We recently filed a claim for a shoulder injury incurred in Hazardous Service (parachuting). The injury was rated at 20% upon my husband's separation and is still rated at 20%. (his total was 70% upon discharge and is now 100%.) I have gone on several Facebook pages to see how many years back pay he will receive and they all insist it's 6 years, despite the regulation NOT reading that way. I see the lawsuits posted here that were won so I know if the DoD is still only doing 6 years back pay, they are doing it wrong. Please tell me if he should get 17 years back pay. It's complicated. He was involuntarily, honorably discharged from the Army in 2002. In 2023, NVLSP lawyers got it upgraded to medical retirement (Chapter 61.) We just now filed for CRSC in 2025 and Chapter 61's only go back to 2008, so that means 17 years of back pay, correct? If that is correct, can anyone here verify that DoD is actually following the law or can we expect to have a fight on our hands? TIA
6 year limit of CRSC pay
- Thread starter desertwoman
- Start date
- Status
You will most likely get retroactive payment back to the establishment of CRSC in 2008. DFAS will see the retroactive retirement and that will supersede the 6 year statute of limitations.
The 6 years is in place for people that were already entitled to CRSC but failed to file for it in a timely manner.
The 6 years is in place for people that were already entitled to CRSC but failed to file for it in a timely manner.
Thank you but our experience with all things military have always been problematic. Another veteran was in an almost identical situation and he had NVLSP lawyers and got his retirement back dated to 2009 (corrected in 2022 and filed for CRSC in 2023) and he STILL only got 6 years back pay. From other posts here, I get the feeling that DoD will try to push than on you and make you appeal to get it corrected., or even take them to court, as other veterans have done. Have you heard of DoD giving anyone more than 6 years?
RetiredColonel-MikeT
Super Moderator
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
"and they all insist it's 6 years" - I take offense at "all" because you and I both know that's not true.
I do not personally know anyone that has received more than 6 years of retro pay… it’s called retro pay by the way… you should read the law that governs the statute of limitations. It’s not there to screw over anyone. It is there to prevent people from filing a claim and the government hemorrhaging money that doesn’t exist. The DOD and VA only have so much money assigned to pay benefits. Both entities would find themselves in a world of hurt if they went outside the 6 year statute of limitations every single time. They are simply doing what the law tells them to do. It’s not personal or to screw anyone over. They are protecting the funding the law tells them to protect.
Mike, that's just a turn of phrase. To be perfectly clear, you were the only one who said it should go all the way back and I gave more weight to your answer than all of the other veterans who thought I was just being greedy and/or foolish. It's about 50/50 on this site as to whether that should be true or not but I think the answer is clear that the court has deemed 6 years as the answer right now, and currently NVLSP is appealing it.
I didn't say they were screwing us over. I just want my husband to get what he is entitled to. I have read the law and it's ambiguous at best. Why draw a line in the sand at 6 years if the end result is a maximum of six years on both sides of the line? Clearly one court found that to be wrong. Another court thought it was fine. We'll have to wait and see what the current court comes up with.
Based on your factual recitation, it would appear that because your husband's eligibility for CRSC resulted from a record correction in 2023, he would be eligible for retroactive CRSC payments back to January 1, 2008. I recently had a client whose records were corrected by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records due to an order from the US Court of Federal Claims entered in 2023, retroactively placing him on the permanent disability retired list effective August 1, 2013. The client applied for CRSC based on that retroactive disability retirement. Once his claim was approved by Army HRC, DFAS paid CRSC retroactively back to 2013, subject to the CRSC cap.
As a general rule, veterans eligible for military disability retired pay pursuant to Chapter 61, U.S. Code with less than 20 years of active service, became eligible for CRSC effective January 1, 2008, assuming the veteran met the combat-related and VA rating requirements. See 10 U.S.C. § 1413a (the statutory authorization for CRSC); DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 63 (June 2024) (the DoD regulation implementing the statutory authority).
Although not referenced in the text of either 10 U.S.C. § 1413a or the CRSC provisions of DoD 7000.14-R, a claim for a CRSC payment is subject to the six-year statute of limitations of the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702. See Soto v. United States, 92 F.4th 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the government is limited to paying CRSC for the period within six years after the claim accrues. In the CRSC context, claim accrual is the date upon which the veteran became eligible for CRSC, even if the veteran failed to submit a claim.
