I don't understand - Concurrent Receipt
Don Patron
don't need any more spam...
I'm not being argumentative here, and I would appreciate input and
opinions from sincere ng participants. If this message pisses you
off, please wait and read it entirely again before posting a
response. I am not suggesting that anyone be excluded from
concurrent receipt, but I feel the most needy vets have been
forgotten.
I don't understand why, in the Concurrent Receipt bills being
considered by Congress, that there is a distinction made between
people that served 20 and retired and those that were medically
retired.
A service member could have served 18 years, taken a bullet for his
country, been medically retired from the DOD, given 100% VA SC and
they have to live with the DOD/VA offset. These vets often had no
opportunity to seek a second career due to their disabilities, and
are living at close to poverty levels with VA comp as their only
income. This would be how many vets? five to ten thousand at most?
Yet there will be hundreds of thousands of vets that retired with 20
or more years, went on to a second career and retire from that job.
They may have had SC disabilities (20%?), that increased over their
lifetime to 60% or greater, and they would now receive their DOD
retirement, VA compensation, civilian career retirement, and likely
civilian disability compensation as well.
I can certainly understand why a vet that was medically retired with
20 or more years of service is being included, but to my mind
medical *retirement* is just that, regardless of how long one
served.
When you are medically retired from the service there is no
guarantee that you will get a SC rating from the VA.
Why is the medically retired vet with 18 years left out of the
concurrent receipt bills? No on could argue that they did not intend
to serve 20 or more years (could they?). And yet they were ousted
from the military, against their will, through no fault of their
own.
Shouldn't there be some sort of "litmus test" applied?
Your thoughts, please.
Don Patron
San-Ford
Because the person you described below hasn't earned a military
retirement. If you want to eliminate the offset of medical retired
pay start a organization dedicated to that, contact all the other
service organizations and have them make it part of their agenda to
congress and find a congressman who will champion your cause. That is
what the others did who will benefit from this change and that was a
long battle that wasn't really organized until the early 80's. And
since them it has been a lost court case, each year having a
congressman submitting a bill to correct it along with representatives
of service organizations visiting congressmen to get them to become
co-sponsors. Then you had those service organizations get their
members to write congress to support those bills in congress. That has
taken over two decades to get this far and still not done yet. You
won't get anything from congress if you sit back and wait for it. So
if you think it's not fair contact all the service organizations and
congress and make your case
Perry
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:19:28 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Francis X.
Do not buy into these guys trying to make separate but equal types of
retirement. I won't make any ad homonym attacks on those that claim the only
true retirement is after 20....I served 18 years 3 months and 24 days. And
was permanently retired after a PE board while still a patient. The original
attempt were to get the concurrent pay for all retired folks this 20 years
thing is a attempt by the congress and personal types to narrow
it...Continue to write to your congressmen and yes the service
organizations...Do not allow some on this NG to separate us as some how less
than just because we got a medical retirement at 18 years in lieu of 20
years and a questionable disability. Hang in there I am
--
Warmest Regards
francis x
Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Be With You
"Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D49C3...@nospam.com...
Don Patron
I described a person that earned disabled military retirement, but you say
s/he "hasn't earned a military retirement". I'm not talking about medically
*discharged* here.
Currently the DOD makes no distinction between someone medically retired
with less than 20 years, and those with more than 20 years. The concurrent
receipt bills would change that.
You would exclude medically RETIRED members with 18 years of service, that
were wounded in action, and yet include medical retirees that got drunk and
had a car crash, but had 20+ years of service? (This is not to imply that
even a large number of included disabled vets are drunk drivers, but this
"type" of retiree will benefit from the concurrent receipt bill while the
18 year vet would not.
I would not benefit personally from such an inclusion in the concurrent
receipt bill, but I don't see how any patriotic vet could not support the
inclusion of such prematurely retired veterans.
Francis X.
You tell them yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Don...I am with you 100% hang in
there..As I said in my other post allot of these guys are admin and personal
types that suddenly got disabled after retirement ???????? Allot of them
have got legitimate disabilities but allot of them are questionable at
best.....to separate the legitimate retirement communities, and just for
information a medical retirement is really earned ... is not a good idea nor
is it recommended by DOD.....or the military..
"Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D6BCC...@nospam.com...
Don Patron
Your message was not there when I responded to the previous post.
You are the forgotten veteran(s) I am concerned about. Do you have any
links to advocate sites or discussion boards that support the position we
are discussing?
I have money and time to spend on such a crusade. I also have a favor owed
to me by a senior reporter with Time magazine and editor of the NY Times.
The favor would only be to get an E-mail read by him, but if I could
forward a compelling story in that E-mail, it might get national attention.
I see the fairest thing as being to get the disabled retirees concurrent
benefits first (much cheaper, if someone HAS to be "first") and then add
the other deserving veterans. (But I doubt many in this forum would salute
that flag.)
Regards,
Don Patron
Jack
>I'm sorry, but you are losing me from the starting gate.
>
Forget the starting gate. NOBODY retired from the service is getting CR. And
as this thing lingers on with a 37 day recess coming up......the House
conferees not appointed (so I heard)...money now being obligated for new
things.......CR will not happen IMO.
Jack
Vigilance Committee
I thought we had cleared this up long ago.
20 years is EARNED retirement. NOT related to disability payments in
any way, shape or form.
Medical disability retirement is medical disability retirement. There
is no promise made as there is in retirement after 20 years of service.
You want to get paid twice for the same retirement, ours was earned
separately.
They are just two completely different animals, why should they be
considered the same? If you have a crusade, start organizing the
troops.
LZ
CClay51032
Same person has been posting using different email addresses. If you watch the
writing style you can see who it is.
This person is making most of the post in the newsgroup.
Clarence
San-Ford
<rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>Dear Friend
>Do not buy into these guys trying to make separate but equal types of
>retirement. I won't make any ad homonym attacks on those that claim the only
>true retirement is after 20....I served 18 years 3 months and 24 days. And
>was permanently retired after a PE board while still a patient. The original
>attempt were to get the concurrent pay for all retired folks this 20 years
>thing is a attempt by the congress and personal types to narrow
>it...Continue to write to your congressmen and yes the service
>organizations...Do not allow some on this NG to separate us as some how less
>than just because we got a medical retirement at 18 years in lieu of 20
>years and a questionable disability. Hang in there I am
The problem is that it is seperated by law. One has nothing to do
with the other.
Perry
Don Patron
If we can just get even a handful of veterans taken care of it will set a
precedence.
Don
San-Ford
based on no longer being able to serve on active duty because of a
medical condition. Until you see that difference you will always be
lost from the starting gate.
Perry
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:45:08 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>I'm sorry, but you are losing me from the starting gate.
Because you haven't read what I said below your mind is already made
up and no matter what anyone says about it you won't change.
>
>I described a person that earned disabled military retirement, but you say
>s/he "hasn't earned a military retirement". I'm not talking about medically
>*discharged* here.
>
>Currently the DOD makes no distinction between someone medically retired
>with less than 20 years, and those with more than 20 years. The concurrent
>receipt bills would change that.
the hell they don't
>
>You would exclude medically RETIRED members with 18 years of service, that
>were wounded in action, and yet include medical retirees that got drunk and
>had a car crash, but had 20+ years of service? (This is not to imply that
>even a large number of included disabled vets are drunk drivers, but this
>"type" of retiree will benefit from the concurrent receipt bill while the
>18 year vet would not.
