Anyone have any info on Concurrent Receipt for us less than 20 years folks?

I'm going through the same process, I have been in 18 years. My attorney says as of today there's no concurrency unless you have 20 years. A bill was sent to congress last year, they didn't approve at that time. They should revisit the bill for this year. Hopefully, they approve this time.
 
CRSC is an option for all (except 12741B) retirees regardless of years served.

CRDP is an option for all length of service retirees regardless of years served. Disability retirees require 20 years to be eligible for CRDP.
TERA retirees can get CRDP so if you can get a TERA vice disability retirement you should consider that option strongly.

Mike
 
I found this in a copy of the NDAA 2011.

Don't know if this was in the FINAL version.

CHANGE ONE:


SEC. 633.

CLARIFICATION OF EFFECT OF ORDERING RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBER TO ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE AUTHORIZED MEDICAL CARE ON REDUCING ELIGIBILITY AGE FOR RECEIPT OF NON-REGULAR SERVICE RETIRED PAY.

Section 12731(f)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code,is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:

‘‘(iii) If a member described in subparagraph (A) is wounded or otherwise injured or becomes ill while serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in the first sentence of clause (i) or in clause (ii), and the member is then ordered to active duty under section 12301(h)(1) of this title to receive medical care for the wound, injury, or illness, each day of active duty under that order for medical care shall be treated as a continuation of the original call or order to active duty for purposes of reducing the eligibility age of the member under this paragraph.’’.


**********
CHANGE NUMBER 2


SEC. 635.

SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING AGE AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the amendments made to section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, by section 647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 160) were intended to reduce the minimum age at which members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces would begin receiving retired pay according to time spent deployed, by three months for every 90-day period spent on active duty over the course of a career, rather than limiting qualifying time to such periods wholly served within the same fiscal year, as interpreted by the Department of Defense; and

(2) steps should be taken by the Department of Defense to implement the congressional intent outlined in paragraph (1).
 
I know this thread seems to be dead, but let me pose this question: if you receive a 15-year letter under 10 USC 12731b, are you eligible for concurrent receipt immediately with a 30% DoD/70% VA retirement?

This quote comes from the DFAS concurrent receipt website "Under these rules, you may be entitled to CRDP if… you are a disability retiree who earned entitlement to retired pay under any provision of law ** other than solely by disability **, and you have a VA disability rating of 50 percent or greater. You might become eligible for CRDP at the time you would have become eligible for retired pay."

Problem is that I can not find this (the bolded) provision anywhere in statute or the regulations.

Does anyone know whether this has any basis in fact or law?
 
nwlivewire said:
I found this in a copy of the NDAA 2011.

Don't know if this was in the FINAL version.

CHANGE ONE:


SEC. 633.

CLARIFICATION OF EFFECT OF ORDERING RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBER TO ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE AUTHORIZED MEDICAL CARE ON REDUCING ELIGIBILITY AGE FOR RECEIPT OF NON-REGULAR SERVICE RETIRED PAY.

Section 12731(f)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code,is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:

‘‘(iii) If a member described in subparagraph (A) is wounded or otherwise injured or becomes ill while serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in the first sentence of clause (i) or in clause (ii), and the member is then ordered to active duty under section 12301(h)(1) of this title to receive medical care for the wound, injury, or illness, each day of active duty under that order for medical care shall be treated as a continuation of the original call or order to active duty for purposes of reducing the eligibility age of the member under this paragraph.’’.

Hey LiveWire....any updates or clarification..... ????? :confused:


**********
CHANGE NUMBER 2


SEC. 635.

SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING AGE AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the amendments made to section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, by section 647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 160) were intended to reduce the minimum age at which members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces would begin receiving retired pay according to time spent deployed, by three months for every 90-day period spent on active duty over the course of a career, rather than limiting qualifying time to such periods wholly served within the same fiscal year, as interpreted by the Department of Defense; and

(2) steps should be taken by the Department of Defense to implement the congressional intent outlined in paragraph (1).
Click to expand...
 

