More than 6 yrs of CRSC backpay?

N

NavyICE

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Hi all,

I recently received approval for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), and I'm trying to clarify the calculation of the 6-year cap on backpay because my case seems unusual (or my understanding of the backpay cap was mistaken)

Here's my situation:

  • Medically Retired: 2016 (no changes to my disability conditions since retirement)
  • CRSC Application Submitted: November 2023
  • CRSC Approval Received: March 2025 (approx. 15-month processing time)
  • CRSC Eligibility Effective Date (per CRSC award letter): November 2017
My understanding, based on everything I've read, is that CRSC backpay is capped at 6 years. However, in my case, my CRSC award letter specifically sets my eligibility effective date at Nov 2017. Given my approval date in March 2025, that would result in roughly 88 months (well beyond 6 years) of retroactive backpay.

Curious for the groups thoughts and - as always - appreciate your help!
 
The Navy and other services will put whatever date on your approval letter. When it goes to DFAS they will adjust it to the law. The services are not the pay authority, DFAS is.
 
Exactly as @iamthewalrus016 stated, the services must put the actual effective date and DFAS determines the actual pay to be dispersed
 
call DFAS. Make your way through the options until you get “VA/Retro pay”. These guys will help you out in how much and all that once they receive your letter. So give it like a couple weeks.

Also retro pay is the term. Porn stars get back pay my guy.
 
The six-year cap on retroactive CRSC is calculated from the date of your claim, not from the date the claim was approved. You submitted your claim in Nov 2023; by law you cannot receive any CRSC payments based on the period of time before November 2017, because that period exceeds six years from the date of your claim. Although your claim accrued in 2016 upon your disability retirement, the limitations period bars only the extent to which you may be paid, not eligibility for CRSC itself. So you forfeited about 18 months of retroactive CRSC payments rather than the right to receive CRSC at all. The six-year statute of limitations applicable to CRSC is provided under the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702.
 
RetiredAtty said:
The six-year cap on retroactive CRSC is calculated from the date of your claim, not from the date the claim was approved. You submitted your claim in Nov 2023; by law you cannot receive any CRSC payments based on the period of time before November 2017, because that period exceeds six years from the date of your claim. Although your claim accrued in 2016 upon your disability retirement, the limitations period bars only the extent to which you may be paid, not eligibility for CRSC itself. So you forfeited about 18 months of retroactive CRSC payments rather than the right to receive CRSC at all. The six-year statute of limitations applicable to CRSC is provided under the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response, @RetiredAtty. I'm reading your reply as translating to "the retroactive CRSC payments will cover exactly six years prior to your application date (Nov 2023 to Nov 2017), plus the additional ~15 months it took to process and approve your claim (Nov 2023 to Mar 2025)." Am I reading you right?
 
NavyICE said:
Thanks for the response, @RetiredAtty. I'm reading your reply as translating to "the retroactive CRSC payments will cover exactly six years prior to your application date (Nov 2023 to Nov 2017), plus the additional ~15 months it took to process and approve your claim (Nov 2023 to Mar 2025)." Am I reading you right?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what it's supposed to be, just because the Navy is slow shouldn't be held against you, esp when the AF completes the claims within 3-4 weeks and Army is at roughly 4-5 months.
 
RetiredAtty said:
The six-year cap on retroactive CRSC is calculated from the date of your claim, not from the date the claim was approved. You submitted your claim in Nov 2023; by law you cannot receive any CRSC payments based on the period of time before November 2017, because that period exceeds six years from the date of your claim. Although your claim accrued in 2016 upon your disability retirement, the limitations period bars only the extent to which you may be paid, not eligibility for CRSC itself. So you forfeited about 18 months of retroactive CRSC payments rather than the right to receive CRSC at all. The six-year statute of limitations applicable to CRSC is provided under the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the US Code for that, saved it in my resources folder in case I need it. Hopefully, it'll get thrown out at the USSC this year.
 