Your argument doesn't wash because of you comment about the drunk in a
car cash, That is not service connected if the command had conducted a
proper Line of Duty investigation.
>
>I would not benefit personally from such an inclusion in the concurrent
>receipt bill, but I don't see how any patriotic vet could not support the
>inclusion of such prematurely retired veterans.
Who said I didn't support it. Just told you what you needed to do.
San-Ford
Now you have stepped into "I'm full of shit category".
Perry
Francis X.
subsequently losing a leg is earning a retirement my retirement certificate
does not indicate that mine was not earned in fact is says it was I served
for 18 years 3 months and 18 days I was told that I receive all and I mean
all the benefits of a retired person........check with the DOD and you will
find that a retirement is a retirement....
--
Warmest Regards
francis x
Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Be With You
"Vigilance Committee" <lin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3D3D724C...@att.net...
Don Patron
two.
They are not two different things. A man with 22 year in, still obligated
for 2 more years, but then being medically retired, did not EARN regular
retirement. He may have been eligible, but approval would have to have come
from the chain of command after a written request to transfer to the
retirement list. Your argument would exclude these people as well, although
I doubt that this was your intention.
Don
Francis X.
person I understand, your service is the the only service that
counts....Your disability is the only disability.....I am sorry that I did
not know all the rules or distinqinctions I was to busy in combat and
serving the Marine Corps I depended on guys like you to set me straight now
I find that you are claiming two separate but equal retirements....I still
support you to bad you can't support me....but then that was your way all
the time.....
--
Warmest Regards
francis x
Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Be With You
"San-Ford" <csmre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:detqju04fcksn5a5f...@4ax.com...
Don Patron
I posted last on this group about 8-12(?) month ago. Please check
groups.google.com. I am not anyone else that has posted on this subject or
any others recently. I'm not quite certain how to prove this to you, except
the headers of my posts should prove my location by tracing my IP address.
I am trying to have an honest and frank dialogue. If I come across as
insincere, petty, or trivial, please point it out. If this is a topic that
you don't wish to discuss for personal reasons, then I am sorry for the
intrusion, but I don't know where else to go to get both side of the issue
and, perhaps, additional anecdotal information supporting my position for
possible publication.
Don
Jack
>I am sorry but serving 2 tours in Vietnam and getting wounded and
>subsequently losing a leg is earning a retirement my retirement certificate
>does not indicate that mine was not earned in fact is says it was I served
>for 18 years 3 months and 18 days I was told that I receive all and I mean
>all the benefits of a retired person........check with the DOD and you will
>find that a retirement is a retirement....
>
>--
Is your retirement based on years of service or percent of disability?
If it was based on percent of disability then you wouldnt get CR (IF it ever
passes) even if you had over 20 years service.
The new proposed law says: "`(1) CAREER RETIREES- The retired pay of a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of service
otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time of the
member's retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of
title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the member's retired pay
under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the
member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the
member's service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired
under chapter 61 of this title."
Title 10, Section 1405 referred to here concerns retirement based on years of
service. NOT percent of disability.
Jack
San-Ford
<rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>I am sorry but serving 2 tours in Vietnam and getting wounded and
>subsequently losing a leg is earning a retirement my retirement certificate
>does not indicate that mine was not earned in fact is says it was I served
>for 18 years 3 months and 18 days I was told that I receive all and I mean
>all the benefits of a retired person........check with the DOD and you will
>find that a retirement is a retirement....
Evidently you don't know the difference and maybe this will help you:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/1201.html
and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch61.html
and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stA.html
http://www.odcsper.army.mil/Directorates/retire/preretirement_information/pay.asp
But what you need to do is contact congress and you reps at the
service organizations to include all chapter 61 retirees, not just
those who have completed 20. bitching about it won't get anything
done.
Perry
San-Ford
It was earned when he completed 20, if he retired prior to fulfilling
a service requirement for a promotion most likely he would have
retired in the lower grade, if it was schooling it most likely would
have been disapproved but exceptions are made. All length of service
retirements have to be asked for by the member and approved at the
Department of the service concerned. ie Army would be approved by the
Department of the Army.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:31:20 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>I wasn't here long ago. Perhaps you could refer me to a google thread or
Don Patron
You just don't know what the resolutions mean in english.
You might try:
http://capwiz.com/troa/issues/bills/?bill=5173 and
http://capwiz.com/troa/issues/bills/?bill=7549
Where you will find:
"This bill would authorize full concurrent receipt of military retired pay
and VA disability compensation. That is, any member with sufficient service
to be eligible for nondisability retirement (including Reserve retirees and
disability retirees with at least 20 years of service) would be allowed to
keep their military retired pay plus any disability compensation awarded by
the VA."
Don
San-Ford
<rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>Sure Perry that is always your answer, you are the only legitimate retired
>person I understand, your service is the the only service that
>counts....Your disability is the only disability.....I am sorry that I did
>not know all the rules or distinqinctions I was to busy in combat and
>serving the Marine Corps I depended on guys like you to set me straight now
>I find that you are claiming two separate but equal retirements....I still
>support you to bad you can't support me....but then that was your way all
>the time.....
Sorry bud you are assuming and that makes you lose your point. I gave
you an opinion and were to find help and now you want to make it
personal. So Fuck You, is that personal enough, I never said
anything about two separate but equal retirements. No need to make
things up.
Perry
Jack
>From: Don Patron
>Jack,
>You just don't know what the resolutions mean in english.
Son, dont tell me I dont understand, I'm 66 years old and I have been
contacting Congressmen and Senators for over 25 years trying to get CR passed.
That's over a quarter of a century!
I just called Senator Sessions' office in Washington this morning and talked to
an aide and I was told things are on target. I told him "Sessions is up for
reelection this year and me and the wife might just target his ass". The aide
knows me like a member of the family because I have talked to him so much.
Senator Sessions is on the Armed Services Committee.
Jack
Don Patron
>
> Evidently you don't know the difference and maybe this will help you:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/1201.html
Your very first citation contains:
"the Secretary may retire the member, with retired pay computed under
section 1401 of this title"
And that is the citation on disability retirement.
> But what you need to do is contact congress and you reps at the
> service organizations to include all chapter 61 retirees, not just
> those who have completed 20. bitching about it won't get anything
> done.
It is quite disheartening to encounter vets that would say, "I've got mine,
I could care less about you."
Why can't we co-operate and achieve something worthwhile here?
Don
Don Patron
I personally find both below posts unfortunate.
Is there not any issue important enough to keep it from degenerating into
unbecoming personal attacks?
We must keep our eyes on the brass ring.
Don
Don Patron
and experience.
That still doesn't alter the fact that your assessment, that the
resolutions only apply to those retired with 20+ years of service and not
those medically retired with 20+ years of service, was incorrect.
Did you bother going to the links I provided? Perhaps you are aware of a
joint resolution that modified them that I do not know about. If so, please
provide a link.
It is certainly not my intent to annoy you.
Don
Francis X.
I am so sorry for having offended the folks arguing about the retirement
system, and the Word games and two retirements systems one earned and the
other not earned. It is just hat I get offended when my retirement is
implied or stated that I did not earn it...I am sorry for responding
inappropriately. I hope al that were offended with my remarks will accept my
apology. Any further question I may have I will confine them to written
request to DOD or the Congress. Again please accept my apology's
--
Warmest Regards
francis x
Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Be With You
"Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D76A0...@nospam.com...
