Combat Veterans Retirement Restoration Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Spartz, Victoria [R-IN-5]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to eliminate the 'disability offset' for all military retirees with combat-related disabilities, ensuring they receive both their earned retired pay and VA disability compensation, with an authorized cost of $9.4 billion.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 10, U.S. Code, to allow military retirees with combat-related disabilities to concurrently receive both their full military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation without offset. It establishes different calculation methods for concurrent receipt based on whether the retiree has 20 or more years of service or less than 20 years of service. Additionally, it authorizes $9.4 billion to fund these changes.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current system unfairly penalizes veterans who earned both their military retirement through dedicated service and disability compensation due to combat-related injuries. They contend that these benefits serve distinct purposes—one for service, one for injury—and should not offset each other, making this bill a matter of fairness and honoring sacrifice.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the significant fiscal cost of eliminating the offset, especially given the authorized appropriation of $9.4 billion, and its potential impact on the national debt. They may also advocate for a more comprehensive reform of military compensation and disability systems rather than piecemeal changes, or question the precise definition and application of 'combat-related disability'.
The bill is concise and focused, allowing a reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a), amending 10 U.S.C. 1414(b)(2)(A)
General Concurrent Receipt for Combat-Related Disability Retirees
This provision establishes the overarching principle that military members retired due to a combat-related disability, who are entitled to both military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation, shall receive both benefits without any reduction or offset. This directly addresses the long-standing issue where one benefit would reduce the other.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision rectifies a long-standing injustice, ensuring veterans receive all benefits earned through their service and sacrifice without being penalized for their combat injuries.
Critics contend
Critics might point to the fiscal implications of expanding concurrent receipt, suggesting it adds to the national debt without addressing broader compensation reform.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the moral imperative to fully compensate combat-disabled veterans with the fiscal costs associated with expanding federal benefits.
Section 2(a), amending 10 U.S.C. 1414(b)(2)(B)
Concurrent Receipt for Combat-Disabled Career Retirees (20+ Years Service)
For military members retired under Chapter 61 with a combat-related disability who also have 20 or more years of creditable service, this provision allows them to receive their full military retired pay (calculated as if they had not been disability retired) and their full veterans' disability compensation. This ensures that their long service is fully recognized alongside their combat-related disability without any reduction.
Section 2(a), amending 10 U.S.C. 1414(b)(2)(C)
Concurrent Receipt for Combat-Disabled Retirees (Less Than 20 Years Service)
For military members retired under Chapter 61 with a combat-related disability but less than 20 years of service, this provision allows concurrent receipt of both their disability retired pay and VA disability compensation. However, the total amount they receive from retired pay is capped at what they would have received if they had 20 years of service, based on a specific calculation involving retired pay base and multiplier. This ensures concurrent receipt while aligning with existing retirement benefit structures for shorter careers.
Section 2(c)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $9,400,000,000 (9.4 billion dollars) to the Secretary of Defense. These funds are specifically designated to carry out the amendments made by this Act, meaning they are intended to cover the costs associated with providing concurrent receipt of benefits to eligible combat-disabled retirees. The funds are authorized to remain available until expended, indicating a long-term funding commitment.
This new paragraph explicitly states that the general concurrent receipt provisions (subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 1414) do not apply to members retired under chapter 61 if they are not covered by the existing paragraph (1) (which covers certain retirees with 20+ years and 50%+ disability) or the new paragraph (2) (combat-related disability retirees). This effectively limits concurrent receipt to specific categories.
Section 2(a), amending 10 U.S.C. 1414(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope and limitations of a new benefit, ensuring it doesn't unintentionally apply more broadly than intended and helps define the fiscal boundaries of the bill.
Case for: This provision ensures that the expansion of concurrent receipt is precisely targeted to combat-related disabilities and does not inadvertently open the door to broader, more costly expansions, thereby maintaining fiscal control.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying exclusions, though some advocates for broader concurrent receipt might view it as a missed opportunity to include more veterans.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of the $9.4 billion authorization, preventing unintended cost increases by explicitly limiting eligibility.
This section makes several technical and conforming amendments to Section 1414 of Title 10, United States Code, by striking outdated language related to the phase-in period for concurrent receipt under the existing law. Specifically, it removes the second sentence and subparagraphs (A) and (B) from subsection (a)(1), strikes subsection (c), and strikes paragraphs (3) and (4) from subsection (d).
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative housekeeping to remove obsolete statutory language that is no longer relevant, as the original concurrent receipt program has fully phased in. It improves statutory clarity and reduces potential confusion.
Case for: Modernizes the statute, removing confusing or irrelevant text and making the law clearer and more concise for future interpretation and administration. This streamlines the legal framework.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against non-substantive clean-up provisions, as they do not alter the underlying policy but rather improve its presentation.
Estimated impact: No direct fiscal impact, but improves statutory clarity and reduces administrative burden by removing outdated provisions.