ABSOLUTE SILENCE on this from everywhere I've looked.

I wonder if this part of the NDAA got "axed" - literally at the last minute - or, if the services are waiting for Congress to MAKE them inpliment this.

I SIMPLY CANNOT GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS AND SURE COULD USE ANOTHER RESEARCHER to help me find the FINAL copy of the NDAA 2011 that was signed by the President.

"(2) steps should be taken by the Department of Defense to implement the congressional intent outlined in paragraph (1)."

I would really like to know what happened to this language - if it was included in the FINAL, and if so, THEN WHAT'S THE HOLD UP?

V/r,
nwlivewire
 
We've been living on continuing resolutions (DoD) for a while, and usually they maintain existing spending levels = if this came through without an agreed upon off-set, it became a non-starter. I'll check the language, though.
 
I recently received my letter from the SECNAV stating I have been placed on PDRL retroactive to 1994 (I served 10 years going from E1 to 03E). The PDBR gave me 30% while the VA gave me 80% for the same issue. I have submitted a question to AskRetiredPay on the dfas website about whether or not I would be eligible for both retirement and va compensation and about back pay. Below is their timely response:

Ask Retired Pay responded on August 15, 2012:
Dear Lieutenant Brouillette,
In regards to your inquiry dated August 15,2012 At this time we have not received any information from your branch of service, So I will not be able to tell you if you are entitled to any back pay or even what your pay will be. I can tell you if you are receiving payment from the VA there will more than likely be a waiver on the account, because Congress states you cannot receive both pay's with out the waiver, but again we have to wait for the orders to come from the branch of service.

What would be in my situation that would cause them to say: "there will more than likely be a waiver on the account" ???
 
Jonathan M. Brouillette said:
I recently received my letter from the SECNAV stating I have been placed on PDRL retroactive to 1994 (I served 10 years going from E1 to 03E). The PDBR gave me 30% while the VA gave me 80% for the same issue. I have submitted a question to AskRetiredPay on the dfas website about whether or not I would be eligible for both retirement and va compensation and about back pay. Below is their timely response:

Ask Retired Pay responded on August 15, 2012:
Dear Lieutenant Brouillette,
In regards to your inquiry dated August 15,2012 At this time we have not received any information from your branch of service, So I will not be able to tell you if you are entitled to any back pay or even what your pay will be. I can tell you if you are receiving payment from the VA there will more than likely be a waiver on the account, because Congress states you cannot receive both pay's with out the waiver, but again we have to wait for the orders to come from the branch of service.

What would be in my situation that would cause them to say: "there will more than likely be a waiver on the account" ???
Click to expand...
If receiving VA pay, they will reduce your DoD pay dollar for dollar; this is my assumption that your are ineligible for CRSC and CRDP. The waiver allows for you to receive your VA pay(tax free) and the remainder of your DoD pay(after VA pay is subtracted) taxed. If your VA pay is higher, all DoD pay is waived in lieu of VA pay.
 
Something I found in an edition of the NDAA 2011, BUT DO NOT KNOW if this language was included in the FINAL version of the NDAA 2011.

If it was included in the FINAL version, and signed by the president, then this would allow many hundreds RETIRED LEGACY/IDES WTU Soldiers gain early retirement time - especially NG/Reservists, who have to wait until age 60 to CRDP!

CHANGE ONE:


SEC. 633.

CLARIFICATION OF EFFECT OF ORDERING RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBER TO ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE AUTHORIZED MEDICAL CARE ON REDUCING ELIGIBILITY AGE FOR RECEIPT OF NON-REGULAR SERVICE RETIRED PAY.

Section 12731(f)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code,is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:

‘‘(iii) If a member described in subparagraph (A) is wounded or otherwise injured or becomes ill while serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in the first sentence of clause (i) or in clause (ii), and the member is then ordered to active duty under section 12301(h)(1) of this title to receive medical care for the wound, injury, or illness, each day of active duty under that order for medical care shall be treated as a continuation of the original call or order to active duty for purposes of reducing the eligibility age of the member under this paragraph.’’.

