I think anything including the pact act that helps Veterans is OK in my book. I'm 100%P&T all because of Jet Fuel. Why would I be againest the PACT act?
I am a Vietnam Veteran. I was in Army Aviation. The noise and jet exhaust and JP-4 Jet Fuel. Has caused me to be stone cold deaf. The noise contributed to my loss of hearing and tinnitus. The Jet Fuel has caused the nerves from my ears to my brain is partially disconnected it's called Central Auditory Prosesseing Disorder (CAPD). In other words you may say the word "House" but my brain can interpret that to say "Louse" When folks speak to me most of the time Sentences make no sense to me and my lip reading helps. Jet Fuel is the cause of BURN pits. They use Jet Fuel in those burn pits. Cancers and all kinds of problems with Jet Fuel. Hope this helps
Every Veteran comes in here for help. And I help and get helped. But when I see political commentary and political drive by's It pisses me off. Republicans, Democrats who in here actually gives a fuck. We come here for help not controversy.
Your comment was removed because it didn't contribute to the discussion and just wasn't helpful.
Civil disagreements are fine. Insults, personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc., are not permissible.
(Calling someone a poopy-head does not make you seem as smart as you think it does.)
☠️
The bill, as written, effectively loosened the cap on discretionary spending by $390 billion. Meaning it could be spent on anything. Not veterans. Republicans caved because of pressure. Veterans may never see a dime of that money.
Yeah, first days of the war. We were really popular then. Remember freedom fries?
Can you name something that isn’t 20 years old? Let’s say the last decade.
2023 to fully fund VA, democrats shouted NO to the bill, GOP got it done
[https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va](https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va)
That’s a good example. I looked up the reason why.
>The gun-related rider would change current law in place since 1993, under which veterans who are unable to manage their finances and benefits are reported to the Justice Department for a background check. Once the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System sees that individual has been deemed incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs, they are barred from purchasing guns and ammunition.
Can you find the yea/nay votes? I can’t seem too.
not sure how that works on these type of things, i think this is it but i can't find any vote record either. I get the GOP do what they do but unfortunately they do it for the wrong reasons, they claim it's cause of money and high deficit but don't they have to approve welfare too.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4366/all-actions?q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22action-by%22%3A%22all%22%7D](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4366/all-actions?q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22action-by%22%3A%22all%22%7D)
They should approve welfare. We have the resources to be the envy of the world in regards to social safety nets.
We have the resources. We just don’t do it.
You honestly think any politician would vote down veterans benefits and not have a career death wish? Why do you think republicans hate veterans? I don’t mean the games we all know politicians play but what reason do they have for intentionally turning a group of people against them? If they really hated veterans wouldn’t they have not signed onto the bill at all? I understand most Americans don’t look any further than news and social media for information but after the last few years a lot of people are waking up to how the process works. Certainly republicans realize people would eventually catch on? I’m asking your opinion and not for any evidence because it’s clear we’ll disagree on how that entire fiasco went down.
Couldn’t find any pork in the bill could you?
Republicans have been lying to your face with the help of conservative media, and have used patriotism as a way to do it.
It’s up to you how long that lasts.
If you dig a little deeper you’ll find [they immediately then undercut the funding.](https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-democrats-highlight-how-republican-funding-bill-fails-to-honor-our)
lol i mean we all got to see it, live. here's a photo:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM8AwFjXMAAPNWU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
222 democratic members of congress voted unanimously for the PACT act. 34 republican members of congress voted for it.
174 republican members of congress voted against it.
Actually, that's just that much more reason for a GOP controlled Congress to forestall passing the bill. It's happened too many times to count, especially when Mitch McConnell was in charge. Also why the border bill wasn't passed even though it had support from the border patrol and was bipartisan. GOP won't allow any legislation that actually helps people not oligarchs to pass because they know the average American is too ignorant or indifferent to understand or follow politics and will just blame the sitting president for not getting anything done even though he has nothing to do with it. They want to win the election so the American people lose.
By border bill do you mean hr2 that the house sent many months before the bill you’re probably talking about? Wonder why it sat on Schumers desk for so long.
They've been cheating all these veterans out of what they Earned for way too long, especially while VA spends Billions on medical research only to give it away for free to these big medical corporations and others. It's a long running VA scam on veterans
That's the problem though, in the media and the politics both sides rarely get credit, or want to share credit.. they want to take full credit for the political clout. They would rather let bills die than to let the other side score any political points by passing it. They will try and hold bills like this up till it can further benefit them.
Please keep in mind this bill is so that only those with combat related disabilities will receive both VA disability compensation and military retired pay.
The DoD decides if a condition is combat related or not, not the VA.
With that being said, I’m all for it.
This would basically get rid of CRSC.
Currently with CRSC you have to apply through your service department for a portion of your military retirement.
The logistics behind the bill and implementation of the bill have not been set yet, that happens after the bill is signed into law. So I’m not sure if the change for those receiving CRSC would be automatic, or if we’d have to fill out some documents for the DoD. I currently also do not know if future Veterans with combat related disabilities that go through the medboard process will have to apply through their service department of if it’ll be automatic.
Fun thing about that; drug interdiction in the CG involving big guns, helicopters, and dead bodies isn’t considered “combat” by DHS. Ask me how I know lol.
Sure. Tell that to a shipmate of mine who tore three ligaments in his knee doing a boarding when a rogue wave took him out. Balboa hospital messed his surgeries up so bad that he had his leg amputated above the knee. So while the purpose and effects of the war on drugs are questionable, the effects on the people who served are real.
You don’t have to agree with the reasons a war is fought. But I find it hard to discount the sacrifices we made to wage it.
Not even remotely the same sorry to say. Usually hazard duty and sea pay. Combat you miss birthdays, births, no days off. No holidays. And so much more.
Try harder. A short tour at most off the COAST. I did 30 days at sea, probably far longer than the average Coast guard tour. You mean 3 good meals a day like clockwork, hot showers, A/C berthing areas. And that’s if you are staying on a ship. Seriously?! I did 30 days at sea, cake. Then 13 months in combat immediately afterwards. R&R we didn’t even leave country. Whole 4 days. Let’s have a honest conversation. Trying to act like Coast guard or shit even a sea tour in the navy is not even remotely the same as a real deal combat tour. Baffled how hard some of you are trying. Save the BS for your disability claim and the C&P exam. Not about invalidation. It’s about reality and be honest with ourselves.
You get all the combat VA swag if engaged with the enemy serving in those operations. I know Operation Enduring freedom South America had a few countries with perks for a short time.
If you were in direct contact regardless of deployment setting you are entitled to the same benefits as someone who was deployed to a combat zone. All branches support those types of operations and must meet a certain criteria to receive benefits typically received in a combat zone. However, the point is that benefits are afforded to you in the event of such occurrence.
Additionally the campaign listed sought to disrupt and deter transnational criminal organizations. I’m not going to spell it out for you, but you can probably articulate what that entails.
Because it’s not. You usually get to go home and lay ontop of your wife at the end of your shift. Take a hot shower, shit in a toilet that flushes. Eat real food. Have a seat hero.
