A 100 percent disabled O-4 with 16 years of service who is receiving disability retired pay would see about $2,700 more, Hayden said.

The additional payments would be provided through Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments, one of the Pentagon’s two concurrent receipt programs. CRDP is already provided to many other disabled retirees but is not available to Chapter 61 military disability retirees with fewer than 20 years of service.

About 12,000 of the military disability retirees would be covered by the Jan. 1, 2011, change and another 20,000 by the Jan. 1, 2012 change.

The temporary benefits are included in HR 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, which Congress will try to pass before its Memorial Day recess. Concurrent receipt of retiree and veterans benefits is one of several “sweeteners” added to the bill in an effort to get enough votes for passage, but it is still unclear if there will be enough support.

One of the big issues facing the measure is that it contains more than $100 billion in spending, offset by only about $44 billion in government cost reductions through changes in tax law. That makes a vote for the bill difficult for lawmakers opposed to deficit spending.

Total cost of the Chapter 61 concurrent receipt provisions are estimated at $686 million.

The decision to add military disability retirement benefits to the tax extender bill comes after the House Armed Services Committee was unable to include an Obama administration request to help Chapter 61 retirees in the $760 billion defense authorization bill that the committee passed on Wednesday because of budget limitations.

The White House proposal, submitted to Congress in February, called for a permanent change in law that would have completely phased out over five years the offset in military retired pay required of those who also receive veterans’ disability pay. In addition to Chapter 61 retirees, other retirees with service-connected disabilities that are low-rated and not considered the result of combat or combat-related training also are still subject to the offset.

Rick Jones of the National Association for Uniformed Services said the proposal for temporary benefits falls far short of that the Obama administration promised, but added, “We welcome forward movement.”

Still, he said, some severely disabled veterans who will be helped by temporary benefits “are not going to feel very comfortable about the situation because of the expiration date on the provision,” Jones said.

Jones said he would also like the concurrent receipt provisions to be attached to a less controversial bill.

“It is, of course, progress, and incremental progress is what we are looking for,” said MOAA’s Hayden.

Read Comments (21)

21 Comments »

While it is good to see Chapter 61 retirees getting concurrent receipt, the proposal is largely bogus.

The proposal by the Obama administration, largely ignores the issue of concurrent receipt.

Here the administration is proposing concurrent receipt for Chapter 61 retirees, and saying that when the year 2015 comes all Chapter 61 retirees will get their “retirement pay”, and their “disability pay”.
Hot digity dog! Great headlines in the news for ignoring the true essense of the issue of concurrent receipt.

Last year the Obama administration dropped their original proposal to include “all” veterans left out of concurrent receipt. They did this by stating a bogus amount of over 40 billion dollars to cover all categories of veterans who are denied concurrent receipt. The actual cost to cover “all” veterans in every category is closer to the 20 billion dollar amount over a ten year period. The administration used the reasoning that they would cover the Chapter 61 retiree, because the cost to cover all retired disabled veterans was to great. That merits another hot digity dog!

For the real truth to be known, there are currently over 450,000 retired disabled veterans. under 50% disabled, who each month have their disability payment from the VA, deducted dollar for dollar, related to the percentage of disability from their retirement pay.
This is the group that was orginally left out of the concurrent receipt legislation in 2004, when the Chapter 61 folks were not even in consideration.

The Veterans Disability commission recommended in their recommendations to the President and Congress, that concurrent receipt be enacted for the remaining veterans who do not receive the benefit. Their top priority was the retired disabled veteran who has served twenty or more years, having their disability deducted from their retirement pay on a monthly basis. The second priority was concurrent receipt for Chapter 61 retirees.

The current administration has twisted the logic of the commission, and placed Chapter 61 retirees before veterans who have served twenty or more years. It is good for the Chapter 61 veteran, but it is simply used as a ruse to ignore the validity of the true issue of concurrent receipt.

A real news flash needs to be sent to the new administration. Obama made a promise to support concurrent receipt, and end the veterans disablity tax, for all retired disabled veterans. He made this promise in the AMVETS magazine. during an interview for the winter issue in 2009.

The president and his administration should be congratulated for their support of the issue of concurrent receipt, but their proposal does not go far enough to end the injustice of this issue.