Jack
>
>Don
Well you finally have. None of us can change the law.
Jack
Rodger Frego
like to start flames, name calling, etc, instead of debating the
facts. I haven't studied the facts about medical retirement and will
reserve comment until I do.
Rodger Frego
Rodger Frego
regardless to what a few others may think about issues. I don't know
why they try to discourage newcomers to our group but do not let them.
There are some fine members on here that you will find are very
helpful and supportive of your cause. Don't give up, hang in there.
Rodger Frego
once more
Problem is that you get dickheads like Perry that do not care about any one
but what they have.
Perry can not see past his brown nose. I talked to a rep the other day and
he feels it is wrong that those hurt in combat are treated like this.
"Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D84BE...@nospam.com...
Rodger Frego
Don, Clarence is just starting more trouble and s discouraging
newcomners from this board. Everyone on here knows Clarence is a
trouble maker, so just ignore him. He thinks it is ok to receive an
award based on a falsified citation, and no veteran would condone
that.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:45:41 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Clarence,
Rodger Frego
>you an opinion and were to find help and now you want to make it
>personal.
That statement could be sent to Clarence as is.
once more
I tell them that if those under 20 can not have it than no one should.
Yes Perry you are a dickhead.
"Francis X." <rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote in message
news:kPd%8.1325$gU1.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Dear Friend
> Do not buy into these guys trying to make separate but equal types of
> retirement. I won't make any ad homonym attacks on those that claim the
only
> true retirement is after 20....I served 18 years 3 months and 24 days. And
> was permanently retired after a PE board while still a patient. The
original
> attempt were to get the concurrent pay for all retired folks this 20 years
> thing is a attempt by the congress and personal types to narrow
> it...Continue to write to your congressmen and yes the service
> organizations...Do not allow some on this NG to separate us as some how
less
> than just because we got a medical retirement at 18 years in lieu of 20
> years and a questionable disability. Hang in there I am
>
> --
> Warmest Regards
> francis x
> Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
> Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
> Fair Winds and Following Seas
> Be With You
> "Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3D49C3...@nospam.com...
once more
You will find a lot of veterans in the same boat. More than you will find
here.
"Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D6F50...@nospam.com...
> Francis,
> Your message was not there when I responded to the previous post.
>
> You are the forgotten veteran(s) I am concerned about. Do you have any
> links to advocate sites or discussion boards that support the position we
> are discussing?
>
> I have money and time to spend on such a crusade. I also have a favor owed
> to me by a senior reporter with Time magazine and editor of the NY Times.
> The favor would only be to get an E-mail read by him, but if I could
> forward a compelling story in that E-mail, it might get national
attention.
>
> I see the fairest thing as being to get the disabled retirees concurrent
> benefits first (much cheaper, if someone HAS to be "first") and then add
> the other deserving veterans. (But I doubt many in this forum would salute
> that flag.)
>
> Regards,
> Don Patron
once more
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:33:52 GMT, "Francis X."
> <rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear Friend
> >Do not buy into these guys trying to make separate but equal types of
> >retirement. I won't make any ad homonym attacks on those that claim the
only
> >true retirement is after 20....I served 18 years 3 months and 24 days.
And
> >was permanently retired after a PE board while still a patient. The
original
> >attempt were to get the concurrent pay for all retired folks this 20
years
> >thing is a attempt by the congress and personal types to narrow
> >it...Continue to write to your congressmen and yes the service
> >organizations...Do not allow some on this NG to separate us as some how
less
> >than just because we got a medical retirement at 18 years in lieu of 20
> >years and a questionable disability. Hang in there I am
>
>
> with the other.
>
>
> Perry
>
And like a law can not change it???
What a dumb fuck you are.
once more
"San-Ford (Perry)" <csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nd6rjuc1arqu0o03h...@4ax.com...
>
> When the original versions of the bills came out all chapter 61
> retirements were not included, even those over 20 years active
> service, this was picked up by some and Congress was contacted and it
> was corrected to include all retirees who have completed 20. Nothing
> prevents those who are medical retired under 20 years from doing the
> same. I'm sure your reply now will some childish crap like "why do
> you care you have yours" or something like that. Because it seems that
> your point so far is to take it out on those who "might" get it.
>
>
> Perry
>
>
So Perry what is stopping you from helping the under 20,
That's right your a dick.
once more
Sure would like to know how a desk jockey got 100% SC. Maybe some one he
gave a BJ to.
"San-Ford (Perry)" <csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s46rjuckr07ab212h...@4ax.com...
> What we have here Jack is a couple of guys who showed up with a chip
> on their shoulder and no matter what we say they are going to make it
> personal and look for a fight. I gave them my 2 cents worth and I am
> now done with them.
>
> Perry
>
once more
> >
> >Why can't we co-operate and achieve something worthwhile here?
> >
> >Don
>
> it personal.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
>
> Perry
One again the SO CALL retired CSM show off how he is realy just a punk that
if proven wrong he reverts to name calling and asking for some one to pack
his hole.
>
Jack
>Go to the DAV national Convention in Dallas TX this Aug. 10-??
>You will find a lot of veterans in the same boat. More than you will find
>here.
I belong to the DAV, FRA, and NCVA. I dont go to conventions and who gives a
shit about Dallas? Hotter than a two peckered billy goat in August.
Jack
Jack
>on their shoulder and no matter what we say they are going to make it
>personal and look for a fight. I gave them my 2 cents worth and I am
>now done with them.
>
>Perry
I already ploinked them.
Jack
San-Ford
San-Ford
and you are a crybaby motherfucker dick sucker.
San-Ford
>I have been faxing dc on this for some time.
>
>I tell them that if those under 20 can not have it than no one should.
>
>Yes Perry you are a dickhead.
Well you are a dick breath.
San-Ford
>
>"San-Ford (Perry)" <csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:nd6rjuc1arqu0o03h...@4ax.com...
>>
>> When the original versions of the bills came out all chapter 61
>> retirements were not included, even those over 20 years active
>> service, this was picked up by some and Congress was contacted and it
>> was corrected to include all retirees who have completed 20. Nothing
>> prevents those who are medical retired under 20 years from doing the
>> same. I'm sure your reply now will some childish crap like "why do
>> you care you have yours" or something like that. Because it seems that
>> your point so far is to take it out on those who "might" get it.
>>
>>
>> Perry
>>
>>
>
>So Perry what is stopping you from helping the under 20,
>
>That's right your a dick.
yeah and you suck dicks for a living,
San-Ford
>Perry the troll that is always looking for a fight now is running??
>
>Sure would like to know how a desk jockey got 100% SC. Maybe some one he
>gave a BJ to.
the only Blow jobs around here is those you give to yourself dick
breath.
San-Ford
and you are a lying chicker fucker who blows stray dogs.
Vigilance Committee
Don Patron wrote:
>
> I wasn't here long ago. Perhaps you could refer me to a google thread or
> two.
>
> They are not two different things. A man with 22 year in, still obligated
> for 2 more years, but then being medically retired, did not EARN regular
> retirement.
Don't they give him the option of taking either?
He may have been eligible, but approval would have to have come
> from the chain of command after a written request to transfer to the
> retirement list. Your argument would exclude these people as well, although
> I doubt that this was your intention.
