Congress Must Support Our Combat-Injured Service Members

On Aug. 26 we will remember a dreadful event: the two-year anniversary of the attack on Abbey Gate in Afghanistan, where 13 U.S. service members were killed and 45 wounded during our disastrous troop withdrawal from that country. The event also serves as a reminder of an injustice that affects our combat-injured service veterans — an injustice that Congress must fix now.

Under current policy, military members forced to retire after a combat-related injury must forfeit a dollar of military retirement pay for every dollar of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided disability benefits they receive. Reducing the retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran — effectively using it to pay for their disability benefit — is as wrong as it sounds. 

Legislation to correct this wrong, the Major Richard Star Act, has the support of more than two-thirds of Congress ; 327 House members and 71 senators signed on as co-sponsors. The Star Act would repeal this unfair offset that prevents more than 50,000 veterans who live with the wounds of combat from accessing both their VA disability benefits and military retirement pay. 

The proposed legislation is named for an Army combat engineer who led route clearance and construction missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Engineers were in high demand during those conflicts, working to open roads and build infrastructure in those countries. Star was injured on the last of several deployments and was forced to medically retire before he could complete 20 years of service. Accordingly, his military retired pay was reduced, dollar-for-dollar, to match his VA disability.      

Star learned about his reduced retirement pay from his hospital bed at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Driven to represent his fellow wounded warriors and friends he made in the hospital, Star started visiting House and Senate offices. He struggled to make it down the halls and, frequently out of breath, pushed for legislation that would remedy the offset provision. Unfortunately, Star passed away two years ago.

Passing this legislation should be a no-brainer. After all, how many times do those who serve their country in uniform hear the phrase, “Thank you for your service”? One would think this legislation is a slam dunk because it’s the right thing to do. And if there is ever a time to put some starch behind thanking combat-injured members for their service, this is it. Strangely, though, neither the House nor the Senate version of the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes language from the Major Richard Star Act.

The hang up, it appears, is that Congress must figure out how to pay for the Star Act by cutting government spending somewhere else, in accordance with the “CUTGO rule.” CUTGO is short for “cut-as-you-go” and is an internal rule used by the House — meaning that it does not apply to consideration of legislation in the Senate. CUTGO prohibits consideration of legislation that would increase mandatory spending over the period covered by the budget. It’s meant to restrain increases in spending from new legislation to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. 

Clearly, there are many ways Congress can achieve savings without putting the cost back on our military members. Elected officials and their staffs have the full visibility of budget options available to Congress. But they need the motivation of constituents and veteran support groups like the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). Supporting our combat-injured veterans is a national imperative. That’s why MOAA and its 362,000 members support passage of this legislation. In fact, it is one of the association’s top advocacy issues for the 118th Congress.

Simply stated, the offset makes no sense. Military retirement pay and VA disability compensation are two benefits established by Congress for entirely different reasons. Reducing pay because of a combat disability is not the way to achieve savings. This is not how our nation should treat those who volunteer to represent their country and risk life and limb. 

The policy also sends the wrong message to future service members — especially when our recruiting efforts are facing serious problems. Who wants to join an organization that doesn’t keep faith with its members?

The Major Richard Star Act should be part of this year’s NDAA. While ships, aircraft, missile systems and other weaponry get proper attention in Congress as part of decisions affecting our nation’s security, we must not forget who operates those systems and who goes in harm’s way: our people.

In addition to those who suffered combat injuries when they served, the withdrawal from Afghanistan left many veterans with an increased sense of moral injury, questioning the value of their service and purpose. The current policy that mandates the offset punctuates that sense of moral injury. These veterans are less likely to recommend military service to others, further weakening the recruiting pool.

Our political leaders must make certain that our veterans are not short-changed by unfair rules that cancel out one earned benefit so they can receive another. Veterans should not be pushed aside because they were injured in war. Regardless of their time in service, these veterans have earned all their benefits through extraordinary sacrifice while doing what their country asked them to do. Combat-injured service members deserve better.

Rear Adm. (Ret.) Tom Jurkowsky began his 31 years of active duty as an enlisted man. He is a board member for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), which supports service members and their families, and the author of “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.”