[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 114-74]
CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF SURVIVOR
BENEFIT PLAN AND DEPENDENCY AND
INDEMNITY COMPENSATION
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
DECEMBER 9, 2015
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-279 WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey, Vice JACKIE SPEIER, California
Chair TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
Colin Bosse, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative from Nevada, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Committee
on Armed Services.............................................. 2
WITNESSES
Davis, Joseph E., Director of Public Affairs, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States Washington Office.................... 8
Kinnard, Chris, Co-Chair for Government Relations Committee, Gold
Star Wives of America.......................................... 4
Ostrowski, Senior Chief Jon, USCGR (Ret.), Director, Government
Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United
States......................................................... 6
Strobridge, Col Steve, USAF (Ret.), Director, Government
Relations, Military Officers Association of America............ 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Davis, Joseph E.............................................. 49
Heck, Hon. Joseph J.......................................... 17
Kinnard, Chris............................................... 20
Ostrowski, Senior Chief Jon.................................. 38
Strobridge, Col Steve........................................ 28
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 18
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Statements of:
American Military Retirees Association....................... 59
Livingston, MajGen James E., USMC (Ret.)..................... 63
National Association for Uniformed Services.................. 66
National Military and Veterans Alliance...................... 76
National Military Family Association......................... 71
Prout, Kathleen M., Gold Star Surviving Spouse............... 79
Smith, Edith G., Citizen Advocate for Deceased Military
Retirees and Their Survivors............................... 89
Society of Military Widows................................... 113
The Retired Enlisted Association............................. 83
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors..................... 116
Wersel, Dr. Vivianne Cisneros................................ 120
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 135
Mr. Walz..................................................... 137
CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN AND DEPENDENCY AND
INDEMNITY COMPENSATION
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, December 9, 2015.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:58 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Heck
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEVADA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Dr. Heck. I want to welcome everyone to today's Military
Personnel Subcommittee hearing. We are here today to hear from
military and veterans service organizations on the significant
policy and financial issues that are associated with the
Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation, most notably the issue of concurrent receipt.
As originally created in 1972, the military Survivor
Benefit Plan, or SBP, was designed to provide annuity to the
survivors of retirement-eligible military personnel. Congress
expanded the coverage to the survivors of individuals who died
while on Active Duty.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, was
established in 1956 for survivors of certain service members
and veterans. This benefit is administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. DIC is a monthly tax-free cash payment to
survivors and dependents of service members killed while on
active military duty.
Certain eligible veterans who die from service-related
conditions are also eligible for DIC. The significant policy
issues that are associated with these benefits include the DIC
offset of Survivor Benefit Plan payments, often referred to as
the widow's tax; adequacy of the payment for survivors compared
with other retirement systems payments to surviving spouses;
the remarriage age of 57; and the maximum DIC payments for
parents based on income levels that have not been adjusted for
inflation.
Our panel was asked to share their views and that of their
members and help inform us about the impacts on survivors of
these policy issues.
Before I introduce our panel, I would like to offer
Congresswoman Davis, our ranking member, an opportunity to make
any opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Heck can be found in the
Appendix on page 17.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
also want to welcome all of you here today. Thank you for
joining us.
As we all know, the SBP-DIC offset is a critically
important issue, and we have certainly recognized that here on
the committee, but particularly we recognized it with our
beneficiaries. And we have attempted to fix some of the issues
in the past, but we also know that those darn budget rules get
in the way and that makes it really challenging, I think, to
try and address it, certainly in total.
In 2009, this committee addressed a portion of the SBP-DIC
offset when we created the Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance, by finding a small amount of mandatory dollars to
provide an additional stipend to those receiving that benefit.
And unfortunately, the mandatory offsets required to address
this issue have become extremely difficult to find now,
especially in the amounts required, and of course, we look to
you to help us do that as well.
I am interested to hear your thoughts today on any
solutions that you may have to help us address the offset so we
can finally make some positive change. Thank you so much for
being here.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
I now ask unanimous consent that the following testimony be
entered into the record: From the American Military Retirees
Association; Major General James E. Livingston, United States
Marine Corps, retired; National Association for Uniformed
Services; National Military Family Association; National
Military [and] Veterans Alliance; Kathy M. Prout, Gold Star
surviving spouse; The Retired Enlisted Association; Edith
Smith; Society of Military Widows, Janet Snyder; Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors; Dr. Vivianne Wersel, Gold
Star surviving spouse; and that Representative Joe Wilson of
South Carolina, former chairman of this subcommittee, be
allowed to participate and read his statement for the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The testimony referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 59.]
Dr. Heck. I will now recognize Mr. Wilson for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
leadership for military families by holding this important
hearing today on the concurrent receipt of Survivor Benefit
Plan, SBP, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC.
I am grateful for your recognition of this problem and your
efforts in correcting it, which is bipartisan as confirmed by
the cosponsorship of this legislation by Ranking Member Susan
Davis.
I would also like to thank the organizations testifying
before the subcommittee today for their dedication to this
critical issue: Gold Star Wives of America, Military Officers
Association of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, and the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the
United States.
Additionally, I was really grateful to hear about a letter
of support from General James Livingston of Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina, a distinguished recipient of the Medal of
Honor, and a real champion for military families. Without their
efforts, this issue would not have made the progress that we
have had.
