Does Ch61 retirement pay ever change?

Ivorytower

Ivorytower

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
If you leave service at say 40% ch61 retirement calculated) and you had an item initially denied that the VA then granted you a total of say 100% does your retired pay calculation ever change?

Thanks
 
Ivorytower said:
If you leave service at say 40% ch61 retirement calculated) and you had an item initially denied that the VA then granted you a total of say 100% does your retired pay calculation ever change?

Thanks
Click to expand...
An increase in VA compensation does not impact retired pay, EXCEPT for the VA waiver.

There might be a path to a correction to records available to you.

Ron
 
RonG said:
An increase in VA compensation does not impact retired pay, EXCEPT for the VA waiver.

There might be a path to a correction to records available to you.

Ron
Click to expand...
I haven’t really thought of it until the Richard star act and the possibility of collecting both. But I did claim an item that I was then given 60% alone for but also crsc. Interesting getting the crsc recognized but not retired pay. Also not thinking of connecting the two until reading about the MRSA.
 
Hello @Ivorytower ,

DoD = rates unfitting for continued Service conditions (disabilities)

VA = Rates all service connected disabilities

Thousands of NON-CHAPTER 61 retirees receive CRSC. I have received it since ~2006 and have a regular retirement.

Opinion: One of the most important supporting documents for a CRSC application is the VA Award letter and accompanying narrative. That worked for me.

Ron
cc: @RetiredColonel-MikeT
 
Not sure if this was part of the question, but there are (usually) cost of living increases.
 
RonG said:
An increase in VA compensation does not impact retired pay, EXCEPT for the VA waiver.

There might be a path to a correction to records available to you.

Ron
Click to expand...
Ron nails it - Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) would be the path IF and only IF that condition was considered "non-retainable" at the time i.e. if Army, would it fail IAW AR 40-501 Ch 3 standards, if it was merely a "claimed" condition vs "referred" it wouldn't have any impact. Many people have DoD ratings of less than 30% and are rated at 100% by the VA, so it's not unusual to have a condition that still meets the standards to be able to perform your military duties, yet is considered "service-connected" by the VA and gives you a big %. Sleep apnea is one such, DoD: retainable VA: 50%. That's going to be the question that will need to be answered: was the condition that was not rated at the time something that would have been not only non-retainable but also would it be an unfitting condition as determined by the PEB?

Also, in regards to MRSA, getting both is one thing, however, Ch 61 retirees will probably be capped at their length of service retirement, just as they are with CRSC.
 
RetiredColonel-MikeT said:
Ron nails it - Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) would be the path IF and only IF that condition was considered "non-retainable" at the time i.e. if Army, would it fail IAW AR 40-501 Ch 3 standards, if it was merely a "claimed" condition vs "referred" it wouldn't have any impact.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is most likely how the BCMR would look at things. However, I don’t think this is what the law is on this point.

The ultimate question is whether a condition is unfitting or in combination with other conditions, contributes to overall unfitness. The PEBs have struggled to get this right and depending on the time period have inserted language like, “the board considered the combined impact of the condition and finds it not unfitting. There is no significant impact on duty performance.” This analysis is wrong.

In a recent US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case, Sissel v. Wormuth, the court rejected the idea that a condition must have a “significant” impact on the ability to perform one’s duties. This is important because in looking at retention standards, you find that most conditions have an explicit element of duty impact/limitations. But if you look at whether a condition in combination with another condition and can show it contributes to unfitness, then you should be rated for both conditions.

It’s vital to understand these concepts when arguing a case before the PEB, the BCMR/BCNR, or in court.
 
RetiredColonel-MikeT said:
Ron nails it - Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) would be the path IF and only IF that condition was considered "non-retainable" at the time i.e. if Army, would it fail IAW AR 40-501 Ch 3 standards, if it was merely a "claimed" condition vs "referred" it wouldn't have any impact.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is most likely how the BCMR would look at things. However, I don’t think this is what the law is on this point.

The ultimate question is whether a condition is unfitting or in combination with other conditions, contributes to overall unfitness. The PEBs have struggled to get this right and depending on the time period have inserted language like, “the board considered the combined impact of the condition and finds it not unfitting. There is no significant impact on duty performance.” This analysis is wrong.

In a recent US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case, Sissel v. Wormuth, the court rejected the idea that a condition must have a “significant” impact on the ability to perform one’s duties. This is important because in looking at retention standards, you find that most conditions have an explicit element of duty impact/limitations. But if you look at whether a condition in combination with another condition and can show it contributes to unfitness, then you should be rated for both conditions.

It’s vital to understand these concepts when arguing a case before the PEB, the BCMR/BCNR, or in court
 
Jason Perry said:
I agree that this is most likely how the BCMR would look at things. However, I don’t think this is what the law is on this point.

The ultimate question is whether a condition is unfitting or in combination with other conditions, contributes to overall unfitness. The PEBs have struggled to get this right and depending on the time period have inserted language like, “the board considered the combined impact of the condition and finds it not unfitting. There is no significant impact on duty performance.” This analysis is wrong.

In a recent US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case, Sissel v. Wormuth, the court rejected the idea that a condition must have a “significant” impact on the ability to perform one’s duties. This is important because in looking at retention standards, you find that most conditions have an explicit element of duty impact/limitations. But if you look at whether a condition in combination with another condition and can show it contributes to unfitness, then you should be rated for both conditions.

It’s vital to understand these concepts when arguing a case before the PEB, the BCMR/BCNR, or in court
Click to expand...
Thanks for that insight, Jason :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top