tdiu Chap 61 Rets With Less Than

[Berta]

the quoted email below is from alamostation

at ALLVETS,Inc.

The issues of CRSC and CRDP have smoothed out significantly since they first became important veterans issues.

This can affect 183,000 retried men and women who are certainly "disenfrancised" as this email states.

We recently got a member here who probably falls into the "glitch" that

I call it- or disenfrancisement or discriminationation is a more appropriate term.

This bill would involve CRDP as well as CRSC consideration for all Chap 61 disabled veterans who served less then 20 years DUE to service disability as well as repeal the 10 year phase out for CRDP and rectifu the unfair situation that those 28,000 TDIU vets are in.

"Senate Companion Legislation Needed for HR 333

Concurrent Receipt for Chapter 61 Medical Disability Retirees Take Action!

HR 333 Needs Companion Legislation in the Senate

Please send the following message to your Senators --

I write on behalf of some 183,000 retired military veterans who were retired under title 10 US Code Chapter 61 for medical disability with less than 20 years of retirement service.

Thus far, in the 110th Congress we have an array of at least six bills that, in some fashion, address the issue of the restoration of concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation:

Introduced by Senator Harry Reid

S 439 - Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2007 on 31 January.

S 986 - Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2007 on 26 March.

Introduced by Representative Gus Bilirakis

HR 89 - Combat-Related Special Compensation Act on 4 January.

HR 303 - Retired Pay Restoration Act on 5 January.

HR 1436 - Retired Pay Restoration Act on 9 March.

Introduced by Representative Jim Marshall

HR 333 - Retired Pay Restoration Act on 9 January.

I am troubled that with the exception of HR 333, none of the remaining five bills address the disenfranchisement of those veterans retired for medical disability under Chapter 61 with less than 20 years of retirement service. This disenfranchisement is blatant discrimination against this group of 189,000 medically disabled military retirees. Recent revelations in testimony provided to the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, the DoD Independent Review Group (West-Marsh) and the President's Panel (Dole-Shalala) indicates the DoD Disability Evaluation (Elimination) System is anything but fair and consistent. Rather than describing the merits of each individual bill, I use the structure of HR 333 to provide the following comparison for your consideration

Definitions:

CRDP = Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay (10 US Code 1414)

CRSC = Combat Related Special Compensation (10 US Code 1413a)

Discussion:

a. HR333 would extend the benefits of CRDP to some 375,000 retired career veterans who are rated less than 50% disabled by the VA.

HR89 / S986 makes no similar provision.

HR303 would do the same as HR 333

HR1436 / S439 would do the same as HR 333.

NOTE: HR89 / S986 and HR1436 / S439 are not companion legislation but their respective provisions are virtually identical.

b. HR333 would repeal the 10 year phase in of CRDP for those 180,000 retired career veterans who are rated 50 to 90 percent disabled.

HR89 / S986 makes no similar provision.

HR303 makes no similar provision.

HR1436 / S439 makes no similar provision.

c. HR333 would extend the benefits of CRDP at 100% to those 28,000 retired career veterans who are rated less than 100% but who are considered “individually unemployable†(IU) and compensated at 100% by the VA.

HR89 / S986 makes no similar provision.

HR303 makes no similar provision.

HR1436 / S439 would do the same as HR 333.

d. HR333 would extend the benefits of CRDP to 183,000 career veterans who were involuntarily retired under Chapter 61 with less than 20 years of retirement service for medical disability to include wounds received in combat.

HR89 / S986 would extend CRSC {but not CRDP} to Chapter 61 based on 2.5%/year of service.

HR303 would extend CRDP to Chapter 61 based on 2.5%/year of service.

HR1436 / S439 would extend CRDP to Chapter 61 based on 2.5%/year of service.

e. HR333 would extend the benefits of CRSC as an alternative to CRDP for those untold number of career veterans whose disabilities are considered to be combat related.

HR89 / S986 makes no similar provision.

HR303 makes no similar provision.

HR1436 / S439 makes no similar provision.

Conclusion:

HR333 remains the best legislation for the restoration of concurrent receipt.

I strongly suggest you sponsor companion legislation to HR 333. If not companion legislation then at least sponsor legislation that would allow those retired under Chapter 61 for medical disability with less than 20 years of service to receive the benefit of CRDP/CRSC. The requirement for 20 years service is an artificial barrier just as was the DoD 7200 Point Policy (now repealed by the 2003 NDAA) that barred retired reservists with disability from CRDP/CRSC."

Edited April 6, 2007 by Berta

[Guest Dataman]

Berta;

Lots of Bills out there. This is the one I like the best.

But reality is I bet we get none of them passed. They seem to like to just tweakt he DoD autho bill. It's how we got started on CR.

Maby they will tweak it again to speedup the phase in for TDIU 100% folks.

Maby they will do something with the Tax on Widows (SBP) speedup

Maby they will do something for Chapter 61.

Me I expect a whole lot of nothing. Easiest (cheapest) is the TDIU folks speedup to FY 2008 instead of Fy 2010. Now the law says Oct 2009 (Nov Paycheck) we get all of our retirement pay. I bet they make it Jan 2008 (Feb's Check) with the DoD Auth Bill.

Or a year speedup. It will look good on paper and cost the least. I expect Sen Reid to have major improvement for all 3 in the Senate Bill, but the Committee will lose (delete, change) most of it.

Me I am tired of the pulling our cord and just wish they do it or stop.

Of course I never expected to get my retirement pay along with VA Disability anyway. Icing on the Cake so to speak. Enough typing. Instead of money can I have a new hand?

[Berta]

Years ago I provided a Curie Amicus brief for the CRDP CRSC issue.

It took time to state my position and support for CR, CRDP and CRSC and present the legal brief in proper format.

I could have instead just written a letter to congressional reps but this was for a lawyer who was fighting for CR on behalf of retired disabled veterans.

I personally have nothing to gain or lose by this type of legislation

but heeded the call to arms of the vet orgs at the time who were asking for support.

No one has to support any of this legislation at all.I am just passing the info on.