>
> Don
Since they are probably few, they should be allowed a waiver to go back
and change their option.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
LZ
>
> Vigilance Committee wrote:
>
> > I thought we had cleared this up long ago.
> >
> > 20 years is EARNED retirement. NOT related to disability payments in
> > any way, shape or form.
> >
> > Medical disability retirement is medical disability retirement. There
> > is no promise made as there is in retirement after 20 years of service.
> > You want to get paid twice for the same retirement, ours was earned
> > separately.
> >
E...@noplace.org
news:hmvqjuo0n5k6kadst...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:38:03 GMT, "Francis X."
> <rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>
>>Sure Perry that is always your answer, you are the only legitimate
>>retired person I understand, your service is the the only service
that
>>counts....Your disability is the only disability.....I am sorry that
I
>>did not know all the rules or distinqinctions I was to busy in
combat
>>and serving the Marine Corps I depended on guys like you to set me
>>straight now I find that you are claiming two separate but equal
>>retirements....I still support you to bad you can't support
me....but
>>then that was your way all the time.....
>
> Sorry bud you are assuming and that makes you lose your point. I
gave
> you an opinion and were to find help and now you want to make it
> personal. So Fuck You, is that personal enough, I never said
> anything about two separate but equal retirements. No need to make
> things up.
>
>
> Perry
>
>
Boy you are one dumb cookie.
How the hell did you ever get to become a CSM.
Did you really not make it to that rank and you came here to play one?
So far the only thing I have seen from you is some little kid puffing
out his chest to ACT like a oppressor to any one that is not in goose
step with you.
Go have mommy change your pampers. You're smelling up the place.
E...@noplace.org
> Actually, I came here looking for assistance, not Francis X.
>
> I personally find both below posts unfortunate.
>
> Is there not any issue important enough to keep it from degenerating
> into unbecoming personal attacks?
>
> We must keep our eyes on the brass ring.
>
> Don
>
> San-Ford wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:38:03 GMT, "Francis X."
>> <rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Sure Perry that is always your answer, you are the only legitimate
>> >retired person I understand, your service is the the only service
>> >that counts....Your disability is the only disability.....I am
sorry
>> >that I did not know all the rules or distinqinctions I was to busy
in
>> >combat and serving the Marine Corps I depended on guys like you to
>> >set me straight now I find that you are claiming two separate but
>> >equal retirements....I still support you to bad you can't support
>> >me....but then that was your way all the time.....
>>
>> Sorry bud you are assuming and that makes you lose your point. I
gave
>> you an opinion and were to find help and now you want to make it
>> personal. So Fuck You, is that personal enough, I never said
>> anything about two separate but equal retirements. No need to make
>> things up.
>>
>> Perry
>
Well That is all Perry knows. He like to drag it into the gutter so
he has it close to his home. Than if you prove him wrong he will call
you many names, most all dealing with sex (he must have a problem with
that issue since he is stuck in it so much)
Do not fear, if that does not drive you away, he will start posting
with handles close to yours.
All sings of a low IQ type person.
E...@noplace.org
news:20020723110109...@mb-mq.aol.com:
>>From: Don Patron
>
>>I'm sorry, but you are losing me from the starting gate.
>>
>
> Forget the starting gate. NOBODY retired from the service is
getting
> CR. And as this thing lingers on with a 37 day recess coming
> up......the House conferees not appointed (so I heard)...money now
> being obligated for new things.......CR will not happen IMO.
> Jack
>
Well that is true, and the law was there BEFORE you went into the
service, so live with it.
E...@noplace.org
news:pbbrjuko87bauem6e...@4ax.com:
Boy you are one dumb cookie.
nice one
life and now wetting the bed.
Is that why you was going to get the boot from the army????
Maybe you just lost your head and beat the crap out of some one when they
would not let you suck their dick???
I know, judging from what you post, it must have been your perverted mind.
San-Ford" <csmre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g4brju4r30htmca2p...@4ax.com...
nice one
Yep All this talk of sucking off, must be that AC/DC life that sent you
packing :(
"San-Ford" <csmre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aabrjukhq6aeo13kp...@4ax.com...
Rodger Frego
they name callers. You went from discussing an issue to provoking him,
and that is what caused the name calling.
nice one
"San-Ford (Perry)" <csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mkgrjukri4v5up517...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:25:46 GMT, Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Patron wrote:
> >>
> >> I wasn't here long ago. Perhaps you could refer me to a google thread
or
> >> two.
> >>
> >> They are not two different things. A man with 22 year in, still
obligated
> >> for 2 more years, but then being medically retired, did not EARN
regular
> >> retirement.
> >
> >Don't they give him the option of taking either?
> >
> > He may have been eligible, but approval would have to have come
> >> from the chain of command after a written request to transfer to the
> >> retirement list. Your argument would exclude these people as well,
although
> >> I doubt that this was your intention.
> >>
> >> Don
> >
> >Since they are probably few, they should be allowed a waiver to go back
> >and change their option.
> >
> >Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >LZ
>
>
> LZ, that is what happened to me, I had 26 years in and was looking at
> a chapter 61 retirement but was allowed to apply for length of service
> retirement instead. Personnel had no problems because it was less of
> an hassle for them and not one person all the way to DA questioned it.
> But they don't need to change because the current legislation that is
> going through the house and senate gives concurrent receipt to those
> over 20 even if they took a chap 61 retirement (medical). Jack posted
> the text out the bill today here on this group.
>
>
> Perry
Rodger Frego
door by providing special comp to the 70-100% group and subsequently
added the 60% group. It appears they really want to help the severely
disabled as a first step.
Rodger Frego
serves no good purpose on our newsgroup.
Don Patron
"Is your retirement based on years of service or percent of disability?
If it was based on percent of disability then you wouldnt get CR (IF it
ever passes) even if you had over 20 years service."
Which is in contradiction with your correct statement of:
"But they don't need to change because the current legislation that is
going through the house and senate gives concurrent receipt to those over
20 even if they took a chap 61 retirement (medical)."
Don
MD
> country, been medically retired from the DOD, given 100% VA SC and
> they have to live with the DOD/VA offset. These vets often had no
> opportunity to seek a second career due to their disabilities, and
I think this issue was beaten to death a few years ago when I first
got interested in fighting for concurrent receipt. One of the biggest
arguments was "how long" and "who decides". There are several fringe
groups out there right now demanding retirment based on "would have
served 20 EXCEPT" after being medically "retired" after less than five
years service.IMHO, this goes beyond the issue of "just" and goes into
the area of FAIR...And we all know that life is NOT fair - and no
amount of law or money will make it "fair".
Anecdotal in nature,but, in 23+ years I knew at least 5 people
"medically" retired, two with in excess of 18 years. Those two stayed
on active duty until eligible for retirement, and in most cases it
seems that it took in excess of 24 months to get all the medical
retirement stuff, boards, etc sorted out.
It may seem calous, but there HAVE to be lines drawn somewhere, and
in this case the 20+ year retirement is the line in the sand. If you
served 20+ years, you are entitled to longevity retirement.
period....and we are beyond the "who" because the "LAW PROHIBITING IT
(concurrent receipt of longevity retirement and VA disability) HAS
BEEN REPEALED". It is a matter of gettiing it funded. If you did not
serve 20 years or more, the concurrent receipt issue does not apply to
you. If you try to throw that into the works, you may be asking them
to go back and look at the law again and throw the whole thing back 10
years. If you want retirement and concurrent receipt for
"non-longevity retirement", start a NEW campaign with a NEW name for
it and start from scratch to have the USC regarding longevity
retirement changed and please, DO NOT SCREW WITH THE SYSTEM WHEN WE
HAVE WORKED THIS HARD TO GET THIS CLOSE>
Don Patron
I can certainly understand your frustration in being frivolously discounted
in the consideration of retirement benefits.
