New Push. 'There's a group of people that need you' | Veterans push for Major Richard Star Act

There's a group of people that need you' | Veterans push for Major Richard Star Act

A combat-injured veteran says he lost over $90,000 of retired pay because of how the government currently calculates benefits.
Author: Sydney Dishon
Published: 7:14 PM CDT April 19, 2024
Updated: 10:30 PM CDT April 19, 2024
TEXAS, USA — Veterans across the nation are pushing for a piece of legislation they say is designed to correct an injustice.

The Major Richard Star Act would give combat-wounded veterans with less than 20 years of service both their disability compensation and retirement pay without reduction.

6 News spoke with one Texas family about their experience.

Stephanie Terry says her husband Billy Terry Jr. was medically retired at 18 and a half years for combat-related PTSD and a traumatic brain disorder. He has been medically retired since 2014 and has lost out on over $90,000 of retired pay.

Steven London, an army veteran and advocate for the bill, says that's because the pay is offset for about 50,000 veterans.

They are able to receive their Veterans Affairs or VA disability pay, but they have to surrender their military retired pay.

In 2004, Congress did correct this for veterans who served 20 or more years or a full-time service who are rated at 50% disabled or more. However, this left out groups of other veterans, those who were injured in combat with less than 20 years of service, or who do not meet the 50% disability requirement.

For retirees who do not fit these criteria, current law requires a dollar-for-dollar offset of the two benefits, meaning service members have to forfeit a portion of the benefits they earned in the military, according to the Wounded Warrior Project. More information about qualifications can be found at this link.

Now, veterans are pushing for the Major Richard Star Act.

According to the Wounded Warrior Project, the bill would expand the elimination of the offset to 42,000 more retirees whose military careers were cut short due to combat-related injuries.

Former service members who were medically retired from the military with less than 20 years of service (Chapter 61 retirees) and are eligible for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) would be eligible under the bill, and would no longer have their benefits reduced by the offset. This includes those who were retired for injuries sustained in combat and combat-related training.

"There's a group of people that need you," London said. "This is a golden opportunity for lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to do the right thing to take care of our combat-injured veterans, especially with such a high level of bipartisan support."

There is some pushback on the legislation from lawmakers.

"The major question is, how much it's going to cost," Baylor University Political Science Professor, Patrick Flavin, told 6 News.

The Congressional Budget Office did a report on their estimate for the cost. They say it could be nearly $10 billion.

However, advocates disagree, saying the number will be much lower.

"What their estimate doesn't take into consideration is that a lot of the veterans who are eligible, because their estimate is based on the concept that 100% of eligible veterans under this legislation would choose to receive the retirement pay, but that's just simply not the case," London said. "I mean, it's going to be a very individual case-by-case basis."

In the House and Senate, the bill has been introduced, but no further action has yet been taken on it.

Veteran groups can play a big role in advocating for the bill by applying pressure to members of Congress.

"If you have veterans who have been injured, through no fault of their own, while serving in combat, and their government says 'Sorry, you were injured, you were retired early, and you can't take what you earned,' you can just imagine that kind of message to the younger generation of soldiers, airmen, marines," London added.