{
  "id": "95-469",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "95-469",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 321175,
      "date": "1995-04-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T21:04:07.412941",
      "title": "Military Retirement and Veterans' Compensation: Concurrent Receipt Issues",
      "summary": "Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their military service may receive military\nretired\npay from the Department of Defense (DOD) and may be eligible for veterans' disability\ncompensation from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA). However, current law requires that\nmilitary retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veterans' benefits. Some military retirees have\nsought a change in law to permit concurrent receipt of both military nondisability retired pay (retired\npay computed solely on the basis of length of service after a military career) and veterans'\ncompensation benefits. They maintain that there are precedents for concurrent receipt of\nemployment-related benefits among other Government programs, and that it is inequitable to deny\nconcurrent benefits to military retirees. Others argue that concurrent receipt would cost the\nGovernment too much (DOD's cost estimates for full concurrent receipt in FY1993, for instance,\nwere about $2.1 billion), is not supported by precedents when other offsets are examined in detail,\nand could set a costly example for the reduction or elimination of similar offsets between other\nFederal programs. \n Much of the difficulty in sorting out the issue of concurrent receipt is due to the fact that both\nmilitary retirement and veterans' compensation have multiple objectives, and each program may be\nviewed differently by different observers. Some of these objectives overlap and others do not. \nConsequently, depending on how one regards these programs, concurrent receipt might be seen as\nappropriate from some viewpoints, but overlapping and duplicative from others. For instance, both\nmilitary retirement and VA compensation have, to varying degrees, the aim of compensating\ndisabled earning capacity. However, the military retirement system is designed primarily to facilitate\nthe management of the active duty military career force; VA compensation has no similar aim.\n According to some, alternatives to full concurrent receipt might achieve a middle ground\nbetween a full offset system and full concurrent receipt. In general, the alternatives either would\ndesignate some groups of retirees as higher priority beneficiaries of dual benefits than others, or\nwould simply seek to make concurrent receipt more acceptable by limiting the cost through a limited\noffset (for instance, a proposal of Senator John McCain in the 103rd Congress would have limited\nconcurrent receipt to about 3,500 people in FY1995, costing $55-60 million in that year). \nNevertheless, those who think concurrent receipt is an inappropriate policy warn that changing the\ncurrent system in any way to allow some military retirees to receive benefits from both programs\nwould lead to continued complaints about different and, therefore, allegedly inequitable treatment,\nand hence would set a costly precedent.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-469",
          "sha1": "162a16c53577b9d216679bb55914d6d06525830a",
          "filename": "files/19950407_95-469_162a16c53577b9d216679bb55914d6d06525830a.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19950407_95-469_162a16c53577b9d216679bb55914d6d06525830a.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Domestic Social Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}