Every year, the U.S. government deprives combat-injured veterans of billions of dollars in earned benefits. The Major Richard Star Act would end the burden imposed by Washington’s decades-long fight to save money at veterans’ expense. This legislation impacts veterans, their families, communities, military recruitment and national defense.
The word soldier is a 14th Century Middle English word that simply means paying someone to fight. Over the years, the word has come to mean something more personal. A soldier is one whose work is solid and of value. Their work is not only about themselves but about family, community, town, region, country and God. To be a soldier is to be one who is willing to go by ground, air or water to defend a higher purpose by putting oneself on the line so that others may live. Even after a soldier’s death, stories give root to their purpose and cause, carrying an enduring legacy beyond the life they led. One of those stories involves a man named Richard A. Star.
Rich was always a kind, generous and optimistic person. Even as a young child, he was always looking out for others over his own welfare. I walked him to school on the first day of kindergarten, and we happened to pass by a dead dog. He ran up to it and wanted to help him — bring him back to life. I had to tell him that no, it was too late. He wanted to find the people that cared about the dog. I had to push him forward. It was hard for him to leave the fallen behind. – Jana Star Luscher, sister of Maj. Richard Star
Born in Garfield Heights, Ohio, Star began his military service in 1988 and he later deployed to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. As a combat engineer he served a surplus of overseas tours. Much of his mission involved clearing pathways planted with bombs made by radical forces in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. He served as a platoon leader, staff officer, brigade training officer, commander and project manager. He received numerous medals for his actions while demonstrating his love as a father and a devoted husband.
The diagnosis that changed everything
Surprisingly, on his final deployment in Kuwait, Maj. Star’s breathing complications led to a diagnosis of hemoptysis — the coughing up of blood from the respiratory tract. According to the Military Times, medically, his health issues were not taken seriously and attributed to poor air quality and asthma. However, on his return to the U.S., he received a stage four lung cancer diagnosis, which forced him to medically retire — short of 20 years of service.
During his journey of treatment with surgery and chemotherapy, Maj. Star learned he would not concurrently receive his earned retirement and disability pay through the Department of Defense (DoD) because he had not reached 20 years of service. His late wife quit her job to be his primary caretaker, as the Star family relied on his pay and benefits to make ends meet.
As he heroically fought for his country, he also fought for medical justice. Star filed claims through the SFC Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act — legislation designed to provide active duty service members with compensation due to medical malpractice. However, under the pretense of COVID-19 and the presidential transition, the DoD delayed the process and extended deadlines before releasing medical payment. Despite the withholding of his earned benefits, The withholding of earned benefits, Star met with lawmakers and advocated alongside veterans who were also forced to retire early due to medical complications.
“When Rich discovered the unjust situation regarding military disability and retirement — he once again felt compelled to take action,” Jana Star Lusher said. “Not just for himself, but for everyone affected by it. He went out and campaigned for this, traveling long distances, on oxygen, barely able to tolerate being upright, let alone making speeches, hoping to convince politicians of the worthiness of the cause.”
Maj. Richard Star died at age 51. Though he found peace from his pain, his work for the Major Richard Star Act continues so that over 50,000 combat-disabled veterans will find relief from the financial strains of medical injury.
Star Lusher said, “He died with this goal incomplete. It would have meant the world to him to know it may finally come to pass.”
A national issue
This article is more than a story about Maj. Star. It’s a story about America — about those who fight so we may keep the civil liberties we have, while struggling to possess these intangibles themselves. Star’s story may be the first to highlight this issue, but more stories of those who realized they were not alone also emphasize the urgency of this bill.
“This deployment was hell. We operated in Southern Baghdad and the Triangle of Death. Our unit suffered numerous casualties. Every night, I would go out to escort EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) as a designated marksman while they blew up IEDs that other units discovered. My deployment was supposed to be 18 months. I was wounded in my 5th month and didn’t even make it to the rotation of leave where we get to see our family mid-deployment.” – Emil Hirsch, Army veteran
Veteran spotlight: Sgt. Emil Hirsch, (U.S. Army, retired)
As a senior in high school, Emil felt the call of duty during the attacks of 9/11. He had just turned 18 years old. By 19, he deployed to Afghanistan. On his second tour, he deployed to Iraq. In 2006, during his fifth month of an 18-month deployment, he suffered injuries as an explosives escort. After his wounds stabilized, Sgt. Hirsch flew to Germany for surgery and eventually returned to Fort Campbell in Kentucky, at the hospital where he stayed for 30 days with daily surgeries. When he returned to his unit, he felt like he was an outcast due to PTSD and his inability to perform duties due to his wounds.
