Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, 

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EST 

Thursday, March 27, 2003 MILITARY AND 

VETERANS’ BENEFITS 

Observations on the 

Concurrent Receipt of 

Military Retirement and VA 

Disability Compensation 

Statement of Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-03-575T 
Three factors are important to weigh in deliberations on the merits of 

modifying the military offset provision. First, many benefit programs use 

offset provisions when individuals qualify for benefits from more than one 

program. Generally, the provisions are designed to treat beneficiaries of 

multiple programs fairly and equitably in relation to all other program 

beneficiaries, consistent with the program’s purpose. Moreover, eliminating 

the military retirement offset provision could establish a precedent for other 

federal benefit programs that could prove costly. 

Examples of Offset Provisions in Benefit Programs 

Social Security benefits may be offset by 

Social Security retirement or disability benefits based on own record (reduces spousal or 

dependent benefits) 

Government pension based on non-Social Security-covered employment 

Workers’ compensation 

Disability benefits from non-Social Security-covered employment 

Black Lung benefits 

Federal Employees Retirement System benefits may be offset by 

Eligibility for federal workers compensation 

Social Security disability benefits 

Workers’ Compensation benefits may be offset by 

Social Security benefits 

Unemployment compensation benefits may be offset by 

Social Security and private pension benefits 

Private disability insurance may be offset by 

Social Security benefits 

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service and GAO Reports 

Second, the proposed modifications to the concurrent receipt provisions in 

the military retirement system would have implications not only for the 

Department of Defense’s retirement costs but would also increase the 

demand placed on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) claim 

processing system. This would come at a time when the system is still 

struggling to correct problems with quality assurance and timeliness. 

Third, such increased demand would come at a time when the VA disability 

program compensation, along with other federal disability programs, is 

facing the need for more fundamental reform. Modifying the concurrent 

receipt provisions adds to the current patchwork of federal disability 

policies and programs at a time when transformation and modernization are 

needed. While we are not taking a position on whether military retirement 

should be modified, as the Congress and other policymakers deliberate this 

issue, it would be appropriate to consider how modifying the offset would 

affect the pursuit of more fundamental reforms. 

Because pending legislation would 

modify current law, which requires 

that military retirement pay be 

reduced by the amount of VA 

disability compensation benefit 

received, the Subcommittee asked 

GAO to discuss the treatment of 

concurrent benefit receipt in other 

programs. GAO was also asked to 

discuss its broader work on federal 

disability programs. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-575T.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cynthia A. 

Bascetta at (202) 512-7101. 

Highlights of GAO-03 -575T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Personnel, 

Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 

Senate 

March 2002 

MILITARY AND VETERANS’ BENEFITS 

Observations on the Concurrent Receipt 

of Military Retirement and VA Disability 

Compensation 
Page 1 GAO-03-575T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss issues involved with the concurrent 

receipt of military retirement pay from the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

Pending legislation would modify current law, which requires that military 

retirement pay be reduced by the amount of VA disability compensation 

benefit received. You asked us to discuss the treatment of concurrent 

benefit receipt in other programs as well as our broader work on federal 

disability programs. 

To help you in your deliberations on this matter, I will explain the use of 

offset provisions in other federal benefit programs as well as in state and 

private sector programs. I will also discuss some of the implications of 

modifying the concurrent receipt provisions for the VA disability 

compensation program. In addition, I will address the more fundamental 

problems facing VA’s disability program. My statement is based on a 

review of GAO reports on Workers’ Compensation, Social Security, and VA 

benefit programs and other literature relating to DOD retirement and VA 

disability compensation. I will also draw on our broader work on federal 

disability programs, which we recently designated as high-risk because 

they are not well positioned to provide meaningful and timely support to 

Americans with disabilities (see Related GAO Products). Our work for this 

testimony was conducted in March 2003, in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, three factors are important to weigh in your deliberations on 

