Whatever became of the recommendations made by the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (PCCWW), aka, the Dole-Shalala Commission? In short, not much. This is particularly true of the PCCWW’s second recommendation designed to reform the Defense Disability Evaluation System (DES). The PCCWW came about in 2007 in the wake of the Walter Reed press coverage. It was co-chaired by former Senator Bob Dole, and Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration.
The PCCWW’s second recommendation called for all service members, deemed unfit for further military service due to a service connected disability, to receive disability retirement. Currently, only those who are rated 30% or more by DoD receive disability retirement. Service members discharged for disability would then receive retirement pay based on their length of service as well as all of their VA disability compensation without offset. This concept compensated both the career lost due to disability as well the impact of service connected disability on their earnings capacity.
The core principles of this PCCWW’s recommendation are spot on. Further, it lets DoD determine fitness for service and it lets the VA determine the level of disability. This is the model of the current DoD/VA pilot program. However, the DoD/VA pilot program covers less than half the population of the military. The rest are still subject to the legacy DES system. All military members are expected to fall under the DoD/VA pilot program by the end of 2012. Unfortunately, both the Pilot Program and the legacy DES leave wounded warriors vulnerable to many of the same abuses of the past. I have covered many of these abuses in my past DES Outrages of the Week. Further, the DoD/VA pilot program only grants disability retirement if the unfitting disabilities rate 30% or more.
The PCCWW compensation strategy echoes the intent of concurrent receipt programs. Concurrent receipt provides that a disability retiree should receive an amount equal to all of the VA compensation and their retirement based on length of service. This goal would be partially met if the Concurrent Receipt of Disability Payment (CRDP) program is expanded to disability retirees with less than 20 years of Service as proposed in the President’s 2011 budget. A key difference, however, is the fact that the PCCWW recommendation grants disability retirement to all service members found unfit for service, regardless of the disability rating. The vast majority of service members discharged for disability are rated less than 30% by DoD and denied disability retirement. The PCCWW recognized this inequity and determined that anyone involuntarily discharged due to a service connected disability should not sacrifice their career retirement equity earned to date.
Some hardliners believe such a concept is too liberal. However, from a career compensation perspective, it does not matter if the condition that results in unfitness is slight, moderate or severe. In all cases, the career is lost as is the retirement equity earned to date. No service members found unfit and involuntarily removed from service due to service connected disability should lose their career retirement equity. Under the PCCWW DES reform concept, the more years served and higher the rank obtained, the higher the career compensation. That makes perfect sense. For VA compensation, the greater the degree of disability, the more disability compensation received regardless of rank or years of service. That also makes perfect sense.
It is worth pointing out that the disability program for federal civil servants still blows the doors off of the military’s disability program. A civil servant, no longer able to perform their duty due to disability, is given 60% of their salary for the first year and 40% of their salary until age 62. At age 62 they receive retirement pay as if they never stopped working and contributed to their FERS retirement the entire time. A civil servant also keeps the Government contributions to their thrift savings accounts. A military member separated with a rating of less than 30% for the unfitting condition only receives a one-time separation payment that is usually offset by VA disability compensation.
I should also point out that a civil servant with 18 months of service, who is found unable to perform their job due to a condition that unquestionably existed prior to service still receives a full disability retirement. A military member found unfit for a condition that unquestionable existed prior to service must have eight years of active service and receive a DoD rating of 30% or more to receive disability retirement. In addition, a civil servant’s base pay has the housing requirement and other pays built in. A military member’s retirement pay is structured solely on base pay. Base pay can be as little as half the service member’s total compensation when compared to his full compensation that includes housing, subsistence, specialty pays and other allowances. Certainly our military members deserve a disability retirement program that is as robust as the program provided to federal civil servants.
The PCCWW recommendation to grant both career and disability compensation without offset has languished for several key reasons. First, it is expensive to do the right thing for wounded warriors. Second, in a minority of cases, a disability retiree can receive more compensation under the legacy DES system. Finally, the PCCWW recommendation only grants Tricare coverage if the retiree is found unfit due to combat related disabilities. Currently, all disability retirees and their family members receive Tricare coverage. The first issue of expense is easily solved with a Congress that is just as committed to our military members as our military members are committed to the defense of our Nation. The last two issues are a little more complicated and require further discussion.
