GovernmentExecutive.com

A little-known pay measure, set to become law, could turn into a budget-busting problem for the Defense Department, officials said.

At issue is "concurrent receipt." If enacted, the legislation may cost DoD around $58 billion extra over the next decade.

Concurrent receipt is sometimes called "double dipping." Since the 1890s, Congress has prohibited the receipt of two pays for the same purpose. The specific instance of concurrent receipt at issue deals with Veterans Administration disability payments and military retirement.

Currently, military retirees who receive VA disability payments have their retired pay reduced dollar-for-dollar by the VA payment. So, for example, if retired pay is $1,000 a month and the VA disability payment is $500 a month, the member receives $1,000 per month - the entire VA payment and $500 in retired pay.

Retired pay is fully taxable; VA disability payments are not taxed.

Charles Abell, assistant defense secretary for force management policy, says the theory behind the current system is that if a service member completes military service and receives retired pay, and then also receives a VA payment for a condition related to that service, "it is two pays for the same event."

The government has always treated this as double dipping. According to a study commissioned by DoD, VA disability compensation is intended for veterans who separated from military service without retirement, but who suffered service-connected conditions that affect their earnings. Alternatively, service members "receiving military retired pay are considered to be fully compensated for their service, including any disability."

The concurrent receipt legislation, part of the fiscal 2003 National Defense Authorization Bill, would allow retirees receiving 60 percent disability or more to receive their full disability and their full retirement. Money spent on this, the Office of Management and Budget argues, would be better spent in developing warfighting capabilities.

The 10-year, $58 billion cost estimates floated by OMB and Congressional Budget Office are soft, Abell said. The amount is based on the idea that 700,000 to 800,000 veterans would qualify. The number could go as high as 1.2 million, he said.

"We don't know," Abell said. "Right now, some don't put in for this because there is no benefit to them. They might apply if there is a benefit." There are more than 25 million veterans in the United States.

DoD research shows that the small number of veterans who would benefit from such a repeal are already doing well financially, Abell said. He maintains that the money to pay the double-dip will have to come from accounts now going to readiness and quality of life programs.

"Active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are going to live in substandard quarters and work in hangars where the roof leaks or try to perform the mission without all the spare parts they need because $58 billion will flow over to a group that, when measured against the American population at large, is certainly well-off," he said.

Abell said he could find nothing in the public or private sectors with a truly analogous pay situation.

DoD has made its position on concurrent receipt known to the House and Senate authorizers.

"In our view, this is not good government," Abell said. "We should know in the next 30 days what Congress will do. When the legislation gets to the White House, advisers will look at it and provide their recommendations to the president, and he'll decide what to do."

COMMENTS

• Good Article! The greatest scam perpetuated on America by our servicepersons are illness, injuries, and other disabilities which occurred while on active duty and, God forbid, claimed after they separated from active duty. Taken from Charles Dickens' "David Copperfield", Jim Garamone suggests all veterans retired or otherwise beg for it. His "More, You want more" attitude belies a perspective that undercuts the essential fairness of an all volunteer force. The choice is up to the lawmakers, not bureaucrats or pundits. We have an all volunteer service. A nation that treats its men and women who perform the task of defending freedom, owes it to the same men and women to treat them fairly when their service ends; especially when there are problems resulting from their service. We don't beg, we ask for fairness. If the government can't be fair to those who have given the most, then to whom is fairness due? Jim Philips Posted January 30, 2006 8:51 AM
• Just to keep this short, I am a former Marine that is 100% medically retired. I also am 100% disabled with the VA. But I can tell you this the 9 years I spent in the serviced; I lived in substandard quarters and work in hangars where the roof leaks or try to perform the mission without all the spare parts. I also work for the Air Force now and it is still that way today. So this bill is not going to take the military there because it is already there. Johnny Posted August 25, 2005 12:08 PM
• I was astonished at the tone of this article dealing with proposed legislation that would authorize military retirees to collect disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) without reducing their military retirement by an equal amount. It begins by saying this is a "little-known pay measure," and then moves to a first quote from Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Abell saying that this would be "two pays for the same event," and closes with Abell stating, "In our view this is not good government." First of all, this is NOT a "little known pay measure" to the nation's congressionally chartered veterans organizations that have been fighting for it ceaselessly for decades. For Assistant Secretary Abell to imply that this would be a windfall for undeserving veterans, slyly maneuvered into a bill in the dead of night by unscrupulous forces out to hoodwink a naive Congress, is simply nonsense. This bill will allow military retirees to receive compensation for disabilities incurred on the job—JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN including civilian federal retirees who receive VA disability compensation for disabilities incurred during their honorable military service. Indeed, for me and many other veterans this bill would have no impact since we will one day retire from civilian federal service. To deny concurrent receipt of VA disability payments to military retirees treats them as second class citizens in the nation they suffered to serve, and is patently unjust. The truth of this is finally on the verge of winning over a majority of the members of Congress and should be applauded by all thinking Americans who honor the sacrifices many of our veterans have made and are making to defend the freedoms we hold so dear. There is one and only one reason that members of both political parties have allowed this wrong to exist for over a century—MONEY. It has had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the arguments on either side. Mr. Garamone's article is correct that authorizing concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation will be costly to the government. The TRUE cost of waging war does not end when the last shot is fired. The major flaw with this bill is not that it may pass at long last, but that it only proposes to authorize concurrent receipt for honorably discharged military retirees who are rated with 60 percent or greater service-connected disabilities by the VA. This means that those military retirees with less than 60 percent disability ratings—including some with serious disabilities and many Purple Heart recipients—would still have their military retirement checks reduced by the amount of their VA disability payments. What's the rationale for this? You guessed it: MONEY not ethics. America is not about money alone. It is about doing right and being fair. Concurrent receipt for military retirees is both. Jamie Thompson Posted February 24, 2003 4:43 PM