Common Arguments in Favor of Allowing Concurrent Receipt

Advocates of concurrent receipt rely heavily on a single argument - that DoD
retirement benefits and VA disability compensation each have unique stated purposes, and
therefore they do not represent dual compensation for a single purpose. More specifically,
DoD retirement benefits are paid to compensate for “service to the country,” while VA
disability compensation is “paid for the effects of a service-connected injury or illness on the
former [service] member’s ability to earn a living.”

VA disability compensation is intended to
compensate for losses in earnings capacity which are a result of a service-connected
disability. DoD retirement benefits, on the other hand, do not compensate for loss in earnings
capacity, but are merely compensation for time served. Since each benefit is compensation
for a different purpose, there is no ‘dual compensation,’ and therefore no reason to prohibit
concurrent receipt. While opponents of concurrent receipt claim that DoD retirement benefits
are intended to compensate for all aspects of service, including any disabilities incurred,
advocates for concurrent receipt disagree, arguing that retirement benefits are not intended
to compensate for loss of earnings capacity, as disability benefits are. That is, VA disability
compensation assumes that the veteran may suffer a loss in earnings capacity as a result of
a service-connected disability, and attempts to remedy that loss, whereas DoD retirement
benefits are not based on an assumption that military retirement will limit the veteran’s
earnings capacity.

In addition to compensation for loss in earnings capacity, it is generally accepted that
an implied intent of disability compensation is to compensate for the impact of the disability
on the quality of life of the disabled. Examples of areas of life that can be affected are in the
activities of daily living such as dressing and using the bathroom, family and community
activities, use of medications, personal hygiene, and mental health. Special monthly
compensation is a benefit that addresses more directly the quality of life issue. Offsetting
military retirement pay by the amount of disability compensation including special monthly

compensation effectively eliminates any compensation for the impact of disability on quality
of life.

Consider two veterans who entered service at the same time and both are leaving
service after 20 or more years and are the same rank. One has a non-combat 40 percent
disability and the other has no disability; they both receive the same amount of payment.
The only “advantage” the veteran with a disability receives is a small tax advantage to
“compensate” for his disability.

Advocates for concurrent receipt also claim that there are no other federal
employees who are required to offset their federal retirement benefits if they also receive
federal disability benefits. The accuracy of this claim will be assessed in the next section. It
should be noted, however, that opponents of concurrent receipt generally counter this
argument by claiming that the veteran benefits program is unique among all other federal
employee benefits programs, and that therefore making this comparison is inherently
inaccurate. For example, in Absher v. United States, the court ruled that military retirees
receive a number of unique benefits, including free health care and commissary privileges,
which differentiate them from all other federal employees. Because of these differences, the
court found that retirement and benefit programs are not comparable to other programs, and
it is therefore acceptable that the veterans’ program has unique rules regarding concurrent
receipt.

Despite this ruling, and similar rulings in other cases, concurrent receipt advocates
argue that it is unfair to treat veterans differently in regards to concurrent receipt, and that the
prohibition should therefore be lifted.