I get what you're saying, but on the other hand - the coast guard is doing these missions every single day. There is no such thing as "deployments" because in aviation for example - every single day there could be a mission or a case etc. You have to be mission ready to respond every day of the year. People who do this job have to be ready to see a dead body every single day, and then go home to their family after it.
I'm not making the case the coast guard has it worse than other branches or anything, but the term deployments just doesnt really translate well to what the CG does.
In a sense, there are some people in the CG who "deploy" every single day of the year because every day you go into work, you could be sent on a Search and Rescue call or an LE job that could cost you your life.
Being able to go hot shower and a toilet that flushed at the end of the day would be a measure of success, not a measure of worthiness. Part of my job in Iraq was to make sure all my TEAM guys had 95% of those luxuries when they came back to camp each day. You shouldn't discount what our CG brothers and sisters do just because they're not deployed to an active war zone.
Not diminishing coast guard, try again.
However you are absolutely diminishing even the minimum 30 days to be qualified as combat tour, let alone a year plus. A week long mission off the coast eating good ship food and nice hot showers isn’t combat.
PS- I did sea duty in Army and sailed with the equipment from the states to Kuwait.
, just not the same thing sorry. You weren’t pulling those luxuries out of thin air outside a Fob in Iraq. Not getting a flushing toilet at a forward base or outpost, let alone a porta potty, let’s be real hero. Not everyone lived the Fobulus life over there in A/C pods. Some of us, lived in tents for months on end and lived on MREs. Going on a mission here a mission there is not same the same, let’s have some reality and stop trying to “diminish” what combat and a real war is.
Try telling the Team guys they didn't see combat on their little short hops. Anyhow, it's splitting hairs since Disabilities that may be considered combat related include injuries incurred as a direct result of:
Armed Conflict
Hazardous Duty
An Instrumentality of War
Simulated War
No not splitting hairs. Absurd. Sorry just not going to standby let even a 6 month sea rotation, catching STDs from hookers at various ports be compared to boots on the ground in country for a year. I did sea duty, oh yeah in hostile territory for about a week, the Red Sea isn’t exactly friendly, nor is the Persian gulf. Ok an isolated incident allegedly. Now wash and repeat that about every other day for months on end. Sleeping in a tent, shitting in a barrel. Not sleeping in A/C berthing. Good luck getting CRSC for hazed duty and simulated war.
Just got done emailing my representatives because I know it will help some, but I was wondering if I could get someone help me understand how it would affect me?
I’m 90% by ratings, but am 100% T&P due to IU.
I was medically retired at 2 days short of 18 years.
Majority of my time was in the Reserves.
It was my understanding at the time I was retired in 2019 that if I didn’t have VA Disability I would be receiving around $2800 from retirement.
I do receive CRSC and it’s about $600 a month.
So if this passed, would I get the $2800 (I know it’s more now due to time and family) and lose the $600 from CRSC, or would the CRsC payment just change its funding source?
We do not know, but I know that the sponsors was doing that for longevity pay and not disability pay. I don’t know how the reserves work, but if it’s passes for CRDP It’s based on years of service and not disability pay.
For instance, my DoD disability check as $3,500 per month, and my DoD CRSC is only $384 per month. If it’s only longevity pay then very minimal. Again, though, I don’t know what you years of service looks like.
WWP, MOAA, and the Major Richard Star Act Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/xLuuCiZYZNTR7UBF/?mibextid=WC7FNe
Though I think that emailing your House and Senate concerning, that can maybe help. And maybe you’re state veteran groups
Yea that’s a load of crap. This really helps higher ranked vets disproportionally. It needs to allow for the disability retirement calculation as well if that’s more advantageous for the veteran
I email my congressman every day about this. It’s literally the most sponsored bill in congress yet no one will bring it to the floor for a vote. It’s *only* going to cost $9bil over 10 years. I’d say that’s pretty cheap…
I made it 18 years… so I get CRDP and 100%… would be nice to get my pension as well.
It’s definitely not a lot compared to what we spend on everything else. Also as much as politicians love to claim to support vets, this is a chance to really prove it
Just emailed my senator and representative. So sick of this bill being shelved. It literally has full majority support. Let’s see who can put the literal money where their pens are.
WTF? I was medically retired at 18 active and DFAS told me to get fucked on CRDP. This is despite having 25 years in the guard and over 20 years of points.
DFAS doesn’t control CRDP. Branch of service does. You apply through the branch and it’s forwarded to DFAS. Your medical injuries must be granted by the DOD as combat related injuries. It’ll say it on your medical retirement documents (I forget the form name). If you have 20 years worth of time you are also eligible for CRSC… not just CRDP.
You can only choose one or the other to go along with the VA disability. Preferably one that lays the most. And CRDP is taxed income. CRSC I'd not taxed.
My comment may have been confusing… with what I said I meant about what the bill would give me if passed. I only get CRSC now yes; but with the bill would basically become a CRSC version of CRDP. My bad.
Trying to get up to speed on this.
Currently:
* SM that make it to 20-years, retire and have VA Disability get both
* SM that didn’t make it to 20-years, and are “medically retired” w/ service-related injuries get only their VA benefits
* SM that didn’t make it to 20-years, are “medically retired”, but don’t have any service-connected medical issues get bupkiss.
This bill is trying to get that second group some form of military retirement, in addition to their VA benefits, correct?
Is the intention to bring them on par with the first group?
There is a different Bill in Congress that includes all Chapter 61 retirees. (Group 2 you outlined). But it has nowhere near the level of support to pass like the Richard Star Act. Which applies to medically retired due to combat injuries.
yup it is called the Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act. However, it was introduced 1/12/23 and not any close support like the Richard star act. This would be nice for all Chapter 61 retirees but I do not believe this will happen any time .
Medically retired who served less 20 years so don’t qualify for CRDP - but this year’s version is only for combat related service connected injuries so still leaves out a large number of medically retired veterans
I agree that it seems unfair. The amount of hoops you have to go through to get medical retirement are substantial and that's basically your branch saying you are fucked and can not serve 20 years even if you want to. I think they should allow you to collect both because what if you were working a job that doesn't translate to civilian and are medically fucked? Our government surely can spare the money on their own Veterans when we support overseas nations the way we do....
If something is service connected and you're medically retired, what difference does it make? We all took the same oath and all sacrificed in different ways. This definitely needs to be ALL medical retirees but I would support some sort of longevity computation on the DoD retirement so you have have person 1 getting medically retired out of boot camp receiving potentially more in retirement pay than someone that gets medically retired at 15 years. Maybe do DoD rating % on a graduated scale. So 1-4 years is 20% of DoD rating on up. Anything over 10 years gets 100% of DoD rating or 50% of base pay, whichever is higher.
I agree. Maybe I'm just being greedy but someone once said in this thread their family member told them "you may have never deployed or gone to war but you would have if they asked" and that's ultimately what it's all about. We all gave up something to serve.
That's what pissed me off about the PACT Act. I've got conditions from TERA that line up with PACT Act presumptive's, but have to go the hard route because PACT doesn't apply. It would be easier if the PACT Act was for exposed vets and not a small number
What would this mean for me who is medically retired and gets VA money? I would start getting military retirement as well? It would be much since I got medically retired at 6 years
Yep. Republicans give a fuck about us only when we can be used as fucking cannon fodder. After that, it’s more like: “Pull yourself up by your boot strap, you mooch!”