I know how much it hurts to be cast aside by your country. It cuts me to
the quick to see other veterans unable to engage in meaningful dialogue
when discussing your plight.
It would have been easier to handle being ignored than to be cursed and
ridiculed.
I did not come here expecting to have my position agreed with by all NG
members, but I certainly did expect frank and courteous discussion of the
issues. But then the people commenting here seem to be disabled vets, and I
must admit that I personally have a lot of displaced anger caused by my own
disabilities. I just refuse to allow myself to become petty while talking
to those that hold themselves up as retired military. I may be mistaken
about their status, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that
they honorably served the U.S.
Don
"Francis X." wrote:
>
> Dear Gang:
> I am so sorry for having offended the folks arguing about the retirement
> system, and the Word games and two retirements systems one earned and the
> other not earned. It is just hat I get offended when my retirement is
> implied or stated that I did not earn it...I am sorry for responding
> inappropriately. I hope al that were offended with my remarks will accept my
> apology. Any further question I may have I will confine them to written
> request to DOD or the Congress. Again please accept my apology's
>
> --
> Warmest Regards
> francis x
> Love & Prayers God Bless You and Yours
> Semper Fi/ Semper Paratus
> Fair Winds and Following Seas
> Be With You
>
> "Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3D76A0...@nospam.com...
> > I wasn't here long ago. Perhaps you could refer me to a google thread or
> > two.
> >
> > They are not two different things. A man with 22 year in, still obligated
> > for 2 more years, but then being medically retired, did not EARN regular
> > retirement. He may have been eligible, but approval would have to have
> come
> > from the chain of command after a written request to transfer to the
> > retirement list. Your argument would exclude these people as well,
> although
> > I doubt that this was your intention.
> >
> > Don
> >
Vigilance Committee
"San-Ford (Perry)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:25:46 GMT, Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Patron wrote:
> >>
> >> I wasn't here long ago. Perhaps you could refer me to a google thread or
> >> two.
> >>
> >> They are not two different things. A man with 22 year in, still obligated
> >> for 2 more years, but then being medically retired, did not EARN regular
> >> retirement.
> >
> >Don't they give him the option of taking either?
> >
> > He may have been eligible, but approval would have to have come
> >> from the chain of command after a written request to transfer to the
> >> retirement list. Your argument would exclude these people as well, although
> >> I doubt that this was your intention.
> >>
> >> Don
> >
> >Since they are probably few, they should be allowed a waiver to go back
> >and change their option.
> >
> >Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >LZ
>
> LZ, that is what happened to me, I had 26 years in and was looking at
> a chapter 61 retirement but was allowed to apply for length of service
> retirement instead. Personnel had no problems because it was less of
> an hassle for them and not one person all the way to DA questioned it.
> But they don't need to change because the current legislation that is
> going through the house and senate gives concurrent receipt to those
> over 20 even if they took a chap 61 retirement (medical). Jack posted
> the text out the bill today here on this group.
>
> Perry
Thanks. I'm sorry as hell that some guys didn't get to put in 20 and
got a medical retirement instead. When I injured my back it was offered
to me but I declined. I always managed to do my job but it certainly
wasn't without pain. I just kept my mouth shut and gobbled aspirin.
Really great for my ulcer too.
If everyone over 20 is covered then those who had to take a medical
retirement with under 20 have to fight their own battle. I went to
college with a medically retired AF guy who got out as an E-5. He was
drawing more cash, all tax free, than I was drawing as a retired E-7
with 21 years. He had the identical back problem I do. Is this
normal? He didn't seem concerned that he was getting a better deal than
I was, although he had only put in 12 years.
LZ
San-Ford (Perry)
wrote:
>What Jack posted here, along with the text of the bill was:
What that means is that when they compute the concurrent receipt it
will be based on the years of service and not the disability
percentage you were given by the military. they did that because some
are receiving a higher amount than they would have received in length
of service retirement. It's just a technical provision to insure
someone doesn't get overpaid. At least that is the way I read it. I
think Jack read it wrong.
from jacks post
"The new proposed law says: "`(1) CAREER RETIREES- The retired pay of
a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more
of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at
the time of the member's retirement is subject to reduction under
sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the
amount of the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would have been
entitled under any other provision of law based upon the
member's service in the uniformed services if the member had not been
retired under chapter 61 of this title."
Title 10, Section 1405 referred to here concerns retirement based on
years of service. NOT percent of disability."
so what that means in so many words is that if the guy has 20 or more
active then they would be treated like any other length of service
retirement.
Perry
San-Ford (Perry)
wrote:
I agree if the want it they need to fight for it just like the other
battles like TRICARE for life etc. They get it going I'll support
them with what I have done with concurrent receipt which will be
letters, email and phone calls to congress and letters to local
newspapers but I won't do it until the current proposals are resolved
in Congress because once they approve part of it then it makes it a
lot easier for the rest.
Perry
Don Patron
You might want to reconsider your position as baby-sitter of this
newsgroup. It won't be tamed with nagging.
I only see a general resentment towards your your condescending comments,
which has the effect of closing down all further discussion in the thread.
What exactly are you bringing to the table here on the issue of concurrent
receipt?
I realize that there are others here that are making disingenuous remarks,
while yours seem sincere and controlled, but what do you think you are
going to accomplish?
Rodger Frego
or the same as an equivalent rating by the VA?
Don Patron
This certainly is a post in the spirit of the topic, but I can't understand
its relationship to the comments you quoted.
Don
Rodger Frego
people and the conclusion was that it is not worth fighting for .. I
say this only because one of the organizations; FRA. TROA, DVA, etc,
would have raised the issue by now if had legs. They only fight the
battles they think are winnable. There is some fact here that we are
missing, so it appears.
Rodger Frego
implied and specified duty to set the example in all we do. No sense
in using all the profanity, provoking speech and gestures on a public
forum. Some young potential warrior may visit this group. We must stay
above reproach in all we do. I know I get testy sometimes, but I don't
nasty and mean spirited like some folks on here. I like to discuss the
issues.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:19:45 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Rodger,
Don Patron
I couldn't agree more with that sentiment, but you are opening yourself up
to be set up by those that would troll just to see you respond. Plus there
are several bitter retirees here that resent being told to watch their
language.
"Oh, that only the world were that which I wished it to be."
Don
Don Patron
LZ,
I certainly wish I had the opportunity to stay in. I only went "kicking and
screaming", I was given no opportunity to stay in. I can trace my family's
military service history back to the 1600s.
I wouldn't include a 12 year E-5 in the formula. I am advocating some sort
of means testing, like someone wounded in battle.
Do you have any specific suggestions on where to go for advocacy? Where did
you go to fight for the current concurrent receipt bills? Something more
than "your congressman" please. Surely there is an active veteran's
advocacy issues discussion group somewhere on the Internet.
Don
Don Patron
retirements I have seen.
