How have recent congressional proposals aimed to change concurrent receipt benefits for military retirees?
Executive summary
Recent congressional proposals seek either to expand or, in some policy analyses, roll back concurrent receipt—the ability of military retirees to receive both DoD retirement pay and VA disability compensation—by extending eligibility to more medically retired or lower-rated veterans or, alternatively, by eliminating or narrowing the programs to reduce federal spending; supporters frame expansions as corrective equity for combat- and medically-injured retirees while budget analyses warn of substantial costs if eligibility is broadened and, conversely, large savings if concurrent receipt is ended [1] [2] [3].
1. Expansion efforts: extending full concurrent receipt to more medically retired veterans
Lawmakers and veteran service organizations have pushed successive bills to close remaining gaps in concurrent receipt for combat-injured and medically retired service members—most prominently the Major Richard Star Act and other measures that would eliminate the “VA offset” for additional cohorts, allowing roughly 50,000+ retirees to receive full retired pay plus VA disability; these bills have been reintroduced in recent Congresses and framed as correcting an “injustice” that penalizes combat-disabled or medically retired veterans [4] [5] [6] [7].
2. Legislative mechanics: who would benefit and how eligibility would change
Most expansion proposals amend 10 U.S.C. §1414 to extend concurrent receipt authority beyond the current CRDP/CRSC frameworks—either lowering the disability rating threshold below 50 percent, covering retirees with fewer than 20 years of service, or making combat-related and medically retired cohorts fully eligible—while preserving that eligible beneficiaries must qualify for both DoD retired pay and VA disability compensation [8] [7] [6].
3. Cost and tradeoffs: CBO and DOD actuarial warnings versus equity arguments
Congressional and executive branch analyses present a stark tradeoff: expanding concurrent receipt to all eligible retirees has been estimated to carry multi‑billion dollar price tags (CBO estimated about $30 billion for an earlier expansion window and the DOD actuary has repeatedly urged Congress to reassess funding for the military retirement fund), whereas CBO options that would eliminate concurrent receipt entirely were projected to save roughly $139 billion over a multi‑year window; proponents counter that the equity and moral case for paying both benefits—distinct payments for retirement service and service-connected disability—outweighs austere budget calculus [3] [9] [2] [10].
4. Political dynamics and stakeholders: bipartisan sponsorship vs. fiscal pushback
Expansion bills have attracted bipartisan sponsors and strong advocacy from veteran service organizations who argue the current offset is unfair to combat-injured and medically retired service members, but Congress must weigh those political pressures against lawmakers and budget hawks focused on long-term retirement fund sustainability and deficit reduction; CRS materials make clear Congress regularly considers both equity and cost when weighing concurrent receipt changes, and that legislative momentum can stall when cost offsets are contested [5] [1] [8].
5. Policy alternatives and the potential for compromise
Reports catalog a menu of options beyond a simple yes/no: phased expansions, targeting combat-related cases first, narrowing concurrent receipt in specific circumstances, or creating transitional rules for Chapter 61 disability retirees—each approach reflects an attempt to balance fairness, political feasibility, and budgetary constraints, but also carries implicit agendas from stakeholders seeking either maximal benefit expansion or fiscal retrenchment [10] [9] [11].
6. Where reporting leaves gaps and what to watch next
Available CRS, CBO, DOD, and press reporting document the contours of proposals and the fiscal arithmetic but leave open the precise legislative vehicle and offsets that would accompany any major expansion in the current Congress; observers should watch NDAA deliberations, reintroduction and floor action on bills like the Major Richard Star Act and Retired Pay Restoration Act, and any Congressional Budget Office scoring that would shape lawmakers’ willingness to act [4] [7] [12].