Senator Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in 2008 that any proposals to fix DoD and VA disability compensation could not provide less than the current systems. This is a worthy benchmark. Normally, a disability retiree receives more total compensation when they receive all their VA compensation and their DoD disability retirement based on years of service. In some cases, however, the DoD disability retirement pay exceeds the total VA and DoD retirement based on years of service. A good example would be a single captain with six years of service and rated 80% disabled by both DoD and the VA. His base pay is $4,500 and his VA disability compensation is $1,427. His DoD disability retirement pay (which caps out at 75% of base pay) would be $3,375. His VA disability compensation would offset $1,427 of his disability retirement pay leaving his total compensation the same amount at $3,375. If instead he received his VA compensation and his retirement based on length of service ($675), his total compensation would only be $2,102. In this extreme example the legacy DES system provides $1,273 more compensation per month than the PCCWW method. Again, while these scenarios are rare, they can and do exist.
Just as troubling, the PCCWW recommendation only grants Tricare coverage if the member is found unfit due to combat related disabilities. The inequities limiting the Tricare provision are far reaching. A disability retiree found unfit due to a 100% rated non combat related disability would not receive Tricare coverage. However, a disability retiree found unfit with a zero percent rated combat related disability would receive the Tricare benefit. Further, a disability retiree found unfit for a non combat related disability, but rated 100% by the VA for a combat related disability, would also be denied the Tricare benefit. If a disability retiree is found unfit due to a non combat related disability and he has a family member with a critical medical issue, he would be denied the Tricare benefit and would likely not be able to obtain or afford follow on health insurance. It is important that all disability retirees retain Tricare coverage as a benefit from a career cut short due to disability. Certainly Tricare can be the secondary payer if other insurance is obtained, but it must be there for cases where it is the sole source of health insurance for the disability retiree or his family members.
Both Senator Burr and Representative Buyer have submitted legislation to enact the tenets of PCCWW DES reform recommendation. Both of these legislative proposals grant disability retirement to all unfit service members discharged due to a service connected disabilities. Both legislative efforts also included the Tricare benefit for all disability retirees and their eligible family members. Unfortunately, both legislative efforts have gone nowhere fast. A big concern was that that certain disability retirees would receive less than they would have under the legacy DES program as explained above.
There are a couple of much simpler solutions that would meet the intent of the PCCWW DES reform recommendation while providing TRICARE for all disability retirees and their family members. These solutions would also ensure no one receives compensation that is less than what they would receive under the legacy DoD and VA systems. The first solution requires a simply legislative change to Chapter 61 military disability law (10 USC 1201-1222). By lowering the rating requirement to qualify for disability retirement from 30% to 0%, the intent of PCCWW DES reform recommendation can be achieved without the negative consequences. All service members found unfit with a service connected condition would receive disability retirement to include the Tricare benefit. No disability retiree would receive less under this concept than under the current system. When CRDP is eventually expanded to all disability retirees, they would never receive less than their total VA plus their retirement based on length of service. Those unique cases, like the example of the captain above, that receive more than these two amounts combined would continue to do so.
An even simpler solution is to modify the criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) so that any disability, or combinations of disabilities, so severe that they render the member unfit for further military service, would garner a minimum 30% disability rating. Congress has already provided a provision to make such a change to the VASRD. In section 1642 of the 2008 NDAA, Congress stated:
In making a determination described in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may utilize in lieu of the schedule described in that paragraph such criteria as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may jointly prescribe for purposes of this subsection if the utilization of such criteria will result in a determination of a greater percentage of disability than would be otherwise determined through the utilization of the schedule.
Such a change to the VASRD would again meet the intent of the PCCWW DES reform recommendation without any of the negative consequences. DoD and the VA could implement such a strategy immediately without Congress having to overcome any PAYGO issues that has derailed so many DES reform measures in the past. President Obama could easily direct Secretary Gates and Secretary Shinseki to modify the VASRD so that all unfit service members receive a minimum 30% disability rating.
In conclusion, the PCCWW provided numerous recommendations to improve the care and compensation of wounded warriors. The PCCWW DES reform recommendation can easily be enacted by Congress or DoD in such a way that all disability retirees receive Tricare coverage and that no one receive less compensation than what is currently provided under the legacy system. Coupled with CRDP expansion, we can insure that disability retirees receive full and fair career and disability compensation.
