Each month, a MOAA lobbyist will take an hour to answer live and previously e-mailed questions from members about our legislative issues. Please keep in mind that we may not be able to answer all the emails, but we will attempt to get through as many as possible. Our intent is to provide an additional avenue for a member to talk directly with MOAA's Government Relations lobbyists.
We will advertise this in our e-newsletters, but please feel free to pass this information along to fellow servicemembers. Please join us in April when one more lobbyist will be available to chat with you.
March Chat below
View January Chat
View February Chat
|
|
Colonel Mike Hayden, USAF-Ret., joined the MOAA legislative team in July 2005 upon completion of a 25-year military career in air and space operations, personnel, recruiting, training, and education. As a deputy director for government relations, he adds his wide knowledge and broad experience to MOAA's legislative expertise, focusing on active duty and retiree compensation issues.
Mike's most recent duty assignments were in the Pentagon, as chief of the Military Personnel Policy Division, HQ USAF, and as chief, Personnel Services Division for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the Military Personnel Policy Division chief, his team developed and implemented the one-year drawdown of over 24,000 airmen. In the latter position, he worked with MOAA in winning Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for survivors of servicemembers killed on active duty.
|
Disclaimer: MOAA moderators retain editorial control over live online discussions and choose the most relevant questions to answer for members.
Mike Hayden:
Thanks for joining me don't forget to hit REFRESH and keep the questions coming. Here we go.
------------------------------------------
(12:00) P.T. D.: I got the legislative issue postcards in the magazine, but my congressman ignores them. Could you please put the text regarding the issue and what bill we want him to cosponsor on the website. I want to be able to cut and paste that text into a letter.
Mike H.: P.T. thanks for the suggestion. I worked with the Web team and we have them posted under 'Shifting Health Care Costs" at the link below.
http://www.moaa.org/Legislative
--------------------------------------------
(12:03) Tom J.: Is there in fact a double federal tax advantage to CRSC?
Mike H.: Tom your CRSC and VA payments are both tax free. You will receive your tax free VA payment and your tax free CRSC payment, then any additional retirement pay. I guess you could consider this a double tax advantage.
---------------------------------------------
(12:05) Tom J.: If a military retiree who has been receiving VA unemployability for less than ten years dies of a service connected disability, would the surviving spouse still be eligible for DIC?
Mike H.: The DIC eligibility rules are fairly complicated, I've attached them below. Let me know if you have any more questions.
The surviving spouse if he or she:
- validly married the veteran before January 1, 1957, OR
- was married to a service member who died on active duty, OR
- married the veteran within 15 years of discharge from the period of military service in which the disease or injury that caused the veteran's death began or was aggravated, OR
- was married to the veteran for at least one year, OR
- had a child with the veteran, AND
- cohabited with the veteran continuously until the veteran's death or, if separated, was not at fault for the separation, AND
- is not currently remarried.
-------------------------------------------------
(12:08) Dachshund L.: What is the status of concurrent relief for Chapter 61 retirees? We are the ones who lost our careers due to injury, yet we still suffer with concurrent receipt.
Mike H.: We ask the same question every time we testify. I wish I could give you an exact timeline for an answer or for increased benefits but I can't. I can tell you that last month when I was in front of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission I testified on this exact issue.
At this point H.R. 333 and H.R. 89 address this problem. Hopefully we can get these passed this year.
----------------------------------------------------
(12:10) Randy R.: Have those veterans with 100% disability, unemployables, been left behind? Please advise.
Mike H.: Randy I don't know if you are talking about less than twenty years or more than twenty. If you are talking about less than twenty, look at the answer above. If you mean more than 20 I can tell you that there are a few bills in Congress that would address this.
H.R. 333 and H.R. 303 would both help end the 10 year phase-in. H.R. 1436 also eliminates the phase-in for those rated unemployable. Once again we are hoping to get something passed in this year's NDAA to fix this problem.
------------------------------------------------------
(12:12) Stephen A.: Has MOAA announced which "Concurrent Receipt" bill in the 110th Congress that they're supporting?
Mike H.: Stephen we are supporting all the concurrent receipt bills (H.R. 333/303/89 & S. 439) in Congress this year. Most of the bills cover slightly different things; H.R. 333 is our ultimate concurrent receipt goal, though we likely will need to continue making incremental progress in getting there.