As you know, we have been working on this situation for
several years, and currently in the 114th Congress we have over
170 cosponsors of H.R. 1594, the Military Survivor Spouses
Equity Act, which originally was a cause of my predecessor, the
late Armed Services Committee Chairman Floyd Spence. This bill
would end the clearly identified widow's tax or the dollar-for-
dollar offset of payments between the Survivor Benefit Plan and
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program.
Currently, surviving spouses Survivor Benefit Plan payments
are offset dollar for dollar either partially or totally as a
result of receiving Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The
offset wipes out most or all of the SBP entitlement and affects
over 60,000 widows and widowers. The substitution of the
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Survivor Benefit Plan
payments is clearly unjust.
The spouses of military service members are owed a debt of
gratitude and appreciation. These spouses provide the support
and strength to our men and women in uniform when they secure
our freedom at home and abroad. As a military spouse, they too
devote their lives to serving our country. Military families
make necessary arrangements for their spouses to be taken care
of in the event of their death. We owe it to these fallen
heroes to carry out their wishes and ensure their expectations
are fully met.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge two individuals that
have been extremely important to me: Maggie McCloud and Edie
Smith.
Maggie previously testified before this subcommittee
regarding this exact issue and continues to advocate for a
correction. Her husband served as a military fellow in the
office that I hold, before he tragically lost his life in Iraq.
I will always treasure the service of Lieutenant Colonel Trane
McCloud for America. It is through her unwavering advocacy that
I became involved in this issue and hope that today we can
finally come to a resolution.
Additionally, Edie, who is just effervescent in her
support, continues to work hard educating members about the
Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act and has been a fantastic
resource for a number of members and their offices. Thank you
for your designation and tireless efforts.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 18.]
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
We are joined again today by an outstanding panel. We will
give each witness the opportunity to make opening comments, and
each member an opportunity to question the witnesses. I
respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize to the greatest
extent possible the high points of your written testimony in no
more than 5 minutes. Your complete written statements will be
entered into the hearing record.
As a reminder, the lights in front of you will turn yellow
when you have 1 minute remaining and red when your time is
concluded.
And this would not be a Military Personnel Subcommittee
meeting if we did not have votes scheduled to interrupt the
committee meeting at some point. So please bear with us. When
the bell rings, we will run over and vote and then come on back
to finish up.
We are joined today by Ms. Chris Kinnard, Co-Chair for
Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America; Mr.
Steven Strobridge, Colonel, United States Air Force, retired,
Director of Government Relations of the Military Officers
Association of America; Mr. Jon Ostrowski, Senior Chief, United
States Coast Guard Reserve, retired, Director of Government
Affairs of the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the
United States; and Mr. Joe Davis, Director of Public Affairs,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
With that, I will recognize Ms. Kinnard for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS KINNARD, CO-CHAIR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA
Ms. Kinnard. First of all, I would like to thank you,
Chairman Heck, and Ranking Member Davis, and everybody else
that is here for allowing the Gold Star Wives to testify before
this committee. I have been going with Wreaths Across America.
It has been late nights and a lot of interesting, emotional
things. So I just want to bring the testimony to you.
You have my written testimony. There is a couple of things
that--did a typo in going through it. But I just want to give
some examples that maybe that would make it a little bit more
personal to you that this really does affect, in a heavy-duty
way, our surviving spouses and our military families. And we
need to do something about it.
The first thing is--talked a little bit about the DIC, but
getting down to the actual surviving spouses benefit program,
there is a couple of different ways that you can get the
offset. And then if you have children you are told, first of
all, you have the shock that your husband has been killed or
passed away or you found them committing suicide.
And then the next thing that you have is, okay, you have
children, you can get SBP and DIC, only full benefits if you
relinquish to your children everything. But you don't always
get told that at age 18, not 16, it was 16 when my, I am a
Vietnam war widow. My son was 16 when we lost his benefits. But
now it is 18.
When you lose the benefits at 18 years old, for instance, I
have a lady from Texas and she has four children. And she found
her husband, he had committed suicide, and she was the one that
found him. Then she went through this process and turned
everything over to her children. Each year her money goes down
as her children become older.
She has two masters' degrees and is not working at the
time, raising four children, single parent. And therefore, at
the end of the time, she will probably be 20 years out, be 48
years old with no experience. And even though she has the
degrees, who is going to hire her? Her money started out at
$2,200. It will be down to $900 when she finally has her last
child turn 18. So that is one example and that needs to be
changed to the 18.
There is another part where, you know, Congress did
recognize the fact that there was some problems and the offset
is not fair because the men will deploy and they think that
they are providing for their family, but it also depends on
rank and age and--or not age, but time in service. And when you
are military or young--which most of them are young that don't
survive. They are the ones out on the field--then their offset
is maybe 100 percent.
And a lot of times they don't realize that the widow would
get the DIC. So they may think they are going to get more than
what they actually get. So what happens then when you figure it
out, again, a lot of times you get the SBP first and then all
of a sudden you get the DIC and it is like, the SBP is out the
window, which is a little devastating because you are thinking
you are going to get $2,500 when you are only going to get
$1,200.
And at this point in time, DIC is only $1,254. How many
people in this country could live on $1,254 a month? And for
our military widows to survive on that is horrible, just
horrible.
I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and I have a lady
there that was from Vietnam and she is living in her car. She
has nowhere to go. Nowhere to go.
Then to go on to the SSIA [Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance], that, again, I made a typo, it is supposed to be
2017 not 2016. But the last thing is, the only way that a widow
can really get her DIC or her SBP full benefits, and DIC full
benefits, is to remarry after 57. However, if she got a
premium, premiums paid, then she's got to pay it back. A lady
in Florida had remarried and had to pay $41,000 back after 20
years. A shock.