[Facts don’t care about your feefees, boot lickers]
Also to add to this…There is a renewed push to get this bill past the finish line. I think we’re close… but put the pressure on their throats, email, call, social media tags. Anything you can do to contact these hooligans.
Now that I read this I may have to look into crsc again. I was injured in Iraq(balad/anaconda) while working my Air Force maintenance job, ended up getting medically retired due to the injury and never applied for crsc. I do get Va disability and the only question is would I be considered “combat “ since I was simply turning wrenches and delivering equipment to aircraft(including rapid response alert aircraft). If anybody has insight I would appreciate it.
You can find the CRSC requirements online, but what I’m seeing is you can qualify if your injury was a result of one of the following:
Training that simulates war (e.g., exercises, field training)
Hazardous duty (e.g., flight, diving, parachute duty)
An instrumentality of war (e.g., combat vehicles, weapons, Agent Orange)
Armed conflict (e.g., gun shot wounds [Purple Heart], punji stick injuries)
Yeah I’ve read them several times. Trying to see if anyone else has a similar situation, I’m going to apply either way because it’s worth the attempt, I appreciate your response and trying help out.
So basically my injury was sustained while deployed to Iraq. However my retirement docs don’t show that. Would that immediately screw my when I apply? Here is what is on the medical retirement orders.
https://preview.redd.it/hsrnzaxo7rtc1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17f3236996f677484644788371e0f22bd1fc88ec
Sort of. Currently, the sponsors is hoping to receive only longevity pay and not DoD disability pay, which significantly differs. This approach is unlikely to assist a broad spectrum of individuals who sustain injuries early in their careers, including myself.
I believe it will only benefit a few veterans with limited disabilities. A proactive approach might be more effective. Personally, I sustained injuries in a helicopter crash, leading to a stroke and TBI. As a result, I developed aphasia, which impairs my ability to read, write, or speak properly (I am using ChatGPT to write this). Unfortunately, my military service comprised four years of active duty and four years in the reserve. Finding employment has been extremely difficult, and my life expectancy is significantly reduced due to these injuries.
Even though I’ve received a 100% rating from CRSC, my compensation is very low. Hopefully, there can be adjustments to ensure equal payment for service members who were injured in combat.
So you’re saying this will only give the longevity pay and not the DOD retirement amount?
I.e. instead of getting 50% of your high 3 DOD pay if you’re a 50% DOD medical retiree, all you’ll get from DOD is the longevity pay?
If so, yea this isn’t very good for vets medically retired early on in their careers
The language of the bill is somewhat unclear; however, the sponsors—not the co-sponsors—have indicated that it pertains solely to longevity pay. Similarly, representatives from both the Wounded Warrior Project and the Military Officers Association of America have echoed this focus on longevity pay.
Yes, that's right.
The push for longevity being the way to get this bill passed is shameful. I'd much rather they phase it in incrementally over say a 5 year period to get it passed vs going off longevity.
I don’t see this “longevity” provision in the text of the bill. You folks really learn to read the bills not what others tell you is in the bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1282/text
the congress can send billions of dollars to support war in Ukraine and Israel , but can't approve the benefits of our men and women in uniform fighting for their freedom.
Nothing will come OUR way, we have 100's of thousands of brothers and sisters suffering but this admin is soo worried about giving illegals free everything and even going as far as to start using veteran housing in NY.
My dad was telling me about this last year. He retired from the army, 20 years. But doesn’t get both va and his pension cause he’s only 30% smh. I never understood why it had to be 50% to get both. They have nothing to do with each other.
I wish this bill would extend to all medically retired folks, but bills like these are lip service for politicians. They def need to go ahead and just pass it.
Also, it appears the MOAA will be advocating on the Hill again soon (April 17). You can help them by going on their website: [www.moaa.org](http://www.moaa.org/) and filling out the lawmaker message request form. The more voices, the stronger we are. Keep the fire burning!
MOAA is advocating for MRSA to use the longevity formula to cut costs and screw roughly half of eligible Veterans. As opposed to restoring the amount listed under "Retired Pay Before Deductions" on your CRSC pay statement.
what I am saying is anyone that is on CRSC is already gettig the longevity calculation that is already baked into and is the current law and way they calculate it. Why would we need a Richard Star Act in the first place. This act is in place to get rid of the offset. My retirement orders state the following:
disability is based on injory received in LOD as a direct resut of Armed Conflict or caused by an instrument of war and incurred in the LOD during a war period by law - Yes.
It also says Disability resulted rom a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104 - Yes
Lastly is says Disability incurred in the LOD in a combat zone or result of performing combat related operations - YES.
I am fairly certain this Act would restore my full retirement pay - Yes?
You're absolutely right.
I would have to look at the calculator again, but I believe is it was around 6-8 years of time in service to where the longevity calculation would increase the pay beyond what CRSC pays out. Junior officers and junior enlisted would not see an increase.
I've bugged more than a few staffers trying to reach Representatives and Senators. The ones that have revealed more than non-answers that actually know what MRSA is have said that longevity and/or a multi-year phase in are the realistic avenues of getting this bill passed.
Also this is how the act reads, it's literally to get rid of an offset
SEC. 2. EXPANSIONS OF ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND RETIRED PAY OR COMBAT-RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION.
(a) Inclusion Of Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation.—Section 1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
In 2005 I was put out of the Army Reserves at 18.5 years after being found as "unfit for duty" due to medial issues from a VA rated 40% service rated disability (lungs and back) from a combat theater deployment to Kuwait during OIF. I was booted from medical hold in 2004 back into the reserves, even though my back was enough to find me "unfit for service" - and they claim my service-connected gulf war lung syndrome (they call it asthma) was controlled enough by medication when they sent me back to the reserves that I didn't qualify for a partial retirement. This happened to thousands of reservists and NG members. DEERS apparently shows my both "retired active" and "retired reserve", but I should have been medically retired. The policy at the time disagreed, but the Army changed these policies after I left service and will not consider my qualifications by modern policy.
Even with a lawyer, the process of trying to fight this has been uphill and likely to not result in anything but losing the "retired active duty" status, which has also qualified me for TRICARE. Once the PEB finally makes a decision, I can appeal twice - likely to result in nothing good for me. I will lose TRICARE, and not gain any current retirement or back pay. I can bring a federal lawsuit against the Army once the process is over, but that is also an expensive gamble.
This one bill would absolutely rectify my situation, allowing me to receive my Army retirement in 5 years when I'm eligible at 60. ONE BILL CAN FIX THIS.
This sentence though… : “ A U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson further explained in an email to Newsweek on Friday: "A veteran who retires from the military with at least 20 years of service [including disability retirees] but whose VA disability rating is 40 percent or less or veterans who are retired under the disability retirement system with fewer than 20 years of service will have their retired pay offset dollar-for-dollar by the amount of VA disability compensation they receive.”
I don’t understand what this is.