Hey LiveWire....any updates or clarification..... ????? :confused:

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE FINAL VERSION OF THE NDAA 2011 CONTAINED THIS LANGUAGE?
I KNOW MY DD 214 BROKE DOWN MY ENTIRE MOBILIZATION TIME - FROM INITIAL MOB TIME, TO TIME IN IRAQ, AND THEN, TIME I SPENT WHEN I WAS TRANSFERED WITHOUT A BREAK, TO THE WTU (12301h) ORDERS.

IF THIS NDAA 2011 LANGUAGE WAS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL NDAA 2011, THEN I AM IMMEDIATELY ELIGIBLE TO CRDP - RIGHT THIS MINUTE -
AS I NOW HAVE THE AGE AND THE TIME - AND THE 20-YEAR LETTER.

NWLIVEWIRE
 
This language was included in the 2011 NDAA (signed by the President on January 7, 2012) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/pdf/PLAW-111publ383.pdf). This is also reflected in the current statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12731).

The language clarified that if you were mobilized for the "war on terror" e.g. contingency, on orders under 12301(d) or 12302, were injured or taken ill, and were placed on 12301(h) (medical orders) without a break, the 12301(h) orders are now a continuation of the mobilization orders. For a time there was an interpretation by USD (PR) that because the orders were changed from 12301d or 12302 to 12301h, you were no longer on contingency orders and you lost eligibility for, in the cases at issue, TAMP.

So, if you were discharged and this time was not taken into account to push your retirement to date prior to your 60th birthday, e.g. 58, I recommend applying to your service board for the corrections of military/navy records to request that your DD214 and other paperwork be corrected.
 
PentagonREMF said:
This language was included in the 2011 NDAA (signed by the President on January 7, 2012) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/pdf/PLAW-111publ383.pdf). This is also reflected in the current statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12731).

The language clarified that if you were mobilized for the "war on terror" e.g. contingency, on orders under 12301(d) or 12302, were injured or taken ill, and were placed on 12301(h) (medical orders) without a break, the 12301(h) orders are now a continuation of the mobilization orders. For a time there was an interpretation by USD (PR) that because the orders were changed from 12301d or 12302 to 12301h, you were no longer on contingency orders and you lost eligibility for, in the cases at issue, TAMP.

So, if you were discharged and this time was not taken into account to push your retirement to date prior to your 60th birthday, e.g. 58, I recommend applying to your service board for the corrections of military/navy records to request that your DD214 and other paperwork be corrected.
Click to expand...


Dear PentagonREMF AND others knowledgeable on this subject matter:

This is exactly what is recorded on my DD 214. Please advise....

ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF IRAQI FREEDOM IAW 10 USC 12301 FROM 20061023-20090807//MEMBER HAS COMPLETED FULL TERM OF SERVICE//MEDICAL RETENTION PROCESSING IAW 10 USC 12301 (H) FROM 20070808 - 20080901 . . CBHCO IAW 10 USC 12310 (H) FROM 20080902 - 20120416

**********

QUESTIONS:

1. Does ANY of this time count toward earlier than age 60 NG retirement so I can CRDP?

2. If so, under which 10 USC, 12301 or 12301 (H), or, BOTH, or neither.

3. And HOW MUCH of this time counts toward earlier than age 60 NG retirement and CRDP?

4. If I do have any qualifying time toward earlier than age 60 (CRDP), what do I need to so to get CRDP started?

**********

I am currently on PDRL from the AD Army IDES process, age 57, with 20-year NG letter. I am NOT CRSC qualified, and getting off-set waiver (VA/PDRL).

I PDRL'd and discharged from AD Army 16 APR 2012.

PDRL = 70% (non-combat - no CRSC)
VA = 100% P&T


Thank-you so much for your assistance on this!
Keeping fingers crossed.....

