Two Articles In The Dav Magazine For Nov-dec

[allan]

http://www.dav.org/news/magazine/documents/magazine_nov_dec_08.pdf

From: Paul E. Travis [mailto:poppy0200@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:47 AM

Subject: FW: Two Articles in the Nov/Dec DAV Magazine

Subject: Two Articles in the Nov/Dec DAV Magazine

From: Legislative@USDR.ORG

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:27:03 -0500

Two Articles in the Nov/Dec DAV Magazine

Two Articles in the DAV Magazine for Nov-Dec

More Info

This message pertains to those of you who receive or have seen the DAV Magazine for Nov/Dec 2008. If you are not among those who have seen this magazine it can be found on line at http://www.dav.org/news/magazine/documents..._nov_dec_08.pdf There are two articles which can be rather confusing if you do not read closely and evaluate what is written. In part some of the confusion arises due to the lead time of printing, editing, and publishing, such that the text is not current in today's terms.

The first article "Pentagon Narrows Combat-Related Definition" is found on pages 10 and 11. If quickly read, it would appear that the Department of Defense has administratively changed the rules for all of CRSC (Combat Related Special Compensation) as intended by Congress. The truth is that DoD has administratively changed the rules but only for those separated for medical disability under Chapter 61 with less than 20 years of service and less than 30% combat related disability. There is no change in the rules for those Chapter 61 retirees with 30% or more medical disability.

The effect of this administrative change is that only those whose disability is directly due to combat in a war zone are eligible to have their severance pay restored under CRSC. Excluded are those whose combat-related disabilities are due to hazardous service, duty under conditions simulating combat, or due to an instrumentality out side of a combat zone.

The second article "Landmark Court Ruling Victory for Widows of Disabled Veterans" is found on page 20 and is correct as of the time "locked in print." This decision was handed down on Jun 2, 2008, by the US Court of Federal Claims, and has since been appealed by the Government with that appeal still pending. The basics of the lawsuit involve 3 widows who remarried after age 57 and were denied their SBP because they were receiving VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. This is not a class action lawsuit so in the short term only these three widows stand to benefit. At this time, it is not known as to what the SBP/DIC ramifications will be for the remaining 60,000 widows, unremarried or not, who are impacted by the SBP/DIC offset. However, if the Government appeal is denied, there is certainly precedent for the other widows to file a class action lawsuit to challenge the SBP/DIC offset as the Congress has failed to act on this matter.

To Unsubscribe: You may unsubscribe from our mailing list at any time by visiting here.

To ensure this email is delivered to your inbox, please add the email address Legislative@USDR.ORG to your address book or junk filter settings.

"Keep on, Keepin' on"

Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"

See my web site at:

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/