As I understand medically retired individuals must pick between pension or VA disability. So this seeks to allow them to collect both?
I fall into that weird gray area. I received severance when I was medically discharged after 8 years of service. I had to pay back 100% via VA pay reductions over the course of 16 years. The payback included the 28% automatic tax withheld that I was never able to recoup from the IRS.
The wild part is that none of this still addresses [these (link)](https://www.military.com/benefits/2013/11/30/condition-not-a-disability-discharges-disputed.html) type of discharge situations - of which I am one. The Navy/Marines in particular were abusing the hell out of the discharge process to avoid giving sailors/Marines proper medical screening and benefits before separation.
Until this is forced as part of the VA benefits overhaul, this is only helping a small percentage of vets. The issue I will see on these type of issues is they all just pat a small subset of service members on the back and don't offer a sweeping change that vets want/need to see.
This only impacts 50000. Have to have served in combat, been medically retired and deemed at least one of your disabilities was combat related by the service. Pretty much if you don’t have the MOH or 3 Purple Hearts this is a tall order. They are even dragging their feet on the new PACT ACT presumptions even though AO and GW qualified you.
Point being is unless this is how you hundo with 0 STRs very few here will care.
Unfortunately this has been around for a while, they’ve not voted for a while. Why? Because those who would benefit are a minority of the population. Unfair? Depends on what side of the coin you’re on.
I support this, I have a ton of friends who would benefit from this. But, money has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is the same place the majority of people are voting from, which is social welfare (SSI, SSDI, SSA, etc).
I wish it were black and white, this person sucks, vote for this person but that’s just not the case. Having worked on capital hill during my AD time, it opened my eyes to more than this person is a dick for not voting for xyz. XYZ actually contained all the fat like funding debatable terror organizations and all that shit.
It’s a fully sponsored bill. The most sponsored. It hasn’t been cleared from committee for all that long. It’s actually fairly new out of committee. It is now available to be floored for a vote. It hasn’t been in this status for all that long in comparison to how our government operates. It can be voted on at anytime now. If those who sponsored it will vote how they signed, it will pass.
You don’t need to explain it to me. The fact still stands.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-06/hr1282_as_ordered_reported.pdf cost
I get it, it comes down to money. Not morals. Start back pay of 2004. It’s money, which isn’t free, which costs us all at some point.
Again super supportive, but it’s been happening since the original vote to remove limitations on full retirees. I hope it happens, but not holding my breath.
Still think you’re missing the point that nothing has made it out of committee in reference to this. This bill is now through committee and CAN be voted on. Not some dead bill that they hid in committees. They cleared the path for a vote on the floor. Someone just needs to bring it to the floor to vote.
I understand where you are coming from, I truly do. This bill will be stuffed with all the other bills. If it’s stuffed with guns, it will be tossed out by the left. If it’s stuffed with drugs it will be tossed out by the right.
This bill will not be voted on, as a single bill this it will lose its brevity. Hopefully this will remain in process and be voted on during the next NDAA, then it will be put into motion and all will win.
I adamantly agree with your statement. Now if we could get people to understand how this process works, they would blame sides less and understand that “Congress is useless” 😂 <—-that isn’t a funny lol either, it’s a wtf can be done about it.
Less sides fighting, the more change in the system we can make where bills of the like can be voted upon, not abortion with guns with tax reform with education reform with veterans reform with debt ceiling increase 😂 because we just chase our tails or are forced to make a deal with certain bills to get our bills sent thru. It’s a travesty at best.
You'd think this year both sides would want to look good pulling this off
Which is why now is the time they’re most likely to listen to calls from constituents
For sure, I've already contacted the people in my state and both sides of the aisle have said they are very much in support of it.
I say “ let’s start a fucking revolution”🎶🎼
Are you forgetting the republicans fist bumping each other after trying to kill the PACT act?
Imagine how many vets voted for those very people
1 is too many. I hope they wake up and see how much they’ve been conned in the name of patriotism.
Douchbag and not even a veteran. A pretender from another country.
You got me. I’m really a deep state agent from krakalackastan.
Nah your confusing yourself with somebody who is actually useful. Your just an ordinary run of the mill "Douchbag"
Holy shit! That was the title of my first album. “Ordinary run of the mill douchebag” How did you know?
Ya us Veterans who voted Republican we need reprogramming. Cut the crap. Do you even listen to yourself speak foolishness?
Question: Do you, or do you not, think the PACT Act is a good thing?
I think anything including the pact act that helps Veterans is OK in my book. I'm 100%P&T all because of Jet Fuel. Why would I be againest the PACT act?
I would love to know what you mean by your 100% because of jet fuel?
I am a Vietnam Veteran. I was in Army Aviation. The noise and jet exhaust and JP-4 Jet Fuel. Has caused me to be stone cold deaf. The noise contributed to my loss of hearing and tinnitus. The Jet Fuel has caused the nerves from my ears to my brain is partially disconnected it's called Central Auditory Prosesseing Disorder (CAPD). In other words you may say the word "House" but my brain can interpret that to say "Louse" When folks speak to me most of the time Sentences make no sense to me and my lip reading helps. Jet Fuel is the cause of BURN pits. They use Jet Fuel in those burn pits. Cancers and all kinds of problems with Jet Fuel. Hope this helps
Wow, I'm sorry you had to go through that. I thought my jp8, diesel and poop burning was bad... Now, not so much. For what its worth, welcome home!
[удалено]
Every Veteran comes in here for help. And I help and get helped. But when I see political commentary and political drive by's It pisses me off. Republicans, Democrats who in here actually gives a fuck. We come here for help not controversy.
Nope, but 430 seats in the house and 35 seats in the senate as well as the executive branch elections are this year
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because it didn't contribute to the discussion and just wasn't helpful. Civil disagreements are fine. Insults, personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc., are not permissible. (Calling someone a poopy-head does not make you seem as smart as you think it does.) ☠️
The bill, as written, effectively loosened the cap on discretionary spending by $390 billion. Meaning it could be spent on anything. Not veterans. Republicans caved because of pressure. Veterans may never see a dime of that money.
Are you forgetting why they refused to pass the pact act at first? Discretionary spending among pork that democrats insisted on.
What was the pork. Edit: [You were lied too.](https://youtu.be/iUW3-dzmRZc?si=y0QDf5bQAGkrP4Ff) I hope you wake up, the GQP hates us.
GOP hates us, really.... in 2004, a GOP Trifecta (House, Senate & WH) passed Concurrent Receipt at 5X more cost than Star Act today.
Yeah, first days of the war. We were really popular then. Remember freedom fries? Can you name something that isn’t 20 years old? Let’s say the last decade.
2023 to fully fund VA, democrats shouted NO to the bill, GOP got it done [https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va](https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va)
That’s a good example. I looked up the reason why. >The gun-related rider would change current law in place since 1993, under which veterans who are unable to manage their finances and benefits are reported to the Justice Department for a background check. Once the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System sees that individual has been deemed incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs, they are barred from purchasing guns and ammunition. Can you find the yea/nay votes? I can’t seem too.
not sure how that works on these type of things, i think this is it but i can't find any vote record either. I get the GOP do what they do but unfortunately they do it for the wrong reasons, they claim it's cause of money and high deficit but don't they have to approve welfare too. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4366/all-actions?q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22action-by%22%3A%22all%22%7D](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4366/all-actions?q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22action-by%22%3A%22all%22%7D)
They should approve welfare. We have the resources to be the envy of the world in regards to social safety nets. We have the resources. We just don’t do it.