My time is up. Do you have any questions? Thank you for
your support.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kinnard can be found in the
Appendix on page 20.]
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Ms. Kinnard.
Colonel Strobridge.
STATEMENT OF COL STEVE STROBRIDGE, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Colonel Strobridge. Chairman Heck, Ranking Member Davis,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, and Congressman
Wilson, we are grateful for your calling this hearing and for
championing the cause of SBP-DIC widows.
This committee's leadership efforts are the sole reason
there has been even partial progress toward eliminating the
unfair deduction of DIC from SBP. In establishing the Special
Survivor Indemnity Allowance for SBP-DIC widows in 2008, and
then in 2009 by establishing a schedule of annual SSIA
increases through 2017, you gave hope to thousands of survivors
that Congress was finally taking action on their cause.
The stark reality of their situation and the reason why the
deduction is so wrong was stated best in the August 2009
Federal Court of Appeals ruling, in Sharp v. United States,
which required payment of both SBP and DIC to certain dual-
eligible survivors. After all, the ruling stated, the service
member paid for both benefits, SBP with premiums, DIC with his
life.
But that narrow case applied only to SBP-DIC survivors who
remarry after age 57, as we just heard from Ms. Kinnard.
Ironically, it highlighted the inequity even more starkly. The
law has always penalized survivors who remarry before age 55
for SBP and 57 for DIC by stopping their payments. Since Sharp
v. United States, the law now also imposes a financial penalty
by continuing the offset for survivors who choose not to
remarry after age 57. So it is kind of like they have got you
coming and going.
The ideal solution would be to eliminate the offset for all
SBP-DIC survivors. Because of budget issues, our hope has been
that Congress would do that on a phased basis by steadily
increasing the SSIA amounts over time. As of fiscal year 2017,
the $310 monthly SSIA will restore about 25 percent of the
offset. But there is a very near problem, as the statutory
authority to pay the SSIA will expire on October 1, 2017.
As a minimum, Congress needs to extend the SSIA in the
fiscal year 2017 Defense Authorization Act, or SBP widows will
be made to forfeit the $310 monthly allowance this committee
worked so hard to win for them. We are sensitive to the
mandatory spending challenge. But we have to recognize that on
two prior occasions the committee managed to convince House and
Senate leaders to use outside offsets to fund the SSIA.
And when leadership recently managed to find far larger
offsets to us to provide Medicare premium relief to millions of
wealthier beneficiaries, it is hard to explain to SBP-DIC
widows who have suffered five-digit annual losses for decades
why their situation should have a lower priority. Our hope is
that their immediate plight is urgent enough to warrant similar
leadership involvement to find a way to extend the SSIA
authority and make some further progress on phasing out the
offset.
In closing, I want to highlight one further inequity
affecting survivors of Guard and Reserve members who die on
inactive duty for training. Their survivor benefits are
calculated with a reduced formula compared to members who die
on Active Duty. Their lower SBP amounts are typically wiped out
by the offset. The coalition believes strongly that their SBP
formula should be the same as for Active Duty deaths.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to present them.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Strobridge appears in
the Appendix on page 28.]
Dr. Heck. Thanks, Colonel.
Senior chief.
STATEMENT OF SENIOR CHIEF JON OSTROWSKI, USCGR (RET.),
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
Senior Chief Ostrowski. Chairman Heck, Ranking Member
Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf
of the Non Commissioned Officers Association [NCOA] and its
nearly 80,000 members, we are grateful to the committee for the
opportunity to express our views concerning SBP.
NCOA recognizes all who serve in Congress or in uniformed
service who swear an oath of office, enlistment, or
commissioning, in which the following affirmation is sacredly
promised: To support and defend the Constitution of the United
States of America. NCOA remains cognizant, as you must also,
that the military enlistment or commissioning, the significance
of those words bear the possibility of extreme sacrifice and
even death.
NCOA understands that a national debt in excess of $18
trillion impacts all citizens including military members,
veterans, and their family members. There is real concern
across the Nation relative to the resolution of this national
debt. Many military members, disabled veterans, and veterans
feel that they will become disenfranchised from their
healthcare programs and promised benefits as a result of being
forced to bear the brunt of cost savings plans.
Simply stated, don't make our veterans pay double for this
debt. Do not put the burden of balancing the budget on the
backs of veterans and their survivors. We say, however, that
this debt was not caused by the Nation's approximately .0016
percent of the population whose loved ones served in the Armed
Forces and whose personal sacrifice ensured the freedoms
enjoyed by all Americans.
The NCOA believes strongly that current law is unjust in
reducing military SBP annuities by the amount of any survivor
benefits payable for the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs]
DIC program. The NCOA believes strongly that SBP and DIC
payments are paid for different reasons. Just as military
retired pay and VA disability compensation compensates for
different reasons.
SBP is insurance purchased by the retiree from his or her
employer, the DOD [Department of Defense], and is intended to
preserve a portion of service-earned retired pay for the
survivor upon the retiree's death for any reason. DIC is a
special indemnity compensation paid to the survivor by the VA
when a member's service has caused his or her premature death.
In such cases, the VA indemnity compensation should be
added to the SBP annuity for the retiree's survivor, not
substituted for it. NCOA would like to also state that this
offset affects the enlisted members the most.
The reality is that in every SBP-DIC case, Active Duty or
retired, the true premium extracted by the service from both a
member and the survivor was the ultimate one: The very life of
the member. NCOA is grateful to the subcommittee for its
significant efforts in past years to improve the survivor
benefits plan, and we thank you for that.