Not to get your hopes up, but Soto v United States is being argued this month, and a ruling will likely be released in 6 months or so. The contention is this 6 year CRSC limit which wasn’t in the language in any of the laws that enacted CRSC. The Services are claiming the Barring Act is what creates this limit. Being an amateur legal scholar, and following his case for years, I think it has a good shot based on the misapplication of barring ACT. Soto v. United States - SCOTUSblog
 
Soto is set for argument on Monday, April 28th. It is usually a pretty good bet that when the Supreme Court grants cert in a case decided by the Federal Circuit, the justices are going to overrule the Federal Circuit decision. Here are the petitioner and U.S. briefs.
 

Attachments

Update: I sent a question to DFAS via their "Ask DFAS" online tool asking the same question as I asked above. Received a disappointingly generic response, the key wording of which reads: "CRSC will be retroactive from the effective date and any retro active payments will be paid put 60 days after the receipt of the first payment."

So, not a 100% definitive answer to my question about exceeding the 72 month cap, but (at least to my eyes), that appears to confirm the idea that the 72 month period is measured from the date an eligible veteran submits their CRSC application, not the date on which the application is approved.
 
RetiredAtty said:
The six-year cap on retroactive CRSC is calculated from the date of your claim, not from the date the claim was approved. You submitted your claim in Nov 2023; by law you cannot receive any CRSC payments based on the period of time before November 2017, because that period exceeds six years from the date of your claim. Although your claim accrued in 2016 upon your disability retirement, the limitations period bars only the extent to which you may be paid, not eligibility for CRSC itself. So you forfeited about 18 months of retroactive CRSC payments rather than the right to receive CRSC at all. The six-year statute of limitations applicable to CRSC is provided under the Baring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702.
Click to expand...
Well the missing piece is VA rating. Retirement is one element, you need a VA rating. The Army has this example:

Note: There is a Six Year Statute of Limitations: CRSC is subject to the six-year statute of limitations, 31 U.S.C., Section 3702(b). In order to receive the full retroactive CRSC entitlement, you must file your CRSC claim within six years of the date of any VA rating decision that could potentially make you eligible for CRSC or the date you become entitled to retired pay, whichever is more recent. If you file your claim more than six years after initial eligibility, you will be restricted to six years of any retroactive entitlement. Any questions relating to the payment of this claim must be addressed to Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) who is the pay authority for CRSC.

Now the word potential is interesting. Because well my first VA eating I pretty much knew would not be deemed combat related. I also wasn’t retired at the time.
 
RetiredColonel-MikeT said:
Yes, that's what it's supposed to be, just because the Navy is slow shouldn't be held against you, esp when the AF completes the claims within 3-4 weeks and Army is at roughly 4-5 months.
Click to expand...
Well the VA is also slow, that backlog thing and all. My first claim that potentially made me eligible took a year to deny. 10 years on appeal to grant. I listened to the oral arguments Soto v US this week. Justice Kagan made the exact same point about it the VA and the backlog. Veterans shouldn’t be penalized due to VA delays or denials.

Hopefully the court clears up everything. Seemed the government lawyer was getting grilled harder and they went from 50 statues to about 2 that also could be affected by a change based on removing Barring Acts application here. Sounded similar to Rudisill. My wager is Justice Kagan writes the majority opinion in favor of Soto. They clear up the language and remove the Barring Act’s application here. We should see in a few months. I still I should qualify for backpay to 2013 based on VA rated from 2023 with an effective date of 2013 as long as I file within 6 years of that rating decision.
Again why should I be penalized any further based on VA incompetence and failures. 1 year for denial. 4 years for a HLR denial. 5 more years for BVA hearing, remand and new decision. Even if Soto doesn’t prevail, I absolutely will fight anything less than CRSC back to that 2013 effective date.
 
Final update here: this week I received my lump sum retroactive CRSC pay from DFAS and - as we eventually concluded on this thread - I was paid for a total period of 88 months (72 months prior to my CRSC application + 16 months of CRSC application processing time). Wanted to post an update in case anyone else has a similar question in the future.