the merits of modifying the military retirement offset provision. First, 

many benefit programs use offset provisions when individuals qualify for 

benefits from more than one program. The use of offset provisions in 

numerous benefit programs is a common method for dealing with the 

consequences of beneficiaries qualifying for more than one benefit 

program. The rationales for these offset provisions vary, but they are 

generally designed to treat beneficiaries of multiple programs fairly and 

equitably in relation to all other program beneficiaries, consistent with the 

program’s purpose. Moreover, eliminating the military retirement offset 

provision could establish a precedent for other federal benefit programs 

that could prove costly. Second, the proposed modifications to the 

concurrent receipt provisions in the military retirement system would 

have implications not only for DOD’s retirement costs, but would also 

increase the demand placed on VA’s claims processing system. This would 

come at a time with this system is still struggling to correct problems with 

quality assurance and timeliness. Third, the VA disability compensation 
Page 2 GAO-03-575T 

program, along with other federal disability programs, is facing the need 

for more fundamental reform. Modifying the concurrent receipt provision 

would add to the current patchwork of federal disability policies and 

programs at a time when transformation and modernization should be 

considered. While we are not taking a position on whether the military 

retirement offset provision should be modified, as the Congress and other 

policymakers deliberate this issue, it would be appropriate to consider 

how modifying the offset would affect the pursuit of more fundamental 

reforms. 

Generally, DOD provides longevity retirement pay to military service 

members upon completion of 20 creditable years of active duty service. 

DOD also provides disability retirement pay to eligible servicemembers 

who are determined unfit for duty–that is, unable to perform their military 

duties. To qualify for military disability retirement, the servicemember’s 

disability must have been determined by DOD medical personnel to be 

permanent and the servicemember must have (1) at least 20 years of 

creditable service or (2) an evaluation board determination that the 

servicemember has a physical disability rating of at least 30 percent,1

 and 

either at least 8 years of creditable service or a disability resulting from 

active duty. Nearly 1.5 million retired servicemembers received retirement 

and disability retirement pay in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2000, the 

average disability retiree who had been an officer received about $2,022 

per month, while the average enlisted disability retiree received about 

$698 per month. 

VA provides monthly disability compensation to veterans who have 

service-connected disabilities to compensate them for the average 

reduction in earnings capacity that is expected to result from injuries or 

diseases incurred or aggravated by military service. The payment amount 

is based on a disability rating scale that begins at 0 for the lowest severity 

and increases in 10-percent increments to 100 percent for the highest 

severity. Many veterans claim multiple disabilities, and veterans can 

reapply for higher ratings and more compensation if their disabilities 

worsen. For veterans who claim more than one disability, VA rates each 

claim separately and then combines them into a single rating. About 

 1

A disability rating is essentially an indication of medical severity of an impairment: the 

more severe the medical condition, then the higher the percentage of the disability rating, 

which can range from 0 to 100 percent. 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-03-575T 

65 percent of compensated veterans receive payments based on a rating of 

30 percent or less and about 8 percent are rated at 100 percent. Average 

monthly compensation payments in 2002 ranged from about $100 for a 

10-percent rating to over $2,100 for a 100-percent rating. 

Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their military service may 

receive military retirement pay (based on either longevity or disability, 

whichever is more financially advantageous to the servicemember) from 

DOD and disability compensation from VA. For example, a servicemember 

who incurs a disability may still be fit for duty, depending on the nature 

and severity of the impairment. If that servicemember completes 20 years 

of creditable service, he or she may retire based on longevity and also 

qualify for VA disability compensation for the same impairment or a 

different impairment that is also service-connected. Similarly, a 

servicemember who incurs a disability and is found unfit for duty may 

receive military retirement pay based on disability if he or she meets 

additional eligibility requirements. This servicemember may also qualify 

for VA disability compensation for the same impairment or a different 

impairment that is also service-connected. 

Current law requires that military retirement pay be reduced (“offset”) by 

the amount of VA disability benefits received. In 1891, Congress passed 

legislation to prohibit what it regarded to be dual compensation for either 

past or current service and a disability pension. Despite the reduction in 

military retirement pay, it is often to a retiree’s advantage to receive VA 

disability compensation in lieu of military retirement pay. These VA 

benefits provide an after-tax advantage because they are not subject to 

federal income tax, as military retirement pay generally is. In addition, the 

disability compensation VA pays can be increased if medical reevaluation 

of the retiree’s condition is found by VA to have worsened. Because VA 

disability compensation is based on the severity of the disability and not 

on actual earnings (as is military retirement pay), the VA benefit may, in 

some instances, be larger than the amount of military retirement pay. 

