In December 2002, a law took effect that made Air Force Lt. Col. Gordon J. Brymer of San Antonio, and perhaps 40,000 other military retirees, eligible to have lost retired pay restored beginning June 1, 2003.
Most of them had suffered serious combat-related injuries. When they later received Veterans Administration compensation for service-related conditions, they saw their military retirement reduced or stopped, the result of a law banning receipt of full retired pay and VA compensation.
Brymer, who has diabetes and heart ailments from exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam, was glad to see Congress finally act to ease that ban. In January 2004, Congress tripled the number of retirees eligible to see retired pay restored under the same program, Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC).
Today, 18 months after Congress created the special compensation, Brymer and thousands of retirees suffering from serious combat ailments and injuries have yet to receive its full amount. Brymer, 73, figures he is owed at least $18,000. The total rises monthly by about $1,400. What irks him more is the lack of official explanation for the delay. “Just tell me what’s going on!” he said.
In a phone interview June 30, officials at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Cleveland described a “mess” of administrative challenges yet to be addressed.
They could not predict when these retirees, perhaps 10 to 15 percent of special compensation applicants, will see full monthly pay or receive a catch-up payment for missed or partial payments as far back as June of last year.
The retirees all have 20 or more years of service and disabilities that the Department of Veterans Affairs decided makes them 100 percent unemployable. Defense officials figured out how to pay special compensation to restore dollar-for-dollar offsets in retired pay caused by regular VA compensation tied to their combat injuries.
But officials have not pinned down how to automate full payment for those who lose additional retired pay due to VA compensation paid for Individual Unemployability or as Special Monthly Compensation. This primarily affects officers and senior enlisted people, those more likely to have retired pay remaining to offset when they became eligible for the special payments.
The special compensation program “is a bit of expectation gone wrong,” said Karen Bell, deputy program manager for retired and annuitant pay operations based in Cleveland. “People perceived that, as soon as we got the guidance from (the Office of Secretary of Defense in April), we would be able to pay.” But that guidance, Bell said, “was still silent on a number of issues and didn’t work out the technical processes.”
Because Congress “changed the data elements” to compute special compensation, it “added a fair amount of complexity (to) administering the program,” Bell said.
Service officials, meanwhile, continue to debate how to execute department guidance on screening disabilities tied to special monthly compensation. A meeting on this is set July 12, Bell said.
Brymer, like other retirees upset at the delays, said he suspects foot-dragging by an administration that opposed special compensation or contract-related wrangling with Lockheed Martin over revised work orders and dollars paid.
Officials said neither is correct.
“I hear retirees use the ‘grassy knoll’ theory, that no one wants to pay them anyway,” said Bell. “That’s just not been my experience.”
To comment on this column, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@ aol.com or visit the Web site at: www.militaryupdate.com
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