He felt the Army had no use for him and he was medically retired. Sgt. Hirsch says, “And while it was terrible to endure and fight, I never want to go through it again. I couldn’t imagine I would be fighting for the benefits I should be entitled to as a combat-wounded veteran who was medically retired due to combat.” Sgt. Hirsch, published in numerous articles, has sent countless emails to politicians, including past and current presidents, with limited responses to his dismay.
At 40 years old, Hirsch reflects on his wartime experiences and learning how to cope with coming home, forever changed. “This added battle to be at least heard by our lawmakers should not be something someone with permanent disabilities from combat should have to endure,” Hirsch says. “It goes against everything our country promises when we are sent to fight, and it is morally wrong. It isn’t like we are asking for millions of dollars.”
Since 2006, Sgt Hirsch states he has only been able to collect 10% of his benefits because he could only serve four years before his medical retirement. “This is not fair, and the government should be ashamed that this is a reality combat-wounded veterans have to face.”
The fight for the Major Richard Star Act
For decades, veterans have faced a frustrating gap in benefits known as the “concurrent receipt” issue. It affects medically retired service members with combat-related injuries who are unable to complete a full career of 20 or more years, thereby preventing these veterans from receiving both their earned retirement pay and disability compensation together, without reduction. The Major Richard Star Act aims to close this gap and ensure these veterans receive full compensation.
Under current law, many veterans must select from two different types of compensation: military retirement pay or veterans’ disability benefits. When a service member forced to retire due to a combat-related disability hasn’t served the full 20 years, the government often reduces their retirement pay by the amount of disability compensation they receive. This reduction, known as the “offset”, stems from contested laws passed in 2004. The U.S. government currently withholds the earned benefits of over 50,000 combat-injured veterans.
The actions, and inactions, of lawmakers and the DoD create a financial strain for those who have already sacrificed their health in service to their country. This has been a longstanding source of discouragement among military retirees and advocates.
Veteran spotlight: Lt. Nick Sullivan (U.S. Army, retired)
At 23 years old, Lt. Nick Sullivan led a light infantry platoon in Afghanistan, when everything changed in an instant. The night had already been fraught with danger — an IED set off by the Taliban had killed two Afghan police officers and injured another. Nick’s platoon, deployed as part of a Quick Reaction Force, was on a mission to retrieve the injured and recover the bodies. But as a dust storm rolled in, the Black Hawk helicopter carrying Sullivan and his men collided with a communication tower. The crash was catastrophic. Sullivan lost one of his soldiers, and he sustained life-threatening injuries that would change the course of his life forever.
His weapon had struck his neck, breaking it and damaging his carotid artery, which led to an ischemic stroke and traumatic brain injury. “About 35% of my left brain is dead,” Nick recalls. “I was only 23 years old when this happened.” The stroke resulted in aphasia, making it difficult for him to read, write or speak. His right arm lost function, and he suffers from partial blindness in his right eye, a permanent disability that makes daily life a challenge. Despite his best efforts to build a new life, Nick, like many severely wounded veterans, has found himself caught in a bureaucratic web that offers little relief.
A life forever changed
Nick transferred to Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, where doctors performed a life-saving craniotomy. But the damage was extensive. At just 23 years old, Nick faced with the harsh reality his future would look nothing like the life he had planned. He medically retired in 2016, at the age of 25, and returned to civilian life with a new set of challenges. For Sullivan, the struggle wasn’t just physical — it was also emotional and intellectual.
Born in the Chicago suburbs, Nick had always envisioned a career in law. After graduating from the University of Illinois, he planned to attend law school, following in the footsteps of his father, a corporate lawyer, and his aunt and uncle, both judges in Illinois. But his stroke-induced aphasia derailed those dreams. Determined to continue his education, Nick pursued a master’s degree in history. “Writing papers was exceptionally difficult,” he explains. Though he passed his classes, the sheer effort it took to write and communicate made it clear that the path to becoming a teacher — his new goal — was not feasible.
