Pass the Major Richard Star Act, support our combat-injured veterans

OPINION:

Next month, we will mark the third anniversary of a dreadful event: the attack on Abbey Gate in Afghanistan, where 13 U.S. service members were killed and 45 wounded in our disastrous withdrawal from that country. The event will also serve as a reminder of an injustice that affects our injured combat veterans — an injustice that Congress (and specifically the Senate) must correct 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 disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was an oversight/error in the fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act that partially addressed the concurrent receipt problem. Still, it left out combat injuries at a time when the war in Iraq had just begun. Reducing the military retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran to save money in the Defense Department’s personnel account is a problem Congress can solve this year.

Legislation to correct this wrong is bipartisan, widely supported and well known across Congress as the Major Richard Star Act. The legislation would repeal this unfair offset for 52,000 combat-injured veterans and has the support of 74 senators and 327 House members. Despite overwhelming support for the legislation, it has been stuck in bureaucratic procedural maneuvers with the fiscal 2025 NDAA. This highlights a problem with trust and faith in Congress.

Including the bill’s text in the 2025 NDAA would clear some of these hurdles. The House effort, however, stalled when some of the bill’s sponsors voted against it in a key Rules Committee hearing. Meanwhile, the version of the NDAA crafted by the Senate Armed Services Committee does not include the legislation, despite a reduced cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

How does a piece of legislation that will correct a clear injustice and that has garnered so much support in both the Senate and House fall apart? There is an apparent “say-do gap” for many lawmakers. How does a piece of legislation fail that has gained so many in Congress who “say” they support the bill when it is proposed but who fail to raise their hand, vote yes and “do”?

Sen. Richard Crapo, Idaho Republican, a strong supporter of the Richard Star Act, has come forward by introducing an amendment that will be introduced on the Senate floor as the last clear path for the bill’s text to be part of the NDAA. Credit Mr. Crapo for stepping forward and for recognizing that a very public floor vote is required to ensure our combat-injured veterans receive retirement pay for their years of service.

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

At a recent news conference, several combat-wounded service members shared their stories and put faces to those who would benefit from the passage of the Richard Star Act.

One of them is a Marine who was shot seven times and hit with a grenade on his third combat deployment to Iraq. He lost a leg and was forced to retire. He said his retirement pay would have helped his transition out of service, which included living in his car for two years and fighting an overwhelming sense of isolation. Unfortunately, that retirement pay has never come.

He said he didn’t join the Marine Corps for the benefits or to get rich. But he said that when he joined, he knew his country promised to take care of its veterans. He has subsequently learned that the promise hasn’t been kept.

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

Political leaders such as Mr. Crapo, Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, and Rep. Gus Bilirakis, Florida Republican, are telling their colleagues to “do” what they “say” about supporting a piece of legislation. Hopefully, partisanship is not a consideration on this issue. Partisanship has absolutely no place in deciding how to properly compensate veterans who were injured in a war, doing what their country asked them to do.

Our veterans should not be pushed aside because they were injured in combat. Our combat-injured service members deserve better.

• Tom Jurkowsky is a retired Navy rear admiral who served on active duty for 31 years, beginning his career as an enlisted man. He serves on the board of the Military Officers Association of America, an advocacy organization that supports our service members and their families. He is the author of “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.”