Common Arguments Against Allowing Concurrent Receipt

There are a number of arguments which have been frequently used in support of the
prohibition of concurrent receipt. The first is simply the long and consistent legislative history
of the ban. Military retirement benefits were instituted in 1861, and within 30 years Congress
banned the receipt of both a military retirement and disability compensation. Since that time,
the federal courts have upheld the prohibition. This consistency arises out of Congress’ long-
held agreement concerning the purposes of the retirement program. As Senator Cockrell
argued when the prohibition was first enacted, the military retirement pension was intended
to provide compensation for all aspects of military service. As such, the retirement pension
was considered to be compensation for disabilities incurred during service. Therefore,
according to this argument, concurrent receipt of both retirement and disability compensation
would compensate twice for a single disability and period of service. Furthermore, opponents
of concurrent receipt often argue that retirement pensions can include explicit compensation
for a disability (disability retirement, for example).

Another common argument against concurrent receipt points to the consequences of
repealing the prohibition. In particular, opponents of concurrent receipt argue that the cost of
repealing the ban would be prohibitive. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2003
that $4 billion of DoD retirement pension was offset annually by VA disability compensation

and that allowing concurrent receipt would therefore cost $41 billion over the period 2004-
2013, at approximately $3-5 billion every year.



In addition, a study conducted for DoD by SAG Corporation estimated that there
would be very little “return” on such an investment. That is, an increase in post-employment
compensation would do little to improve military recruitment and retention rates. It was
estimated that elimination of the prohibition against concurrent receipt would result in only a
0.1-0.4 percent increase in the retention rate of enlisted personnel with less than 20 years of
service, while officer retention rates would be even less responsive. The study estimated
that retention among retirement-eligible personnel would actually be reduced. It also
concluded that changes in retirement pay had no measurable impact on recruitment.



Lastly, opponents claim that allowing concurrent receipt of DoD retirement and VA
disability compensation would set a precedent, forcing other government programs (i.e.
Social Security, Workers Compensation, and Federal Employees Retirement) to repeal their
own concurrent receipt bans, further increasing the cost to the federal government