One exception to the time of claim accrual triggering the six-year limitations period involves a correction of records. If a veteran becomes eligible for CRSC due to a correction of the veteran’s military or naval records (through a lawsuit or correction board action), then the veteran’s claim for the CRSC payment accrues on the date of the record correction. See DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3 (June 2024) (“2.3 Statute of Limitations. If a payment is due as a result of a correction of record, the claim for such payment accrues on the date of the correction. A claimant has 6 years from the date of the correction of record to claim the payment owed as a result of the correction of record.”). As a result, the calculation of the amount of any retroactive CRSC payment due would be based on the corrected date of CRSC eligibility resulting from the record correction action (typically the corrected, retroactive date of disability retirement) and would not be subject to the six-year statute of limitations except going forward from the date the court or correction board ordered the correction of record.
If you did not make the factual background regarding the correction of records clear in the CRSC application, you should supplement it to ensure that the service CRSC personnel and DFAS understand the reason for the retroactive effective date of the retirement, including copies of the court's decision, any implementing correction board record of proceeding, and a copy of DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3. Otherwise, they may simply apply the six year statute of limitations without much thought.
As a general rule, veterans eligible for military disability retired pay pursuant to Chapter 61, U.S. Code with less than 20 years of active service, became eligible for CRSC effective January 1, 2008, assuming the veteran met the combat-related and VA rating requirements. See 10 U.S.C. § 1413a (the statutory authorization for CRSC); DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 63 (June 2024) (the DoD regulation implementing the statutory authority).
Although not referenced in the text of either 10 U.S.C. § 1413a or the CRSC provisions of DoD 7000.14-R, a claim for a CRSC payment is subject to the six-year statute of limitations of the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702. See Soto v. United States, 92 F.4th 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the government is limited to paying CRSC for the period within six years after the claim accrues. In the CRSC context, claim accrual is the date upon which the veteran became eligible for CRSC, even if the veteran failed to submit a claim.
One exception to the time of claim accrual triggering the six-year limitations period involves a correction of records. If a veteran becomes eligible for CRSC due to a correction of the veteran’s military or naval records (through a lawsuit or correction board action), then the veteran’s claim for the CRSC payment accrues on the date of the record correction. See DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3 (June 2024) (“2.3 Statute of Limitations. If a payment is due as a result of a correction of record, the claim for such payment accrues on the date of the correction. A claimant has 6 years from the date of the correction of record to claim the payment owed as a result of the correction of record.”). As a result, the calculation of the amount of any retroactive CRSC payment due would be based on the corrected date of CRSC eligibility resulting from the record correction action (typically the corrected, retroactive date of disability retirement) and would not be subject to the six-year statute of limitations except going forward from the date the court or correction board ordered the correction of record.
If you did not make the factual background regarding the correction of records clear in the CRSC application, you should supplement it to ensure that the service CRSC personnel and DFAS understand the reason for the retroactive effective date of the retirement, including copies of the court's decision, any implementing correction board record of proceeding, and a copy of DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3. Otherwise, they may simply apply the six year statute of limitations without much thought.
Thank you for giving me your detailed and specific legal answer. We did send all of the paperwork from the ABCMR and the PEB that explains his medical retirement dates back to his original discharge date in 2002. We did not include a copy of DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3, as this is the first we have heard of it and we assumed that they would know how to apply the law correctly. Sadly, our experience has shown us that they seldom do things correctly, but hopefully they will this time. I say that because they discharged him unjustly and it took a NVLSP team to correct that 20 years later, we had to hire attorneys to get his VA disability up from 70% to 100%, we had to pay out of pocket to get a brain MRI to prove he has a TBI in order to get the correct treatment, we had to sue the VA for medical negligence for causing an amputation (we won), we spent 1.5 years waiting for his retro retirement pay and had to get Sen. Ted Cruz's office to move the ball, then DFAS calculated it incorrectly and we had to prove that they were trying to recoup separation pay back twice. After fighting so hard for the last 18 years, we have learned that it is best to know what the right answer is ahead of time and not just accept their findings blindly. I was originally posting just to see what the amount of a 20% CRSC disability should be. Do you know, or can you direct me to the correct equation? Frankly, the equation given on the government website confounds me and I am normally very handy with mathematical issues. Again, thank you for putting this issue to rest! Oh, one last thing, some poor veteran on one of the Facebook pages had an identical case to my husband's case and yet he was limited to 6 years retro pay and he says NVLSP lawyers filed his claim! I am continuously surprised at how difficult these issues are to interpret correctly, even by some attorneys.