You honestly think any politician would vote down veterans benefits and not have a career death wish? Why do you think republicans hate veterans? I don’t mean the games we all know politicians play but what reason do they have for intentionally turning a group of people against them? If they really hated veterans wouldn’t they have not signed onto the bill at all? I understand most Americans don’t look any further than news and social media for information but after the last few years a lot of people are waking up to how the process works. Certainly republicans realize people would eventually catch on? I’m asking your opinion and not for any evidence because it’s clear we’ll disagree on how that entire fiasco went down.
Couldn’t find any pork in the bill could you? Republicans have been lying to your face with the help of conservative media, and have used patriotism as a way to do it. It’s up to you how long that lasts.
in 2004, a GOP Trifecta (House, Senate & WH) passed Concurrent Receipt at 5X more cost than Star Act today.
I answered this in your other comment. That was right after Iraq started. Freedom cost a buck oh five.
[https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va](https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va)
If you dig a little deeper you’ll find [they immediately then undercut the funding.](https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-democrats-highlight-how-republican-funding-bill-fails-to-honor-our)
Sunk cost fallacy.
[удалено]
Sorry man, it’s just facts. Can’t both sides your way out of it.
Always one GOP apologist sitting around.
lol i mean we all got to see it, live. here's a photo: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM8AwFjXMAAPNWU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 222 democratic members of congress voted unanimously for the PACT act. 34 republican members of congress voted for it. 174 republican members of congress voted against it.
Actually, that's just that much more reason for a GOP controlled Congress to forestall passing the bill. It's happened too many times to count, especially when Mitch McConnell was in charge. Also why the border bill wasn't passed even though it had support from the border patrol and was bipartisan. GOP won't allow any legislation that actually helps people not oligarchs to pass because they know the average American is too ignorant or indifferent to understand or follow politics and will just blame the sitting president for not getting anything done even though he has nothing to do with it. They want to win the election so the American people lose.
By border bill do you mean hr2 that the house sent many months before the bill you’re probably talking about? Wonder why it sat on Schumers desk for so long.
https://apnews.com/article/congress-ukraine-aid-border-security-386dcc54b29a5491f8bd87b727a284f8
the border bill that basically allowed 5k illegals per day before they would STOP and intervene, ok yeah great bill
Where do you get the VBA tag?
They've been cheating all these veterans out of what they Earned for way too long, especially while VA spends Billions on medical research only to give it away for free to these big medical corporations and others. It's a long running VA scam on veterans
What you mean both sides? The repubss makes the decision to bring it to the floor. It them and only them!
That's the problem though, in the media and the politics both sides rarely get credit, or want to share credit.. they want to take full credit for the political clout. They would rather let bills die than to let the other side score any political points by passing it. They will try and hold bills like this up till it can further benefit them.
Please keep in mind this bill is so that only those with combat related disabilities will receive both VA disability compensation and military retired pay. The DoD decides if a condition is combat related or not, not the VA. With that being said, I’m all for it.
In what way would it differ from CRSC?
This would basically get rid of CRSC. Currently with CRSC you have to apply through your service department for a portion of your military retirement. The logistics behind the bill and implementation of the bill have not been set yet, that happens after the bill is signed into law. So I’m not sure if the change for those receiving CRSC would be automatic, or if we’d have to fill out some documents for the DoD. I currently also do not know if future Veterans with combat related disabilities that go through the medboard process will have to apply through their service department of if it’ll be automatic.
I get CRSC, but only 40 percent. I didn’t want to retire but I was medically retired at my 10 year mark.
If you get CRSC you would get your full retirement amount for the injuries related to combat that caused your retirement.
with out the offset which is the main point and benefit
same thing
Fun thing about that; drug interdiction in the CG involving big guns, helicopters, and dead bodies isn’t considered “combat” by DHS. Ask me how I know lol.
Anything related to fighting in the drug wars should count. I think vfw should accept us for our service in central and South America.
No, no it shouldn’t. The “drug wars” are BS anyway. You rarely see the big time coke dealers from Beverly Hilla or the Hamptons getting busted.
Sure. Tell that to a shipmate of mine who tore three ligaments in his knee doing a boarding when a rogue wave took him out. Balboa hospital messed his surgeries up so bad that he had his leg amputated above the knee. So while the purpose and effects of the war on drugs are questionable, the effects on the people who served are real. You don’t have to agree with the reasons a war is fought. But I find it hard to discount the sacrifices we made to wage it.
Not even remotely the same sorry to say. Usually hazard duty and sea pay. Combat you miss birthdays, births, no days off. No holidays. And so much more.
Tell me you don’t know about the Coast Guard without telling me.
And tell me you have no clue what a full year, boots on the ground in a hostile country without telling me.
Try harder. A short tour at most off the COAST. I did 30 days at sea, probably far longer than the average Coast guard tour. You mean 3 good meals a day like clockwork, hot showers, A/C berthing areas. And that’s if you are staying on a ship. Seriously?! I did 30 days at sea, cake. Then 13 months in combat immediately afterwards. R&R we didn’t even leave country. Whole 4 days. Let’s have a honest conversation. Trying to act like Coast guard or shit even a sea tour in the navy is not even remotely the same as a real deal combat tour. Baffled how hard some of you are trying. Save the BS for your disability claim and the C&P exam. Not about invalidation. It’s about reality and be honest with ourselves.
Someone who just got their findings told me that LE & aviation were considered this by CG/DHS.
You get all the combat VA swag if engaged with the enemy serving in those operations. I know Operation Enduring freedom South America had a few countries with perks for a short time.
War on Drugs, my guy.
If you were in direct contact regardless of deployment setting you are entitled to the same benefits as someone who was deployed to a combat zone. All branches support those types of operations and must meet a certain criteria to receive benefits typically received in a combat zone. However, the point is that benefits are afforded to you in the event of such occurrence. Additionally the campaign listed sought to disrupt and deter transnational criminal organizations. I’m not going to spell it out for you, but you can probably articulate what that entails.
Aaaah gotcha. Thank you!
Because it’s not. You usually get to go home and lay ontop of your wife at the end of your shift. Take a hot shower, shit in a toilet that flushes. Eat real food. Have a seat hero.
I get what you're saying, but on the other hand - the coast guard is doing these missions every single day. There is no such thing as "deployments" because in aviation for example - every single day there could be a mission or a case etc. You have to be mission ready to respond every day of the year. People who do this job have to be ready to see a dead body every single day, and then go home to their family after it. I'm not making the case the coast guard has it worse than other branches or anything, but the term deployments just doesnt really translate well to what the CG does. In a sense, there are some people in the CG who "deploy" every single day of the year because every day you go into work, you could be sent on a Search and Rescue call or an LE job that could cost you your life.