Undoubtedly, the best solution is to eliminate the SBP-DIC
offset. This is the right thing to do. We know that each of you
on the subcommittee and in Congress is compassionate about this
goal.
In closing, I would like to share a quote by George
Washington: ``The willingness with which our young people are
likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be
directly proportional to how they perceive how veterans of
earlier wars were treated and appreciated by our Nation.''
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am prepared to
take any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senior Chief Ostrowski can be
found in the Appendix on page 38.]
Dr. Heck. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON OFFICE
Mr. Davis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Davis, members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to share the collective voice of 1.7 million
members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] and our
auxiliaries. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat in
depth what has already been said.
But it cannot be overstated that the Survivor Benefit Plan
is a DOD insurance program paid by military retirees. The
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is a VA benefit meant to
compensate a family for losing a loved one whose premature
death was a direct result of their military service. It is a
longtime VFW goal to eliminate this dollar-for-dollar offset
that exists only to save the government money, which is perhaps
the ultimate insult our government can inflict on surviving
military families, on their spouses, because the two payments
are mutually exclusive and paid for two different reasons from
two different Federal agencies.
Earlier this year, the Military Compensation Retirement
Modernization Commission [MCRMC] recommended a new SBP program
with a substantially higher monthly premium in order to receive
a full DIC without offset. The VFW concurs with the
commission's ultimate goal to eliminate the offset, but we
disagree with its funding method.
We want a full repeal of the offset, not to subsidize it
out of the pockets of military retirees who are already
required to relinquish up to 6.5 percent of their monthly pay
for 30 consecutive years just to ensure that their surviving
spouse will receive 55 percent of their retirement pay.
Mr. Chairman, the way things are done must be changed. I am
not a Gold Star family member, but I, and hopefully the rest of
America, do believe in the fundamental rule of fairness. There
is nothing fair about financially penalizing widows and
widowers. Let there be no doubt that the VFW stands with the
Gold Star Wives everywhere to eliminate this terrible penalty.
We are painfully aware that the Federal Government's
resources are very finite, and that sequestration is still the
law of the land. But our Nation's first priority is to defend
the homeland; and our second priority must be able to defend
those who do defend, regardless of whether they served 4 years
or 40. The VFW has long maintained that if our Nation cannot
afford to take care of veterans, then we should quit creating
them.
Our military has answered every call and met every
challenge. Now it is Congress' turn. We salute Congressman Joe
Wilson of South Carolina for once again reintroducing
legislation to end the offset. It is our hope that today's
hearing will provide the necessary momentum to propel H.R. 1594
forward. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
Dr. Heck. Well, I want to thank you all for taking the time
to be here this afternoon and to present your perspective or
the perspective of your agencies.
And I also want to thank everyone else who has taken the
time, all the Gold Star Wives present, for taking the time to
be here, and my favorite Gold Star Wife, Janet Snyder from
Nevada, for taking the time to travel out here. I can tell you,
the organization has no stronger advocate than Janet Snyder who
is on a first-name basis with everybody in my office, she calls
so often.
You know, Mr. Davis, you addressed the question that I was
going to bring up which was the MCRMC's recommendation. I would
like to get the answer from the other three members. So the
Military Compensation Retirement Modernization Commission, also
known as the MCRMC in these circles, made the recommendation
that if total repeal of the offset was not possible, to charge
a higher premium on the SBP to allow somebody to get full
benefits out of both. Understanding that that is not the
desired outcome for probably everybody in this room, just as a
potential intermediate step or as a step forward, is that
something that your organization would embrace? Ms. Kinnard.
Ms. Kinnard. Not really. Our widows are, we are already
there, already suffering. So for the premiums to be higher,
that is not really going to do anything for us. We need to have
an offset repealed or adjusted so that by the future, as they
were trying to do with the SSIA to try to eliminate the offset,
that is where we want to go.
Dr. Heck. Okay. Colonel.
Colonel Strobridge. Yes, sir, we would agree. To us, that
is no solution at all. Number one, as she said, it doesn't do
anything for the current survivors. But even for the future
survivors, to me that is worse than the current situation
because it, A, gives up on the government owing any obligation
and it makes the member fund it completely.
Not only that but it puts the member in the decision of
trying to guess whether he or she might die of a service-
connected cause and pay the full price upfront whether or not
that is going to happen, and most people wouldn't be willing to
do that. So to us, it wouldn't solve a thing.
Dr. Heck. Okay. Thanks. Senior chief.
Senior Chief Ostrowski. Mr. Chairman, NCOA absolutely does
not support the MCRMC solution. We do believe in to eliminate
the offset completely. It is unfortunate that we are in the
budget situation we are in and looking for outside-the-box
solutions, but in this case this needs to be eliminated
completely. They are separate pots of money and they were
earned for separate reasons, and we don't want to have another
bandage.
Dr. Heck. Okay. Thank you.
And, Mr. Davis, you answered in your statement, do you want
to expand on the previous statement you made?
Mr. Davis. We don't support it, sir. We don't believe in
offsetting.
Dr. Heck. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for your being so articulate and, I
think, making what has always been a very strong case, and you
did a very good job of that.
You know, I remember a number of years ago, my veterans
reminding me that in many ways we became a military at war and
not a Nation at war. I think we all need to take responsibility
and to do that in a number of ways, and part of it is in the
way that we make sure that all of this is funded properly and
that we are able to repeal the SBP-DIC. And I agree with that.
