| Author |
Message |
    
MM
Junior Member
Username: Mlhokie
Post Number: 6
Registered: 09-2007
Posted From: 70.161.149.162
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 01:08 pm: | |
Again to clarify - there is a big difference between a DOD disability rating and a VA disability rating. Currently only the DOD disability rating matters when discussing space-a and it's where the 30% or greater DOD disability rating comes into play (the threshold for medical retirement vice medical separation). Due to the differences in how the VA calculates a total disability % there is valid reason that only the DOD disability rating is used currently in determining retirement status and therefore space-a eligibility.
More info on those differences can be found here (brief excerpt provided):
http://www.nchv.org/docs/VADoDFactSheet11.pdf
"When analyzing the various programs, it is important to note that there are sharp differences in disability ratings performed by the DoD and the VA. The military will only
consider the physical conditions that make a service member unfit for continued service, while the VA is required to consider all service-connected disabilities and the totality of
the changes in the service member’s medical condition that occurred during military service. Furthermore, the military disability rating assigned to a service member is permanent
– it is not subject to reevaluation. The VA process permits reevaluation of service-connected disabilities if a condition worsens or improves over time, or if there is a change in the law governing the assignment of disability ratings."
"Veterans who receive both DoD and VA benefits could have two completely different disability ratings governing the two types of benefits."
and
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/01/19/33108-dod-va-realign-disability-ratings-cla ims-process/
"With the new combined system, the DoD and VA rating systems will remain distinct due to their separate functions; each system considers different factors when giving a disability rating, which often results in different ratings.
"The Army looks at what is solely unfitting... and the VA tends to look at all diseases and injuries incurred while on active duty," said Saville; while the DoD rating functions more as a workman's compensation, the VA rating aims to protect lifetime income that may be threatened by a service-related disability." |
Mike Schukert
Senior Member
Username: Mike_s
Post Number: 532
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.243.10.202
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 10:33 am: | |
Barry, John D & MM: Thanks for lending greater perspective to this matter. If I get a reply from my senator (see 30 May post below), I will incorporate your inputs in a follow-on letter--and focus on the fact that many VA ID card holding veterans were not apprised of their options re: this matter. |
MM
New member
Username: Mlhokie
Post Number: 5
Registered: 09-2007
Posted From: 70.161.149.162
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 10:44 pm: | |
I think some of the terminology used in this discussions is mucking stuff up. Hopefully this well help and not make it worse. ;)
In Barry's situation it isn't so much that he is labeled 100% combat disabled but that he met the 30% disability threshold from DOD (*not* VA, that's a separate thing) to be medically RETIRED from active duty. Key word being RETIRED because with that comes all the same bennies as one serving 20 years or more: pay, commissary/exchange, medical and space-a.
It could be any medical issue that DOD deems 30%. It doesn't have to be combat connected but the magic is tied to the 30% threshold which determines retirement eligibility. Then it is the TDRL (Temporary Disability Retired List) then PRDL (P= Permanent) as he mentioned. Anything less than 30% disability from DOD (again, DOD not VA) is a medical separation...seeya, have a good life, no space-a for you, etc.
So yes, as mentioned before it is all about the ID card that one is issued but there are only certain ways one gets that ID card. |
Barry W. Curtis
Member
Username: Curtisbwp
Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2003
Posted From: 67.76.6.72
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 09:23 pm: | |
Mike,
You are correct. At the time of seperation If the dod concludes that you are disabled and cannot continue with active service then they will grant you space a along with other privileges. If at the time of separation there is a question about your disability the DOD can grant and place you on TDRL status (temporary Disability Retirement list Status) You can be evaluated every 18 months for up to five years at which time they have to grant it or take it. Sadly most service members do not know this and therefore do not get it. I served less than two years and was granted 100% and space A privileges. SO..The short of it is that 100% combat vets are evaluated and given space a or not given space a. The 100% vet looking for it had the opportunity and passed it up through no fault of their own. |
John D.
