Senate testimony on republican plan to reduce VA benefits

[Gimpy]

From: "Lisa Bogle" |
Subject: Concurrent Receipt Update
To: dav_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net






Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee Chairman Arlen Specter held an emergency hearing on September 24, 2003, to hear testimony regarding the House majority leadership plan to discontinue granting service connection for all disabilities except those that directly result from the performance of job-related tasks of a servicemember?s military occupation. All the veterans? service organizations testifying strongly and uniformly opposed such change in benefit eligibility.



Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi testified that VA estimates approximately two-thirds of all current service-connected disabled veterans would not be eligible for service connection if this proposed new standard were applied to them. The plan by the House majority leadership would make the new restrictions on service connection apply to all new claims for service connection and all claims for increased compensation, including all claims for increased compensation by veterans currently service connected. The House majority leadership proposed this plan as a way to drastically reduce spending on compensation and other benefits provided to veterans on account of service-connected disabilities to use the savings to pay for legislation authorizing concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. All the veterans? organizations testified in full support of concurrent receipt but condemned this plan to pay for it by denying any increase in disability benefits to the majority of today?s veterans and by denying all benefits for service connection to the majority of tomorrow?s veterans.



Unfortunately, we have seen correspondence from some in military associations who vocally support trading away the rights of two-thirds of tomorrow?s veterans in exchange for concurrent receipt. Such divisive self-serving moves endanger the unity of the military and veterans? communities and threaten to reduce our combined lobbying strength. In addition, those who support the sacrifice of benefits of two-thirds of tomorrow?s veterans for concurrent receipt for today?s military retirees do not seem to understand that two-thirds of today?s military retirees who do not already receive the maximum compensation available under law would also be adversely affected in that they could not get increased disability evaluations if less than 100% and, even if already 100%, could not get compensation in addition to the 100% rating under special statutory awards for such things as service-connected anatomical loss or loss of use of extremities, blindness, housebound status, and need of aid and attendance, etc. These disabled military retirees would also be denied such ancillary VA benefits as the automobile allowance, specially adapted housing, and nursing home care, etc., unless they could prove that their service-connected disabilities were caused by the direct performance of military duties. In addition, two-thirds of our sons and daughters who will be tomorrow?s military retirees will also be denied all these service-connected benefits. The DAV supports ending the unjust prohibition against concurrent receipt for all disabled military longevity retirees, but we adamantly oppose trading away the benefits of two-thirds of our disabled veterans and military retirees for concurrent receipt. The DAV works to build better lives for all disabled veterans and their families.



Please click here: http://www.dav.org/voters/statement_surratt_092303.html to read DAV?s September 23, 2003, testimony before the Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee. We urge you to continue your grassroots efforts to defeat this proposal to greatly limit service connection and to get legislation authorizing concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation.

[reconeil]

Damn-it-all Man,...it's no wonder I despise career politicos and/or Power and Control Freaks do-damn-much.

First we've got The Democrats whom want to dismantle The U.S. Military and Intelligence Agencies at every opportunity,...and apparently now The Republicans want to stuff-it to The Veterans. That certainly doesn't even give voters their normalcy of picking: "The lesser of two evils" (an election norm).

Regardless Gimpy, and since much more up on Service Connected Disabilities than I will ever be, please explain to me what constitutes A REAL SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY in current political minds.

Does it mean that if A Tanker falls off a tank and sustains a debilitating and perpetual back injury,...such is now considered a legitimate Service Connected Disability? Whereas, if same Tanker was walking to The Gate On Pass and became run down by a Jeep or Humvee (sustaining similar debilitating injuries), such WOULD NOT be considered a Service Connected Disability?

If such is what's being proposed my friend,...IT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID. After all, whether one dies in battle or in a bordello while in The Service, his or her insurance is always Paid-off In Full,...and rightfully so.

Whatever, don't tell me that plans for altering Military Insurance is also in the works.

Neil

[Gimpy]

eligibilty criteria Code of Federal Regulations, Section 38---Para. 3.4.

######################

?3.4 Compensation.

(a) Compensation. This term means a monthly payment made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to a veteran because of service-connected disability, or to a surviving spouse, child, or parent of a veteran because of the service-connected death of the veteran occurring before January 1, 1957, or under the circumstances outlined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. If the veteran was discharged or released from service, the discharge or release must have been under conditions other than dishonorable. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), (13))

(b) Disability compensation.

