Veterans Advocate for Passage of the Major Richard Star Act to Address Benefits Offset
In a push to correct a long-standing injustice in the way combat-injured veterans receive their benefits, advocacy groups and veterans across the United States are rallying behind the Major Richard Star Act. This legislation aims to allow veterans medically retired with less than 20 years of service to receive disability compensation and retirement pay without a reduction.
The current system enforces an offset that diminishes the retired pay of those who have not served for 20 years but have been injured in combat. This policy has significant financial implications for veterans like Billy Terry Jr., who was medically retired just 18 months shy of 20 years due to combat-related PTSD and a traumatic brain injury. Since 2014, Terry has reportedly lost over $90,000 in retired pay.
The offset mainly affects approximately 50,000 veterans, forcing them to choose between their Veterans Affairs (VA) disability pay and military retired pay. Steven London, an Army veteran and advocate for the bill, criticized the existing policy, emphasizing that veterans entitled to retired pay based on their service should also receive their disability compensation in full.
In 2004, Congress amended this policy to benefit veterans who served 20 or more years and are rated 50% disabled or more, enabling them to collect both benefits without offset. However, the amendment left behind veterans like Terry, who were injured before reaching the 20-year mark, and those below the 50% disability threshold.
The Major Richard Star Act seeks to eliminate this disparity by extending the no-offset policy to an additional 42,000 retirees whose military careers were prematurely ended due to combat injuries. This includes "Chapter 61 retirees," or those medically retired for injuries sustained in combat or combat-related training.
Despite bipartisan support for the bill, some legislators are concerned about the potential cost, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could be nearly $10 billion. Advocates argue that this figure is overstated, as it assumes all eligible veterans will opt for retirement pay, which may not be the case.
Veteran groups are pivotal in advocating for the bill, urging members of Congress to recognize the sacrifices of combat-injured veterans by supporting this legislation. As the bill awaits further action in the House and the Senate, the veteran community continues to mobilize support to ensure that those injured in service to their country receive the full benefits they deserve.
As the dialogue continues, it is clear that resolving this issue is crucial not only for the veterans directly affected but also for setting a precedent that honors the service and sacrifices of all military personnel.
Comments