Moderator
Username: John_d
Post Number: 4644
Registered: 06-2003
Posted From: 95.208.80.143
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 03:17 am: | |
Yes Mike, it boils down to the ID card. 100 percent disabled veterans in possession of DD Form 1173 or DD Form 2765 (replaced the DD Form 1173) identification cards are NOT entitled to Space-A travel aboard DoD aircraft. 1
00 percent disabled veterans in possession of a regular retired ID card are entitled to Space-A travel aboard DoD aircraft. |
Mike Schukert
Senior Member
Username: Mike_s
Post Number: 531
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.243.3.59
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 10:08 pm: | |
"Does not the Military already allow for the 100% combat disabled vet the same space a privileges as the vet who served 20 years???"
I'm not as conversant re: this matter as I would like to be; but I believe that, at the time of their separation from active-duty, some veterans, including those with a 100% disability, were issued ID cards by the VA rather than DOD. As I understand it, the latter are authorized space-a benefits while the former are not. Hopefully others can either refute or verify/expand on this troubling issue. |
Barry W. Curtis
Junior Member
Username: Curtisbwp
Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2003
Posted From: 67.76.6.72
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 06:10 pm: | |
Does not the Military already allow for the 100% combat disabled vet the same space a privileges as the vet who served 20 years??? I know in my case they did. I did not serve 20 years, I served two years, was injured in combat and awarded 100% total and permanent disability and I was given the space a privilege. My wife and I use space A quite often. I was awarded a permanent disability retirement (chapter 61 retiree) due to 100% combat injuries. If looked upon in this manner, then one could conclude that 100% disabled vets are reviewed and given the privilege to use space A What law must be altered? |
James A. Brosman
Advanced Member
Username: Airborne
Post Number: 178
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 67.174.146.58
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 04:39 pm: | |
I fully agree with John David Brooks. At no time did my wife sleep in the mud and rain, nor did she enjoy the thrill of a good incoming mortar barrage, nor get to listen to the lyrical voices of Chinese shouting "Sha" "Sha"(Kill) as they charged our positions, nor did she enjoy the fun of a main parachute not opening and the the deployment of reserve. There were just tons of fun she missed but bottom line is, I got the thrill and I cannot see how living the good life in CONUS entitles her to a flight after my death.
So,please, no more hero wife talk. |
John David Brooks
Senior Member
Username: Johnb6597
Post Number: 430
Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 72.235.3.35
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 05:45 pm: | |
The current system seems to be working just fine, except for 100% DAVs. If we create additional categories of eligible Space-A travelers to include wives, husbands, and minor children of those who died while serving, then we should throw the doors wide open for all veterans who honorably served, regardless of time in service. I have lived both roles...active duty soldier, and active duty family member...and my former wife, while challenged by my military service, never came close to experiencing the same stress and risk associated with my career (and she would gladly say so). Now, as an active duty family member, I can state with absolute certainty that I do not equally share the stress and risks associated with my wife's career. I support the 100% DAV Space-A suggestions, but think the issue should stand its proper place in line behind other, more urgent veterans issues such as fully repealing concurrent receipt restrictions and finding a permanent fix to the reductions in reimbursement payments for TriCare and MediCare medical professionals. As for surviving family members gaining Space-A privileges on equal footing with retirees, I'm sorry...I just can't say with a straight face that a wife or husband married for 4 years to a military member killed on active duty deserves the same privileges as a soldier who spent 21 years on active duty. If that's the case, well, let's include all those honorably-discharged veterans, too.
There comes a point when the system has done enough. Except for the 100% DAVs, I think we're there now. |
Hale Lait
Senior Member
Username: Norwich50
Post Number: 876
Registered: 07-2006
Posted From: 70.232.162.80
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 03:29 pm: | |
The question of Space A for the survivor of a deceased individual who had earned the privilege of Space A is filled with pitfalls. I dont think they are insurmountable but it requires due consideration and much thought. For instance, do you include the minor survivors? If, the deceased was single why not extend the privilege to the surviving parents? They too endured great anguish.
I also think that the subject requires a clear and unambiguous definition of a disabled individual. I, for one, fell and broke my hip a few years ago. As a result one leg is an inch shorter than the other. I now walk with a cane and have a lift on one shoe. I qualify for a "Handicapped" placard. Would I lose my Space A privilege. And, we all know that the VA has degrees of being disabled.
