The statement says the start date was 2014 but I have no way of knowing if this is 6 years worth with more coming or if it's the total amount. I'm assuming it's the entire amount, but I'm not sure.
UPDATE:
2025-06-24: CRSC Packet Submitted via FAX
2025-06-25: Army HRC Confirms Packet Received 06-24
2025-08-23: 60-Day Email Received from HRC
2025-09-24: iPERMS Decision Letter Posted
2025-10-09: Retro pay deposited, shows up in MyPay (no word yet on what my monthly amount is)
It might be better if you make a separate thread with a question of this depth. You'd get more visibility, as most commenters are coming here specifically for information or to comment on a Servicemember getting their CRSC decision letter. Just a thought.
Probably not this year. Some senators tried adding it as an amendment to the 2026 NDAA but they invoked cloture and the MRSA addition didn't make it into the manager's package of things they were willing to debate. Not hard to believe, since they had over 800 amendments to discuss.
I REALLY...
Oof...this is a bad time for those kinds of delays. If you have anything documenting that you tried to send them prior to August 20th I'd STRONGLY suggest holding on to it.
2025-06-24: CRSC Packet Submitted via FAX
2025-06-25: Army HRC Confirms Packet Received 06-24
2025-08-23: 60-Day Email Received from HRC
2025-09-24: iPERMS Decision Letter Posted
The decision letter has removed all references to the Barring Act (for those of you wondering), but it says my...
Ahh...I have no idea what to expect. I got out in 2014 but didn't realize I qualified for CRSC until I started reading these forums. I applied around the end of June.
I just hope they don't say no backpay because of that DoD memo. You're our canary. Your decision was made after August 20...
I think they meant that 'going forward', as in 'we'll pay retroactive, but only to the date we received your application'.
It does seem like something I could take to court though (maybe). I wish the media would cover this. I don't know how upset everyday people would be though.