After leaving the program, Nick tried for three years to find work, applying for federal, state and university positions, but job offers never came. Despite his combat service and educational background, his aphasia made interviews and applications nearly impossible. “My writing skills were adequate, but my aphasia was very apparent in interviews,” he notes. Nick eventually earned a degree in political science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and applied for the U.S. House Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program, but his combat injuries kept closing doors.
Now 34 years old, Nick Sullivan’s future remains uncertain. His medical team has informed him that, due to the severity of his carotid artery disease and the lasting effects of his stroke, he might pass away by age 40 or 45. He is one of many veterans whose battle didn’t end on the battlefield, but continues at home, navigating a system that often leaves them feeling abandoned.
The medical retirement trap: Chapter 61 and its limits
For veterans like Nick, medical retirement is supposed to provide a lifeline. Under Chapter 61 of the U.S. Code, military members who are medically retired with a disability rating of 30% or higher by Veterans Affairs (VA) qualify for retirement benefits. These veterans, often referred to as Chapter 61 retirees, may also be eligible for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), which can offset the financial losses caused by the gap between disability and retirement pay.
But the system isn’t perfect. While CRSC offers some relief, it doesn’t fully cover the financial gap for many veterans. The reality is veterans like Nick often receive reduced benefits because they don’t meet the 20-year service requirement for full retirement compensation. This leaves them in a precarious position: unable to work due to their injuries, yet unable to collect the full benefits they earned in combat.
Sullivan, whose life was irrevocably changed by a combat injury, is part of a group of veterans who fall into this bureaucratic loophole. Despite his bravery and sacrifice, he remains unemployed and uncertain about his future. “Because of my combat injuries, I am unemployed, probably permanently,” Nick says. “It isn’t fair, and the government should be ashamed that this is a reality for combat-wounded veterans.”
The Major Richard Star Act: a lifeline for combat-injured veterans
Maj. Richard Star’s story is one of service, sacrifice, and perseverance — both in combat and in the fight for justice. A combat-injured Army reservist, Star spent 19 years in uniform, serving his country with distinction. But like thousands of other veterans, when his service ended, his battle for benefits began. The government denied Star, forced to retire due to combat-related injuries, his earned benefits in full. He passed away in 2021 after a terminal lung cancer diagnosis attributed to his military service, but not before launching a tireless campaign to change the system that had failed him and so many others.
Today, Richard Star’s legacy lives on in the form of the Major Richard Star Act, a bill designed to end the deprivation of earned benefits for more than 50,000 combat-disabled veterans. It is not just a piece of legislation — it is a promise that the nation will no longer turn its back on those who have borne the brunt of war.
A broken system
For decades, an intentional loophole in the law has prevented combat-injured veterans from receiving full retirement pay alongside disability compensation. Veterans who are forced to retire before completing a full military career — often because of life-altering combat injuries — are caught in a financial bind. The current system requires them to choose between retirement pay and veterans’ disability benefits, effectively penalizing them for not completing a full career, even though their shortened service was the direct result of combat injuries.
This issue, known as “concurrent receipt,” affects a specific group of veterans who have already endured the physical and emotional toll of combat. Despite their sacrifices, many find themselves struggling to support their families, questioning why the government denies them what they are rightfully owed.
The Major Richard Star Act seeks to close this gap by allowing combat-disabled veterans to receive both of these benefits without a reduction, regardless of how many years they served. If passed, this bill would be a game-changer for tens of thousands of veterans.
According to the Department of Defense’s Office of the Actuary, in 2021 alone, there were 50,302 disability retirees receiving CRSC — a payment that partially compensates for the loss of retirement pay. If all retirees had fewer than 20 years of service, each would be eligible for full concurrent receipt under the Major Richard Star Act. This would be a lifeline for veterans who have spent years navigating a broken system, forced to choose between benefits that should never have been mutually exclusive.
A nation’s obligation
Combat-injured veterans represent a unique group within the larger veteran community. Many of them, left physically and emotionally scarred by their service, struggle to reintegrate into civilian life. For those forced into early retirement because of their injuries, the denial of full benefits adds a burden they should not have to bear.
The Major Richard Star Act would rectify this injustice. It would allow veterans to receive the benefits they have earned without being penalized by outdated laws for injuries that cut their careers short. The bill has garnered widespread bipartisan support in Congress, with 327 House members and 74 senators backing the measure. Major veterans’ organizations such as the Disabled American Veterans and the Military Officers Association of America have also championed the legislation.