I wonder, Ms. Kinnard, if you had suggested, because, you
know, we are looking at $7 billion essentially for this, and at
the same time you all have spoken in some ways of perhaps
interim, perhaps phasing, et cetera. And that has been looked
at in the past as well. But, Ms. Kinnard, you raised the issue
in terms of children and young people who are 18 and younger.
What would you do with that? Where do you think that those
lines should be drawn, and how would you suggest that?
Ms. Kinnard. Well, first of all, when you first learn of
your husband's fate, you are in shock. And for a widow to have
to decide, shall I give the money to my children or to myself,
you know, to get the full benefit to give it to the children
and not being told, or if you are told, you don't remember
anything in the first year anyway, that you are going to lose
and never be able to regroup that SBP at the end of the--when
the last child reaches 18.
You are getting the SBP for the children, the full benefit.
By the time the last child turns 18, you don't get any benefit
at all. You just get the DIC. So it needs to be given to the
widow, and she is the one that is responsible for it. Plus the
fact that the children are having to pay taxes which, you know,
the widow is going to have to. But every year you get a little
note saying, is your one-and-a-half-year-old remarried, you
know, things that are just bizarre. So I would say that we want
to have it just go to the widow.
Mrs. Davis of California. Just go to the widow.
Ms. Kinnard. There shouldn't be a choice because you are
not in a place to make that choice at that time.
Mrs. Davis of California. Others? Do you have thoughts
about that as well?
Colonel Strobridge. I think what we have felt, you know,
one option is an inequity of the current situation, like Ms.
Kinnard said, is that it goes away. Well, one of the options we
have supported is saying when the children are gone, it should
revert to the survivor.
Senior Chief Ostrowski. We concur. NCOA concurs with Gold
Star Wives. Nothing further.
Mrs. Davis of California. Okay. Mr. Davis.
All right. Thank you very much.
And in terms of the number of spouses subject to the SBP-
DIC, do you think that that is going to increase dramatically,
that number? Does anybody have a sense of that?
Ms. Kinnard. I could answer that for you. I mean, just I am
a widow from Vietnam, and believe me, after that, what I went
through, I was 7 months pregnant with my son, my husband was 20
years old, I didn't want anybody to have to go through what I
went through. And when we started going to war again and again
and again, and all these women back here who have suffered the
same thing and each one has a different story, I just told you
two little ones, it is going to happen unless we learn to not
go to war.
And until we learn that war is not just the military part
going to war but it is paying for our veterans when they come
home, our widows, our widowers, our children, like Abraham
Lincoln said, it is time to heal the country and take care of
the widows and the orphans, and we are not doing that.
Mrs. Davis of California. Right. That is all part of it.
Ms. Kinnard. It is all part of it, and we don't consider
that in the big budget. You know, DOD says, oh, we are going to
spend this money on war. Why are they taking our widows' money
away? It is wrong. It is just wrong. It wouldn't happen in the
civilian world. It just wouldn't.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you all so much. Appreciate
you being here.
Dr. Heck. Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first of all, I would like to begin by thanking each of
you for your testimony today and your advocacy. And the only
thing I can read into the wider-than-desired attendance by my
colleagues on the committee is that you have the support
because you've been so effective outside of this hearing, in
our offices, as our chairman has said.
I would like to thank Mrs. Costello, who has worked with
our office to ensure that we make the right decision on this
bill. We sponsored it. We were a cosponsor last session of
Congress. We will this session again.
But the argument that you have made in my opinion is
incontrovertible. And you have made it on its merits, on the
facts. You have also appealed to, I think, our more important
sensibilities, the moral dimension of this, of what we ask of
our service members and then ensuring that we fulfill our end
of the obligation.
Mr. Davis, I serve on the Veterans Affairs Committee as
well for the last 3 years, and you eloquently and efficiently
put it: If we cannot afford to take care of our veterans and
their spouses and their dependents, then we cannot afford to go
to war.
And I think if we entered these factors into our
calculations when we went to war, perhaps put an escrow
percentage of what it costs for every $1 billion we put into
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and we have U.S. Armed Forces
stationed in over 150 countries around the world, if some
percentage was put away for that veteran, his or her spouse,
their dependents, you know, I think we would do a better job
and we would make that connection that is so obvious to us,
especially when you say it the way you did, Mr. Davis, but make
that connection in law. So that we don't have these problems in
the VA, in having you have to come to our offices, testify
before us to do something that makes only the most common sense
to any American listening to you.
So I want to thank Mr. Wilson in his absence for, again,
introducing this; for the chairman and ranking member for
holding this committee; for your tireless advocacy which brings
this issue to home for us in a very personal, very compelling,
and I hope very effective way, so that we make the fix in law
that is necessary, that it is fixed in perpetuity so that you
are not coming back here to advocate for this.
There are certainly no end of problems that you could come
back here to remind us of or help us fix. Let's use your
amazing talents on those. This one we should dispense with
after this hearing. I really hope that we do.
So I don't have any questions because you have answered
them for us. I just want to thank everyone who is here and
especially the Costello family for their service to my
community, to our country, and to all surviving spouses and
dependents going forward. It is that personal advocacy that is
making a difference.
So with that, I yield back to the chair.
Dr. Heck. Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for being here today.
My late father was a career soldier and I am retired
military, and I think one of the toughest things I do as a
Member of Congress is when a soldier, airman, sailor, or marine
has died, whether it be from a training accident or in combat
itself, I spend time with those families. And it is always
something that is very difficult to do. And every family mourns
in their own way the loss of their loved one.