For certain retirees with serious disabilities, the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2000 provides a cash benefit that is less than what 

they would have received through concurrent receipt of their military 

retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The statute states that 

these special compensation payments are not military retirement pay. As 

such, they are not subject to the offset provisions, and the legislation did 
Page 4 GAO-03-575T 

not change the statute that prohibits concurrent receipt. The special 

compensation payments were reauthorized in 2001 and 2002. 2

In addition, the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314) 

authorized a new category of “special compensation” for retirees with 

disabilities, including those who received a Purple Heart or have a 

disability due to “combat-related” activities. Under the new law, eligible 

retirees would now be able to receive the financial equivalent of 

concurrent receipt, although, again, the legislation did not repeal the 

statute prohibiting concurrent receipt.3

 Military retirees may become 

eligible for this special compensation if (1) their disability is attributable to 

an injury for which the member was awarded the Purple Heart, and is not 

rated less than a 10-percent disability by DOD or VA; or (2) they receive a 

disability rating of at least 60 percent from either DOD or VA for injuries 

that were incurred due to involvement in “armed conflict,” “hazardous 

service,” “duty simulating war” and through an instrumentality of war.4

Retirees who are eligible under this new special compensation category 

will no longer be entitled to the special compensation payments first 

enacted in 2000. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 

this new special compensation would cost about $6 billion over 10 years. 

Table 1 shows the 2003 monthly payments amounts of the special 

compensation enacted in 2000 as well as the monthly payment amounts 

for the new category of special compensation. 

 2

The monthly dollar amounts of “special compensation” at each disability level of 70 

percent or more will increase by $25 per month on October 1, 2004. 

3

As before, the statute states that these special compensation payments are not military 

retirement pay. As such, they are not subject to the offset provisions. 

4

To date, regulations have not been promulgated to implement this provision, including 

definitions for these terms. 
Page 5 GAO-03-575T 

Table 1: Special Compensation Monthly Payment Amounts for Service-Connected 

Disabilities in Addition to Military Retirement Pay 

VA disability rating 

2003 payment amounts for 

special compensation 

enacted in 2000 

2003 payment amounts for 

new category of special 

compensationa

60% $50 $790

70% $100 $995

80% $125 $1,155

90% $225 $1,299

100% $325 $2,163

Source: Congressional Research Service and Department of Veterans Affairs. 

a

Payment is equivalent to the base amount of the VA disability compensation for each rating category. 

Amounts do not reflect allowances for eligible family members. The table does not reflect payment 

amounts for eligible Purple Heart recipients with disability ratings of less than 60 percent. 

Current proposals before Congress pertaining to concurrent receipt 

would, if enacted, expand the number of those eligible to simultaneously 

receive the equivalent of their full retirement pay and compensation for a 

disability beyond the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. CBO 

estimated that an earlier version of these proposals would cost about $46 

billion over 10 years. Over a longer time horizon, the additional financial 

liability would be of even greater significance because of mounting 

concerns about the long-term fiscal consequences of federal entitlements. 

Among the programs that provide benefits to individuals based on their 

previous work experience or their inability to continue working because 

of disability, many use offset provisions when an individual qualifies for 

benefits under more than one program. The specific rationales for these 

offset provisions vary, but they generally focus on restoring equity and 

fairness by treating beneficiaries of more than one program in a similar 

manner as beneficiaries who qualify for benefits under only one of the 

programs. Table 2 provides examples of benefit programs that include 

offset provisions. (See app. I for a description of these programs.) 