(1) Basic entitlement for a veteran exists if the veteran is disabled as the result of a personal injury or disease (including aggravation of a condition existing prior to service) while in active service if the injury or the disease was incurred or aggravated in line of duty. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1110, 1131)

(2) An additional amount of compensation may be payable for a spouse, child, and/or dependent parent where a veteran is entitled to compensation based on disability evaluated as 30 per centum or more disabling. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1115)

(c) Death compensation. Basic entitlement exists for a surviving spouse, child or children, and dependent parent or parents if:

(1) The veteran died before January 1, 1957; or

(2) The veteran died on or after May 1, 1957, and before January 1, 1972, if at the time of death a policy of United States Government Life Insurance or National Service Life Insurance was in effect under waiver of premiums under 38 U.S.C. 1924 unless the waiver was granted under the first proviso of section 622(a) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, and the veteran died before return to military jurisdiction or within 120 days thereafter. (See ?3.5(d) as to Public Health Service.) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1121, 1141)


[26 FR 1564, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 38 FR 21923, Aug. 14, 1973; 39 FR 34529, Sept. 26, 1974; 44 FR 22717, Apr. 17, 1979]



###############################

[Arrow]

The reason they get by with all of this is because you have to be a damn lawyer to understand what the heck they are saying. Gimpy if you can break this down to street level english it would be a great help.

Peace out....

[Gimpy]

The DAV testimony in the Senate "broke it down to street level" better than I could.

Here is a portion of what they testified today.

#####################################

This House republicans plan would have our Government renounce all responsibility to compensate and care for members of the Armed Forces disabled in the line of duty, except under extremely restricted circumstances. This move would abandon the fundamental principles of our Nation?s relationship between its citizens and the veterans who have made extraordinary sacrifices in their behalf. For a veteran who suffers service-connected disability, our Government has deemed it our moral obligation to provide the disabled veteran a range of benefits designed to ease the economic and other losses and disadvantages incurred as a consequence of serving his or her country. These benefits include compensation, medical care, and vocational rehabilitation. Other special benefits are provided to the most severely disabled veterans and to the survivors of veterans whose deaths are from service-connected causes. The House plan would bring these benefit programs to an end for the majority of our future disabled veterans and their families and would essentially deny increased compensation for many current disabled veterans when their disabilities worsen.

Under current law, the term "service-connected" means generally, "with respect to disability or death, that such disability was incurred or aggravated, or that the death resulted from a disability incurred or aggravated, in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service." 38 U.S.C.A. ? 101(16) (West 2002). An injury or disease incurred "during" military service "will be deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty" unless the disability was caused by the veteran?s own misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or was incurred while absent without permission or while confined by military or civilian authorities for serious crimes." 38 U.S.C.A. ? 105 (West 2002).

Based on equitable considerations, several named "chronic" diseases may be presumed service connected because of their sometimes insidious onset and clinical manifestation within relatively short periods of time following service. Others may be presumed service connected based on the likelihood of a causal connection between the specified disabilities and certain circumstances of military service or exposure to certain hazards during service. These include tropical diseases for veterans who had service in areas where such diseases were endemic; diseases suffered by former prisoners of war from malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, physical hardships or abuse, and mental hardships or abuse; radiation-related disabilities for veterans who were exposed to radiation during service; diseases associated with exposure to herbicides used during the war in Vietnam; and disabilities peculiar to veterans who had service in the Persian Gulf War. 38 U.S.C.A. ?? 1112, 1116, 1117, 1118 (West 2002). In addition, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs presumes certain diseases are service connected when suffered by veterans who, during service, were exposed to mustard gas and Lewisite. 38 C.F.R. ? 3.316 (2002).

Thus, disabilities are service connected under current law when incurred, aggravated, or presumed incurred or aggravated during or by military service. While service connection may be established based on a demonstrated or presumed cause-and-effect relationship, service-related causation is not required where there is evidence of a condition during service or a presumptive period. Under current law, disabilities of onset coincident with military service may be service connected without necessity to establish and prove a causal link between the performance of military duties, per se, and the disability. If the disability is of service origin, it is deemed attributable to service-related factors. ?Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein.? 38 C.F.R. ? 3.303(a) (2002) (emphasis added).