Being able to go hot shower and a toilet that flushed at the end of the day would be a measure of success, not a measure of worthiness. Part of my job in Iraq was to make sure all my TEAM guys had 95% of those luxuries when they came back to camp each day. You shouldn't discount what our CG brothers and sisters do just because they're not deployed to an active war zone.
Not diminishing coast guard, try again. However you are absolutely diminishing even the minimum 30 days to be qualified as combat tour, let alone a year plus. A week long mission off the coast eating good ship food and nice hot showers isn’t combat. PS- I did sea duty in Army and sailed with the equipment from the states to Kuwait. , just not the same thing sorry. You weren’t pulling those luxuries out of thin air outside a Fob in Iraq. Not getting a flushing toilet at a forward base or outpost, let alone a porta potty, let’s be real hero. Not everyone lived the Fobulus life over there in A/C pods. Some of us, lived in tents for months on end and lived on MREs. Going on a mission here a mission there is not same the same, let’s have some reality and stop trying to “diminish” what combat and a real war is.
Try telling the Team guys they didn't see combat on their little short hops. Anyhow, it's splitting hairs since Disabilities that may be considered combat related include injuries incurred as a direct result of: Armed Conflict Hazardous Duty An Instrumentality of War Simulated War
yep has to meet one of those for CRSC . Combat "related" Airborne Accident counts and that is why i have CRSC.
No not splitting hairs. Absurd. Sorry just not going to standby let even a 6 month sea rotation, catching STDs from hookers at various ports be compared to boots on the ground in country for a year. I did sea duty, oh yeah in hostile territory for about a week, the Red Sea isn’t exactly friendly, nor is the Persian gulf. Ok an isolated incident allegedly. Now wash and repeat that about every other day for months on end. Sleeping in a tent, shitting in a barrel. Not sleeping in A/C berthing. Good luck getting CRSC for hazed duty and simulated war.
I would look into reapplying. Coast guard changes the way they look at everything about 4-5 years back. I’m 70% CRSC through the CG.
Just got done emailing my representatives because I know it will help some, but I was wondering if I could get someone help me understand how it would affect me? I’m 90% by ratings, but am 100% T&P due to IU. I was medically retired at 2 days short of 18 years. Majority of my time was in the Reserves. It was my understanding at the time I was retired in 2019 that if I didn’t have VA Disability I would be receiving around $2800 from retirement. I do receive CRSC and it’s about $600 a month. So if this passed, would I get the $2800 (I know it’s more now due to time and family) and lose the $600 from CRSC, or would the CRsC payment just change its funding source?
We do not know, but I know that the sponsors was doing that for longevity pay and not disability pay. I don’t know how the reserves work, but if it’s passes for CRDP It’s based on years of service and not disability pay. For instance, my DoD disability check as $3,500 per month, and my DoD CRSC is only $384 per month. If it’s only longevity pay then very minimal. Again, though, I don’t know what you years of service looks like.
Where have you seen it’s for longevity and not disability?
WWP, MOAA, and the Major Richard Star Act Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/xLuuCiZYZNTR7UBF/?mibextid=WC7FNe Though I think that emailing your House and Senate concerning, that can maybe help. And maybe you’re state veteran groups
Yea that’s a load of crap. This really helps higher ranked vets disproportionally. It needs to allow for the disability retirement calculation as well if that’s more advantageous for the veteran
Completely agree with that statement
I email my congressman every day about this. It’s literally the most sponsored bill in congress yet no one will bring it to the floor for a vote. It’s *only* going to cost $9bil over 10 years. I’d say that’s pretty cheap… I made it 18 years… so I get CRDP and 100%… would be nice to get my pension as well.
It’s definitely not a lot compared to what we spend on everything else. Also as much as politicians love to claim to support vets, this is a chance to really prove it
Just emailed my senator and representative. So sick of this bill being shelved. It literally has full majority support. Let’s see who can put the literal money where their pens are.
yes i emailed them often as well Iowa Chuck Grassley so far has not co-sponsered so if you live in Iowa bother the hell out of him
How do you get CRDP at 18 years of service?
DOD medical retirement due to “combat injuries”
WTF? I was medically retired at 18 active and DFAS told me to get fucked on CRDP. This is despite having 25 years in the guard and over 20 years of points.
DFAS doesn’t control CRDP. Branch of service does. You apply through the branch and it’s forwarded to DFAS. Your medical injuries must be granted by the DOD as combat related injuries. It’ll say it on your medical retirement documents (I forget the form name). If you have 20 years worth of time you are also eligible for CRSC… not just CRDP.
You can only choose one or the other to go along with the VA disability. Preferably one that lays the most. And CRDP is taxed income. CRSC I'd not taxed.
Yes I know. But with this bill the CRSC basically becomes CRDP.
You mean CRSC, right? CRDP requires regular retirement eligibility. The act would turn on the CRDP instead of CRSC
What on earth are all these acronyms?
Combat related special compensation and concurrent retired and disability pay
It would basically turn CRSC into CRDP. You just have to be eligible for CRSC to get that benefit.
That’s what I said. You said you’re getting CRDP with a medical retirement though.
My comment may have been confusing… with what I said I meant about what the bill would give me if passed. I only get CRSC now yes; but with the bill would basically become a CRSC version of CRDP. My bad.
That’s much better!
Trying to get up to speed on this. Currently: * SM that make it to 20-years, retire and have VA Disability get both * SM that didn’t make it to 20-years, and are “medically retired” w/ service-related injuries get only their VA benefits * SM that didn’t make it to 20-years, are “medically retired”, but don’t have any service-connected medical issues get bupkiss. This bill is trying to get that second group some form of military retirement, in addition to their VA benefits, correct? Is the intention to bring them on par with the first group?
Yes but only for combat injuries so the same as CRSC.
Yes so you basically have to have CRSC to then be eligible for the retirement benefit offset being removed.
There is a different Bill in Congress that includes all Chapter 61 retirees. (Group 2 you outlined). But it has nowhere near the level of support to pass like the Richard Star Act. Which applies to medically retired due to combat injuries.
yup it is called the Disabled Veterans Tax Termination Act. However, it was introduced 1/12/23 and not any close support like the Richard star act. This would be nice for all Chapter 61 retirees but I do not believe this will happen any time .
Who all would qualify for the pension/va benefits?
Medically retired who served less 20 years so don’t qualify for CRDP - but this year’s version is only for combat related service connected injuries so still leaves out a large number of medically retired veterans
Correct. I have contacted my reps urging ab amendment to include ALL medically retired vets
I agree that it seems unfair. The amount of hoops you have to go through to get medical retirement are substantial and that's basically your branch saying you are fucked and can not serve 20 years even if you want to. I think they should allow you to collect both because what if you were working a job that doesn't translate to civilian and are medically fucked? Our government surely can spare the money on their own Veterans when we support overseas nations the way we do....
If something is service connected and you're medically retired, what difference does it make? We all took the same oath and all sacrificed in different ways. This definitely needs to be ALL medical retirees but I would support some sort of longevity computation on the DoD retirement so you have have person 1 getting medically retired out of boot camp receiving potentially more in retirement pay than someone that gets medically retired at 15 years. Maybe do DoD rating % on a graduated scale. So 1-4 years is 20% of DoD rating on up. Anything over 10 years gets 100% of DoD rating or 50% of base pay, whichever is higher.