Many Programs Use 

Offset Provisions 

When Individuals Are 

Eligible for Benefits 

from More than One 

Program 
Page 6 GAO-03-575T 

Table 2: Examples of Offset Provisions in Benefit Programs 

Social Security benefits may be offset by 

• Receipt of social security retirement or disability benefits based on own record 

(reduces spousal or dependent benefits) 

• Government pension based on non-Social Security-covered employment 

• Workers’ compensation 

• Disability benefits from non-Social Security-covered employment 

• Black Lung benefits 

Railroad Retirement benefits may be offset by 

• Social Security benefits 

• Workers’ compensation 

• A husband or wife’s own railroad retirement or disability benefits (reduces their 

spousal benefits) 

• A government pension based on non-Social Security-covered employment 

Black Lung benefits may be offset by 

• Workers compensation 

• Unemployment insurance 

Federal Employees Retirement System benefits may be offset by 

• Eligibility for federal workers compensation 

• Social Security disability benefits 

Workers’ Compensation benefits may be offset by 

• Social Security benefits 

Unemployment compensation benefits may be offset by 

• Social Security and private pension benefits 

Private disability insurance may be offset by 

• Social Security benefits 

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service and GAO reports. 

Some programs use offset provisions to ensure that the total benefits 

received from two programs do not exceed the total income received 

while working. For example, the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) 

program provides benefits to insured persons to replace the income lost 

when they are unable to work because of physical or mental impairments. 

In addition to DI benefits, some individuals may also be eligible for 

workers’ compensation (WC) if the illness or injury is work-related. WC 

benefits are designed to replace the loss of earnings resulting from workrelated illnesses or injuries. Each state and the District of Columbia 

generally requires employers operating in its jurisdictions to provide WC 

insurance for their employees.5

 The Social Security Administration (SSA) 

 5

These programs established a mechanism to pay injured workers predictable levels of 

compensation without delay. Although WC programs exist in all states, the programs are 

not federally mandated, administered, or regulated. Rather, they evolved throughout the 

20th century under state laws with the support of labor and management. 
Page 7 GAO-03-575T 

generally requires that DI benefits be reduced for persons who also 

receive WC.6

 This offset applies when combined DI and WC benefits 

exceed 80 percent of the injured worker’s average current earnings. The 

reduction can apply even if the DI and WC benefits are for unrelated 

injuries or illnesses. In 1971, the Supreme Court validated the WC offset 

provision stating that it was intended to provide an incentive for injured 

employees to return to work because the Congress did not believe it was 

desirable for injured workers to receive disability benefits that, in 

combination with their WC benefits, exceeded their preinjury earnings.7

Some programs use offset provisions to adjust benefit computation 

formulas that were not originally designed to account for individuals or 

their dependents working under more than one retirement system. An 

example is Social Security’s Government Pension Offset (GPO) provision, 

enacted in 1977 to equalize the treatment of workers covered by Social 

Security and those with government pensions not covered by Social 

Security. The Social Security Act requires that most workers be covered 

by Social Security benefits.8

 In addition to paying retirement and disability 

benefits to covered workers, Social Security also generally pays benefits to 

spouses of retired, disabled, or deceased workers. Although state and local 

government workers were originally excluded from Social Security, today 

about two-thirds of state and local government workers are covered by 

Social Security.9

 Prior to 1977, a spouse receiving a pension from a 

government position not covered by Social Security could receive a full 

pension benefit and a full Social Security spousal benefit as if he or she 

were a nonworking spouse. The GPO prevents spouses from receiving a 

 6

SSA cannot offset disability benefits if the state WC program allows the insurers to reduce 

the amount of WC benefits they would normally pay to an injured worker when the worker 

also receives Social Security DI benefits. In 1981, the Congress limited recognition of such 

exceptions to the 14 states that had established them by Feb. 18, 1981. 

7

Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78 (1971). 

8

Workers contribute to Social Security through payroll taxes. 

9

Starting in the 1950s, state and local governments had the option of selecting Social 

Security coverage for their employees or retaining their noncovered status. In 1983, state 

and local governments in the Social Security system were prohibited by law from opting 

out of it. 
Page 8 GAO-03-575T 

full spousal benefit in addition to a full pension benefit earned from 

noncovered government employment.10

Offset provisions are also used by state governments. For example, 

29 states and the District of Columbia permit insurers to reduce WC cash 

payments when the beneficiary also receives other types of benefits, such 

as those from Social Security retirement, survivor, or disability programs 

or from government or private pension plans. In addition, as required by 

federal law, states must deduct from unemployment compensation the 

value of pensions, retirement pay, or annuities based on previous work in 

certain situations. The purpose of this offset is to reduce the incentive for 

retirees who receive pensions to file for unemployment compensation and 

increase their incentive to seek work. 