Clearly, Congress fully understood and intended this equitable and practical basis to compensate veterans for a wide range of disabilities for which the extraordinary rigors and hardships of military service can fairly be assumed to have played a precipitating or aggravating role, although the very nature of the circumstances of military service coupled with imperfect science make proof of causation extremely difficult or impossible in many instances. ?Congress has designed and fully intends to maintain a beneficial non-adversarial system of veterans benefits. This is particularly true of service-connected disability compensation where the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty.? H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988).

Under the draft proposal of the House leadership, service connection would be granted only where the disability is from: (1) ?[i]njuries directly resulting from the performance of official military duties,? and (2) ?[i]llnesses directly resulting from exposure to the causes of the illness while performing official military duties or directly resulting from exposure to the causes of the illness at the duty location to which the member is assigned.? (Emphasis added.) Excluded from the scope of service connection under this restricted standard would be (1) ?injuries that are sustained while not performing official military duties,? and (2) ?illnesses determined to be relating to aging and/or preexisting medical conditions of the member.? The proposed scheme narrowly defines ?official military duties? as including: (1) ?[d]uties performed in an official government capacity directly related to those functions and scope of duties associated with the occupational skill assigned to the member,? (2) ?[o]ther actions or functions in an official government capacity that the member was ordered to execute by a member (or civilian supervisor) of senior grade or rank or in a senior or superior position, or a member that is designated by such as senior individual to give the member instructions, to include unspecified preparatory or follow-on actions and functions,? and (3) ?duties that result in qualified combat-related disabilities as defined in section 1413a of title 10, [United States Code].? Essentially all other activities of military service fall under a broad exclusion from the definition of ?official military duties,? even events that occur during duty hours. Excluded are ?actions and time periods unrelated to official government business to include travel to and from the member?s home and permanent duty station, meals, and other activities selected and carried out by the member at an official duty location and during hours designated as duty hours for the member.?

Disability may arise in the course of military service but not be susceptible to strict proof that it was the proximate result of performing activities of the member?s specific military occupation, as opposed to engaging in the wide range of activities typical of service in the Armed Forces. The current terms for service connection provide both an equitable and sensible approach because it is often impossible to disassociate the disability from service-related factors, even while the veteran is unable to establish a definite causation. It is generally recognized that the cause of disease may be multifactorial. Therefore, disability incurred in the line of duty is sometimes not directly due to a job injury or traceable to known causes, but certainly may be due to subtle or less obvious factors inherent in the Armed Forces environment.

Mental illnesses present a good example of disabilities that can properly be service connected under current law but would not qualify for service connection in many cases under the proposed new standards. Under the proposed change, how will it be fairly determined whether a mental illness that begins during military service is attributable to the performance of duties only, as opposed to (1) the stresses of the military environment generally to include the stresses associated with the performance of military duties combined with the stresses of serving in certain generally stressful military environments, (2) the emotional strain of serving away from home and family or in isolated duty stations, or (3) psychological stressors or factors totally unrelated to the military environment? Under the House plan, would service connection for mental illness be in order if it were clearly shown to have been partially caused by the performance of military duties and partially caused by other stresses of the military environment? In addition, it is being recognized more and more that mental stress plays a role in physical health. How will the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) properly adjudicate complex questions of service connection for physical illnesses that are not directly shown to be related to performance of military duties but may have been triggered or intensified by the stressors of combat, terrors of a prisoner of war experiences, or the anxieties of highly stressful military occupations?

If service connection were currently subject to proof of service causation, Persian Gulf War veterans suffering from very real but poorly understood, undiagnosed illnesses would be left without compensation or medical treatment. Although a discrete group having the common experience of presence in a geographical region at the same period in time suffers from a syndrome comprising a commonality of symptoms, the link between the syndrome and the common experience is only circumstantial. It follows that there currently is no possibility of ascertaining whether these illnesses are directly due to the performance of military job functions or whether mere presence in the region, both on and off duty, could have caused them. The true nature of disease is unknown, and thus its cause or causes are unknown. With the additional exclusions included in the House plan, it is not at all clear that conditions such as these will be deemed by VA to qualify for service connection within the ambit of 10 U.S.C.A. ? 1413a (West Supp. 2003)(?Qualifying combat-related disability?).

In a variety of other situations, it will be very difficult for veterans to prove that they were exposed to the causes of their diseases while performing military duties on the job as opposed to having been exposed while off duty. For example, how will a veteran prove that he was exposed to asbestos on a Navy ship only while performing his job functions as opposed to exposure in off duty hours? How will a veteran who contracted malaria in a tropical region prove that the mosquito bit him or her while performing military duties. How will the veteran who develops Lyme disease after field training prove that the tick that transmitted the disease bit him or her while performing military duties rather than while taking a rest break or sleeping in a tent?

