Other Columns by Thomas D. Segel
Thomas D. Segel Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Disabled Military Retirees -- The Fairness Issue
By Thomas D. Segel
June 20, 2002

Abandonment is the only word, which can be used to describe the feelings of most disabled military retirees. This feeling comes in the wake of a defense authorization bill that includes provisions to incrementally end the dollar-per-dollar offset between retirement pay and disability compensation for all members of the armed forces who have retired and been awarded 60% to 100% disabilities.

For the past 112 years, any member of the uniformed services who retired after more than 20 years of active service and was also awarded a disability percentage, has lost one dollar of his or her retirement pay for each dollar of disability compensation received. Military personnel are the only government paid individuals legislated against in this manner.

The House has now said that discrimination should be ended for those who have disabilities which reach 60% or higher. Their action would phase in the removal of dollar offset over the next several years.

The Senate wants all disability compensation exempted from the offset, but provides no money to accomplish that task. Political experts predict the House version will be the one that survives in conference committee.

Depending upon which numbers one uses, there are between 600,000 and 700,00 disabled military retirees. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims one out of every three members of the armed forces retire with some form of disability. Since this proposed legislation only addresses the concerns of about 15% of this retired group... and the VA expects at least 700,000 to file for new evaluations of their disabilities, one can deduce the number is even higher than announced. This also leaves hundreds of thousands who feel abandoned by their government and by their comrades in arms.

A poll taken among those retirees who expressed their concerns in writing does parallel closely to which percentage group the veteran belonged. Of the 378 letters and emails written to this office on the subject, 77% felt both the government and retirees on the winning side of the disability lottery were selling them out. All of these respondents were from the group, which had 50% disability, or less.

Those who hold 60% to 100% disabilities were not united in their feelings. Ten percent of those believe that an incremental approach is the best way to achieve complete success. Or as Weldon Roberts, and Air Force retiree from Paragould Arizona remarked, "You know the old saying... this is like eating an elephant. It must be done one bite at a time."

There was a sprinkle of opinions, which were scattered across the landscape. However, 12 % of the 60-100% group still feel the goal should be the removal of the dollar-per-dollar offset for every person with a disability rating. They strongly believe in the "all or nothing" approach and are angry with those who have backed away from that position.

In this group were people like former Ranger Charlie Revie, who is now a national director for the Veterans Voting Bloc. His remarks did require editing for printable language, but his rage was apparent in what was said. "Gawd, what a bunch of whining, sniveling wimps. I am 100% disabled and I am pushing for full and immediate reinstatement of all 495,000 disability retired military plus the 70,000 Chapter 61, medical disability retired with less than 20 years service, who are currently excluded or ignored by the proposed legislation. Those who are admonishing everyone not to rock the boat until current legislation is signed into law are really doing two things... counting their chickens before they are hatched and screwing their comrades. These are the same people who when they got Tricare for Life passed, abandoned the fight for earned health care... said I've got mine... and went home. They make me sick."

Jim Cook, a retired Air Force Major from Florida, also had some strong comments. "I am 100% disabled and am absolutely disgusted with those who think we should be satisfied with the crumbs off the table provided by our pork eating Congress. The intent by Washington is for these crumbs to cause a division in the ranks of veteran advocacy groups, thereby rendering them less effective. Since the government has been stealing $2422 a month of my hard-earned retirement pay, I don't want anyone telling me to be happy with crumbs. I damn well intend to fight like hell for all my buddies too. Helping them is helping myself. That has always been the way things work... and it always will!"

Paul Puskar, National commander of the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees addresses the issue in this manner. "The USDR has been committed to and remains committed to full Concurrent Receipt for all of the brave men and women that served 20 or more years of active military service and were awarded compensation for their disabilities.

"The awarding of concurrent receipt for the most severely disabled is a foot in the door. Although USDR considers this an accomplishment, the war will not come to an end until full concurrent receipt is authorized for all eligible military retirees."

Veterans such as Win Reither, a retired Air Force officer, and Navy Seal retiree Don Tyson champion the other side of the issue. They provide a web site for those on disability retirement, which is kept current with all available information on the concurrent receipt battle.

Reither claims the bottom-line, as far as Congress is concerned, is those with lesser disabilities are not prevented from pursuing second careers. "As a matter of fact", he says, "a few like Senator Cleland, Inouye and McCain do fine with substantial service injuries. We need to tell the 85% that are rated below 60% disability that they are well served with the tax break they are currently receiving as opposed to an annual $2 billion to pay for the lower VA ratings."

Retirees would be best served, according to Tyson, "If those rated 10% to 50% would reapply for an increase in their existing disability ratings. Or they could file a new claim, which would bring them up to the 60%-100% category. Then they would have no beef. It is all about fairness and balance. They should exercise the initiative and contact the DAV, VFW or some other veterans service organization to assist them in their efforts for an upgrade, if it is warranted."

As for those with 50% or less having second careers... this isn't always the case. Retired Navy Chief Don DeSanto of North Carolina carries a 50% disability rating. In 1999 he lost his job due to PostTraumatic Stress Disorder, which prevented him from driving in traffic. He was forced to sell his home in Virginia and move to a less congested area in North Carolina. Three years later he is still unable to find work due to his inability to handle stress.

Fred Tucker, a retired Marine CWO and recently Tennessee Commissioner for Veterans Affairs suggests, "we veterans should, in my opinion, probably undergo a 'performance audit' and get a better handle on why we don't have the clout the Class of '46 enjoyed. The most obvious is we constitute a much smaller percentage of the population... hence we constitute a much smaller percentage of elected officials. But there are more. If you were a candidate for elected office, which of the veterans' groups or service organizations could you reasonably expect to: make a financial contribution to your campaign... host a fund raiser... help register voters... put out yard signs... work telephone banks... have a membership of which 75% actually cast their ballot?

Another note from Tennessee, was sent by Ed Evans, who is also a friend, retired Marine and former combat correspondent. He felt disturbed by the tone of the recent article on how veterans viewed the arrogance of Congress. He saw most of the retirees as being too eager to "sling mud" at that elected body. Chastising the writer he said, "Well, now you've done it. By this baring of souls, by bringing this unspoken pain into active acknowledgement you have taken on the burden. You have brought out into the open how they feel about their elected officials. Now what do they do about it?"

What can they do? For one thing, there is already in place a bipartisan group called The Veterans Voting Bloc. It is setting forth those issues, which are of extreme importance to all veterans, active duty and retired military personnel. The VVB plans to identify all of these issues and tell supporters which candidates accept or reject the military positions. It will be up to the individuals, as to how they vote. However, in the words of their Commander in Chief, most of the members have a singular feeling about those seeking office or reelection..." They are either with us... or they are against us".