And so I don't think this country appreciates enough those
who serve our Nation in uniform and make tremendous sacrifices
on behalf of our freedom. So I just want to thank you and the
service and the sacrifice of your families. And thank you for
being here today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Heck. Mrs. Davis, any other questions? Okay.
Well, that was the vote bell. So it seems like timing was
somewhat fortuitous.
Look, again, we want to thank all of those who took the
time to travel here to present your testimony. As Mr. O'Rourke,
and I think Chairman Wilson has been the champion on this
issue, at least since I have been in Congress. I will look
forward to working with him as well as the rest of the
subcommittee and the full committee as we try to move forward
with a solution to this issue that doesn't, as Mr. O'Rourke
said, require you to come back time and time again.
So, again, thank you all for your service and sacrifice to
our Nation and for taking the time to be here. And this hearing
will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
December 9, 2015
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
December 9, 2015
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
December 9, 2015
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
December 9, 2015
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. Coffman. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC
payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57?
Ms. Kinnard. Probably the biggest problem with the suspension of
SBP/DIC payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57 is loss
of independence which was paid for by the military spouse's ultimate
sacrifice. Why is it that the age of 57 makes it okay to receive both
benefits in full? Here again is another widow's story. Her name is
Misty Jeannette Brammer:
``As a surviving military spouse, my life has been a constant
state of uncertainty since losing my husband over ten years
ago. At the young age of 31, I found myself to be a widow. The
sudden and tragic loss left me devastated, unsure of my future,
and as a single mom raising two children affected by the loss
of their father. I came to rely on the connections and support
the military offered. It has become a way of life. My husband's
service is important to the United States and, as a family we
have continued to support military life. As a widow, my life
shifted and changed and so did the support from the military.
It steadily decreased over time and has been reduced to SSIA,
DIC, SBP, Tricare (in which I now have to pay my own premiums),
some educational benefits and VA home loan. These benefits
have, and continue to be, an important resource to establishing
and continuing my life as a surviving military spouse, mother,
and productive member of my community. This is not easy to do
after a traumatic loss. I have come to rely on these resources
to be independent and not vulnerable.
It has taken time to rebuild by life. It has been difficult
and unbearable at times. The benefits afforded to me by the
loss of my husband are both a resource and burden. Under
current military law, if I remarry before the age of 57
(completely arbitrary age), I lose all of these benefits and
thus my independence. It is as if the United States disregards
my loss in the presence of another spouse. This is so
contradictory to current United States values. More
importantly, it forces me to revisit the trauma I have already
experienced and places me in a vulnerable economic position. It
also violates my civil right to marry (without penalty). This
has caused even more undue stress in my life including
jeopardizing relationships, the ability to have additional
children (out of wedlock) and causing social distance. This
burden has been an emotional strain. The current law is
penalizing to younger spouses. It doesn't make sense that those
over the age of 57 keep benefits upon remarriage. Still
further, those who remarry and that marriage ends get some of
their benefits reinstated. The current law forces surviving
spouses to be dependent on another (new) spouse despite their
loss. A remarriage doesn't negate the loss of our soldiers. It
doesn't take away the pain or the hardship we have and continue
to experience. It doesn't remove the ongoing trauma. Worse yet,
it forces us to be economically vulnerable.
We are respectfully requesting assistance in changing current
law. It is important to keep all benefits intact for survivors
regardless of marital status. To lose these benefits creates
further undue burden and places surviving spouses at risk.''
Many of the younger surviving spouses feel this way. Those that
have made the choice to turn over SBP and DIC to their children in
order to receive full SBP and full DIC benefits have come to regret it.
This is especially true when they realize that the SBP will end forever
when the children reach maturity. This decision for many was made
shortly after learning of the spouse's death when they are in shock and
really not in a frame of mind to make such a life changing decision.
It is the same with remarriage before age 57, many are not aware
that they will lose most of their benefits. However at the age of 57
with remarriage, the widow will receive the full SBP and the full DIC
with no offset. The catch is that the premiums paid to the widow
originally must now be paid back to the government in full. Depending
on the amount, this again could be a burden for the re-married widow.
Mr. Coffman. This question highlights two separate inequities: (a)
the difference in remarriage age for various programs after which the
survivor benefit payment continues, and (b) a highly unique inequity
facing SBP-DIC widows in particular.
Almost all Federal survivor payments terminate if the survivor
remarries before age 55, and can be resumed if the second or subsequent
marriage ends in death or divorce.
For DIC, however, the age of remarriage after which DIC payments
may be continued is age 57. The age difference was solely because of a
funding shortfall in the legislative effort to fix the DIC age
disparity. Congress only found enough money to reduce the age to 57.
However, that same law change that reduced the DIC remarriage
eligibility age to 57 also included language specifying that dual-
eligible SBP and DIC survivors who remarry after age 57 are entitled to
receive both SBP and DIC annuities in full, without offsetting one for
the other. This interpretation was upheld by a 2009 Federal Court of
Appeals ruling (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2008-5108, Patricia R. Sharp v.
United States).
So the net effect of current law is to: (a) punish survivors for
remarrying before age 57 (for DIC) or 55 (for SBP) by suspending their
annuity payments, and (b) punish dual-eligible SBP/DIC annuitants for
NOT remarrying after age 57 by continuing to deduct the DIC amount from
SBP for unremarried survivors. The only fair way to rectify this absurd
situation is to eliminate the SBP-DIC offset requirement.