V/r,
nwlivewire
 
The applicable statute is 10 USC 12371(f) wherein it states that " In the case of a person who as a member of the Ready Reserve serves on active duty or performs active service described in subparagraph (B) after January 28, 2008, the eligibility age for purposes of subsection (a)(1) shall be reduced below 60 years of age by three months for each aggregate of 90 days on which such person so performs in any fiscal year after such date..." In other words, for every 90 days a Reservists spends on AD subsequent to January 28, 2008, you can retire 90 days earlier. AT and IDT (drills) do not count. it has to be full-time active duty. In your case, from the information provided, you served on AD for the relevant period after January 28, 2008 until April 16, 2012. My calculation is that you spent 1,540 days on AD past Jan 28, 2008, or 17 quarters (17.111 to be precise). Were you not injured and retired normally, I suspect that you SHOULD have been eligible to retire at aged 55 years 9 months. In that you are 57 now, you would have been immediately eligible for a non-regular (USAR) retirement (just as if you were retiring from regular AD).

As for eligibility for CRDP, that is a question I have been trying to answer myself. I would contact the Army Reserve retirement section at HRC Knox and ask them officially. If they can not provide you with an official answer, I would apply to the ABCMR to have them clarify the point. Realize that this process will take more than a year to get a proper answer as HRC, if they can not answer the question, will punt or ignore the question. The ABCMR has a back log that is more than a year. So .. be prepared. I hope this helps.
 
PentagonREMF said:
The applicable statute is 10 USC 12371(f) wherein it states that "In the case of a person who as a member of the Ready Reserve serves on active duty or performs active service described in subparagraph (B) after January 28, 2008, the eligibility age for purposes of subsection (a)(1) shall be reduced below 60 years of age by three months for each aggregate of 90 days on which such person so performs in any fiscal year after such date..." In other words, for every 90 days a Reservists spends on AD subsequent to January 28, 2008, you can retire 90 days earlier. AT and IDT (drills) do not count. it has to be full-time active duty. In your case, from the information provided, you served on AD for the relevant period after January 28, 2008 until April 16, 2012. My calculation is that you spent 1,540 days on AD past Jan 28, 2008, or 17 quarters (17.111 to be precise). Were you not injured and retired normally, I suspect that you SHOULD have been eligible to retire at aged 55 years 9 months. In that you are 57 now, you would have been immediately eligible for a non-regular (USAR) retirement (just as if you were retiring from regular AD).

As for eligibility for CRDP, that is a question I have been trying to answer myself. I would contact the Army Reserve retirement section at HRC Knox and ask them officially. If they can not provide you with an official answer, I would apply to the ABCMR to have them clarify the point. Realize that this process will take more than a year to get a proper answer as HRC, if they can not answer the question, will punt or ignore the question. The ABCMR has a back log that is more than a year. So .. be prepared. I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

*****************
Thank-you for your response!

I retired with a 20-year letter from the NG effective FEB 2012.

I rec'd this letter during my last days while on AD and while assigned to WTU/IDES 12301(h) orders.

I PDRL'd and discharged in APR 2012.

Since retirement on PDRL, I am now receiving a small PDRL retirement as the VA money kicked in, so the waiver is in effect (no CRSC).

I currently do not recieve CRDP, but sure would like to CRDP as the off-set between the Army PDRL and the VA is a lot of money I DON'T get!

My NG retirement - even after taxes - would actually be a couple hundred more per month than what I currently receive from the combined VA/PDRL now.

Assuming you are correct, and this 12301(H) time counts towards earlier than age 60 retirement, would I contact the NGB to see if this WTU/IDES time counts for early retirement, and therefore, would also count for CRDP?

Wouldn't you get both your retirement from the Guard and the VA (CRDP) - even if you were able to retire sooner than age 60?

My VA rating is 100%.

V/r,
nwlivewire
 
The 12301(h) time counts toward the 12731(f) retirement. Get a legal opinion from your State Staff Judge Advocate and forward that to DFAS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top