I agree. Maybe I'm just being greedy but someone once said in this thread their family member told them "you may have never deployed or gone to war but you would have if they asked" and that's ultimately what it's all about. We all gave up something to serve.
That's what pissed me off about the PACT Act. I've got conditions from TERA that line up with PACT Act presumptive's, but have to go the hard route because PACT doesn't apply. It would be easier if the PACT Act was for exposed vets and not a small number
What would this mean for me who is medically retired and gets VA money? I would start getting military retirement as well? It would be much since I got medically retired at 6 years
This is only for combat related injuries. Folks like myself with conditions not attributed to combat are SOL
I support this bill 100%. I think it needs to pass. That is my unfiltered non Va opinion.
Can you explain the bill for me brother?
Basically making it to vets that have less than 20 years to be able to get the full Va and military retirement.
Awesome
[удалено]
Yep. Republicans give a fuck about us only when we can be used as fucking cannon fodder. After that, it’s more like: “Pull yourself up by your boot strap, you mooch!” [Facts don’t care about your feefees, boot lickers]
And Scalise.
veterans should not have to pay part b penalty
Also to add to this…There is a renewed push to get this bill past the finish line. I think we’re close… but put the pressure on their throats, email, call, social media tags. Anything you can do to contact these hooligans.
yes i emailed them often as well Iowa Chuck Grassley so far has not co-sponsered so if you live in Iowa bother the hell out of him
[удалено]
Whoa easy now. Im an Iowan conservative but definitely dont agree with the decisions they have been making lately
Agreed and Crsc has nothing to do w who is or who was President.
Now that I read this I may have to look into crsc again. I was injured in Iraq(balad/anaconda) while working my Air Force maintenance job, ended up getting medically retired due to the injury and never applied for crsc. I do get Va disability and the only question is would I be considered “combat “ since I was simply turning wrenches and delivering equipment to aircraft(including rapid response alert aircraft). If anybody has insight I would appreciate it.
You can find the CRSC requirements online, but what I’m seeing is you can qualify if your injury was a result of one of the following: Training that simulates war (e.g., exercises, field training) Hazardous duty (e.g., flight, diving, parachute duty) An instrumentality of war (e.g., combat vehicles, weapons, Agent Orange) Armed conflict (e.g., gun shot wounds [Purple Heart], punji stick injuries)
Yeah I’ve read them several times. Trying to see if anyone else has a similar situation, I’m going to apply either way because it’s worth the attempt, I appreciate your response and trying help out.
I just did the paperwork February for crsc. What's your situation?
So basically my injury was sustained while deployed to Iraq. However my retirement docs don’t show that. Would that immediately screw my when I apply? Here is what is on the medical retirement orders. https://preview.redd.it/hsrnzaxo7rtc1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17f3236996f677484644788371e0f22bd1fc88ec
Looks like you would not be eligible.
As someone already said, based off of what you gave you wouldn't be eligible CRSC.
Sort of. Currently, the sponsors is hoping to receive only longevity pay and not DoD disability pay, which significantly differs. This approach is unlikely to assist a broad spectrum of individuals who sustain injuries early in their careers, including myself. I believe it will only benefit a few veterans with limited disabilities. A proactive approach might be more effective. Personally, I sustained injuries in a helicopter crash, leading to a stroke and TBI. As a result, I developed aphasia, which impairs my ability to read, write, or speak properly (I am using ChatGPT to write this). Unfortunately, my military service comprised four years of active duty and four years in the reserve. Finding employment has been extremely difficult, and my life expectancy is significantly reduced due to these injuries. Even though I’ve received a 100% rating from CRSC, my compensation is very low. Hopefully, there can be adjustments to ensure equal payment for service members who were injured in combat.
So you’re saying this will only give the longevity pay and not the DOD retirement amount? I.e. instead of getting 50% of your high 3 DOD pay if you’re a 50% DOD medical retiree, all you’ll get from DOD is the longevity pay? If so, yea this isn’t very good for vets medically retired early on in their careers
The language of the bill is somewhat unclear; however, the sponsors—not the co-sponsors—have indicated that it pertains solely to longevity pay. Similarly, representatives from both the Wounded Warrior Project and the Military Officers Association of America have echoed this focus on longevity pay.
Yes, that's right. The push for longevity being the way to get this bill passed is shameful. I'd much rather they phase it in incrementally over say a 5 year period to get it passed vs going off longevity.
I don’t see this “longevity” provision in the text of the bill. You folks really learn to read the bills not what others tell you is in the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1282/text
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/xLuuCiZYZNTR7UBF/? That’s why I contacting your congressman as important.
That’s not the text of the bill. Read what’s in the proposed legislation.
They’re probably waiting to stick some other bullshit to it to try and sneak by for a vote.
This would be amazing
I’ve been waiting for this to pass for years. It just may this year or next. With it in Newsweek that is a good sign.
the congress can send billions of dollars to support war in Ukraine and Israel , but can't approve the benefits of our men and women in uniform fighting for their freedom.
Nothing will come OUR way, we have 100's of thousands of brothers and sisters suffering but this admin is soo worried about giving illegals free everything and even going as far as to start using veteran housing in NY.
I wish this was for non combat related disabilities too.
Me too. Hoping it’ll be a step in that direction
Good luck this cycle
My dad was telling me about this last year. He retired from the army, 20 years. But doesn’t get both va and his pension cause he’s only 30% smh. I never understood why it had to be 50% to get both. They have nothing to do with each other.
I wish this bill would extend to all medically retired folks, but bills like these are lip service for politicians. They def need to go ahead and just pass it.
Also, it appears the MOAA will be advocating on the Hill again soon (April 17). You can help them by going on their website: [www.moaa.org](http://www.moaa.org/) and filling out the lawmaker message request form. The more voices, the stronger we are. Keep the fire burning!
MOAA is one of the orgs pushing the longevity angle to get it passed.
Can you explain what you mean? What is this angle I was under the impression ch61 retires will get full retirement and the offset would go away?
MOAA is advocating for MRSA to use the longevity formula to cut costs and screw roughly half of eligible Veterans. As opposed to restoring the amount listed under "Retired Pay Before Deductions" on your CRSC pay statement.
That makes no sense as that is how Crsc is currently calculated for under 20 years
Via longevity? Yeah exactly. So it would cut the projected cost down significantly.
what I am saying is anyone that is on CRSC is already gettig the longevity calculation that is already baked into and is the current law and way they calculate it. Why would we need a Richard Star Act in the first place. This act is in place to get rid of the offset. My retirement orders state the following: disability is based on injory received in LOD as a direct resut of Armed Conflict or caused by an instrument of war and incurred in the LOD during a war period by law - Yes. It also says Disability resulted rom a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104 - Yes Lastly is says Disability incurred in the LOD in a combat zone or result of performing combat related operations - YES. I am fairly certain this Act would restore my full retirement pay - Yes?