It seems to depend on the geographical area you are in when the evaluation
is given. Navy and Marine Corps boards are pretty strict and as a rule give
much less than the comparable VA rating, while the Air Force seems to come
close to being comparable to the VA disability ratings. I'm not sure how
the Army is.
You can look at the BVA decisions and sometimes see what the person was
rated at by their branch when they retired.
Don
Don Patron
arbitrary. Why don't you just exclude them? There would be fewer vets
included, less money involved and therefore a better chance of concurrent
receipt passing.
It is difficult to discuss issues with someone that has a "don't screw with
MY benefits" attitude, when those benefits don't even exist yet.
"There are several fringe groups out there right now demanding retirment
based on 'would have served 20 EXCEPT'" Where are these groups? How do I
contact them?
MD wrote:
>
> > A service member could have served 18 years, taken a bullet for his
> > country, been medically retired from the DOD, given 100% VA SC and
> > they have to live with the DOD/VA offset. These vets often had no
> > opportunity to seek a second career due to their disabilities, and
>
> I think this issue was beaten to death a few years ago when I first
> got interested in fighting for concurrent receipt. One of the biggest
> arguments was "how long" and "who decides". There are several fringe
> groups out there right now demanding retirment based on "would have
> served 20 EXCEPT" after being medically "retired" after less than five
> years service.IMHO, this goes beyond the issue of "just" and goes into
> the area of FAIR...And we all know that life is NOT fair - and no
> amount of law or money will make it "fair".
>
> Anecdotal in nature, but, in 23+ years I knew at least 5 people
Vigilance Committee
So was slavery dumbass. Did you actually have a point?
LZ
Vigilance Committee
Don Patron wrote:
>
> LZ,
> I certainly wish I had the opportunity to stay in. I only went "kicking and
> screaming", I was given no opportunity to stay in. I can trace my family's
> military service history back to the 1600s.
>
> I wouldn't include a 12 year E-5 in the formula. I am advocating some sort
> of means testing, like someone wounded in battle.
>
> Do you have any specific suggestions on where to go for advocacy? Where did
> you go to fight for the current concurrent receipt bills? Something more
> than "your congressman" please. Surely there is an active veteran's
> advocacy issues discussion group somewhere on the Internet.
>
> Don
If there is, I don't know of it. I used to belong to the Legion and
TREA but bailed when they got in bed with Clinton. I don't recall them
as being particularly effective in getting legislation passed.
For years I've written letters to the editor so non-military folks could
know what was going on besides the usual to my Congressmen and
Senators. There aren't enough of us military retirees to impress the
politicians that we are a monster voting bloc. The internet can change
that impression because we can make a lot of noise and we all have
relatives we can enlist in the fight.
Concurrent receipt probably will not happen this year but it is the best
we've ever done. It certainly did not happen overnight. I will
probably be looking at grass roots long before I see a check but that
does not deter me. If others who come after us benefit, it will all be
worthwhile.
LZ
Rodger Frego
passed this year. All I said was that the door for CR is already open,
and it is just a matter of time.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:27:37 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Rodger,
Rodger Frego
would receive the same amount as a spouse of a soldier who died on
active duty. Didn't know it was the same amount as the VA schedule.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:13:02 -0500, "San-Ford (Perry)"
<csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>the VA amount is offset just like a length of service retirement. If
>the VA amount is less then he gets the rest from DoD and if the VA
>amount is more then that is all he gets.
>
>Perry
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:24:19 GMT, Rodger Frego <rfr...@satx.rr.com>
>wrote:
Rodger Frego
dealt with on a daily basis do not succumb to vulgar language.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:48:40 GMT, Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com>
Rodger Frego
the 20 year mark. If that is the case there should be complaining,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:07:53 -0500, "San-Ford (Perry)"
<csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>That isn't what I said. Here is the law:
>
>
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/1401.html
>
>Sec. 1401. - Computation of retired pay
>
>
>(a) Disability, Non-Regular Service, Warrant Officer, and DOPMA
>Retirement. - The monthly retired pay of a person entitled thereto
>under this subtitle is computed according to the following table. For
>each case covered by a section of this title named in the column
>headed ''For sections'', retired pay is computed by taking, in order,
>the steps prescribed opposite it in columns 1, 2, 3, and 4, as
>modified by the applicable footnotes. -
>
>------------------------------------- Formula No. 1 For sections: 1201
>1204 Column 1 Take: Retired pay base as computed under section 1406(b)
>or 1407.
>
>
>Column 2 Multiply by: As member elects -
>
>(1)
>
>2 1/2% of years of service credited to him under section 1208; [1] or
>
>(2)
>
>the percentage of disability on date when retired.
>
>
>Column 3 Add: Column 4 Subtract: Excess over 75% of retired pay base
>upon which computation is based. --------- 2 --------- 4 1202 1205:
>580 1263 1293 1305 Retired pay base as computed under section 1406(b)
>or 1407.:
>
>
>Retired pay base as computed under section 1406(b) or 1407.
>
>
>As member elects -
>
>(1)
>
>2 1/2% of years of service credited to him under section 1208; [1] or
>
>(2)
>
>the percentage of disability on date wh: The retired pay multiplier
>prescribed in section 1409(a) for the years of service credited to him
>under section 1405.
>
>
>Amount necessary to increase product of columns 1 and 2 to 50% of
>retired pay base upon which computation is based.: Excess over 75% of
>retired pay base upon which computation is based.: --------- 5 full
>month of service that is in addition to the number of full years of
>service creditable to the member as one-twelfth of a year and
>disregard any remaining fractional part of a month
>
>
>THE FOLLOWING DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE
>
>--------------------------------------
>(b) Use of Most Favorable Formula. -
>
>If a person would otherwise be entitled to retired pay computed under
>more than one formula of the table in subsection (a) or of any other
>provision of law, the person is entitled to be paid under the
>applicable formula that is most favorable to him.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[1] Before applying percentage factor, credit each
>
>
>
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:54:25 GMT, Rodger Frego <rfr...@satx.rr.com>
CClay51032
Clarence
meport
receipt" issue is an irrational argument based on greed and avarice, pure
and simple.
Ask a very simple question - do the disabled firemen from the NYFD who
became disabled on 9/11 rate two disabilities from the City of New York, one
from the NYFD and one from the Port Authority of New York? The answer to
that question is a simple no. End of story.
Yet veterans who get a disability because of a twisted knee that occurred in
a softball game while he or she was on active duty want a disability from
the military and a disability from the VA for the same injury. They then go
on and say "well, my twisted knee prevents me from being a high wire
performer in a circus when I retire, so therefore I should get two
disabilities, one for my pain and suffering because of my twisted knee, and
another because I can't be a high wire performer". Tell that to the firemen
from the NYFD and watch them double up with incredulous laughter.
--
once you get what you want, what's to
stop you from asking for more of the same?
Don Patron <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D49C3...@nospam.com...
> I do not post here too often. Please excuse the munged address; I
> don't need any more spam...
>
> I'm not being argumentative here, and I would appreciate input and
> opinions from sincere ng participants. If this message pisses you
> off, please wait and read it entirely again before posting a
> response. I am not suggesting that anyone be excluded from
> concurrent receipt, but I feel the most needy vets have been
> forgotten.
>
> I don't understand why, in the Concurrent Receipt bills being
> considered by Congress, that there is a distinction made between
> people that served 20 and retired and those that were medically
> retired.
