Home
Benefits
News
entertainment
shop
finance
careers
education
join military
community
 
Search for Military News:  
Headlines News Home | Video News | Early Brief | Forum | Opinions | Discussions | Benefit Updates | Defense Tech
Better Pay for Combat-Related Disabilities?
Tom Philpott | August 24, 2007

Bush Backs Separate Combat-Related Disability System 

The Bush administration is preparing a legislative proposal to present to Congress in September that would establish a separate and, under most circumstances, a more generous disability package for service members who are injured in war or while training for war, sources said.

Under the plan, recommended by the Dole-Shalala commission, service members found unfit for duty as a result of combat or combat-training injuries, regardless of the number of years served, would qualify for an immediate lifetime annuity from the Department of Defense.

Annuity amounts would be based on the formula used to calculate regular retired pay: 2.5 percent of basic pay multiplied by years in service. A wounded warrior with two years of service thus would get five percent of basic pay. Likewise, a service member injured in combat training who had served 10 years when found unfit would get 25 percent of basic pay.

These members also would be get lifetime TRICARE, the military health and pharmacy plan. Separately they would get disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for any and all service-connected injuries or ailments. VA compensation likely would be raised under the plan to include a quality-of-life allowance. But the portion of VA compensation now provided, and intended only to cover reduced earnings capacity, would stop at age 65 when social security begins.  

The legislation is being drafted by DoD and VA officials and they continue to work out critical details. One issue outstanding is whether the changes should be applied retroactively, perhaps to all combat-related disabled members injured since the attacks of 9-11.

But the Bush administration has decided that these disability pay changes should apply only to members with injuries from combat or combat training. That, officials say, adheres to the theme of Dole-Shalala, also known as the President’s Commission on Care of America’s Returning Wounded Warriors. Because the commission’s charter focused solely on the needs of combat wounded veterans, its recommendations do too.

Under the White House plan, non-combat disabled members still would come under current service disability retirement, with percentage awards based only on conditions that make the individual unfit for service. Non-combat disabled members rated below 30 percent still would get a lump-sum severance payment instead of an annuity and would not qualify for TRICARE.

This point is expected to be vigorously opposed by advocates for disabled members. Though they generally are excited about the changes planned for combat-related injuries, advocates see stark inequities in having separate disability packages, one for wounded warriors and one for members with other service-connected injuries or ailments.

The White House position also seems to be in conflict with a principle of the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, which will complete its two-year comprehensive study of disability benefits in October. That commission already has voted not to treat disability benefits differently based on whether an injury is received in combat, advocates point out.

One administration official brought another warning. If the VA-portion of disability compensation is not boosted as much as envisioned by Dole-Shalala, then certain disabled warriors actually might receive less in overall disability pay than non-combat disabled peers with equal rated conditions.  

Though advocates for disabled veterans see the Dole-Shalala disability pay reforms as overwhelming positive for service members, which is why they want Congress to apply the changes to all members being separated as physically or mentally unfit, there are anomalies to be addressed, they said.

For example, an E-4 with four years’ service and a 30-percent rated a disability that leaves him unfit for duty would get service disability retirement today of $546.07 a month. Under Dole-Shalala, if VA compensation remains at current levels, with no qualify-of-life allowance, the same E-4 injured in war would receive longevity retirement of $182.02 a month for his four years of service plus VA compensation of $348. The total of $530.02 a month would be $16 less than awarded to the non-combat disabled member.

Even in this case, however, VA compensation of $348 a month is only for the “unfitting” condition. The VA typically will base compensation for any disabled veteran an average of 20 percent higher than the rating used for service retirement because the VA considers all service-connected conditions not just those that make the member unfit for continued service.            

Several military associations and veterans groups met July 31 with Karen Guice, the Dole-Shalala commission’s deputy staff director, to clarify what commissioners intended regarding two military disability systems. Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, a benefits expert with Military Officers Association of America, said Guice assured the group that commissioners, if asked, would recommend that their disability pay reforms extend to all disabled members not just the combat injured. 

That seems in keeping with the report’s criticism of the confusion and complexity that now exists with DoD and VA having separate disability systems. Dole-Shalala would end that dual track, removing DoD from the rating business. Yet the White House seeks to have separate disability systems within DoD itself, citing the same report. This has drawn criticism even within the administration as concerns rise over the impact on morale of categorizing disabled members based on where or when they are injured.

President Bush, during an Aug. 13 visit to the VA medical center in Washington D.C., said the Dole-Shalala recommendations “make a lot of sense, and we would ask for the Congress to pass those…as quickly as possible, so I can sign them into law.” 

To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.


Copyright 2013 Tom Philpott. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

 
About Tom Philpott

Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is Military.com.

Tom's freelance articles have appeared in numerous magazines including The New Yorker, Reader's Digest and Washingtonian. His critically-acclaimed book, Glory Denied, on the extraordinary ordeal and heroism of Col. Floyd "Jim" Thompson, the longest-held prisoner of war in American history, is available in hardcover and paperback.