Colonel Strobridge. Our members definitely believe the two have
separate purposes. SBP is a retiree-purchased insurance plan that is
intended to replace 55% of SBP-covered retired pay in the event of the
servicemember/retiree's death for any reason. DIC, on the other hand,
is indemnity compensation paid by the VA to the survivor of a
servicemember or retired servicemember whose death is acknowledged to
have been caused by service in uniform. If a veteran serves a career as
a federal civilian, purchases federal civilian SBP upon retirement, and
subsequently dies of a service-caused condition, the federal civilian's
survivor is not required to forfeit any of his or her federal civilian
survivor benefit. There is no reason to impose that kind of penalty on
the survivor of a military retiree who dies in the same circumstance.
Likewise, no civilian-purchased insurance plan has a clause that denies
payment if the survivor is eligible for a different survivor benefit.
Mr. Coffman. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC
payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57?
Senior Chief Ostrowski. Probably the biggest problem with the
suspension of SBP/DIC payments for spouses who remarry before the age
of 57 is loss of independence which was paid for by the military
spouse's ultimate sacrifice. Why is it that the age of 57 makes it okay
to receive both benefits in full? Here again is another widow's story.
Her name is Misty Jeannette Brammer:
``As a surviving military spouse, my life has been a constant
state of uncertainty since losing my husband over ten years
ago. At the young age of 31, I found myself to be a widow. The
sudden and tragic loss left me devastated, unsure of my future,
and as a single mom raising two children affected by the loss
of their father. I came to rely on the connections and support
the military offered. It has become a way of life. My husband's
service is important to the United States and, as a family we
have continued to support military life. As a widow, my life
shifted and changed and so did the support from the military.
It steadily decreased over time and has been reduced to SSIA,
DIC, SBP, Tricare (in which I now have to pay my own premiums),
some educational benefits and VA home loan. These benefits
have, and continue to be, an important resource to establishing
and continuing my life as a surviving military spouse, mother,
and productive member of my community. This is not easy to do
after a traumatic loss. I have come to rely on these resources
to be independent and not vulnerable.
It has taken time to rebuild my life. It has been difficult
and unbearable at times. The benefits afforded to me by the
loss of my husband are both a resource and burden. Under
current military law, if I remarry before the age of 57
(completely arbitrary age), I lose all of these benefits and
thus my independence. It is as if the United States disregards
my loss in the presence of another spouse. This is so
contradictory to current United States values. More
importantly, it forces me to revisit the trauma I have already
experienced and places me in a vulnerable economic position. It
also violates my civil right to marry (without penalty). This
has caused even more undue stress in my life including
jeopardizing relationships, the ability to have additional
children (out of wedlock) and causing social distance. This
burden has been an emotional strain. The current law is
penalizing to younger spouses. It doesn't make sense that those
over the age of 57 keep benefits upon remarriage. Still
further, those who remarry and that marriage ends get some of
their benefits reinstated. The current law forces surviving
spouses to be dependent on another (new) spouse despite their
loss. A remarriage doesn't negate the loss of our soldiers. It
doesn't take away the pain or the hardship we have and continue
to experience. It doesn't remove the ongoing trauma. Worse yet,
it forces us to be economically vulnerable.
We are respectfully requesting assistance in changing current
law. It is important to keep all benefits intact for survivors
regardless of marital status. To lose these benefits creates
further undue burden and places surviving spouses at risk.''
Many of the younger surviving spouses feel this way. Those that
have made the choice to turn over SBP and DIC to their children in
order to receive full SBP and full DIC benefits have come to regret it.
This is especially true when they realize that the SBP will end forever
when the children reach maturity. This decision for many was made
shortly after learning of the spouse's death when they are in shock and
really not in a frame of mind to make such a life changing decision.
It is the same with remarriage before age 57, many are not aware
that they will lose most of their benefits. However at the age of 57
with remarriage, the widow will receive the full SBP and the full DIC
with no offset. The catch is that the premiums paid to the widow
originally must now be paid back to the government in full. Depending
on the amount, this again could be a burden for the re-married widow.
Mr. Coffman. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC
payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57?
Mr. Davis. The threat of suspension provides two choices: it forces
survivors to exist years on an offset pittance, while bearing the full
cost of rearing, educating and housing their children; or it forces
survivors to live a lie with a new love they are unable to marry until
a certain age gate is met. There should be no suspension of SBP/DIC
payments because a surviving spouse wants to remarry--at any age.
SBP is similar to life insurance that's purchased by a military
retiree to provide up to 55 percent of their retirement pay to a
surviving spouse; however, unlike life insurance, all payouts stop if
the surviving spouse remarries before age 55. No life insurance company
stops paying eligible beneficiaries just because they remarry, yet the
Department of Defense does.
DIC is a modest indemnity compensation benefit of $1,254 per month
that the VA pays to surviving spouses whose loved ones died prematurely
from a service-connected wound, illness or injury.
As stated in testimony, the two payments are mutually exclusive and
paid for two different reasons from two different federal departments,
yet all monthly SBP payments are first offset by the full DIC amount,
which is why the offset is aptly called the ``Widow's Tax.''
To receive concurrent SBP and DIC payments, the annuitant must not
only be eligible to receive both, but the DIC entitlement must be a
result of a remarriage after the age of 57.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALZ
Mr. Walz. How does the current law impact the value of these
benefits and the perception of the impacts to the quality of life for
surviving spouses?