Numerous other similar examples can be foreseen, particularly with respect to the question of whether the causes underlying a whole range of infectious or degenerative diseases were solely attributable to the performance of military job functions, attributable to the overall military environment (including the stresses and rigors of military service generally), attributable to both the environment within the confines of the military facility and off-base living facilities, or attributable to both military occupational functions and off-duty recreational activities.

For many in our Armed Forces who have military occupations that require them to stay in top physical condition, the line between what is performance of duty and recreation is blurred, if not nonexistent. If service connection is to be denied for the soldier who injures his knee playing special services basketball, is it also to be denied for the sailor who, at the encouragement or direction of her superiors, injures her knee participating in authorized recreational or sports activities while stationed on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf? Or is it also to be denied for the marine who injures his knee while keeping in shape in the exercise room in the foreign embassy where he is stationed?

Consider the circumstances in which servicemembers were killed and disabled from a terrorist attack on their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Most were probably not performing military duties at the time. Consider the circumstances in which soldiers were the victims of the terrorist attack on a Berlin nightclub. In a strict sense, that was not performance of duty. On the other hand, unlike a civilian job, those soldiers were at the disposal of the Army 24 hours a day and were placed at risk because of military service. Military life, like civilian living, involves work, recreation, commuting between work and home, but in the Armed Forces these are all the performance of duty in the broader sense, especially when the servicemember is located in a military community or is isolated on a foreign station.

The radical House plan will have other far-reaching implications. There will be no presumptive service connection for ?chronic diseases? because service connection is based on a presumption that the chronic disease has its onset during military service. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of the disease during service, it follows that the disease cannot be linked to the performance of military duties. As noted, presumptive service connection for illnesses attributed to service in the Persian Gulf is in doubt under this plan. The same difficulty exists in proving that exposure to herbicides?and radiation during the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?occurred solely in connection with the performance of military duties.

The House?s draft plan also expressly excludes from disabilities subject to service connection ?illnesses determined to be related to aging and/or preexisting medical conditions of the member.? This indicates there will be no service connection by reason of aggravation. An individual could enter service with some minimal defect that did not disqualify the person for military service and have that disability aggravated by superimposed injury during service to an extent that it disqualified the member from further military service and resulted in total disability, but service connection would not be in order. The veteran would be sent home to fend for himself or herself.

Because the House plan would apply to new claims for service connection and evaluations of existing service-connected disabilities, veterans who suffer worsening of their service-connected disabilities could receive no increased ratings unless they could prove their already service-connected disabilities were the direct result of the performance of duty.

A servicemember who was paralyzed, for example, due to medical malpractice by a military physician would be without any remedy or benefits. A disability incurred in connection with military medical treatment would not meet the performance-of-duty requirement, and the member would be barred under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (the ?Feres doctrine?) from bringing a tort action to recover damages from the Government. Here again, the disabled veteran would be left to his or her own means to survive.

The House plan would plunge servicemembers into an extremely precarious position. Members of the Armed Forces have no real ability to obtain disability insurance from commercial insurers. Even if such insurance were available to them, the price would be prohibitive given the increased risks inherent in military service. Only the Federal Government is in a position to bear this risk?and it should without question.

Another incidental adverse effect would impact disability retirement from military service. Compensation is often elected in lieu of military disability retirement. Servicemembers who become disabled before completion of military careers are now eligible for disability retirement from the Armed Forces. Many of these disability retirees find it advantageous to elect to receive disability compensation. However, neither military retirement nor disability compensation would be available under the proposed plan unless the disability was due to the performance of military duties. Other Federal and private sector disability retirement programs do not require that the disability be job related.

Because entitlement to most benefits for veterans? dependents and survivors is derived from the veterans? service-connected status, the House plan would therefore also have a major adverse impact on veterans? families. It is unclear how it might impact disability and other benefits under chapter 18 of title 38, United States Code, provided to Vietnam veterans? children who suffer from spina bifida.

Beyond these more readily recognizable adverse effects, this change has the potential to cause myriad unforeseen and unintended consequences for veterans, servicemembers, veterans? and servicemembers? families, and for VA. For VA, numerous adverse consequences are easily foreseeable.