Michael Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate
The PCCWW’s second recommendation called for all service members, deemed unfit for further military service due to a service connected disability, to receive disability retirement. Currently, only those who are rated 30% or more by DoD receive disability retirement. Service members discharged for disability would then receive retirement pay based on their length of service as well as all of their VA disability compensation without offset. This concept compensated both the career lost due to disability as well the impact of service connected disability on their earnings capacity.
The core principles of this PCCWW’s recommendation are spot on. Further, it lets DoD determine fitness for service and it lets the VA determine the level of disability. This is the model of the current DoD/VA pilot program. However, the DoD/VA pilot program covers less than half the population of the military. The rest are still subject to the legacy DES system. All military members are expected to fall under the DoD/VA pilot program by the end of 2012. Unfortunately, both the Pilot Program and the legacy DES leave wounded warriors vulnerable to many of the same abuses of the past. I have covered many of these abuses in my past DES Outrages of the Week. Further, the DoD/VA pilot program only grants disability retirement if the unfitting disabilities rate 30% or more.
The PCCWW compensation strategy echoes the intent of concurrent receipt programs. Concurrent receipt provides that a disability retiree should receive an amount equal to all of the VA compensation and their retirement based on length of service. This goal would be partially met if the Concurrent Receipt of Disability Payment (CRDP) program is expanded to disability retirees with less than 20 years of Service as proposed in the President’s 2011 budget. A key difference, however, is the fact that the PCCWW recommendation grants disability retirement to all service members found unfit for service, regardless of the disability rating. The vast majority of service members discharged for disability are rated less than 30% by DoD and denied disability retirement. The PCCWW recognized this inequity and determined that anyone involuntarily discharged due to a service connected disability should not sacrifice their career retirement equity earned to date.
Some hardliners believe such a concept is too liberal. However, from a career compensation perspective, it does not matter if the condition that results in unfitness is slight, moderate or severe. In all cases, the career is lost as is the retirement equity earned to date. No service members found unfit and involuntarily removed from service due to service connected disability should lose their career retirement equity. Under the PCCWW DES reform concept, the more years served and higher the rank obtained, the higher the career compensation. That makes perfect sense. For VA compensation, the greater the degree of disability, the more disability compensation received regardless of rank or years of service. That also makes perfect sense.
It is worth pointing out that the disability program for federal civil servants still blows the doors off of the military’s disability program. A civil servant, no longer able to perform their duty due to disability, is given 60% of their salary for the first year and 40% of their salary until age 62. At age 62 they receive retirement pay as if they never stopped working and contributed to their FERS retirement the entire time. A civil servant also keeps the Government contributions to their thrift savings accounts. A military member separated with a rating of less than 30% for the unfitting condition only receives a one-time separation payment that is usually offset by VA disability compensation.
I should also point out that a civil servant with 18 months of service, who is found unable to perform their job due to a condition that unquestionably existed prior to service still receives a full disability retirement. A military member found unfit for a condition that unquestionable existed prior to service must have eight years of active service and receive a DoD rating of 30% or more to receive disability retirement. In addition, a civil servant’s base pay has the housing requirement and other pays built in. A military member’s retirement pay is structured solely on base pay. Base pay can be as little as half the service member’s total compensation when compared to his full compensation that includes housing, subsistence, specialty pays and other allowances. Certainly our military members deserve a disability retirement program that is as robust as the program provided to federal civil servants.
The PCCWW recommendation to grant both career and disability compensation without offset has languished for several key reasons. First, it is expensive to do the right thing for wounded warriors. Second, in a minority of cases, a disability retiree can receive more compensation under the legacy DES system. Finally, the PCCWW recommendation only grants Tricare coverage if the retiree is found unfit due to combat related disabilities. Currently, all disability retirees and their family members receive Tricare coverage. The first issue of expense is easily solved with a Congress that is just as committed to our military members as our military members are committed to the defense of our Nation. The last two issues are a little more complicated and require further discussion.