We wrote about all the House bills in our update on January 12. I attached it below if you want to review.
http://www.moaa.org/lac_update_070112.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
(12:15) Ardis G.: If you're 100% IU and you've been classified that way for 20 plus years then your rating increase to 100% total and permanent, why wouldn't military retired veterans be given the option of continuing to draw CRSC at the 100% rate.
Mike H.: We agree. However this is an issue we've tried to fix with legislators as well as members of DoD and DFAS. DoD says their hands are tied by the way the CRSC legislation is written and in order to change it, the law needs to be amended. With the elimination of the phase in for concurrent receipt, it will help minimize this inequity.
--------------------------------------------------------
(12:18) Barry K.: What is the status of H.R. 690, and why is lowering the retirement age from 60 to 55 having so much trouble?
Mike H.: Barry, I just spoke with Col. Norton, our National Guard and Reserve expert, he said H.R. 690 has about 60 cosponsors. I wish I could tell you why some of these bills have so much trouble passing. As with most things it will come down to money, and reducing the retirement age from 60 to 55 would certainly be expensive.
This is one of Bob's big issues let us know if you have any questions or need any background information before you contact your congressman.
--------------------------------------------------------
(12:20) Kathleen D.: I am 64, still working. I have never been able to get an answer about how much will my monthly annuity will be cut when I retire and start collecting Social Security. Is there a scale or guideline I can use to figure it out?
Mike H.: This is more of a benefits issue, but I think I can help you. As long as you continue working through April 2008 (when the SBP phase-in concludes) you will see no reduction your monthly SBP annuity.
------------------------------------------------------
(12:22) James B.: It is my understanding that my widow will be docked for my disability pay so that she will not be able to draw my full SBP. Why is this? Can you explain it to me?
Mike H.: James if you predecease your spouse she will not receive ANY of your disability pay; she's technically not entitled to your disability pay. She may, however, be entitled to DIC (check Tom J.'s answer for eligibility rules). If your spouse is entitled to DIC from the VA, DIC would offset her SBP amount.
We are hoping to have the Senate and House bills that would correct this problem introduced this week. Stay tuned to our update Friday for bill numbers and more information.
-------------------------------------------------------
(12:24) Harry G.: Are we to have another 5% increase in the funds to be paid to spouses under the survivor benefit law? At the moment I stand at 45% and certainly would like to see that increased to 55% as quickly as possible
Mike H.: Survivors are set to see another increase from 45% of their SBP amount to 50% in April. Remember that survivors won't see this money in their account until May. The three and a half year phase in will be finished in April 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------
(12:27) Robert O.: Can you provide an update on future potential of the VA Disability Compensation payments being awarded in the future exclusive of a retiree's military pension retirement?
Mike H.: I can't predict the future (if I could I would be in Vegas) but I can tell you that we have had significant changes in recent years and we are continuing to press the issue with both the House and Senate and we have found legislators that are sympathetic to our cause. We will continue to push for changes. Hopefully our members can help and contacted their legislators.
----------------------------------------------------------
(12:29) Rob S.: Can I get service credit for my Naval Academy service time? I retired from the Navy under TERA in 1995 with almost 18 years of service.
Mike H.: Unfortunately, Section 971 of Title 10 specifically prohibits counting service academy time in computing length of service towards retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------
Halfway keep the questions coming and don't forget to hit REFRESH!!
----------------------------------------------------------
(12:31) Dan C.: With divorce affecting somewhere between 50 to 60% of marriages overall, it is a huge issue for military members. The USFSPA Litigation Support Group has been fighting to overturn, rather than modify, the unfair provisions of USFSPA. Will MOAA join in supporting this effort that affects so many of its members now that the effort is at a crucial juncture?
Mike H.: MOAA is reporting the Support Groups' repeal efforts; yet, MOAA has spent years trying to correct several inequities and we believe we need to follow the line of action that our experience indicates is the best opportunity for success - reform. We believe the best chance of success to correct USFSPA inequities is to seek reform through legislative channels on Capitol Hill.