As for the question of "time served" (sounds like 'doing hard time') that is a legitimate criteria. Retirement and our pensions are determined by time served. I am not advocating dropping the subject but be aware that once the can is opened many unanticipated things can happen.
I prefer to see a clearcut definitions from AMC or other appropriate authority and leave the final decision to the aircraft commander. |
steve mccoy
Intermediate Member
Username: Nuhusker
Post Number: 63
Registered: 04-2009
Posted From: 173.27.220.234
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 10:18 pm: | |
DAVIS, L.E., thank you for the clarification. I'll step up and be the first to admit that I actually thought some of the posts were referring to disabled vets without the ID.
James, I can't speak for everyone but, of course we're all friends here, and I'll go so far as to say we all love our spouses.
I don't think anybody is trying to be disrespectful to vets or spouses, but words matter. Kind of tough to read body language on a message board. |
James Jones
Member
Username: Red
Post Number: 21
Registered: 02-2007
Posted From: 68.47.128.238
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 08:56 pm: | |
Steve,
I really do not think that is the way Hale meant it. We are all friends here and we all love our spouses. Right? |
DAVIS, L. E.
Senior Member
Username: Ldavis
Post Number: 501
Registered: 06-2003
Posted From: 173.24.183.1
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 08:48 pm: | |
May I point out that there are two things going on here.
Number one is that I think some people are refering to 100% DAV who do NOT hold the retiree ID but rather the 100% DAV card that is a 2763 or something like that. They used to hold the 1173. These people are not allowed to fly Space A under any condition because under the rules as they stand now they do not have the proper ID.
There are DAVs who do hold the regular retiree ID card but whose disibility has nothing to do with mobility or safety, so they can fly Space A no problem what so ever.
Then again there are other DAVs whose disibility does have something to do with their mobility and they could possibly not be allowed Space A for that reason even if they do hold the retiree ID card.
So, we are talking about two different situations. |
ed williamson
Advanced Member
Username: Regnav
Post Number: 214
Registered: 07-2009
Posted From: 76.114.109.206
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 07:17 pm: | |
Steve: No disrespect intended to military wives, mine suffered through several of my 6-8 month WESTPAC cruises and the year I was in VN, and she did it with grace and fortitude. Her support kept me going at times, and it continued in my civilian career. I lost her two and a half years ago and I miss her.
However, wives had choices. DVs did not. They shed blood, sometimes limbs, and sometimes their mental health. They deserve all we can give them.
The only potential problem I see is during an emergency evacuation. |
Jesse Hinson
Advanced Member
Username: Seagull
Post Number: 267
Registered: 08-2007
Posted From: 98.82.34.170
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 06:21 pm: | |
For those who are new to this site-Let me tell you about my son. He is a paraplegic-100% dv and uses space a. He has never been denied a flight because he is in a wheelchair. He has fooled many a person thinking he could not negotiate the steep stairs or get around . What ever you want to do-if you want it bad enough-you will work hard to achieve it. He has.
Elaine |
steve mccoy
Intermediate Member
Username: Nuhusker
Post Number: 61
Registered: 04-2009
Posted From: 69.18.53.101
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 05:27 pm: | |
"If, the choice is widows/widowers versus DV's, my vote is for DV's because THEY earned it for themselves."