Private sector insurers also use offsets. Our study of three large private 

disability insurers11 found that nearly two-thirds of those receiving private 

long-term disability benefits from the three private insurers also received 

DI benefits.12 In such cases, the private disability benefit payments were 

generally reduced by the amount of the DI benefit payment. 

In addition to the cost of the benefits, allowing concurrent receipt would 

have implications for VA program management. Allowing concurrent 

receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation could 

provide new incentives for military retirees to file for VA compensation or 

to seek increases in their disability ratings for VA compensation that they 

are already receiving. These new claims could further tax VA’s claims 

processing system. We recently reported that VA faces long-standing 

challenges to improve the timeliness and quality of disability claims 

decisions. In addition to creating delays in veterans’ receipt of entitled 

benefits, untimely, inaccurate, and inconsistent claims decisions can 

negatively affect veterans’ receipt of other VA benefits and services, 

including health care, because VA’s assigned disability ratings help 

 10If both spouses worked in positions covered by Social Security, each may not receive 

both the benefits earned as a worker and a full spousal benefit; rather each member of the 

couple would receive the higher amount of the two. 

11In 1997, these three companies covered about half of the long-term U.S. private disability 

insurance market. 

12U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons 

for Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO-01-153 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2001). 

Modifying the 

Concurrent Receipt 

Provisions Has 

Implications for the 

VA Disability 

Compensation 

Program 
Page 9 GAO-03-575T 

determine eligibility and priority for these benefits.13 While the cost of 

these new benefits and VA’s administrative challenges in processing the 

claims may not provide sufficient bases to retain the offset, they warrant 

consideration in weighing this matter. 

While VA has had difficulty making decisions in a timely and consistent 

manner, VA’s disability programs also face more fundamental problems. 

Our concerns about the long-standing challenges that VA faces in claims 

processing contributed to our recent decision to place federal disability 

programs, including VA’s programs, on our high-risk list of programs that 

need urgent attention and transformation to ensure that they function in 

the most economical, efficient, and effective manner possible.14 This 

designation was based in part on our finding that these programs use 

outmoded criteria for determining disability. For example, VA’s disability 

ratings schedule is still primarily based on physicians’ and lawyers’ 

judgments made in 1945 about the effect service-connected conditions had 

on the average individual’s ability to perform jobs requiring manual or 

physical labor. Although VA is revising the medical criteria for its Schedule 

for Rating Disabilities, the estimates of how impairments affect veterans’ 

earnings have generally not been reexamined. As a result, changes in the 

nature of work that have occurred over the last half-century—which 

potentially affect the extent to which disabilities limit one’s earning 

capacity—are overlooked by the program’s criteria. For example, in an 

increasingly knowledge-based economy, one could consider whether 

physical impairments such as the loss of an extremity still reduce earning 

capacity by 40 to 70 percent.15

 13U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: 

Department of Veterans Affairs, GAO-03-110 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003). 

14U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 2003) 

15GAO-03-110. VA recognizes that there have been significant changes in the nature of work, 

but does not believe that these changes need to be reflected in the disability ratings. VA 

contends that the disability rating schedule, as constructed, represents a consensus among 

Congress, VA, and the veteran community, and that the ratings generally represent an 

equitable method to determine disability compensation. We continue to believe, as we have 

said in the past, that the current estimates of the average reduction in earning capacity 

should be reviewed. Further, we believe that updating disability criteria is consistent with 

the law. U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA and VA Disability Programs: Re-Examination 

of Disability Criteria Needed to Help Ensure Program Integrity, 

GAO-02-597 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 9, 2002). 