------------------------------------------------------------
(12:34) Dennis R.: I have a real problem/issue, as far as my active duty LCDR/04 pay and the pay differential that will go into effect in April for Warrant Officers especially CWO5's. With their projected pay raise in April, a CWO5 which is junior to me in rank, yet with the same amount of years, will make approximately $595 dollars more a month in bas pay. I am currently on active duty and in May I will have 27 years continuous service. I was commissioned through Navy LDO/CWO Program over 12 plus years ago.
Mike H.: The new pay table is not perfect, but it does attempt to take into account a member's experience, technical expertise, and levels of responsibilities based on grade and/or rank.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(12:36) Brian C.: I know they changed the pay scale this year to add additional longevity pay raises for several pay grades. The last pay raise for O5's still remains at the 22-year mark. With the shortages of O4's and O5's did they give any thought to adding a pay raise for O5's at the 24 and 26 year level? This would encourage O5's to stay in past the standard 20-22 year mark and help alleviate the shortage of officers. Is MOAA going to try to make this type of change?
Mike H.: We are unaware of DoD looking at adding pay raises for O5s at the 24 and 26 year points. The longevity changes in the pay table were intended for members who extend and remain competitive for promotion to the next grade or rank.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(12:40) Charles N.: Recently, Congress expanded the active duty pay scale to reflect a maximum of 40 years of longevity, as opposed to the traditional 30 years. I am also aware that reserve "gray area" retirees can continue to accumulate eligibility for longevity increases up to that point when the "gray area" retiree goes on the retired list and begins to collect retired pay at age 60. Does the combination of these two circumstances mean that "gray area" reserve retirees continue to accrue longevity increases out to a maximum of 40 years, and if so, has DOD published a new active duty pay scale to reflect 40 years of service, and if so, is that pay scale on the web?
Mike H.: We checked with OSD Compensation and gray area retirees do benefit from the new 40 year pay table, but it's not as big a windfall as some might think. Therefore, it's important to understand how a reserve retirement is calculated.
Essentially, all the time you spent in service (on active duty or as a reservist) will be calculated into actual active duty time using your point total. Once your point total is calculated and turned into actual active duty time, DFAS will determine how much of a percentage of basic pay you are entitled to in retirement.
DFAS enters the pay table based on your number of "good years" and the grade at retirement. This becomes the base pay that your retirement is calculated from. Then, based on your actual active duty time (point total), DFAS determines the percentage of base pay you'll receive in retirement (you'll get 2.5% of base pay per year served in "actual active duty time").
As of this morning, DoD has not posted the new 40 year pay table at the OSD compensation website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:42) Curt P.: My question is, can I collect my full military retirement pay and full Social Security pay, at the same time?
Mike H.: Yes, this issue has come up before and there is some confusion. The simple answer is yes - there is not offset of military retired pay and SS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:45) R.J. B.: I haven't seen much news out of the MOAA web site on Walter Reed. What is the MOAA response to the latest medical crisis?
Mike H.: R.J. this is obviously a hot topic in the DC area and the military community as a whole. We wrote about it in our legislative update a few weeks back. Check out the article below.
http://www.moaa.org/lac/lac_issues_news/lac_issues_guard_reserve/lac_issues_guard_reserve_walter_reed/index.htm
Additionally, I met yesterday with DoD's Independent Review Group (chaired by the Honorable Togo West) that is to identify any critical shortcomings and opportunities to improve rehabilitative care, administrative processes, and quality of life for patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Naval Medical Center, and other centers where large volumes of casualties are engaged in rehabilitative care, disability review and patient processing takes place. We discussed several issues to include our concerns with the Disability Evaluation System and concurrent receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:47) Barbara F.: What are the chances for H.R. 808 receiving attention any time soon? I realize that there are so many other pressing problems before the legislature at present, however alleviating the reduction of SBP benefits by the amount of DIC payments is very important to surviving spouses. Our sponsors, in good faith paid SBP premiums with the expectation of receiving the benefits promised by the program.
Mike H.: Barbara, MOAA is working hard with the sponsor's of last years' bills (S. 185 and H.R. 808) to get them reintroduced because they expired at the end of last year. We think we'll have new bills introduced as early as this week. As soon as they are introduced, we'll let our members know on MOAA's Web site and in our magazine.