Despite this overwhelming support, the bill remains stalled in Congress — a frustrating reality for those who have spent years advocating for reform. Veterans’ advocates argue that while the nation celebrates its veterans on holidays and in speeches, the real test of support lies in the treatment of these men and women when they return home.
Advocating for reform
The issue of concurrent receipt is not new. In 2004, Congress passed legislation that allowed some veterans to receive both retirement pay and disability compensation, but it intentionally excluded those with fewer than 20 years of service — a gap the Major Richard Star Act is specifically designed to close. Veterans’ advocates have spent years pushing for this reform, arguing it is a matter of equitable treatment.
For Maj. Star and tens of thousands of veterans like him, the denial of concurrent receipt is not just a bureaucratic oversight — it’s a deep injustice. They have already given so much in service to their country, only to be told they don’t qualify for the benefits they earned because they didn’t reach an arbitrary milestone of years served.
What’s at stake?
The Major Richard Star Act represents more than just a change in law — it is a symbol of a broader fight for justice and respect for those who have served. For veterans, its passage would be a long-overdue recognition of their worth and a step toward making things right.
In a country that prides itself on supporting its troops, the continued delay of the Star Act sends a negative message. It’s time for Congress to act — not just for Maj. Richard Star, but for the 50,000 veterans who stand to benefit from this critical reform.
For Major Star’s family and the many advocates who have taken up his cause, the fight continues.
The question now is whether Congress will live up to the promise of fully supporting its combat-injured veterans.
Fighting for combat-injured veterans’ earned benefits
Chris Willis isn’t one to sit quietly on the sidelines. From his home in Gainesville, Fla., surrounded by his children and animals, the retired U.S. Air Force veteran has made it his mission to fight for a cause that’s deeply personal: ensuring veterans like him receive the full benefits they’ve earned. For Willis, the battle for the Major Richard Star Act and its passage through Congress could change his life, and the lives of many others, forever.
“I’m doing everything I can,” Willis says with a mix of determination and frustration. “I’ve contacted my local and state representatives over and over — emails, social media, even letters on Veterans Day, which also happens to be my birthday.” Willis hopes 2024 will finally be the year Congress listens. “We’re all trying every avenue we can to get the Major Richard Star Act passed.”
To veterans like Willis, the Star Act is more than just a legislative proposal — it represents a promise long overdue. It’s a bureaucratic quagmire that, for many, feels like a betrayal of their service to their country.
And for veterans like Chris Willis, that betrayal is all too real.
A life of service interrupted by war
Willis joined the Air Force before the world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. Stationed next to the National Security Agency (NSA) at the Defense Information School when the attacks happened, he soon found himself thrust into a post-9/11 military landscape. As a combat photojournalist, Willis documented the harsh realities of war, including his own tour in Afghanistan. But the battles he faced abroad were only the beginning.
After years of service, Willis medically retired in 2014. His body and mind bore the toll of combat, yet the government’s compensation system has repeatedly failed him. Although the VA has rated him 100% Total and Permanent (T&P) for his service-related injuries, he’s currently only paid at 80% due to complex calculations involving his mental health ratings. At one point, he was rated at 100%, but not considered T&P, complicating his compensation further.
If the Major Richard Star Act passes, veterans like Willis could receive their full retirement and disability benefits, restoring the promised financial security they earned through service.
As Congress continues to debate the merits of the Star Act, one thing is clear: for veterans like Chris Willis, this fight is far from over. It’s not just about compensation. It’s about recognition, respect and restoring the dignity they earned when they answered the call to serve.
The hidden costs of neglecting the Major Richard Star Act
In the shadow of Capitol Hill, the fight centers around the Major Richard Star Act, yet it has remained stalled in Congress. The cost of inaction, however, is not just political — it is monetary, legal and deeply personal.
The financial toll: counting the real costs
At the heart of the debate over the Major Richard Star Act is a reasonable question: How much should the nation spend to support disabled combat veterans? According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the price tag of the bill comes in at $9.75 billion in mandatory spending over the next decade. However, critics argue that the CBO’s cost estimate inflates the price tag because it inaccurately presumes 100% of eligible veterans would choose concurrent receipt of their VA disability compensation and medical retirement pay. Those critics raise a valuable point. Fewer veterans choosing concurrent receipt would lower overall costs.