>
> A service member could have served 18 years, taken a bullet for his
> country, been medically retired from the DOD, given 100% VA SC and
> they have to live with the DOD/VA offset. These vets often had no
> opportunity to seek a second career due to their disabilities, and
> are living at close to poverty levels with VA comp as their only
> income. This would be how many vets? five to ten thousand at most?
>
> Yet there will be hundreds of thousands of vets that retired with 20
> or more years, went on to a second career and retire from that job.
> They may have had SC disabilities (20%?), that increased over their
> lifetime to 60% or greater, and they would now receive their DOD
> retirement, VA compensation, civilian career retirement, and likely
> civilian disability compensation as well.
>
> I can certainly understand why a vet that was medically retired with
> 20 or more years of service is being included, but to my mind
> medical *retirement* is just that, regardless of how long one
> served.
>
> When you are medically retired from the service there is no
> guarantee that you will get a SC rating from the VA.
>
> Why is the medically retired vet with 18 years left out of the
> concurrent receipt bills? No on could argue that they did not intend
> to serve 20 or more years (could they?). And yet they were ousted
> from the military, against their will, through no fault of their
> own.
>
> Shouldn't there be some sort of "litmus test" applied?
>
> Your thoughts, please.
> Don Patron
>
Rodger Frego
to meet one another.
San-Ford (Perry)
Perry
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:32:16 GMT, Rodger Frego <rfr...@satx.rr.com>
wrote:
>When is it?? That would be a great for all the members of this group
BD (Dave) Thompson
"meport" <jj...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ahm26n$66j$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> You'll never get an answer to that question on this ng. The "concurrent
> receipt" issue is an irrational argument based on greed and avarice, pure
> and simple.
>
> Ask a very simple question - do the disabled firemen from the NYFD who
> became disabled on 9/11 rate two disabilities from the City of New York,
one
> from the NYFD and one from the Port Authority of New York? The answer to
> that question is a simple no. End of story.
>
> Yet veterans who get a disability because of a twisted knee that occurred
in
> a softball game while he or she was on active duty want a disability from
> the military and a disability from the VA for the same injury. They then
go
> on and say "well, my twisted knee prevents me from being a high wire
> performer in a circus when I retire, so therefore I should get two
> disabilities, one for my pain and suffering because of my twisted knee,
and
> another because I can't be a high wire performer". Tell that to the
firemen
> from the NYFD and watch them double up with incredulous laughter.
>
As usual, when you take a break from cleaning bed pans you get it totally
wrong. Go back to sleep.
They are not asking for two disability payments. They are asking for normal
retirement and disability payment just like the firemen get everyday.
--
Dave The Other
Rodger Frego
Rodger Frego
not authorized retirement pay. The reason for this is somewhat obvious
and is the reason that no organization will take up the fight.
Tom
"meport" <jj...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ahm26n$66j$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
BD (Dave) Thompson
"Rodger Frego" <rfr...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k5itju80uu5spb15c...@4ax.com...
> If they received a medical retirement at less than 20 years they are
> not authorized retirement pay. The reason for this is somewhat obvious
> and is the reason that no organization will take up the fight.
>
Geez. Don't tell DFAS they are not authorized retirement pay.
1. Same Retired ID Card.
2. Same check from DFAS every month.
3. Many Title 61 retirees are retired on length of service rather than
percentage of disability.
You really need to understand the game before you try to pontificate.
--
Dave The Other
Rodger Frego
Rodger Frego
retainer pay.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:43 -0500, "San-Ford (Perry)"
<csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I think only the Navy used that term, It has always been retired pay
>with the Army and Air Force.
>
>Perry
>
>
>
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:47:36 GMT, Rodger Frego <rfr...@satx.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
Jack
>with the Army and Air Force.
>
>Perry
The federal law governs all services and
title 10USC , Chapter 71 consistantly refers to retainer pay.
And it says in Sec. 1401a "The term ''retired pay'' includes retainer pay.
Jack
Jack Patterson
"San-Ford (Perry)" <csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:efttju0gss9ecjovd...@4ax.com...
> again Rodger is full of it. note the Definitions of retainer pay and
> retired pay below.
>
> Perry
Okay, one thing I KNOW you're wrong at. You are still fucking around with
that dipshit, troll, ass901, fistfucker Rodger. I ploinked that idiot a
long time ago. <g>
Seriously Perry, ignore that idiot.
Jack
Jack
>is not ass901. Rodger did his 20 and retired as a Master Sergeant E8
>out of Germany. But anyway I don't kill file anyone. But out respect
>to you I will watch my replies to him.
>
>Perry
>
Perry, you dont need to do anything because of me. Hell, I dont read his
posts......if I had, I would be looking for a shrink.
Jack
Rodger Frego
true but words mean the same thing; they are interchangeable.
On 24 Jul 2002 18:23:14 GMT, jack...@aol.com (Jack) wrote:
Rodger Frego
to date on current Army regulations.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:47:48 -0500, "San-Ford (Perry)"
<csmret...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2002 18:23:14 GMT, jack...@aol.com (Jack) wrote:
>
>Jack check out http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07b/07bdef.pdf
>again Rodger is full of it. note the Definitions of retainer pay and
>retired pay below.
>
>Perry
>
>DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 7B, Definitions
>H September 1999
>li
>DEFINITIONS
>1. Active Duty. Full-time duty in the active service of a
>Uniformed Service, including fulltime
>training duty, annual training duty, and attendance while in the
>active service at a school designated as a Military Service school by
>law or by the Secretary concerned.
>2. Active Duty List. A single list for the Army, Navy, Air Force,
>or Marine Corps which
>contains the names of all officers of that Armed Force, other than
>officers described in 10 U.S.C.
>641 (reference (c)), who are serving on active duty.
>3. Active Saved Pay. Special pay provisions that allow members
>under certain circumstances,
>to retain entitlement to pay authorized under prior laws or for a
>lower grade from which promoted.
>4. Amendatory Birth Certificate. A birth certificate that has
>been corrected, changed, or revised.
>5. Annuitant. A person receiving an annuity.
>6. Annuity. A monthly payment made to a person as a result of a
>specific survivorship plan.
>7. Armed Forces of the United States. Includes the Army, Navy,
>Air Force, Marine Corps, and
>Coast Guard, and all Components thereof.
>8. Basic Pay. The active duty pay rates prescribed for an officer
>or enlisted member according
>to pay grade and years of service.
>9. Beneficiary. The recipient of certain benefits due as a result
>of relationship to or designation by a member.
>10. Benefits. Compensation or pension (Department of Veterans
>Affairs definition only).
>11. Common Law Marriage. A marriage not solemnized by religious or
>civil ceremony as defined in pertinent State law.
>12. Compensation. A monthly payment made by the Department of
>Veterans Affairs to a
>veteran because of service-connected disability or to a surviving
>spouse, child, or parent of a
>veteran because of the service-connected death of the veteran
>occurring before Jan 1, 1957
>(Department of Veterans Affairs definition only).
>13. Cost of Living Adjustment. Percentage change applied to
>retired pay and SBP annuities
>based on laws using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as published by
>the Bureau of Labor
>Statistics, to determine the amount of income.
>14. Currency Blocked Country. A country specified by the Treasury
>Department to which dollar instruments may not be transmitted.
>DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 7B, Definitions
>H September 1999
>lii
>15. Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Compensation paid
>by the Department of
>Veterans Affairs to the widow or widower of a member who dies after
>Dec 31, 1956 from a
>service-connected or compensable disability.
>16. Entitlement. The legal right to receive items of retired pay
>or annuities.
>17. Fiduciary. A person, legally designated, who holds something
>in trust for another.
>18. Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. A Component of
>the Regular service to
>which members may be transferred and released from active duty after
>obtaining 20 or more years
>of active federal service.
>19. Foreign Address. An address outside of United States, its
>possessions and territories.
>20. Inactive Duty Training:
>a. Duty prescribed for members of a Reserve Component by the
>Secretary concerned.
>b. Special additional duties authorized for members of a Reserve
>Component by an
>authority designated by the Secretary concerned and performed by them
>on a voluntary basis in
>connection with prescribed training or maintenance activities of the
>units to which they are
>assigned.
>21. Missing Status. Includes missing, missing-in-action, interned
>in a foreign country, captured,
>beleaguered, besieged by a hostile force, or detained in a foreign
>country against a member's will.
>22. Non-Service-Connected. With respect to disability or death,
>such disability was not
>incurred or aggravated, or the death did not result from a disability
>incurred or aggravated, in line of
>duty in the active military, naval, or air service (Department of
>Veterans Affairs definition only).
>23. Overpayment. An amount paid to a retiree, annuitant, or legal
>fiduciary which is more than
>that to which entitlement exists.
>24. Parent. A father, mother, father through adoption, mother
>through adoption; or an
>individual who for not less than 1 year stood in the relationship of a
>parent of a veteran at any time
>before the veteran's entry into active military, naval, or air service
>for 1 year or more; or the person
>who last stood in the relationship of father or mother before the
>veteran's last entry into active
>military, naval, or air service (Department of Veterans Affairs
>definition only).
>25. Pay Grade. The step or degree in a graduated scale to which
>members of the Uniformed
>Services are assigned or distributed for military pay and allowances
>purposes. See Appendix I,
>Comparable Grades.
>26. Pension. A monthly payment made by the Department of Veterans
>Affairs to a veteran
>because of service, age, or non-service-connected disability, or to a
>surviving spouse, or child of a
>DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 7B, Definitions
>H September 1999
>liii
>veteran because of the non-service-connected death of the veteran
>(Department of Veterans Affairs
>definition only).
>27. Reserve Component. With respect to the Armed Forces, the Army
>Reserve, the Naval
>Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the Coast
>Guard Reserve, the National
>Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United
>States (Department of
>Veterans Affairs definition only).
>28. Retainer Pay. Pay received by a member of the Fleet
>Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
>29. Retired List. Any one of several lists of military members
>retired from the Regular or Reserve Components of the Armed Forces.
>30. Retired Pay (Includes Fleet Reserve and FMCR Retainer Pay).
>The gross entitlement for a
>member based on conditions of the retirement law, pay grade, years of
>service for basic pay, years
>of service for percentage multiplier, percentage of disability, if
>applicable, and date of retirement
>(transfer).
>31. Retired Saved Pay. Special pay provisions that allow retired
>members, under certain conditions, to retain entitlement to pay under
>prior laws when beneficial to the member.
>32. Retirement Date. The first day of entitlement to retired pay,
>not a day of active duty.
>33. Service-Connected. With respect to disability or death, such
>disability was incurred or
>aggravated or the death resulted from a disability incurred or
>aggravated in line of duty in the active
>military, naval, or air service (Department of Veterans Affairs
>definition only).
>34. Surviving Spouse. A person of the opposite sex who was the
>spouse of a veteran at the time
>of the veteran's death, who lived with the veteran continuously from
>the date of marriage to the date
>of the veteran's death (except when there was a separation due to the
>misconduct of, or procured
>by, the veteran without the fault of the spouse). In addition, the
>person who was not remarried or
>has not lived with another person and held himself or herself out
>openly to the public to be the
>spouse of such other person since the death of the veteran, and after
>Sep 19, 1962 (Department of
>Veterans Affairs definition only).
>35. Tower Amendment (reference (c)). The law provided that a
>member retiring after Jan 1,
>1971 may not receive less retired pay than the monthly retired or
>retainer pay to which he or she
>would be entitled if the member had become entitled to retired or
>retainer pay at an earlier date.
>36. Transfer Date. (Fleet Reservists, Fleet Marine Reservists)
>Date of release from active duty,
>a day of entitlement to active duty pay and allowances.
>37. Uniformed Services. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
>Coast Guard, National
>Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service.
>DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 7B, Definitions
>H September 1999
>liv
>38. United States. The 50 states and the District of Columbia.
>39. VA. Department of Veterans Affairs.
>40. Veteran. A person who served in the active military naval, or
>air service, and who was
>discharged or released under honorable conditions. (Department of
>Veterans Affairs definition
>only)
>41. Widow. The surviving wife of the deceased member.
>42. Widower. The surviving husband of the deceased member.
>
martin
Or are you one of those that do not want to fix it because you have your?
San-Ford <csmre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<46mqjusvqq23b445n...@4ax.com>...
> Because the person you described below hasn't earned a military
> retirement. If you want to eliminate the offset of medical retired
> pay start a organization dedicated to that, contact all the other
> service organizations and have them make it part of their agenda to
> congress and find a congressman who will champion your cause. That is
> what the others did who will benefit from this change and that was a
> long battle that wasn't really organized until the early 80's. And
> since them it has been a lost court case, each year having a
> congressman submitting a bill to correct it along with representatives
> of service organizations visiting congressmen to get them to become
> co-sponsors. Then you had those service organizations get their
> members to write congress to support those bills in congress. That has
> taken over two decades to get this far and still not done yet. You
> won't get anything from congress if you sit back and wait for it. So
> if you think it's not fair contact all the service organizations and
> congress and make your case
>
>
> Perry
martin
those paymasters do not need it.
"Francis X." <rig...@va.prestige.net> wrote in message news:<g7e%8.1357$gU1.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
> Dear Don:
> You tell them yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Don...I am with you 100% hang in
> there..As I said in my other post allot of these guys are admin and personal
> types that suddenly got disabled after retirement ???????? Allot of them
> have got legitimate disabilities but allot of them are questionable at
> best.....to separate the legitimate retirement communities, and just for
> information a medical retirement is really earned ... is not a good idea nor
> is it recommended by DOD.....or the military..
>
> "Don Patron" <DonP...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3D6BCC...@nospam.com...
> > I'm sorry, but you are losing me from the starting gate.
> >
> > I described a person that earned disabled military retirement, but you say
> > s/he "hasn't earned a military retirement". I'm not talking about
> medically
> > *discharged* here.
> >
> > Currently the DOD makes no distinction between someone medically retired
> > with less than 20 years, and those with more than 20 years. The concurrent
> > receipt bills would change that.
> >
> > You would exclude medically RETIRED members with 18 years of service, that
> > were wounded in action, and yet include medical retirees that got drunk
> and
> > had a car crash, but had 20+ years of service? (This is not to imply that
> > even a large number of included disabled vets are drunk drivers, but this
> > "type" of retiree will benefit from the concurrent receipt bill while the
> > 18 year vet would not.
> >
> > I would not benefit personally from such an inclusion in the concurrent
> > receipt bill, but I don't see how any patriotic vet could not support the
> > inclusion of such prematurely retired veterans.