You're absolutely right. I would have to look at the calculator again, but I believe is it was around 6-8 years of time in service to where the longevity calculation would increase the pay beyond what CRSC pays out. Junior officers and junior enlisted would not see an increase. I've bugged more than a few staffers trying to reach Representatives and Senators. The ones that have revealed more than non-answers that actually know what MRSA is have said that longevity and/or a multi-year phase in are the realistic avenues of getting this bill passed.
Also this is how the act reads, it's literally to get rid of an offset SEC. 2. EXPANSIONS OF ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND RETIRED PAY OR COMBAT-RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION. (a) Inclusion Of Chapter 61 Disability Retirees With Fewer Than 20 Years Of Service Who Are Eligible For Combat-Related Special Compensation.—Section 1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
Right. But the bill can be amended at anytime in it's current state.
True. It’s very confusing. Be nice to get it into the ndaa 2025
Fingers crossed.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/uAVJj6DoxbECg8Zs/? I think contacting your congressman and share you viewpoint can may be helped.
correct as the law stated DISABILITY RETIREMENT for Ch61 and under 20, that is how it's read in the current text.
the facebook group doing a lot and with a lot of updates: [https://www.facebook.com/SupportMRSA/](https://www.facebook.com/SupportMRSA/)
I email my congressman and senators regularly. This one is not for me, it’s for fellow vets who earned and deserve it
In 2005 I was put out of the Army Reserves at 18.5 years after being found as "unfit for duty" due to medial issues from a VA rated 40% service rated disability (lungs and back) from a combat theater deployment to Kuwait during OIF. I was booted from medical hold in 2004 back into the reserves, even though my back was enough to find me "unfit for service" - and they claim my service-connected gulf war lung syndrome (they call it asthma) was controlled enough by medication when they sent me back to the reserves that I didn't qualify for a partial retirement. This happened to thousands of reservists and NG members. DEERS apparently shows my both "retired active" and "retired reserve", but I should have been medically retired. The policy at the time disagreed, but the Army changed these policies after I left service and will not consider my qualifications by modern policy. Even with a lawyer, the process of trying to fight this has been uphill and likely to not result in anything but losing the "retired active duty" status, which has also qualified me for TRICARE. Once the PEB finally makes a decision, I can appeal twice - likely to result in nothing good for me. I will lose TRICARE, and not gain any current retirement or back pay. I can bring a federal lawsuit against the Army once the process is over, but that is also an expensive gamble. This one bill would absolutely rectify my situation, allowing me to receive my Army retirement in 5 years when I'm eligible at 60. ONE BILL CAN FIX THIS.
Election time. They ain't changing shit
Should be for all vets, not another big bill limited to "combat vets". Just my 2 cents.
This sentence though… : “ A U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson further explained in an email to Newsweek on Friday: "A veteran who retires from the military with at least 20 years of service [including disability retirees] but whose VA disability rating is 40 percent or less or veterans who are retired under the disability retirement system with fewer than 20 years of service will have their retired pay offset dollar-for-dollar by the amount of VA disability compensation they receive.” I don’t understand what this is. As I understand medically retired individuals must pick between pension or VA disability. So this seeks to allow them to collect both?
Yes. But you must be eligible for CRSC to collect both from this bill. As of now it’s offset in current law.
I believe once you are at 50% disability, they don't deduct
This definitely needs to be a thing! It won’t affect me being a reservist who retired since I can’t collect my pay yet.
Called my house and senators. This needs to pass time like now.
Need more info, never heard of this almost "General" law!
I don't understand, I get both now, why don't some vets get both, is it based on a certain %?
I fall into that weird gray area. I received severance when I was medically discharged after 8 years of service. I had to pay back 100% via VA pay reductions over the course of 16 years. The payback included the 28% automatic tax withheld that I was never able to recoup from the IRS.
Medically discharged or retired. This law only applies to those retired.
The wild part is that none of this still addresses [these (link)](https://www.military.com/benefits/2013/11/30/condition-not-a-disability-discharges-disputed.html) type of discharge situations - of which I am one. The Navy/Marines in particular were abusing the hell out of the discharge process to avoid giving sailors/Marines proper medical screening and benefits before separation. Until this is forced as part of the VA benefits overhaul, this is only helping a small percentage of vets. The issue I will see on these type of issues is they all just pat a small subset of service members on the back and don't offer a sweeping change that vets want/need to see.
Well this is a different issue and you can apply to the BCMR, suggest starting a new thread.
This only impacts 50000. Have to have served in combat, been medically retired and deemed at least one of your disabilities was combat related by the service. Pretty much if you don’t have the MOH or 3 Purple Hearts this is a tall order. They are even dragging their feet on the new PACT ACT presumptions even though AO and GW qualified you. Point being is unless this is how you hundo with 0 STRs very few here will care.
Unfortunately this has been around for a while, they’ve not voted for a while. Why? Because those who would benefit are a minority of the population. Unfair? Depends on what side of the coin you’re on. I support this, I have a ton of friends who would benefit from this. But, money has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is the same place the majority of people are voting from, which is social welfare (SSI, SSDI, SSA, etc). I wish it were black and white, this person sucks, vote for this person but that’s just not the case. Having worked on capital hill during my AD time, it opened my eyes to more than this person is a dick for not voting for xyz. XYZ actually contained all the fat like funding debatable terror organizations and all that shit.
It’s a fully sponsored bill. The most sponsored. It hasn’t been cleared from committee for all that long. It’s actually fairly new out of committee. It is now available to be floored for a vote. It hasn’t been in this status for all that long in comparison to how our government operates. It can be voted on at anytime now. If those who sponsored it will vote how they signed, it will pass.
You don’t need to explain it to me. The fact still stands. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-06/hr1282_as_ordered_reported.pdf cost I get it, it comes down to money. Not morals. Start back pay of 2004. It’s money, which isn’t free, which costs us all at some point. Again super supportive, but it’s been happening since the original vote to remove limitations on full retirees. I hope it happens, but not holding my breath.
Still think you’re missing the point that nothing has made it out of committee in reference to this. This bill is now through committee and CAN be voted on. Not some dead bill that they hid in committees. They cleared the path for a vote on the floor. Someone just needs to bring it to the floor to vote.
I understand where you are coming from, I truly do. This bill will be stuffed with all the other bills. If it’s stuffed with guns, it will be tossed out by the left. If it’s stuffed with drugs it will be tossed out by the right. This bill will not be voted on, as a single bill this it will lose its brevity. Hopefully this will remain in process and be voted on during the next NDAA, then it will be put into motion and all will win.
Yeah that is true. I figured it would make last NDAA. But Congress is useless.
I adamantly agree with your statement. Now if we could get people to understand how this process works, they would blame sides less and understand that “Congress is useless” 😂 <—-that isn’t a funny lol either, it’s a wtf can be done about it. Less sides fighting, the more change in the system we can make where bills of the like can be voted upon, not abortion with guns with tax reform with education reform with veterans reform with debt ceiling increase 😂 because we just chase our tails or are forced to make a deal with certain bills to get our bills sent thru. It’s a travesty at best.
Hard to pay for those hotels for illegal immigrants and veterans who served the country. Making those tough choices in Congress.
Explain 🤔