The ?line of duty? standard dispenses with many complex issues related to disability causation. It is where the claim for service connection rests on proof of causation that VA now has its most complex and administratively burdensome adjudications. These complex adjudications involve proof of service connection for disabilities not shown during service or any presumptive period, such as, posttraumatic stress disorder, asbestosis, non-presumptive radiogenic diseases, and others. These cases demand a much greater investment of VA time and resources to resolve. To impose a causation requirement upon all new disabilities and claims for increase will complicate VA?s work beyond belief. It will generate untold numbers of disputes about causation, and the innumerable factual nuances in questions of causation will make fair and uniform determinations on this element of claims near impossible to achieve.

Because this change would strike at the very foundation of veterans? disability benefits, it would require a virtual rewrite of title 38, United States Code, and title 38, Code of Federal Regulations.

The change would likely have similar adverse consequences for the Armed Forces. With the knowledge that military service generally involves far greater risks of injury than civilian careers, that this increased risk of disability is borne by the servicemember personally rather than the Government, and that the Government will have no hesitation in sending the servicemember into perilous situations that expose the servicemember to all manner of known and unforeseen hazards, potential recruits would be wise to consider other alternatives to military service. Although it is not a primary concern of this Committee, it bears noting that this proposed change might cause substantial decline in military enlistments and reenlistments.

This proposal to leave it to this Nation?s sons and daughters to serve in our Armed Forces at their own risk is simply indefensible. It is a bad idea for numerous reasons. Its only object seems to be abrogation of the Government?s responsibility to its servicemembers and veterans. We urge the members of this Committee to take the lead in opposing this ill-advised scheme.

##################################

"Ill adivsed" is putting it rather mildy in MY book! The "authors" of this "proposal" should be ashamed of themselves and run out of office on a rail!

[Arrow]

Gimpy...thank you. I read this and it's just flat blowing me out of the water. This is is some scary stuff now. Scares the heck out of me. And then to know that they are pitting one group of Veterans against another! Oh man! They are slick. I hate to see those that have been fighting for concurrent receipt for so long buy into this deal.

I would likebillr'sinput on this and also Paco's.

It would be goodto get the input of everyone else but let's stay on the subject and talk asa groupofVets and familysand let's not raise hell with each other but with the politico's thatwant to shove this down our throat. Please people. We have to movetogether. Not just here but all across this land. We have to be one voice and let Washington know that we are not going to let them use us and throw us out as garbage when they are done.

Let's talk about just exactly how this is going to impact all veterans and their families. And what we can do now to stop it. But the first thing we better do is let our Congressional Reps know we aren't buying into this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this is a bad deal all the way around.

I forgot to take my blood pressure medicine today and have to wait til morning now because it is to late. This sure isn't helping matters.

[Gimpy]

Below is the testimony given to Congress by Carl Blake, Legislative Director of the PVA.

################################

STATEMENT OF
CARL BLAKE,
ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS? AFFAIRS,
CONCERNING CONCURRENT RECEIPT
AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 38

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Graham, members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed compromise for concurrent receipt and the proposed changes to Title 38 that would help pay for this compromise. PVA is deeply troubled by the fact that the leadership of the House and this Congress would consider restricting access to health care and benefits for future veterans at a time when those same service personnel are sacrificing and dying for this country.

PVA has always strongly supported the repeal of the current inequitable requirement that a veteran?s military retired pay based on longevity be offset by an amount equal to his or her VA disability compensation. Veterans are the only group of federal retirees that have to surrender a portion of their retirement pay to receive their disability compensation. This requirement essentially forces disabled military retirees to fund their own disability benefits.

However, the proposal to change the statutory definition of what would be considered a service-connected disability by the VA in order to pay for concurrent receipt would go one step further. This would fundamentally change the way the VA determines who would receive a service-connected disability rating. Currently, any service member who becomes disabled while on active duty, regardless of the cause of the disability, and assuming no willful misconduct, is determined to be service-connected by the VA. Under this proposed change, a service member would have to be disabled through a means directly related to duty to receive a service-connection.

Let me tell you the story of a PVA member who was out jogging one morning. As an Air Force Colonel his actions reflect the inherent belief in all soldiers that being in the military is a 24 hour-a-day, 7 day-a-week profession. Physical fitness is a basic entry requirement for military service, and all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are expected to maintain a high level of fitness. It is believed that while this Colonel was out jogging early one morning, an individual in a van intentionally ran off of the road and struck him. This accident left him paralyzed from the neck down. Under this proposal, an individual in similar circumstances in the future would not be able to have his paralysis be service-connected.