I think you are mistaken in thinking I’m against you in this… I am all for your husband getting the monetary entitlement he deserves. I was just simply stating why the DOD has limited the payout of this to 6 years. I am not exactly fond of the way the DOD is in their determination of many things, to include payments of CRSC or any other benefit.
I apologize for sounding defensive. So many others on the Facebook pages have accused me of exactly that. If you want to read the answer provided by RetAtty above, you'll see that my husband is entitled to 17 years of back pay due to the unique circumstances of his case. In most cases, I would think veterans would file as soon as they get out and not wait six years anyway. However, in defense of other veterans who don't file right away - DoD is going to pay the same amount one way or the other. I hope DoD has the budget to pay CRSC pay to all entitled veterans from the first day of separation until they die. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Just as we predicted, DFAS went back 6 years, from 2025 to 2019. Not only that, but they offset all but about $350 from his VA disability and retired pay, so his total back pay was just under $350. I have searched online for 2 days to find an attorney to appeal this for us with no luck. Our personal appeal of this will not help, as those are only for denials, and that's not the issue here. He was granted 20% CRSC for his shoulder in May of 2025, but predictably, DFAS calculated it incorrectly. The two attorneys I spoke to personally who claim to handle "military issues" did not understand the issue at all. What would you suggest we do at this point? TIA
You should request a DFAS audit of the CRSC calculation and payment, which should provide you the granular detail into how DFAS determined the CRSC retroactive payment amount due. It will also confirm whether DFAS properly complied with the retroactive calculations required by a records correction and the recent Supreme Court case in Soto. In any event, you would need that kind of detail if you were going to bring a lawsuit in the US Court of Federal Claims if you're convinced that DFAS got it wrong.
The services are not applying the Soto decision and eliminating the 6 year limit YET!! They are waiting on further guidance from the DoD.
So please calm down. Take a breath. Don’t cash any checks you haven’t received. It’s coming. I think a waste to lawyer up, file appeals, reconsiderations, BCMRs, federal circuit court lawsuits.
If you look at how the VA handled the Rudisill decision a year prior to Soto, it took about 8 months for the VA to properly apply that decision.
There will be some foot dragging as this will likely cost the services into the billions. They will need to identify who they owe and how much. Again more time and resources. Yes we veterans owe money they come for it and rather quickly, often with interest. When they owe us, completely different story.
The effective date is tied to two things the date of military retirement, and the effective date of the VA decision. For the pay to go back to date of discharge from service would have to have typically filed your VA claim within 1 year and been granted an effective date to the day after discharge. Again that VA effective date is going to be crucial. Look at the CRSC letter, should be a table, should have a table with effective date. If that is wrong because doesn’t align with VA decision effective date then advise filing for reconsideration and pointing that out.
If the effective date is right and aligns to VA decision effective date, and it’s merely they are limiting backpay. Then advise waiting until there is updates regarding Soto.
Do some searching on here. The internet. I would avoid Facebook. I left them many years ago when it turned into bots and a political cesspool. Facebook is NOT a reliable source for much of anything but misinformation.
So please calm down. Take a breath. Don’t cash any checks you haven’t received. It’s coming. I think a waste to lawyer up, file appeals, reconsiderations, BCMRs, federal circuit court lawsuits.
If you look at how the VA handled the Rudisill decision a year prior to Soto, it took about 8 months for the VA to properly apply that decision.
There will be some foot dragging as this will likely cost the services into the billions. They will need to identify who they owe and how much. Again more time and resources. Yes we veterans owe money they come for it and rather quickly, often with interest. When they owe us, completely different story.
The effective date is tied to two things the date of military retirement, and the effective date of the VA decision. For the pay to go back to date of discharge from service would have to have typically filed your VA claim within 1 year and been granted an effective date to the day after discharge. Again that VA effective date is going to be crucial. Look at the CRSC letter, should be a table, should have a table with effective date. If that is wrong because doesn’t align with VA decision effective date then advise filing for reconsideration and pointing that out.
If the effective date is right and aligns to VA decision effective date, and it’s merely they are limiting backpay. Then advise waiting until there is updates regarding Soto.
Do some searching on here. The internet. I would avoid Facebook. I left them many years ago when it turned into bots and a political cesspool. Facebook is NOT a reliable source for much of anything but misinformation.