One tidbit that might also be interesting: retroactive pay is calculated using the *amount you would have been paid* in each of the years covered by the retroactive period, not the current monthly amount multiplied by the number of months of retroactive pay. This results in a lower total payment, so it makes sense that USG would opt to do it this way, even if it makes no sense from a time-value-of-money or inflation-adjusted perspective. Hope some of this is helpful.

Thanks to the great members here who weighed in!
 
NavyICE said:
Final update here: this week I received my lump sum retroactive CRSC pay from DFAS and - as we eventually concluded on this thread - I was paid for a total period of 88 months (72 months prior to my CRSC application + 16 months of CRSC application processing time). Wanted to post an update in case anyone else has a similar question in the future.

One tidbit that might also be interesting: retroactive pay is calculated using the *amount you would have been paid* in each of the years covered by the retroactive period, not the current monthly amount multiplied by the number of months of retroactive pay. This results in a lower total payment, so it makes sense that USG would opt to do it this way, even if it makes no sense from a time-value-of-money or inflation-adjusted perspective. Hope some of this is helpful.

Thanks to the great members here who weighed in!
Click to expand...
Yes, COLA is always calculated when I figure out retro payment and it's not just that they opted to do it that way, it's part of the Financial Management Regulations, they can't pay you more than what you're entitled to by law. I rarely do the calculations but when I do that's the route I go, esp in my own case figuring out mine for the past six years and a handful of months. I'm hoping I'll see that in the next 4-6 weeks at most as I have some stuff I want some new carpeting in the house LOL.
 
NavyICE said:
Final update here: this week I received my lump sum retroactive CRSC pay from DFAS and - as we eventually concluded on this thread - I was paid for a total period of 88 months (72 months prior to my CRSC application + 16 months of CRSC application processing time). Wanted to post an update in case anyone else has a similar question in the future.

One tidbit that might also be interesting: retroactive pay is calculated using the *amount you would have been paid* in each of the years covered by the retroactive period, not the current monthly amount multiplied by the number of months of retroactive pay. This results in a lower total payment, so it makes sense that USG would opt to do it this way, even if it makes no sense from a time-value-of-money or inflation-adjusted perspective. Hope some of this is helpful.

Thanks to the great members here who weighed in!
Click to expand...
Thanks for update!
Yeah cola is cola. Same with my 10 year retro VA payment. The cola was adjusted by year. Big 12 row table with adjustments by year. They also didn’t pay whatever I got paid in retirement as a VA waiver/offset deduction.

Thus why I am here trying to recoup some of that via CRSC.
Yeah I take significant issue with the 72 months. We have control maybe over when we apply for CRSC, However eligibility, especially the VA rating part is completely out of our control. Believe me when I filed in the early 2010s, had treatment records, diagnosis, I did not think I would be fighting them for a decade all the way to the BVA. So if I filed within 72 months of a VA rating decision that granted me potential eligibility for CRSC, retroactive back 10 years. My thought is they should pay back to the effective date, as I had to pay VA offset/waiver back to that date. I also paid taxes on that retirement money that I only recouped 3 years due to irs limits on amended tax returns. So I am already beyond done being penalized for federal agencies incompetence, delays. Again yeah if the veteran waiting too long to file, sure ok. But if you were waiting on records, waiting on the required VA rating, remember you need at least 10% and offset of retired pay to qualify for CRSC, yeah that shouldn’t be on the veteran.
Sorry for the rant, been thru a lot over the last almost 20 years starting with in service injury and now here seeking CRSC myself.
I don’t think medically retired combat disabled vets should have to pay a tax, a disability penalty as is via wonky, purposely complicated CRSC formula designed to reduce your payout, or be limited to back pay based on a flimsy, I think incorrect application of the barring act.
So let’s hope Soto ruling is favorable for vets, and Maj. Richard Starr finally gets passed. Yes I would financially benefit with a 6 figure payout, but that’s beyond the point.

Email your senators and house representative, demand they pass Major Richard Starr act, which has widespread bi-partisan support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top