Stay tuned to the key bills section of our Web site http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/bills/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:49) Donald B.: In your opinion, what do you think the chances are on a paid-up SBP? In effect, two things, the date of paid-up for us old guys, and a refund of some premiums of those who started paying before 1978. So far, Congress wants to ignore it or maybe they have too many other things to worry about!
Mike H.: Good question Donald. We're pressing this issue hard, arguing that a group that's already paid 25% more SBP premiums that post-1978 retirees ever will shouldn't go on paying. Unfortunately, we can't make any promises that we'll be able to get more traction with this Congress than their predecessors. On your other question, we get asked a lot about retroactive refunds of premiums paid past 30 years. The hard reality though, is that Congress has been reluctant to accelerate the paid-up without a refund provision. If we pushed legislation that included a refund of premiums, it would lessen its chances of success. In the interest of getting at least some relief, we've left that off the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:52) James I.: I am a retired Army officer and current GS-15 employee. While I am grateful that I was able to serve my country on active duty and now as a civilian, I think the OPM policy to not count the military service of retirees for leave accrual purposes is discriminatory. I earn only 4 hours of leave per pay period and will not earn 8 hours of leave per pay period until I have 15 years of GS experience. Servicemembers who join the civil service and are not retired get to count their full active duty time for leave accrual of leave time. This is unfair and discriminatory against military retirees.
Mike H.: James, we agree with you. 2005 saw at least some enhanced leave accrual credit for military retirees. But the new credit for military service is up to the agency's director and it doesn't apply to hires before 4-28-05. In essence, they'll determine what skills from your service you "bring to the fight" and credit that experience accordingly. We've sent letters about these matters to the congressional committees that oversee the civil service. Unfortunately, they're just not interested in this issue and we just don't have enough interaction with those committees to effect changes like we do with the House and Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Committees. We'll continue to pursue fixes where we can, but I'd be less than honest if I said there was a significant chance for reform in the near future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:54) Marie-Louise O.: If DIC is no longer a deduction of SBP, will the lump sum or premium refunds of SBP have to be repaid in order to receive full SBP? Will interests be added to the premium refunds if paid back? Repaying these premium refunds will certainly create an unjust hardship for military widows.
Mike H.: Our ultimate goal is for survivors not to have to repay anything. The Senate bill we expect to be introduced soon would bar the government from recouping any premiums. The House bill (coming soon also) would require a pro-rated portion of refunded premiums be repaid. The partial payment would be based on life the expectancy of the individual in recognition that the survivor shouldn't have to repay premiums for the time where they weren't getting the benefit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:56) Bruce H.: I was passed over for promotion and forced out of active duty at my 13 year point. As a result I was given a separation allowance with the stipulation that if I was ever able to earn a retirement from the federal government I would have to pay it back. I have recently earned a Guard retirement. I know that there were efforts to have the repayment requirement repealed, do you know the status of those efforts and if it has a chance of being repealed? If I must pay it back, at what rate will they deduct it from my retirement pay check?
Mike H.: Our view is that separation pays are for retirement vesting (you earned a certain amount of "retirement" but were forced out) and for a transition to civilian life. On this one, we'd be talking out of both sides of our mouths if we said you shouldn't pay back the amount for vesting of retirement (since you became eligible for a retirement). But we believe the element of that pay that is for transition should not be paid back. Determining what that amount should be is subject to debate.
Your payback is outlined in law and will be deducted as a percentage of your retirement pay. The factor (that is multiplied by your retirement pay) is your years of service at separation (13) divided by the number of active duty years accumulated at retirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12:59) Brian G.: Does it look like there is a good possibility that the early reserve retirement initiatives will be successful this year? There are multiple bills to lower retirement for only those with post 9/11 service and flat reductions to age 55. Which of the approaches is the MOAA more strongly advocating during Congressional hearings?
Mike H.: The short answer is we support both bills. Our ultimate goal is to reduce the retirement age for all reservists. However, we've worked that issue for years and gotten nowhere. So we won't oppose the post 9-11 bills in the expectation that if we can get Congress to buy into the principle of an earlier reserve retirement for some, we'll have a better foot hold to expand it. This approach has worked well with previous MOAA campaigns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for joining me I hope this helped answer some of your questions. Join us again next month.
Mike Hayden