They have not lifted the 6 year limit yet. Waiting on guidance from the DoD. Rudisill took 8 months for the VA to comply, expect similar with Soto ruling. I advise waiting.
Thank you. However, my husband's eligibility for 17 years of back pay is not because of the Soto case. It's because he got a correction of military records in 2023. He had been unjustly discharged in 2002 and was upgraded to medically retired in 2023. So 2023 is when his clock starting ticking - because that's when he first learned he was eligible (medically retired are eligible, discharged veterans are not.) We filed and won the 20% CRSC pay in 2025. So the timeline should go from 2025 back to 2008 when Chapter 61 retirees became eligible for CRSC pay. This was discussed in detail in earlier posts here with Retired Attorney. It's probably an exhausting read if it's not your issue but all the information is on this thread. Thank you again for your input. I am glad that someday ALL claims will go back to their original date due to the Soto case.
Thank you. My husband's issue is not dependent upon the Soto case at all. It's due to a correction of military records in 2023, which is when he first became eligible for CRSC pay. The subject is discussed in detail a few posts back with Retired Attorney, who cited Chapter and verse of the law on how this should work. However, for veterans who are counting on the Soto case, I would agree - wait to file. One attorney told me that anyone who files before the ruling on that case cannot be helped by that case, even on appeal. I'm not sure that is right, but if the Soto case is what was affecting us, I would wait.
Thank you. My husband's issue is not dependent upon the Soto case at all. It's due to a correction of military records in 2023, which is when he first became eligible for CRSC pay. The subject is discussed in detail a few posts back with Retired Attorney, who cited Chapter and verse of the law on how this should work. However, for veterans who are counting on the Soto case, I would agree - wait to file. One attorney told me that anyone who files before the ruling on that case cannot be helped by that case, even on appeal. I'm not sure that is right, but if the Soto case is what was affecting us,
I can try that but DFAS provided no breakdown what-so-ever for their original audit, only that it went from 2025 to 2019 and was 99.9% offset by VA payments and retired pay. When my husband was upgraded to medically retired from honorably discharged, DFAS got all of that back pay wrong also, and also did not provide any kind of forensic breakdown. We had to go to Senator Ted Cruz to get it corrected. Within 3 weeks we had the money in the bank and a half inch thick file with the entire paper trail in it. If not for the Senator, we'd still be fighting it.
Disagree! The 6 year limit is because of the Barring Act. Thus why they limited to 6 years.
The barring Act, 6 years is what is limiting backpay for EVERYONE for CRSC. Soto overturned application of the barring Act for CRSC. So disagree. You are talking about the 6 year limit, that is because of the services using the Barring Act I correctly. Soto ruled on that, now we are waiting for that ruling to be applied.
I also disagree whoever said doesn’t apply. Yes there is a class action limiting pay. Related. And if your claim was decided before Barring and you exceed $10k in backpay. You posted complaining about the 6 year backpay.
Good luck.
There are exceptions to every rule and my husband is one of them. As Retired Attorney said:
"Although not referenced in the text of either 10 U.S.C. § 1413a or the CRSC provisions of DoD 7000.14-R, a claim for a CRSC payment is subject to the six-year statute of limitations of the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702. See Soto v. United States, 92 F.4th 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the government is limited to paying CRSC for the period within six years after the claim accrues. In the CRSC context, claim accrual is the date upon which the veteran became eligible for CRSC, even if the veteran failed to submit a claim.
One exception to the time of claim accrual triggering the six-year limitations period involves a correction of records. If a veteran becomes eligible for CRSC due to a correction of the veteran’s military or naval records (through a lawsuit or correction board action), then the veteran’s claim for the CRSC payment accrues on the date of the record correction. See DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Ch. 10, ¶ 2.3 (June 2024) (“2.3 Statute of Limitations. If a payment is due as a result of a correction of record, the claim for such payment accrues on the date of the correction. A claimant has 6 years from the date of the correction of record to claim the payment owed as a result of the correction of record.”). As a result, the calculation of the amount of any retroactive CRSC payment due would be based on the corrected date of CRSC eligibility resulting from the record correction action (typically the corrected, retroactive date of disability retirement) and would not be subject to the six-year statute of limitations except going forward from the date the court or correction board ordered the correction of record.'
Retired Attorney's argument was right on point and further fortified by the court's conclusion in the Soto case. I believe that Retired Colonel Mike T pointed out on another forum that there are exceptions to the rule. I am putting my faith in my research and their arguments and will pursue a DFAS audit.
- Status