Military service is unlike any other type of profession. We expect the young men and women who are volunteering for military service to endure great hardships and be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. We ask these men and women to serve this country with the promise of decent pay and benefits. A comprehensive disability policy is an insurance policy for these active duty service personnel. It is an insult to them for Congress to consider changing the rules in the middle of the game and drastically reduce the value of that insurance policy.

As a representative and a member of PVA, I am outraged over this proposal that will leave millions of future veterans, and future military retirees, without the benefits and health care that they have earned and deserve. PVA is unalterably opposed to any legislation that would change the definition of service-connected disability in order to provide an offset to pay for the provision of concurrent receipt.

PVA is also very concerned that this proposal would change how the VA provides health care. Future veterans may be forced to pay for their health care or not be eligible for it at all. Under the proposed statutory change of service-connected disability, future veterans who receive health care and benefits for disabilities that are currently presumed to be connected to military service will be left out in the cold. This could affect veterans suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Diabetes, and other ailments.

PVA urges you to oppose any provision in legislation that would change the definition of service-connected disability. At a time when we have men and women sacrificing and dying in service to this nation, it is appalling to think that Congress would consider cutting benefits they will be entitled to in the future.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. PVA applauds this Committee for recognizing the magnitude of this proposal and choosing to hold this hearing to address the problems that this proposal would create. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

# # #

William Carl Blake
Associate Legislative Director
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 416-7708

BCarl Blake is an Associate Legislative Director with Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) at PVA?s National Office in Washington, D.C. He represents PVA to federal agencies including the Department of Defense, Department of Labor, Small Business Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, he represents PVA on issues such as homeless veterans and disabled veterans? employment as well as coordinates issues with other Veterans Service Organizations.

Carl was raised in Woodford, Virginia. He attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the Military Academy in May 1998. He received the National Organization of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Award for Excellence in the Environmental Engineering Sequence.

Upon graduation from the Military Academy, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. He was assigned to the 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Carl was retired from the military in October 2000 due to a service-connected disability.

Carl is a member of the Virginia-Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Carl lives in Fredericksburg, Virginia with his wife Venus and son Jonathan.

##############################

[Gimpy]

VA Secretary Principi gives testimony to Senate Committee. Does NOT go along with White House plan to reduce VA benefits.!
#####################################

September 24, 2003

VA secretary voices opposition to concurrent receipt plan

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


In testimony expected to put a final stake in the heart of a House Republican leadership proposal to trade better benefits for disabled military retirees for restrictions on who is eligible for service-connected disability benefits, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Prinicipi said he opposes the initiative.
Appearing Tuesday before the Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee, Prinicipi said the idea of restricting benefits to disabilities incurred while performing military duties because it would have ?far-reaching? and ?unpredicted effects.?

The plan would end up hurting junior enlisted people more than officers and would created a nightmare in adjudicating claims for disability compensation, survivors benefits and health care by trying to determine exactly how and when the disability was created, Principi said.

With Principi?s opposition, House and Senate aides said it is difficult to imagine how House Republican leaders could go ahead with the White House-backed proposal.

Applying that policy would be difficult, he said. For example, arthritis in a veteran might be considered service-connected for a paratrooper would could show the wear-and-tear of military duties were the cause of the disease. But veterans who spent most of their military career behind a desk, such as finance officers, would have difficulty qualifying as having a service-connected disability, Principi said.

It isn?t even clear, he said, whether the off-duty injuries of a service member deployed in Iraq today would be considered a service-connected disability under the proposal. At first, he said, ?I believe it would,? but he paused and said, ?it is possible.?

?It could be very problematic if they were hurt on their day off,? he said.

That uncertainty, he said, is why he opposes rushing any reforms. The current disability policy, based on the assumption that anyone in the military is covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, ?should be studied very carefully before we proceed, Principi said.

Under the two-week-old initiative, which House aides note the plan is far from final, service members who are injured or become disabled while on active duty but not while on duty could continue to qualify for disability retired pay, which is paid by the Department of Defense. But they would not receive veterans? disability compensation, which is paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Disabilities would not be considered as resulting from military duties for injuries incurred while traveling to and from work, while eating meals or other off-duty time, according to a draft legislative language. Disabilities from the normal aging process also would not be covered.

Principi said that disability retired pay is more generous for officers than enlisted members because payments are based on rank and years of service.

