Congress has made a lot of progress toward restoring compensation equity for retirees with 20 or more years of service who incurred combat-related disabilities or other serious service-connected disabilities. One-hundred percent disabled retirees no longer have veterans’ disability compensation deducted from their retired pay. The same is true of compensation for any combat-related disability. Those with 50 percent to 90 percent non-combat disabilities will have their retired pay offset phased out over 10 years.

But a soldier who is 100 percent disabled in combat and medically retired with 19 years and 11 months of service still suffers a dollar-for-dollar reduction in military retired pay. Retirees in this situation are legislative “lost patrols.” This often wipes out most or all of their retired pay—as if their years of service had no value independent of their disability.

The legal rationale is that there is no permanent authority for a non-disability retirement with fewer than 20 years of service, and the government shouldn’t pay two different disability compensations for the same disability. But the moral reality is that a part of these servicemembers’ retired pay must be compensation for service rendered. That’s why it feels wrong to impose the full disability offset on people forced from active duty short of 20 years because of a service-caused injury. There are about 160,000 military disabled retirees in this category, and perhaps 40,000 of those have combat-related disabilities. They deserve proportional retirement credit for time served for all medical retirees—starting with extending combat-related special compensation (CRSC) eligibility to all with combat- or operations-related disabilities.

CRSC applies if the disability was caused by combat, while performing hazardous duty, while practicing for combat, or by instrumentalities of war (e.g., Agent Orange). CRSC makes up at least part of the retired pay offset when a retiree qualifies for VA disability compensation for combat- or operations-related conditions.

For medical retirees with less than 20 years of service, it would protect retired pay earned by service—2.5 percent of pay times years of service. For longer-serving servicemembers, this would eliminate the gross inequity that now afflicts those retired just short of 20 years. The amounts would be small for those with fewer years of service, recognizing that most of their medical retired pay is for their disability. In short, it would protect an amount of retired pay proportional to length of service for combat-disabled retirees.

Those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with serious disabilities face a long and difficult rehabilitation and often the loss of their chosen career field. It’s time to update a compensation system that treats them as though their failure to serve 20 years is their own fault instead of the enemy’s. It’s time to rescue these wounded “lost patrols” and recognize that they earned compensation for their service as well as for their combat disabilities.

Military Families Need FSAs Now

Most large companies help their employees stretch their health and dependent care dollars through flexible spending accounts (FSAs). FSAs let employees set aside pre-tax money for those specific purposes. Relief from federal and state income tax and payroll taxes saves employees 25 percent to 40 percent or more, depending on tax rates. That’s a huge savings, considering annual day care expenses can average $4,000 to $6,000 for pre-schoolers.

The federal government offers FSAs to its civilian employees. But military families, many of whom spend thousands of dollars on dependent care alone, are denied access to this much-needed, money-saving tool. There oughta be a law. If military people can participate in the federal Thrift Savings Plan, why can’t they use the same health and dependent care FSA as a federal civilian?

MOAA’s legislative research indicates that a law change might not even be needed, based on the federal civilian implementation. But just in case, MOAA is seeking House and Senate sponsors for legislation—if necessary—to make that happen.

As the largest employer in the country, this should be a no-brainer for DoD. If it’s just some technicality that’s imposing this gratuitous financial sacrifice on military families, we must get it fixed.