Ms. Kinnard. When one loses a spouse, usually they lose at least
half of their combined income. The service member thought when they
signed up for the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), that they were helping
to offset that loss if they died before the spouse. Because of the
current law with SBP/Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset,
the income is even less than half, often times as low as a third of
what the combined income had been. To put it mildly, this does make a
dramatic difference in the surviving spouse quality of life. An example
from a military widow, Deborah Tainsh, is provided here as presented:
``My husband, USMC Sgt Major David Tainsh who retired in
1994, served 28 years in the Marine Corps that included serving
in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War.
When he retired he paid into the SBP program to protect me in
the event of his death.
After our son was KIA in 2004 in Iraq, my husband was placed
at 100% disabled/unemployable from service connected issues.
With the passing of concurrent receipt for Veterans, his Marine
Corps retirement, VA, and Social Security provided a household
income that allowed me a home and lifestyle that my husband had
earned through 28 years of service in the Marine Corps and
health issues that followed.
After his death on December 23, 2014 from stage 4 lung and
brain cancer that doctors attributed to Agent Orange, my
monthly income dropped to 1/3 of what our household income had
been. Hence, I lost my home due to the inability to make the
payment.
If I had been able to receive both my husband's VA and the
full SBP he paid for, I could have afforded to keep my home.
It is issues such as this that bring to the surface the
reason for Congress to pass concurrent receipt for military and
veteran's widows.''
This widow's story is one of many. Every story maybe a little
different, however the bottom line is the same that there is a huge
adjustment that must be made for military surviving spouses to even
survive.
Mr. Walz. How do your members view SBP and DIC in terms of
different programs for different circumstances?
Colonel Strobridge. Our members definitely believe the two have
separate purposes. SBP is a retiree-purchased insurance plan that is
intended to replace 55% of SBP-covered retired pay in the event of the
servicemember/retiree's death for any reason. DIC, on the other hand,
is indemnity compensation paid by the VA to the survivor of a
servicemember or retired servicemember whose death is acknowledged to
have been caused by service in uniform. If a veteran serves a career as
a federal civilian, purchases federal civilian SBP upon retirement, and
subsequently dies of a service-caused condition, the federal civilian's
survivor is not required to forfeit any of his or her federal civilian
survivor benefit. There is no reason to impose that kind of penalty on
the survivor of a military retiree who dies in the same circumstance.
Likewise, no civilian-purchased insurance plan has a clause that denies
payment if the survivor is eligible for a different survivor benefit.
Mr. Walz. How does the current law impact the value of these
benefits and the perception of the impacts to the quality of life for
surviving spouses?
Senior Chief Ostrowski. When one loses a spouse, usually they lose
at least half of their combined income. The service member thought when
they signed up for the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), that they were
helping to offset that loss if they died before the spouse. Because of
the current law with SBP/Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
offset, the income is even less than half, often times as low as a
third of what the combined income had been. To put it mildly, this does
make a dramatic difference in the surviving spouse quality of life. An
example from a military widow, Deborah Tainsh, is provided here as
presented:
``My husband, USMC Sgt Major David Tainsh who retired in
1994, served 28 years in the Marine Corps that included serving
in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War. When he retired he
paid into the SBP program to protect me in the event of his
death. After our son was KIA in 2004 in Iraq, my husband was
placed at 100% disabled/unemployable from service connected
issues. With the passing of concurrent receipt for Veterans,
his Marine Corps retirement, VA, and Social Security provided a
household income that allowed me a home and lifestyle that my
husband had earned through 28 years of service in the Marine
Corps and health issues that followed. After his death on
December 23, 2014 from stage 4 lung and brain cancer that
doctors attributed to Agent Orange, my monthly income dropped
to 1/3 of what our household income had been. Hence, I lost my
home due to the inability to make the payment. If I had been
able to receive both my husband's VA and the full SBP he paid
for, I could have afforded to keep my home. It is issues such
as this that bring to the surface the reason for Congress to
pass concurrent receipt for military and veteran's widows.''
This widow's story is one of many. Every story maybe a little
different, however the bottom line is the same that there is a huge
adjustment that must be made for military surviving spouses to even
survive.
Mr. Walz. How do your members view SBP and DIC in terms of
different programs for different circumstances?
Mr. Davis. The 1.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the U.S. reflect the overall demographics provided by the
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, in that there are roughly
2 million military retirees out of the nation's 21 million total
veterans. As such, less than 10 percent of all veterans (and VFW
membership) would know what the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan is, and even
fewer would know about the VA's Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
program.
However, once educated about the two programs being mutually
exclusive and paid for two different reasons from two different federal
departments, all are united in eliminating the offset, and not to just
to subsidize it with increased SBP payments, as recommended by the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
Ending the SBP-DIC offset is reflected in the passage of VFW
National Resolutions, the most recent of which, Resolution 415, was
passed unanimously by delegates attending the 116th VFW National
Convention in Pittsburgh on July 20, 2015.
Similarly, the VFW also supports eliminating the dollar-for-dollar
offset that continues to impact service-connected disabled military
retirees with VA ratings of 40 percent or below, and Chapter 61
retirees who were medically retired with less than 20 years.
The 10-year concurrent receipt phase-in period for retirees with 50
percent or higher disability ratings was accomplished in 2014. Now it's
time to provide the same equity to all military retirees, regardless of
their disability rating percentage. This VFW position is supported by
Resolution 413, which was also passed unanimously by delegates
attending the 116th VFW National Convention in Pittsburgh on July 20,
2015.
[all]