DISABLED
VETS CALL FOR END TO PENSION DEDUCTION
BY: LARRY LIPMAN
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON BUREAU
After 24 years in the
military, retired Air Force Maj. John M. Cassel feels he's entitled to his full
pension. But Cassel, 69, a Boynton Beach, Fla., resident for 16 years, also has
a 50 percent service-related disability. Under current law, that means his
military pension is reduced by the amount of his disability payment. Cassel
thinks that's unfair. "Those are two different things, separate and
distinct," said Cassel, who served in Japan during the Korean War. "I
put the 24 years in to get this Air Force pension and I should be entitled to
that based on my longevity. If I'm disabled, I should also get that. They're
shorting out my Air Force pension." Nationwide, there are 682,540 military
retirees whose pensions are reduced by their disability benefits, according to
the Department of Veterans Affairs. That could change this year, but two big
hurdles stand in the way. As part of the Defense Department authorization bill
signed into law by President Bush on Dec. 28, Congress agreed to allow the
"concurrent receipt" of full military pensions and disability
benefits. But no money was earmarked for the legislation, estimated to cost $50
billion over 10 years. The bill specified that before the concurrent benefits
can be paid, two things must happen: Bush must include the money in his budget
proposal next month, and Congress must pass a resolution declaring where the
money will come from. Veterans groups are worried that neither condition will be
met. The administration has opposed concurrent benefits in the past, and
Congress has been reluctant to address the issue for more than a decade.
"We are terribly concerned that there won't be any funding for this,"
said David Autry, deputy national director of communications for the Disabled
American Veterans. "Congress and the administration always say they are for
a strong national defense and want to take care of American veterans, but when
it comes down to it, veterans are left out in the cold."
The prohibition against receiving both disability and full pension benefits dates back to 1891. Over the years, administrations of both parties have opposed repealing the restriction, and there is no indication that the Bush administration will change its position. The Office of Management and Budget issued a policy statement in September opposing the repeal. In a letter from the Office of the assistant secretary of defense last July, the Defense Department noted that "concurrent receipt of both retired pay and ... disability compensation has been prohibited for over 100 years and no member has been promised payments of both these benefits."
Veterans' groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Retired Enlisted Association, are mounting grass-roots efforts to try to convince the administration and Congress to fund the program.
But Mark Olanoff, national legislative director for the Retired Enlisted Association, worries that "since veterans don't contribute a lot of money to political campaigns ... we feel quite often our issues are not recognized. All we have is right on our side, but sometimes it's not enough."
Views on the disability
and pension payments vary. Opponents of paying the concurrent benefits argue
that it could be a windfall for some retirees that was never promised. It also
would result in some military retirees receiving nearly twice the benefit of
other retirees of similar rank and length of service who were not disabled.
Supporters of the concurrent benefit say the current system penalizes career
military personnel. One such supporter is Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Fla., who has
been proposing the repeal of the concurrent prohibition for 15 years. Bilirakis
offers the hypothetical example of two servicemen who are wounded on the same
day. One leaves the service after four years and becomes a Defense Department
employee; the other remains in the military and retires after 30 years. Upon
retirement, the civilian employee would get a full civil service pension plus
disability pay; the retired military employee's pension would be reduced by the
amount of disability pay. Olanoff offers another example: one serviceman is
fully disabled after one year and leaves the service; another serviceman serves
20 years and develops a full service-related disability after retirement. Both
could receive the same compensation because full disability payments _ $2,163 a
month _ are about the same as typical pensions for non-commissioned officers.
The disability payment would wipe out the pension benefit. "It's really not
fair. It's not fair at all," Olanoff said.
Bilirakis and Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., sponsor of the Senate provision to allow the concurrent payments,
and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, have indicated they plan to push for full funding of the benefit in
this year's budget resolution. "It is fundamentally unfair to deny our
servicemen and women the compensation they both earned and deserve," said
Levin.
On the Web:
Disabled American Veterans: www.dav.org
The Retired Enlisted Association: www.trea.org
Department of Veterans Affairs: www.va.gov
Larry Lipman's e-mail address is larryl(at)coxnews.com