A recent NBC News report highlighted the interaction between a RIF and Veteran's Administration benefits. The expose is fascinating and illustrates the interaction and interpretation of law. In many contexts, statutes create and define government authority and govern the rights and obligations of individuals and other entities. It is intriguing to consider those statutes and their impacts.
At the outset, I have been employed in a variety of occupations over recent eons, likely about 25 jobs in my history, and never received any severance pay or offer of such a separation. It appears, however, that such payments are somewhat common in military service or have been in the past. The article cites multiple service members who were paid a parting compensation when there was some reduction in force (RIF).
One was paid $30,000 to leave the army, another $15,000. The story goes on to say that the average is more like $19,700 to $53,000. The payments were reportedly paid "in an effort to reduce manpower in certain career fields," and were titled "special separation benefits (SSB). That is perhaps prone to an appearance of good fortune. For many, it likely is in fact. Who couldn't use a few bucks when employment ends, perhaps unexpectedly? In the real world, however, a great many lose their jobs without any such consideration, compensation, or even warning.
Nonetheless, the point of this story is that a significant population of people who received the SSB now find themselves struggling financially. The crux of it is that VA disability payments are subject to reduction for the government to recoup previously paid SSB amounts. So, individuals who were counting on VA Disability to pay those monthly bills are receiving decreased payments as the government recoups that SSB. There is a suggestion in the article that some receive no Disability for a period while they are repaying.
How prevalent? The article says that between 2013 and 2020 the law has affected "at least 79,000 veterans." In the moment, one might wonder at that. If they each got $15,000, then we might be talking about $1,185,000,000; If they got the $53,000 noted above, it would be about $4 billion. As old Dirkson might say "Pretty soon you are talking real money." And, the allegation is that the number is more than 79,000 as some data was not analyzed because it was prior to "VA system changes" in 2013.
There are equities expressed by the press. Apparently, one RIF's soldier received VA benefits for 30 years before someone noticed the SSB and instigated repayment deductions. That soldier expressed surprise at the recoupment efforts. It would likely shock anyone if a monthly check of any type suddenly stopped.
The VA is noted in the story claiming that all of this would have been explained at the time of separation and the SSB. Perhaps in the stress of such a moment, long term implications might be overlooked or discounted?
Some service members suggest that they would have declined the SSB lump sum if they had known that they might potentially one day qualify for disability and face such a deduction. Viewed in retrospect, perhaps. But, few of us ever contemplate becoming disabled, impaired, or restricted. The fact is that admitting such a potential is not likely, particularly in our youth. That is a truism across disability systems. People simply do not anticipate they will perhaps one-day face injury and its consequences. I have heard the refrain in workers' compensation for decades, from so many, "I never thought this would happen."
The story delivers two pertinent points worthy of consideration beyond the equities.
First, this is not a discretionary impact on the veteran. The law requires the VA to make the recoupment. The funds, it says, are not from the same account or even similar. So, the VA is required to reduce payments in the event a disabled veteran received SSB. The equity of this is discussed, but in the end, the VA is apparently following the law. In society, is there value in following the law? Some would argue that there is value in elected representatives establishing law.
Apparently, a veteran can apply for a waiver, but only the "Secretary" of a particular branch of the military can approve that. There is likely a significant challenge getting someone at the altitude of a "Secretary" to consider the particular case of any one service member. The article suggests that the odds are perceived as somewhat long.
Second, the reduction in VA benefits appears to be significant. It is not apparently limited to some portion of each monthly payment. One soldier is quoted explaining that her entire monthly income was withheld until she paid that SSB back. In the real world, it is very likely that everyone has bills to pay, commitments to fulfill, and obligations. What does one live on when income goes from $3,700 per month to $0? It is unlikely that people plan their expenses and commitments with such a potential in mind.
Thus, there is opportunity in this news to see legislative drafting, intention, and enforcement. Some might contend that there are also various perspectives that might be expressed regarding the operation and impact of this particular set of laws and their interaction. There may also be those who would only focus on the equities and those who either did not hear of the repayment caveat or those who misunderstood it.
Returning to the equities, the individuals involved are from various military branches. They likely have a great many distinctions from each other in terms of occupation/vocation, term of service, and more. But, each has in common that they answered the call to stand in defense of the rest of us. There is a necessity that commitments are honored, and perhaps that is heightened as regards veterans.
Such outcomes bear consideration in the legislative realm. Was the potential of losing all income for some period contemplated when the statute was written? Some will be troubled that the law requires recoupment, and others will be more disturbed that the repayment is not somehow constrained so as to not reduce someone's income to $0.
The article describes an effort to amend the law and adjust how these two funds interact. As yet, that process has been described as "slow." That is perhaps a third point - change is a constant in our lives, but change is not always immediate or even appealing. There are many processes that require significant time, and outcomes are not always exactly as one might personally desire.
In all, there are perspectives on such a repayment program. It is an intriguing example for consideration and study.