A last point of interest would be the Presidents statement that he supports the military family, and veterans. He states: “Now they will be receiving both their military retirement, and their disabilty payment”. A very interesting subtitle to this would be: “Over 450,000 retired disabled veterans, who are under 50% disabled, have each served at least twenty years in the mility, HAVE NEVER RECEIVED THEIR FULL RETIREMENT, as their disability is deducted from their retirement pay on a monthly basis.

What about the retired disabled veteran, under 50% disabled, who has served over twenty years, who is paying for his own disability, Mr. President?

Comment by KH — February 2, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
Right on man we the forgotten who did so much and gave up 20+ years of our lives to be crap on and forgotten till next election then more promises with no intention of following through hope they see the light some day but I’ll probley be dead by then and isn’t that what they are counting on? just so tired of getting my hopes up to have them say No once again good night and good luck Oh if anyone wants to do a walk on washington I’m in LOL never quit! never give in ! UH RAH

Comment by SSG RET Rusty — February 3, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
I have no doubt that someone will stop disabled veterans from getting there retired pay. To become a 100% disabled while serving the country is no reason to actually give us veterans an additional amount of compensation even though the military destroyed our reason for living. Congress does not sacrifice a penny for those protecting the freedoms of people in this country while at the same time promoting expensive state programs for their own people. I think dogs get better treatment than disabled veterans. When will someone count the votes of disabled veterans and credit what we have to say about where the country is going? Oh, yah, we are just disposed of trash and have no voice. Bill, USN-retired

Comment by Bill Starcher — February 10, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
SUPPORT HR 333 – the Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act
2/3 of Disabled Veterans Remain Excluded From Concurrent Receipt

Please send the following editable message to your Representative –

As you are aware, while included in the President’s Budget for 2010, the full restoration of concurrent receipt was deleted from the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), recently signed into law.

http://www.usdr.org

Again, I strongly urge you to cosponsor HR 333, the Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act, and strive to have this legislation included in the 2011 NDAA or other appropriate legislation.

HR 333 would correct several wrongs enacted with the original concurrent receipt legislation in 2004.

First, HR 333 would enable those 450,000 retired members of the Armed Forces with disability ratings less than 50% to draw both their VA disability and their military retirement pay under CRDP (Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay, 10 US Code Section 1414). If the disability was combat-related, these retirees were enfranchised for CRSC (Combat Related Special Compensation, 10 USC Section 1413a) with the 2008 NDAA.

Second, HR 333 would enable those 200,000 members of the Armed Forces retired for medical disability with less than 20 years service under 10 US Code, Chapter 61, to draw both their VA disability and their military retirement pay under CRDP. If the disability were combat-related, these retirees were enfranchised for CRSC with the 2008 NDAA.

Third, HR 333 would eliminate the 10-year phase-in of CRDP which is currently in the 6th year and is 88% restored. In 2010, restoration will be 95% complete. Distributing the remaining 5% over the next 4 years is not cost effective, because the cost of processing the payments exceeds the cost of the CRDP payments. In the last year of the phase-in, the average increment will be less than $1 per month.

Fourth, HR 333 would cause the Department of Defense (DoD) to compute CRSC pay for Chapter 61 retirees as originally intended Congress. Basically, HR 333 would eliminate the “donut hole” into which some combat related retirees fall which awards them ZERO compensation.

Please actively support HR 333 and urge your colleagues to do the same.

Comment by KH — February 10, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
Tom Philpott is a real professional when it comes to reporting.
He is even willing to take the fall for his sources on Capitol Hill.
Tom’s correction to his article:
CORRECTION: Two weeks ago, writing about the 2011 defense budget request, I said President Obama again proposes a limited expansion of “concurrent receipt” for disabled retirees. He would not be asking to restore retired pay offsets for remaining career retirees, those with VA disability ratings of 40 percent or less, which would cost $45 billion over 10 years. A reader, Kenneth Hanft, directed my attention to a memo from the Congressional Budget Office to the House Budget Committee last June.
CBO said the 10-year cost to lift the ban on concurrent receipt for all career retirees would be $23.8 billion. I defer to that far lower figure and apologize for the error. – Tom Philpott
Example of one of his previous quotes on the subject:
“Regular retirees with VA ratings of 40 percent or lower still see retired pay offset by VA disability compensation.
Why has Obama targeted Chapter 61 retirees for concurrent receipt? Sources on Capitol Hill said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget developed the idea as an affordable compromise. It would cost $5.4 billion over 10 years versus $45 billion if Obama fulfilled a campaign pledge to extend concurrent receipt to all disabled military retirees.”
This administration has purposefully manipulated the figures to 45 billion, in an attempt to sustain public opinion, to the extent that the cost burden would be too high to grant concurrent receipt to all disabled veterans.
For Tom Philpott to not hold this administration to account for its purposeful manipulation of the figures of cost for concurrent receipt, to lower the cost and cover chapter 61 retirees only, stating that their justification for this measure is because of a high cost of 45 billion to under 50% disabled, while attempting to give the appearance of keeping a campaign promise is a shame.
For Tom Philpott to apologize for an error made intentionally by the current administration, shows that he is a true professional.
It is too bad that the administration in Washington is not that professional.

Comment by KH — February 18, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
To Rusty and KH (since you are two different people who happen to read and post comments within minutes of each other on this site, just like last year) – please stop with the attempts at division within the veterans’ ranks. Citing “priorities” and pointing out things like “in 2004, Ch. 61 veterans “weren’t even considered…” because the effort should be on including all veterans and not picking and choosing which is what you accuse the administration of, and then go on to do the same thing by separating the 20+ year retired vets with less than 50% disabilities from the Ch 61s, some of whom have 100% disabilities and receive zero. It hurts the cause, in my view.

Also, numbers are fun. If you argue that the $40 million is a “made up” figure, then please don’t use the $23 million figure either. It excludes the cost of the Ch. 61 payments, which are estimated to be $5 billion over “FIVE” years. That seems to mean that we can double it (plus inflation) for the next five years, which means it is probably close to $15 Billion for “TEN” years. Add that to $23 Billion, and yes, you get a total of near $40 Billion.

But I digress. By all means, support HR 333, but don’t do so by continually denigrating the Ch 61 fix. You know better, and conquer and divide usually means no one wins.

Comment by DK — February 22, 2010 @ 8:49 am
I should have added that we don’t know what was “considered” in 2004 — only those attending each and ever deliberation know what was “considered”…

Also, I wrote “millions” when I should have written “billions” in various places in the previous post.

Finally, thanks to the .navycs.com blog for tackling this issue again and providing what turned out last year to be an indispensable site for information and updates on what turned out to be a very disappointing outcome (and let’s not forget why the provision ultimately failed… had it passed, this year the focus would be on disabled retirees with less than 50% disabilities… that’s how it works. See 2004 if this doesn’t make sense to you)…

Comment by DK — February 22, 2010 @ 8:54 am
DK good points.

Here is an article from the AUSA web site.

Perhaps this is the stance that should be supported by all, in the effort for concurrent receipt for everyone.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT FOR CHAPTER 61 RETIREES

AUSA has worked tirelessly to eliminate the deduction of VA disability compensation from earned military retired pay for all disabled retirees. Therefore, we were elated when the Obama Administration included a provision that would expand concurrent receipt to Chapter 61 retirees (those medically retired for service-related conditions before they could complete 20 or more years of service) in his budget request for fiscal 2010. While we want full concurrent receipt, we figured any progress made towards our goal was a win and great news for disabled retirees.

We were even more encouraged when the House Armed Services Committee managed to find funding for the first year of the expansion and included it in the House version of the 2010 defense authorization bill.

Reality set in when the Senate unveiled its version of the defense authorization bill and the provision was left out. Ultimately, the House provision was dropped in conference because 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

Now, the Obama Administration has once again included a provision in its fiscal 2011 budget request that would provide full concurrent receipt of disability and military retired pay to eligible veterans by Jan. 1, 2015.

Not so fast according to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. While he has shown that he is a supporter of concurrent receipt, Skelton said the Obama initiative does not satisfy the House’s strict budgeting rules. He said the problem is that the administration has not identified specific offsets — either cuts in existing programs or revenue increases — to pay for the new benefits for disabled retirees.

“This committee has a deep commitment to this issue and our veterans, but we simply cannot enact it unless the administration identifies and advocates for specific offsets,” Skelton said at a recent hearing on the 2011 defense request.

The Administration’s budget request adds $408 million to the military retirement trust fund in 2011 specifically to cover the first phase of a five-year plan to expand concurrent receipt to service members medically retired with fewer than 20 years of service who have disability ratings of 90 percent or greater.

But Rep. Skelton said the $408 million increase in the trust fund doesn’t meet congressional “pay-as-you-go” rules, which require a specific offset to pay for a specific increase. Without an offset, he said the committee is unable to pass concurrent receipt legislation.

Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., who is also a longtime sponsor of concurrent receipt legislation, said he is not ready to give up. Rep. Marshall wants the committee to “work closely” with the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for tax policy, to find money for concurrent receipt.

“It seems to me we ought to be able to find $5.1 billion over a 10-year period of time, as large as our mandatory spending is. We ought to be able to do that and get this done once and for all,” Rep. Marshall said.

We agree and will continue to fight STRONGLY for full concurrent receipt not only for Chapter 61 retirees, but for all disabled retirees.

Comment by KH — February 22, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Does either of these bills include backpay for the surviving widows (w/kids<18) of deceased Ret. DAVs that had their retirement pay and VA svc-connected disability pay offset from time of discharge from military-1987, to his death-1998? Or only for retirees still living?

Comment by Widow-RW — March 16, 2010 @ 12:23 am
Widow-RW:

The next step to watch is the Congressional Budget Resolution, which I believe must be passed by April 15. This sets guidelines for the committees.
I am NO expert, but I think hopes for the retro-active pay you ask about are nil in this environment. The best (most realistic, anyway) hope is that the offset is eliminated fully, but even that will be a long-shot. As for someone who is now deceased, the odds are even longer. This is just my 2 cents worth. There’s always hope.

Comment by dK — April 9, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Related to my last comment, the following was part of MOAA’s weekly newsletter dated April 9, 2010:
_____________________
Coalition Seeks Discharge Petition Signers

The Military Coalition (TMC) sent a letter this week to all the cosponsors of H.R. 775, Rep. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) bill to end deduction of VA survivor benefits from Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities, asking them to sign a discharge petition to bring the legislation up for a vote by the House.

A total of 321 Representatives (74% of the House) have formally expressed their support for this bill, but it continues to languish without action.

In mid-March Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) took the initiative to introduce a discharge petition that would force the bill to the House floor for a vote if a majority of House members sign the petition.

To date, only four Representatives have signed it.

We understand that a budget-minded Congress has to set fiscal priorities. We also understand that sometimes legislators must be asked to put their money where their mouth is.

As we rack up the nation’s budget priorities, doing the right thing by survivors whose military sponsors’ deaths were caused by their service simply mustn’t keep falling short of the approved list.

Please urge your U.S. Representative to sign the petition and make this long-overdue fix.

Comment by dK — April 11, 2010 @ 8:19 am
DK, I cannot thank you enough for the information you continue to provide – BZ!

Comment by NCCM(ret) — April 12, 2010 @ 10:46 am
I am a Chapter 61 retiree…I put in fifteen plus years of service before I was 100% disabled in the line of duty while on active service. Obviously after fifteen years of service I was making it a career but to no fault of my own, my career was ended early. Being 100% disabled is something I would not wish on anyone. Having one leg, the use of one arm and wearing a diaper and a catheter is something that I have to deal with everyday. I lost my career, my family and any semblence of a life. Additionally, I lost my retirement pay because it is offset with my VA disability because I did not complete my twenty years. Somthing that once again was of no fault of my own yet I am being financially punished for it. I wish I had the opportunity to put in twenty years and only have a 40% disability. For those in this situation you should feel blessed….you could have it worse. Do not denegrade chapter 61 retirees plight to receive concurrent pay just because it does not pertain to your situation. Fight for what you believe in but do not do it at the expense of fellow service members. Semper Fi!!!!

Comment by DC Williams — April 13, 2010 @ 7:54 am
DC Williams:
All good points.
Thank you for your service and for your example.
dK.

Comment by dK — April 26, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
I served 12 years regular army from 1975- 1987, 3 year in the National guard, I did not serve in any conflict, do to a Spinal cord tumor illness, was force to leave, I am currently on a wheel chair, use a catheter and have to use suppository in order to have valve movement, and so on, so on I have no complain, but would like my life more “at ease” I lost one of my brother in Viet Nam, my other brother receives 10 percent for Agent Orange and has to pay for his medication. no complain 303

Comment by ramon — May 7, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
I am also a chapter 61 retiree and feel we have been short changed for many years. I find it hard to believe that the congressmen and senators (especially the ones who are veterans) cannot find the necessary funds. The funds required are minimal compared to the additional funds added to bills to cover special projects and special interests for some of the (congressman and senators) states. We have served our country well and suffer in pain every day. The veterans in the statements above and myself deserve your support. If the President says we deserve this benefit – why can’t the (ways and means) tax people support him. I hope all of you can work together and find a way to make this happen. I thank you for your help in advance. God Bless.
Ken Simpson (Disabled Vietnam Veteran – Chapter 61 Retiree)

Comment by ken simpson — May 10, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
I AM A CHAPTER 61 RETIREE WHO REQUIRED A TRANSPLANT AND THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO OFF SET AT ALL AND WE SHOULD GET ALL OUR PAY AND THEN SOME BUT INSTEAD THEY VOTE THERE OWN PAY RAISES AND BUY THEMSELVES NEW CARS ON TAX PAYERS DIMES BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE BLOGGING ABOUT IT BUT CONTACTING OUR SENATORS AND FORCING HR 333 DOWN THERE THROAT WE THE DISABLED VETERANS PROBABLY MASS UP TO ABOUT 1/4 THE POPULATION AND IF ALL OF US VOICE OUR OPINION THEN SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE BUT THERE ARE OTHER SUBJECTS LIKE PROPERTY TAXES I LIVE IN TEXAS AND I DO NOT PAY ANY PROPERTY TAXES ON MY HOME BUT I THINK THAT ALL VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON THERE RESIDENCE. THAT SHOULD BE EVERY VETERANS BENEFIT IN EVERY STATE. YES FOR THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS VETERANS AND DISABLED VETERANS HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A RED HEADED STEP CHILD AND I THINK THAT ALL MILITARY PERSON SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE A PROTECTOR OF OUR FREEDOMS AND COMPENSATED FOR THE FREEDOMS THAT WE PROVIDE OR PROVIDED. THE AVERAGE CONGRESSMAN MAKES ANYWHERE FROM 150000 TO 200000 A YEAR BUT THE AVERAGE VETERAN MAKES 50000 TO 70000 A YEAR AND WE ELECT THESE PEOPLE TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR BEST INTEREST. LOOKS LIKE THERE LOOKING OUT FOR THERE OWN BEST INTEREST. WE PROTECT AND GET SHORT CHANGED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. THEY BLOCK PASSAGE LOOK OUT FOR THERE BIGGEST PAYING LOBBYIST AND MAKE 3 TO FOUR TIMES MORE THAN VETERANS CAUSE ITS NOT IN THE BUDGET.
BUT EACH CONGRESS MAN CAN TAKE A 20000 DOLLAR PAY CUT AND HELP PUT IT IN THE BUDGET BUT THAT BILL WOULD NEVER PASS EITHER.

Comment by RICKY POSEY — June 2, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
Read it again folks,, Im 100 percent unemployable, what ever that means but only 70 percent rating,,,
now I have cancer, I’ll never see any of this, its a bunch of BS
I wrote about this before, its all smoke and mirrors from Congress to stay in power, every day different story while at the same time voting themselves a fat pay raise and retirement
Congress, Im poor, but Ive always been poor.
So Congress,, KEEP YOUR MONEY, bunch of lying traitors.
I don’t need it anymore

Comment by John — June 8, 2010 @ 7:25 am
Those of us who are retired and drawing disability under 50% will, in all likelyhood, be considered 2nd class citizens for many years to come. Any big companies out there make their retired pay their own disability?

Comment by Herman — July 22, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Prez Obama signed the 4.8 billion dollar childern School lunch program, but just can’t find Money for Veterans

Comment by John — August 4, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Retirees need to stop talking about Chap 61 and twenty year retirees.That’s what they want us to do fight among ourselves, what we need to do is raise hell with Congress till they amend Title 10, stay on then like white on rice especially at election time.It took me over 17 years to get over 50% i retired in 1991 with 20 years.I believe that VA goes out of their way to keep military retirees under 50% because they have been directed to do so by congress.Chap 61 retirees are being miss-led, even if they change the law to include Chap 61 what they are not telling you is it still will not include those rated under 50% so you will continue to get the SHAFT just over 20 year retirees rated under 50%.We need to band together and raise hell with Congress letters news media etc: maybe then they will do something.We are the only ex federal employees that pay for our VA disability compensation out of our earned retirement pay, a national disgrace.We need to shame the Members of Congress in public when they have their town- hall meetings and ask questions about concurrent receipt.

Comment by John — August 21, 2010 @ 11:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

Chapter 61 Military Retired and Disability Pay

Concurrent Receipt in 2011?

February 1st, 2010

21 Comments »

Leave a comment

Navigation

Navy Information

Blogroll

Categories

Meta