For many lawmakers, that number is staggering, especially in the context of strict fiscal policies like the “Cut-As-You-Go” rules, which require spending increases to be balanced by cuts elsewhere.
However, Congress could pass the Star Act through discretionary spending, much like it does for other federal programs and foreign aid. If Congress passed the Star Act and funded it through discretionary spending, it would need to reallocate those funds every year. Another potential funding method could come from accrued interest in the DoD’s military retirement fund. According to the DoD Office of the Actuary, the accrued interest of the DoD’s Military Retirement Fund in 2022 was $6.376 billion. Lawmakers, made aware by advocates of these potential options to fund the Star Act, have allowed the legislation to stall.
Yet focusing on the upfront cost of the legislation tells only part of the story. Failing to pass the bill carries its own hidden financial burdens. These veterans — forced into medical retirement due to combat injuries — currently lose out on the full retirement benefits they would otherwise receive if they had served full careers. Instead, many of them rely solely on disability payments from the VA, and the consequences are severe.
The government’s deprivation of full benefits for veterans, who rely on an already overburdened VA healthcare system, pushes them into financial hardship. The long waits, overextended staff and delayed treatments at VA hospitals aren’t just inconveniences — they exacerbate chronic conditions, leading to long-term health complications that demand more costly care. These hardships, in turn, strain the VA’s budget even further. Ironically, the fiscal “prudence” of blocking the Star Act could result in even higher healthcare and legal costs down the road.
Veterans’ advocates argue the cost of neglecting this group of wounded warriors will only increase as time passes. Opponents of the bill may balk at its billion-dollar price tag, but the reality is turning a blind eye today means paying an even steeper bill tomorrow.
Legal battles on the horizon
Beyond the immediate financial impact, the legal stakes are rising. Veterans and their advocates are beginning to explore lawsuits, frustrated by the government’s refusal to extend full retirement benefits to those who were medically retired because of combat injuries. These veterans believe their constitutional rights are being violated, and some legal scholars agree.
At the core of these potential lawsuits a fundamental question of fairness arises: Why should combat-injured veterans be denied the benefits they earned? Under current law, veterans who don’t complete 20 years of service see their retirement pay offset by the amount of disability compensation they receive, effectively penalizing them for being wounded in the line of duty. Some experts argue this offset could be a violation of constitutional due process, making the government vulnerable to legal challenges that may result in significant financial settlements.
The threat of class action lawsuits looms large, as more veterans begin to explore legal avenues to secure their rights. If successful, these suits could force the government to pay out millions — or even billions — in back benefits and other damages. Beyond the immediate financial hit, the reputational damage could further erode the trust between veterans and the very institutions designed to protect them.
The human cost: a strain on morale and military recruitment
But perhaps the most damaging consequence of neglecting the Major Richard Star Act isn’t monetary or legal — it’s personal. The men and women who have sacrificed their health and their futures in service to their country bear the human cost most acutely.
Veterans and active-duty service members are watching the government’s inaction closely. Many see the ongoing struggle to pass the Star Act as a message about how the nation values its warriors, especially those who return home with injuries. That message, some fear, is a deeply troubling one.
Recent data paints a grim picture. In 2019, from a group of more than 10,000 veterans, nearly 75% of them said they would recommend military service to a young person. By 2023, that number had plummeted to just 57.6%. The drop is not coincidental. Veterans say they are less likely to recommend the military to others because they are disillusioned by how their injuries — and the benefits they thought they were guaranteed — have been handled.
This disillusionment isn’t just a morale problem. It’s a recruitment crisis. The military has struggled to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, and the government’s failure to pass the Star Act may be making that challenge even harder. For young people considering military service, the risks of combat injuries loom large. If those injuries mean losing out on promised benefits, many may think twice before signing up.
For service members, the uncertainty surrounding benefits can negatively effect their retention. Seasoned service members, especially those who have witnessed the government’s treatment of wounded colleagues, are more likely to opt for early retirement rather than risk losing their benefits if they are injured. This means the military stands to lose not only potential new recruits but also experienced personnel — the backbone of its strength. Can we afford not to act?