Hale -- what are you saying? That our spouses just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Or we carried them on our backs for 20-plus years? I contend that I couldn't have accomplished half of what I did without a supportive wife who often times had to put up with the same B.S. that I did. IMO, spouses don't take a back seat to anyone! |
Roger T. Evans
Intermediate Member
Username: Rogerev
Post Number: 62
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 112.205.165.106
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 03:34 pm: | |
What part of the word "disabled" don't we understand? Each of them has their own sickness, ailments or handicaps that's why they're classified disabled. Space A travel is hard enough physically for an abled-bodied vet. If you're "disable" and want to travel space A, you're making an irrational decision. |
Bob radar
Intermediate Member
Username: Bob_radar
Post Number: 124
Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 75.57.171.89
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 07:25 pm: | |
Today I met a 100 percent disabled POW who flew several years ago from AMC St Louis, MO to/from Europe. He is 20 years older than me and walks a little slower than me and appears more fit / ambulatory than some younger spaceA Cat VI that I've seen. Apparently he didn't announce his 100 percent to AMC. I have not been in live combat. That POW has participated in combat and I feel his merit exceeds mine for spaceA travel. I'd like to see SpaceA for 100% starting with testing in some areas and expanded as it could be found there is little needed retrofitting or mission interference. The POW I met, talked about combat history he has experienced in many theaters and I'd like to met him on a space A flight to hear more. |
James Jones
Member
Username: Red
Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2007
Posted From: 68.47.128.238
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 03:55 am: | |
I agree with you Hale. Let the dav decide if he or she can travel. Also, many davs have handicaps that do not stop them from many things in this world, such as traveling. It actually would be good for many of them. |
Hale Lait
Senior Member
Username: Norwich50
Post Number: 875
Registered: 07-2006
Posted From: 70.232.162.80
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2010 - 11:37 pm: | |
"Do we want to put them thru this?" WE don't want to put them thru anything. Give the DV's the same thoughtfulness that you give to all retirees. I am sure that each DV can make a rational desicion about the viability of Space A travel.
If, the choice is widows/widowers versus DV's, my vote is for DV's because THEY earned it for themselves. |
Roger T. Evans
Intermediate Member
Username: Rogerev
Post Number: 61
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 112.205.165.106
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2010 - 05:25 pm: | |
Most of space A travel is done on a cargo plane with a very few exceptions i.e. Patriot Express and Yokota to Singapore. It's a very uncomfortable and
tiring flight in the best of health. Depending on the disability, the air crew will now have the added responsibility of being caregivers and nurses not to
mention all the reconfiguration and refitting of the passenger area for wheelchair and toilet, and how are they going to negotiate those long steep
ladder, with a lift? Some would characterized this as interferring with the mission. Also long waits in terminals, walks to billeting, alternate
accomodations or search of; sometimes at 4 in the morning, getting around at military bases where taxis are not allowed, Before I start to receive
virulent comments, I want to emphasize that I'm not against the concept of travels for our beloved DVs, but do we really want to put them through this?
If they are really serious about this idea the better option would be to just give them Travel Vouchers as part of their Disability benefit so they could
travel in comfort with better nourishments in those commercial airline planes that was designed primarily to carry human beings not cargoes. They're
special vets and we should treat them as such, practicality and not emotion should weigh in on this matter. |
Mike Schukert
Senior Member
Username: Mike_s
Post Number: 524
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.243.17.66
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2010 - 06:51 pm: | |
Ron: Cherry's concerns will eventually need to be addressed--IF initiatives such as this muster sufficient congressional interest and support. Were that to happen, my thinking is that we must deal first with the DAVs themselves. Grappling with the potentially contentious young versus older DAV widow space-a category matter early on could be a deal-killer. |
Ron Allen
Advanced Member
Username: Rona
Post Number: 174
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 68.54.72.70
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2010 - 04:53 pm: | |
Mike, I could support your views if only you would have also included Cherry C's concerns in your letter to our Senator. I am one of those retired military vets that also happens to be 100% SC. RonA |
Mike Schukert
Senior Member
Username: Mike_s
Post Number: 522
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.243.17.83
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2010 - 06:51 pm: | |
An recent e-mail exchange with my cousin, a 100% disabled Vietnam vet, rekindled the smoldering fire in my belly re: this matter. Prompted by Memorial Day reflections, I decided to fire off the following letter to one of my state's (Florida) senators. Hopefully it will inspire other similarly chagrined retirees to put a bee in their representatives' cap.
Dear Senator Nelson:
My purpose in writing is to seek your support for the passage of Senate Bill 66, Disabled Vet Space-a.
As you are no doubt aware, the purpose of this bill is to “…amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces…”
I understand that this sorely needed amendment has been repeatedly sponsored by the nation’s foremost veteran congressman, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, and was last introduced on 1/6/2009, read twice and referred (deferred) to the Committee on Armed Services. Ironically, the bill appears to be stymied by the very government agency so faithfully served by the 100% disabled former service men and women in question. As a retired veteran authorized the space-a travel benefit purely on the basis of time served rather than the loss of limb, faculties or livelihood in service to my country, I find the DOD’s reputed objections to be unduly discriminatory and offensive to my comrades in arms who have sacrificed so much.