Senator Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in 2008 that any proposals to fix DoD and VA disability compensation could not provide less than the current systems. This is a worthy benchmark. Normally, a disability retiree receives more total compensation when they receive all their VA compensation and their DoD disability retirement based on years of service. In some cases, however, the DoD disability retirement pay exceeds the total VA and DoD retirement based on years of service. A good example would be a single captain with six years of service and rated 80% disabled by both DoD and the VA. His base pay is $4,500 and his VA disability compensation is $1,427. His DoD disability retirement pay (which caps out at 75% of base pay) would be $3,375. His VA disability compensation would offset $1,427 of his disability retirement pay leaving his total compensation the same amount at $3,375. If instead he received his VA compensation and his retirement based on length of service ($675), his total compensation would only be $2,102. In this extreme example the legacy DES system provides $1,273 more compensation per month than the PCCWW method. Again, while these scenarios are rare, they can and do exist.
Just as troubling, the PCCWW recommendation only grants Tricare coverage if the member is found unfit due to combat related disabilities. The inequities limiting the Tricare provision are far reaching. A disability retiree found unfit due to a 100% rated non combat related disability would not receive Tricare coverage. However, a disability retiree found unfit with a zero percent rated combat related disability would receive the Tricare benefit. Further, a disability retiree found unfit for a non combat related disability, but rated 100% by the VA for a combat related disability, would also be denied the Tricare benefit. If a disability retiree is found unfit due to a non combat related disability and he has a family member with a critical medical issue, he would be denied the Tricare benefit and would likely not be able to obtain or afford follow on health insurance. It is important that all disability retirees retain Tricare coverage as a benefit from a career cut short due to disability. Certainly Tricare can be the secondary payer if other insurance is obtained, but it must be there for cases where it is the sole source of health insurance for the disability retiree or his family members.
Both Senator Burr and Representative Buyer have submitted legislation to enact the tenets of PCCWW DES reform recommendation. Both of these legislative proposals grant disability retirement to all unfit service members discharged due to a service connected disabilities. Both legislative efforts also included the Tricare benefit for all disability retirees and their eligible family members. Unfortunately, both legislative efforts have gone nowhere fast. A big concern was that that certain disability retirees would receive less than they would have under the legacy DES program as explained above.
There are a couple of much simpler solutions that would meet the intent of the PCCWW DES reform recommendation while providing TRICARE for all disability retirees and their family members. These solutions would also ensure no one receives compensation that is less than what they would receive under the legacy DoD and VA systems. The first solution requires a simply legislative change to Chapter 61 military disability law (10 USC 1201-1222). By lowering the rating requirement to qualify for disability retirement from 30% to 0%, the intent of PCCWW DES reform recommendation can be achieved without the negative consequences. All service members found unfit with a service connected condition would receive disability retirement to include the Tricare benefit. No disability retiree would receive less under this concept than under the current system. When CRDP is eventually expanded to all disability retirees, they would never receive less than their total VA plus their retirement based on length of service. Those unique cases, like the example of the captain above, that receive more than these two amounts combined would continue to do so.
An even simpler solution is to modify the criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) so that any disability, or combinations of disabilities, so severe that they render the member unfit for further military service, would garner a minimum 30% disability rating. Congress has already provided a provision to make such a change to the VASRD. In section 1642 of the 2008 NDAA, Congress stated:
In making a determination described in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may utilize in lieu of the schedule described in that paragraph such criteria as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may jointly prescribe for purposes of this subsection if the utilization of such criteria will result in a determination of a greater percentage of disability than would be otherwise determined through the utilization of the schedule.
Such a change to the VASRD would again meet the intent of the PCCWW DES reform recommendation without any of the negative consequences. DoD and the VA could implement such a strategy immediately without Congress having to overcome any PAYGO issues that has derailed so many DES reform measures in the past. President Obama could easily direct Secretary Gates and Secretary Shinseki to modify the VASRD so that all unfit service members receive a minimum 30% disability rating.
In conclusion, the PCCWW provided numerous recommendations to improve the care and compensation of wounded warriors. The PCCWW DES reform recommendation can easily be enacted by Congress or DoD in such a way that all disability retirees receive Tricare coverage and that no one receive less compensation than what is currently provided under the legacy system. Coupled with CRDP expansion, we can insure that disability retirees receive full and fair career and disability compensation.
Michael Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate
