Navy Cyberspace Submarine Website Header

Concurrent VA Disability-Military Retired Pay

Budget Proposal Would Fix Concurrent Receipt

Published: February 26th, 2009
Updated: January 6, 2015
By: Thomas Goering

2011 looks more promising; 2011 Chapter 61 concurrent receipt discussion

Reading further in the defense section of the 2010 budget outline it looks as if the issues with concurrent receipt of retired military pay and VA disability pay will finally be fixed!

The Budget also contains a proposal to expand concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation to all retirees receiving disability retired pay. Under current law, the prohibition on concurrent receipt means that these benefits offset each other so that disabled military retirees cannot receive full DOD retirement and Veterans disability payments. When the offset is removed, disabled military retirees would receive additional monthly compensation.

Currently to be eligible for concurrent receipt you must be evaluated at 50% disabled by the VA.
Update: 6/25/2009 1 more Senator added his name to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 40!
Update: 6/24/2009 House Approved HR 2990 by a vote of 404 to 0 (See Comments).
Update: 6/17/2009 1 more Senator added his name to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 39!
Update: 6/3/2009 2 more Senators added their names to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 38!
Update: 5/19/2009 2 more Senators added their names to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 36!
Update: 5/14/2009 1 more Senator added her name to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 34!
Update: 5/4/2009 2 more Senators added their names to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 33!
Update: 4/23/2009 1 more Senator added his name to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 31!
Update: 4/21/2009 1 more Senator added his name to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 30!
Update: 4/20/2009 4 more Senators add their names to the list of Co-Sponsors of this bill bringing the number to 29!
Update: 3/9/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

List of current Co-Sponsors;

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


1st Session

S. 546

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation.


March 9, 2009

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services


To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2009′.


(a) Extension of Concurrent Receipt Authority to Retirees With Service-Connected Disabilities Rated Less Than 50 Percent-

(1) REPEAL OF 50 PERCENT REQUIREMENT- Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (a).

(2) COMPUTATION- Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(G) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’ disability compensation for a disability rated as 40 percent or less or has a service-connected disability rated as zero percent, $0.’.

(b) Clerical Amendments-

(1) The heading of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for veterans’ disability compensation: concurrent payment of retired pay and disability compensation’.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for veterans’ disability compensation: concurrent payment of retired pay and disability compensation.’.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2009, and shall apply to payments for months beginning on or after that date.


(a) Amendments To Standardize Similar Provisions-

(1) QUALIFIED RETIREES- Subsection (a) of section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended–

(A) by striking `a member or’ and all that follows through `retiree’)’ and inserting `a qualified retiree'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) QUALIFIED RETIREES- For purposes of this section, a qualified retiree, with respect to any month, is a member or former member of the uniformed services who–

`(A) is entitled to retired pay (other by reason of section 12731b of this title); and

`(B) is also entitled for that month to veterans’ disability compensation.’.

(2) DISABILITY RETIREES- Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of section 1414 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`(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.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2009, and shall apply to payments for months beginning on or after that date.

Read Comments (268)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

268 Responses to “Budget Proposal Would Fix Concurrent Receipt”

  1. 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.

  2. NCCM(ret):

    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?).

  3. John Bunting:

    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!


    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.

  5. Roger L Lyons:

    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

  6. keith:

    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

  7. Roger L Lyons:

    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!

  8. John:

    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

  9. NCCM(ret):

    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.

  10. John Croce:

    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?

  11. lostwon:

    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.

  12. NCCM(ret):

    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.’.

  13. lostwon:

    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!

  14. Roger Lyons:

    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 will need use of it someday and you can count on that KEEP ALL YOUR RECORDS

  15. john hill:

    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.

  16. Jamie:

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

  17. NCCM(ret):


    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.

  18. John:

    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,

  19. NCCM(ret):

    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.

  20. Flash:


    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 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!!!

  21. NCCM(ret):


    “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

    The sections from Sec. 5304 and 5305 of Title 38

    § 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.

    § 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
    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.)

  22. Flash:

    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.


  23. Flash:

    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.


  24. NCCM(ret):


    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.

  25. Flash:

    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.)

    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!

  26. Ouch:

    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.

  27. John:

    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,

  28. Flash:

    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.


  29. John:

    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,

  30. Jamie:

    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.


  31. Flash:


    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.


    Flash “Maj H”

  32. Flash:


    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!!


  33. Flash:


    The following is reported by Montgomery Advertiser 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.

    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], write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111

  34. Rick:

    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.



  35. Rick:

    I can be reached at semperrick[at]

  36. John Croce:

    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,

  37. DK:


    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:

    This is a great site and source of information…

  38. DK:

    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 and other sites to keep up with when the various budget bills are signed into law.


  39. Rusty SSg Retired:

    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?

  40. DK:

    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.

  41. DK:

    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):

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

  42. Rusty SSg Retired:

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

  43. Ouch:

    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.

  44. Flash:


    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

  45. Flash:


    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.


    You cantrack the monthly CPI-W here

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



    Maj Flash

  46. DK:


    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.

  47. Doug:

    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).

  48. DK:

    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.”

  49. Ouch:

    The plot thickens – thanks for the updates!

  50. Rich:

    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

  51. Flash:


    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!

  52. DK:

    “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.”

  53. Flash:

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

  54. DK:

    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.

  55. Roger Lyons:


    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

  56. Flash:


    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

    “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.”


    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.

  57. Roger Lyons:

    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 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?

  58. DK:

    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…

  59. NCCM(ret):

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

  60. Roger Lyons:

    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.

  61. Flash:

    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.


  62. Flash:

    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.

  63. Flash:

    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….

  64. Debbie:

    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.

  65. DK:

    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,


  66. DK:

    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.

  67. DK:

    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.

  68. Ouch:

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

  69. DK:

    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.

  70. phyllis jolls:

    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

  71. Flash:

    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.


  72. Flash:

    24 June 2009

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

    Next step, Senate and ratification folks.

  73. Flash:

    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.”…

  74. Ouch:

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

  75. Flash:


    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.

    ** then enter bill number.


    **Link corrected.

Leave a Reply

A Navy recruiting blog that delves into the military enlistment process and benefits of service. This is NOT an official United States Navy or government web site. The opinions expressed are my own, and may not be in-line with any branches of the government or military.

©2004-2015 Navy CyberSpace Blog

Unless otherwise noted, content written by Thomas Goering, NCCM USN(RET). All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Service and Privacy Policy