Although this matter is complicated by a dauntingly voluminous governing document (DOD 4515.13R), and overseen by a well versed cadre of influential uniformed professionals, given a modicum of support for the amendment, and as Memorial Day approaches, I can think of few domestic congressional initiatives more deserving of immediate attention.
Realizing that the demands on your time are many, I invite your attention to an excellent online issue summarization: http://milvetstravel.net/dod.html. This cut-to-the-chase resource by Mr. Ed Prifogle presents a well articulated point-counterpoint discussion of the DOD’s patently specious rationale.
If you elect to respond to this appeal for congressional intercession, I am sure that it will not go unrecognized by your military veteran constituents. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of service in rectifying this egregious concern.
Respectfully,
M. A. (Mike) Schukert, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) |
Cherry C.
Senior Member
Username: Cherry
Post Number: 6308
Registered: 06-2003
Posted From: 71.163.18.160
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 12:24 pm: | |
I cannot disagree with the points below, especially Ed Williamson's...
But this whole discussion opens up the "widow argument" again, because THEY, especially the young ones, have also paid a huge price.
Should there be different treatment for young widows of Active Duty casualties, and older widows (wives of deceased retirees)?
There's almost no end to the ramifications! |
John David Brooks
Advanced Member
Username: Johnb6597
Post Number: 381
Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 121.55.235.75
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 10:34 am: | |
He's a pinball wizard? :-) |
William C. Allanach
Advanced Member
Username: Poppop
Post Number: 203
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 207.200.116.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 05:02 am: | |
Mike,
Great words!
Perhaps an other quote from "Tommy" might be appropriate? |
James Jones
Member
Username: Red
Post Number: 18
Registered: 02-2007
Posted From: 68.47.128.238
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 03:34 am: | |
Ed, I could not agree with you more. I can not for the life of me see why so many people are against 100 percent disabled vet's flying space a. Make a cat. 7 if people are scared that they will get our seats. |
ed williamson
Advanced Member
Username: Regnav
Post Number: 171
Registered: 07-2009
Posted From: 76.114.109.206
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 03:21 am: | |
Nothing is a bigger issue, aside from National Defense, that respecting and caring for our totally disabled veterans who laid it on the line, and left much of their health and physical ability on that line, so that you and I can enjoy our lives to the fullest. Who would deny our heros the same benefit that those who served but did not fight receive?
Sure, a man with no legs, or no legs and no arms, requires more assistance, and may even bump someone. So what? I think a 100% DV, as well as MOH recipients, should go ahead of everyone except a GI on emergency leave. In every line in the military world.
They paid a much greater price than the rest of us for the privileges we enjoy. |
John David Brooks
Advanced Member
Username: Johnb6597
Post Number: 380
Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 121.55.235.75
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 10:18 pm: | |
I'd rather see Congress spend its time debating and taking action on higher priorities, such as fully repealing the prohibition on concurrent receipt and finding a long-term solution to the pending cuts to Medicare and Tricare provider payments, before tackling something like 100% DAVs flying Space-A. I'm not against the idea, I'd just like to see it take a place in line behind the bigger issues. |
Martin V Smith
Advanced Member
Username: Mvsusaf
Post Number: 275
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 72.76.38.134
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 06:40 pm: | |
And also "its Tommy this and Tommy that, chuck him out the brute, but tis savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot".
Kipling respected the military and was devastated when he lost his only son in the "Great War". |
Mike Schukert
Senior Member
Username: Mike_s
Post Number: 490
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.243.3.113
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 02:50 pm: | |
I wonder how many times the subject matter will be debated and "referred" before congress acts to rectify this glaring inequity! Senate Bill 66 was proposed (again) over a year ago, but still fails to muster the the legislative support it deserves. Alas, Rudyard Kipling said it all!
S.66 : Disabled Vet Space A. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft.
Sponsor: Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 1/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
________________________________________
God and the Soldier, we adore, In time of danger, not before.
The danger passed and all things righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted
~Rudyard Kipling |
Last