Government obstacles to passage of the Major Richard Star Act
The law prevents concurrent receipt
The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prevents the concurrent receipt of retirement pay and disability compensation for certain combat-injured veterans. Current law mandates that medically retired veterans with combat-related injuries with less than 20 years of service must forfeit a portion of their retirement pay equivalent to the disability compensation they receive from the VA.
This offset, known as the “VA offset,” denies medically retired veterans the ability to collect both retirement and disability pay — benefits earned through their service. Veterans who complete a full career do not face this offset, creating an inequity between younger, combat-injured veterans and those who serve longer. This legal framework is the central obstacle the Star Act seeks to dismantle.
Political gridlock: the lawmakers who hold the key
The Major Richard Star Act is not without support. In fact, it’s one of the rare instances of widespread bipartisan backing, with over 320 co-sponsors in the House and more than 70 in the Senate. So why hasn’t it been brought to the floor for a vote?
To illustrate, Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., a member of the House Rules Committee, cosponsored House Amendment 1072 to House Bill 8070, the fiscal year NDAA bill, but not H.R. 1282, the House version of the legislation the Major Richard Star Act. In committee, she voted against its inclusion in the FY 2025 NDAA, along party lines. The justification was that its inclusion would violate House rules. However, the Rules Committee has the authority to grant waivers during the amendment process via a special rules process.
3. Rules Committee marks up a special rule. The Rules Committee, in consultation with the majority leadership and the substantive committee chairmen, determines the type of rule to be granted, including the amount of general debate, the amendment process, and waivers to be granted, if any. (Special Rule Process | House of Representatives Committee on Rules)
Nine of the 13 members on the House Rules Committee are cosponsors of H.R. 1282, the Major Richard Star Act. Despite their public support of concurrent receipt for combat-disabled veterans, only four lawmakers voted in favor of House Amendment 1072. The question is raised: why didn’t all lawmakers who cosponsor H.R. 1282 vote for the inclusion of its amendment counterpart in the FY ’25 NDAA?
The answer lies with a few key lawmakers, who, despite the broad consensus, hold the fate of the Star Act in their hands. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., have the authority to schedule a floor vote at any time. In a 2023 visit to Copenhagen, NY, Senator Schumer spoke to veterans about the importance of passing the Star Act, acknowledging his desire that “veterans receive the full benefits they deserve”. Yet, despite vocal calls from veterans’ advocacy groups, the bill remains in limbo. To note, both lawmakers are cosponsors of the Star Act.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, are also pivotal in guiding the bill forward. But the biggest roadblock may rest with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, where the Star Act (S. 344) has been stuck since February 2023. Reed’s reluctance to release the bill for a full Senate vote has raised concern among veterans.
Neither Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. are cosponsors of the Major Richard Star Act.
Democratic Leader Chairman of the Conference
| Website | https://www.schumer.senate.gov/ |
|---|---|
| Contact | 322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-6542 |
| Website | https://www.reed.senate.gov/ |
|---|---|
| Contact | 728 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4642 |
| Website | https://www.tester.senate.gov/ |
|---|---|
| Contact | 311 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2644 Contact |
| Website | https://bost.house.gov/ |
|---|---|
| Contact | 352 Cannon House Office Building (202) 225-5661 |
| Website | https://mikejohnson.house.gov |
|---|---|
| Contact | 568 Cannon House Office Building (202) 225-2777 |
The Department of Defense’s quiet opposition
Behind the scenes, the Department of Defense (DoD) stands as a significant but largely silent opponent of the Star Act. The reason? Money. The offset imposed on combat-injured veterans is detailed in House Report 118-149. In 2022, the average offset exceeded $1900 a month for veterans deprived of their full retirement pay they have earned, totaling over $ 1 billion annually.
If passed, the Star Act would increase personnel costs for the DoD — a financial burden the department seems keen to avoid. But this reluctance comes at a time when the Pentagon’s financial oversight has come under heavy scrutiny. In its fifth consecutive failed audit in 2023, the DoD could not account for 61% of its assets, raising earnest questions about its financial management. On top of that, the same audit revealed the department sent an additional $6.2 billion in funding to Ukraine.
These fiscal missteps fuel critics who argue that the DoD’s opposition to the Star Act is less about budgetary concerns and more about misplaced priorities. Critics state it’s hard to justify denying veterans a few thousand dollars in benefits when the government misallocates billions or sends money abroad without clear accounting.