He provided two examples, comparing benefits for an E-3 with two years of service to those of an O-5 with 18 years of service, both who have a spouse and one dependent.

If injured in a car accident and rated at a 60 percent disability, the O-5 could receive $3,697 a month in disability retired pay from the military while the E-3 would receive $865, he said. The $865 payment is less than the $1,011 in monthly disability compensation currently paid by the VA for a 60 percent disability.

The difference is even greater, Principi said, if the disability in greater. If injured in a non-combat accident and rated as 100 percent disabled, the O-5 would receive $4,621 in disability retired pay while the E-3 would get $1,082. The current rate of veterans? disability compensation is $2,943, he said.

The examples, he said, show the proposal ?have dramatic impact on lower-ranking people.?

That isn?t the only result. If the disability isn?t considered to be service-connected, survivors would not qualify for the VA?s dependency and indemnity compensation or veterans? burial benefits. And, he said, the disabled veteran would not qualify for preferential hiring for federal jobs as a disabled veteran nor for special allowances for adapting cars, for clothing allowances and for loans to adapt their housing.

Principi?s opposition to changing disability rules leaves a cloud hanging over the fate of efforts by disabled retirees to end the current dollar-for-dollar offset in retired pay required of those who also receive veterans? disability compensation. The White House-draft plan proposed to end the offset, paying for the increase in retired pay that would result by savings from future disability claims.

While not offering specifics, Principi said it was possible that Congress could provide relief for some disabled retirees by expanding on the limited combat-related special compensation passed last year. This program, known as CRCS, provides a monthly payment for eligible retirees that can equal what they are losing in retired pay because of the current offset. It is limited to retirees who were injured in combat, and received a Purple Heart for the injury that led to their disability, and to retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or more if their disability results from combat or combat-like training.

?Refinements could be made to CRCS,? Principi said, offering two possibilities. One would be to expand eligibility for reservists, who under current rules can find it difficult to qualify even if they have 20 years of combined service. The 60 percent eligibility threshold for those who didn?t get a Purple Heart for the incident that resulted in their disability could be lowered, he said.

?I do think there are things that can be explored,? he said.

Congressional aides said those ideas are being considered as lawmakers looked for a compromise on concurrent receipt, one of the last issues holding up completion of the 2004 defense authorization bill.

###################################

[reconeil]

After reading further explanations of what's being disrespectfully proposed for Disabled Veterans (past, present and future),...my Tanker falling off a tank vis-a-vis same Tanker being hit by a jeep while going On Pass scenario, actually doesn't seem so stupid to me anymore.

Still, that public hirelings we pay (and quite well at that) to assist ALL AMERICANS (even Veterans) come-up-with and propose such nonsense,...is truly mindboggling. You'd think "They" would know better and/or that Veterans' Care, Benefits and Entitlements ARE JUST THAT. Such are not merely some forms of Welfare.

Plus, and since all Veteran Entitlements have been pre-PAID FOR IN FULL by the sweat, tears and blood of millions,...such issues should never be cavalierly increased, reduced or changed at political whim, such as is so normal to The Bennies given in The American Welfare State.

Besides, and even if some foolish politicos (of whatever bent) choose to financially lump all Disabled Veterans together with QUITE HEALTHY Welfare Recipients,...shouldn't those having signed on The Dotted Line to even give their lives for America if need be, automatically be treated better? This Veteran certainly thinks so.

Hey,...what's next? Will all future men and women have to show that they have their own Medical Insurance before being permitted to volunteer for dangerous Military Service,...and that "They" will continue paying for same while Serving Country?

Well, and as silly as that might seem for future Soldiers and Veterans, I personally think that such is a great idea for all politicos (elected, appointed and workers). After all, as one of: "We The (Schnooks)" perpetually paying for the best medical care that money can buy for all politicos and affiliated (wish I had such),...I think: "You (me and most everyone) deserve a break today,...".
That's: "A break today". Not the normal shaft today, tomorrow or whenever,...such as politicos usually stay up nights conjuring-up for We Peasants and/or Taxpayers (Veterans inclusive).

And besides,...what-the-hell-is-wrong with politicos treating all Veterans at least as good as "They" treat themselves, anyway? Hell,...you'd think it was THEIR MONEY that's being debatted here!

Neil

[HARDCORE]

GIMPY -

Stay at their throats! We can not afford to lose even a single voice!!

VERITAS