Columnist Benjamin Grove: Battle looms on veterans’ disability benefits

Benjamin Grove

Friday, March 14, 2003 | 5:05 a.m.

Benjamin Grove covers Washington, D.C., for the Sun. He can be reached atgrove@lasvegassun.com or (202) 662-7245.

AS THE UNITED STATES ships a new generation of soldiers and sailors off to war, aging disabled veterans are still fighting in Washington to collect fair compensation for their service.

Nevada lawmakers led by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., are among those in Congress who have renewed a four-year battle to correct the federal law that prohibits 20-year military veterans from collecting both full retirement and disability benefits. The law, dating to the 1800s, requires veterans to waive the amount of their retirement pay equal to the amount they receive in disability.

That translates to about $700 less a month for a guy like Nevadan Richard Bonebrake, a 30-year U.S. Navy veteran. Bonebrake claims a 50 percent disability. He's got a bad back and sore joints after decades of "jumping around on hard decks and cat walks."

At 71, Bonebrake is happily retired in Gardnerville, and is reluctant to complain too much.

"Moneywise, I'm doing OK," he said.

But Bonebrake acknowledges that he's "a little torqued off" about the federal rules.

"It's money I feel I earned for staying in the military as long as I did," Bonebrake said. "I don't think veterans are asking for anything we didn't earn."

Most Washington politicians would like to give veterans full disability and retirement pay -- or at least they say they do now that a new war is looming.

This year Reid's "concurrent receipt" bill has 46 co-sponsors. In the House, 194 lawmakers have signed a similar bill, including vocal proponents Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Still, its chances for passage are unknown.

In past years the bill's biggest hurdle has been its price tag. Congressional estimates say it would cost about $3 billion more a year to pay the 400,000 to 500,000 veterans who would qualify.

The Senate has passed Reid's legislation in each of the last three years, but Reid blames cost-cutting House Republican leaders and President Bush for stopping its momentum.

Last year lawmakers made a breakthrough and approved a plan to give concurrent receipt to some veterans -- those who claim at least 60 percent disability from an injury received in armed conflict. That covers roughly 15,000 to 30,000 veterans, but Reid said that's not enough.

Somewhat ironically, the cost hurdle that tripped the bill last year was due, in part, to budget anxiety over preparations for the costly war in Iraq. That hurdle is even higher now that war is around the corner.

But Charles "Chuck" Fulkerson, director of the Nevada Office of Veterans' Services, doesn't buy the argument that the government can't afford to pay its veterans both retirement and disability.

"This is a travesty that has been perpetuated for over 100 years in the name of balancing the budget," Fulkerson said. "The money is in the (VA) budget already, they just use it for different things."

One other criticism of concurrent receipt is that it amounts to "double dipping." But disability pay and retirement benefits are "two entirely different entitlements," said Jeanette Ray, a state of Nevada veterans' services officer in Carson City.

Lots of employers offer disability benefits on top of retirement plans. The military should, too, Ray said.

"It's a hot issue around here," Ray said. "People ask, 'How come it's gone on so long -- why hasn't something been done before? By God, it isn't right -- we're paying our workers' compensation out of our retirement.' "

Nevada veterans I talked to last week said the government sends the wrong message to young soldiers massing in the Middle East when it fails to embrace concurrent receipt.

"It'll be expensive," said Ron Kruse, a 20-year Navy veteran and member of the Nevada Veterans' Services Commission. "But then again, service to your country isn't cheap either."