The unspoken betrayal: lack of transparency in military recruitment
Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of this issue is the lack of transparency. When new recruits sign up to serve, they aren’t told about the VA offset. Many service members discover this painful reality only after they’re forced into medical retirement due to combat-related injuries.
This lack of upfront information leaves veterans feeling blindsided and betrayed by the very institution they once served with pride. The DoD’s unwillingness to inform recruits of this possibility highlights what critics call a fundamental moral failing.
The moral cost
As the Major Richard Star Act languishes in political gridlock, more than 50,000 veterans continue to suffer the financial consequences. For every day the bill remains stalled, the government forces more injured veterans to relinquish a significant portion of their retirement benefits — money they depend on for housing, healthcare and basic needs.
The DoD’s financial concerns may be legitimate, but they pale in comparison to the human cost. Veterans like Nick Sullivan and Chris Willis aren’t just statistics in a budget ledger — they’re people whose lives have been irrevocably changed by war.
Veterans across the country, who continue to wait for Congress to act, echo this sentiment. As the Star Act sits in legislative purgatory, the question remains: How much longer will America ask its combat-injured veterans to wait?
Taking up advocacy
Veterans and their supporters play a crucial role in advocating for the passage of the Major Richard Star Act. Contacting lawmakers and veteran service organizations is seen as one of the most effective ways to make a difference. Constituents can reach out to key U.S. senators such as Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester, state lawmakers and U.S. representatives like Mike Bost, and urge them to bring the bill to a vote and support its passage.
Advocacy groups such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the American Legion actively lobby for this legislation. These organizations offer essential resources and tools to empower veterans and their families to make their voices heard. Supporters can also contact the Department of Defense to express concerns over the current policies and push for reforms to ensure veterans receive the benefits they have earned.
Contact Information:
- Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: Phone: (202) 224-9126
- House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: Phone: (202) 225-9756
- American Legion. Phone: (800) 433-3318, https://www.legion.org/
- Military Officers Association of America: Phone: (800) 234-6622, www.moaa.org
- Disabled American Veterans: Phone: (877) 426-2838, www.dav.org
- Wounded Warrior Project: Phone: (888) 997-2586, www.woundedwarriorproject.org
- Directory of U.S. Representatives
- Directory of U.S. Senators
By mobilizing through these channels, veterans and their supporters can exert powerful pressure on lawmakers, compelling them to bring the Star Act to the floor and secure its passage into law.
Editor’s note: The NYC Daily Post made multiple inquiries to Senate and House leadership about the Star Act. Lawmakers include: Sen. Jack Reed, Sen. Roger Wicker (ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee), Sen. Patty Murray (chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee), Sen. Jon Tester, Rep. Mike Rogers (chairman of the House Armed Services Committee), Rep. Mike Bost and Rep. Kay Granger (chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee). None of the lawmakers or their staff responded. Inquiries to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also went unanswered.
Featured Image: Photo by Megan Lee on Unsplash
Edited by: Nancy Martin & James Sutton
The NYC Daily Post extends its gratitude to Ms. Elvira Sashova, whose insights and support enriched this article prior to its publication.
This fine article stops short of finding a way to change Defense and Congressional lethargy into bill-passing energy. After all, begging a Congress that knows it is raping its own war cripple’s pay, isn’t likely to get results. Begging won’t work. But Pain will. We need something new that does not trigger Cut-Go rules yet which spurs DoD to ask Congress to pass the Star Act. — Right now, Rep. Bacon, Bilirakis, and Sen. Crapo are looking at a proposed “Protect Our Patriotic Youth Act”, which requires that recruiters warn all recruits and reenlistees of what they will suffer via pay offset if combat crippled. This won’t trigger Cut-Go spending rules, but it will splash cold water in the face of a Pentagon too fiscally myopic to do its own job of securing robust manning by justly paying its war cripples. Just the idea of a Protecting our Youth Act should have the Pentagon begging Congress to pass the Star Act.
Wonderful article! The sad truth is that members of Congress won’t act. If the NYC Daily Post can, please try to contact Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. His advocacy was crucial to getting the PACT Act passed. I don’t believe Congress would have passed the PACT Act if Jon Stewart hadn’t gotten the national attention he got in the news when he shamed our government for failing those veterans. He could play a crucial role in getting the Major Richard Star Act passed as well.