VA Disability 

Programs Face 

Fundamental 

Problems 
Page 10 GAO-03-575T 

These outdated concepts persist despite scientific advances and economic 

and social changes that have redefined the relationship between 

impairments and the ability to work. Advances in medicine and technology 

have reduced the severity of some medical conditions and have allowed 

individuals to live with greater independence and function in work 

settings. Moreover, the nature of work has changed as the national 

economy has become increasingly knowledge-based. Without a current 

understanding of the impact of physical and mental conditions on earnings 

given labor market changes, VA and other agencies administering federal 

disability programs may be overcompensating some individuals while 

undercompensating or denying benefits to other individuals because of 

outdated information on earning capacity. At the same time, the projected 

slowdown in growth of the nation’s labor force makes it imperative that 

those who can work are supported in their efforts to do so. 

In reexamining the fundamental concepts underlying the design of federal 

disability programs, approaches used by other disability programs may 

offer valuable insights. For example, our prior review of three private 

disability insurers shows that they have fundamentally reoriented their 

disability systems toward building the productive capacities of people with 

disabilities, while not jeopardizing the availability of cash benefits for 

people who are not able to return to the labor force. As we previously 

reported, to fully incorporate scientific advances and labor market 

changes into the disability programs would require more fundamental 

change, such as revisiting the programs’ basic orientation from incapacity 

to capacity. Reorienting programs in this direction would align them with 

broader social changes that focus on building and supporting the work 

capacities of people with disabilities. Such a reorientation would require 

examining complex program design issues such as beneficiaries’ access to 

medical care and assistive technologies, the benefits offered and their 

associated costs, and strategies to return beneficiaries to work. Moreover, 

reorientation of the federal disability programs would necessitate the 

integration of the many programs and policies affecting people with 

disabilities, including those of DOD and VA. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you or the other Subcommittee members might 

have. 
Page 11 GAO-03-575T 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7101 or Carol Dawn Petersen at (202) 512-7215. Suit Chan, 

Beverly Crawford, and Shelia Drake also contributed to this statement. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 12 GAO-03-575T 

Program Benefits provided Eligibility 

Social Security benefits Cash benefits to workers and their dependents 

who qualify as beneficiaries under the Old-Age 

Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) 

programs of the Social Security Act. OASDI 

replaces a portion of earnings lost as a result of 

retirement, disability, or death. 

The worker and his/her eligible family 

members must meet different sets of 

requirements for each type of benefit. An 

underlying condition of payment of most 

benefits is that the worker has contributed to 

Social Security for the required period of time. 

Social Insurance for Railroad 

Workers (Railroad retirement 

benefits) 

Cash benefits to retired or disabled railroad 

workers, their dependents and survivors. Railroad 

workers may also receive sickness and 

unemployment benefits. 

Railroad worker must have had at least 120 

months of creditable railroad service or 60 

months of creditable railroad service if such 

service was performed after 1995. 

Coal Mine Workers’ 

Compensation (Black Lung 

benefits) 

Cash benefits to coal miners who have become 

totally disabled due to coal workers’ 

pneumoconiosis, and to widows and other 

surviving dependents of miners who have died of 

this disease 

Coal miner must have worked in the nation’s 

coal mines or a coal preparation facility and 

become totally disabled from pneumoconiosis. 

Federal Employees Retirement 

System 

Cash benefits to retired or disabled federal 

employees, and survivors of federal employees 

and retirees. 

Federal employees whose initial federal 

employment began after December 31, 1983, 

or who voluntarily switched from Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) to FERS. The 

worker must have at least 5 years of creditable 

civilian service. Survivor and disability benefits 

are available after 18 months of civilian service 

Workers’ Compensation Various cash and medical benefits to workers 

injured while working or who have occupational 

diseases. 

Specific eligibility requirements and benefit 

amounts vary from state to state. 

Federal-State Unemployment 

Insurance Program 

(Unemployment compensation) 

Temporary financial assistance to eligible workers 

who are unemployed through no fault of their own 

and are actively engaged in job search. 

Worker must meet the state requirements for 

wages earned or time worked during an 

established period of time, and be determined 

unemployed through no fault of his/her own, 

and meet other eligibility requirements of 

his/her state law. 

Private disability insurance Short- or long-term disability insurance, or both, 

to replace income lost by employees because of 

injuries and illnesses. 

Specific eligibility requirements vary from plan 

to plan. 

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service and GAO reports. 

Appendix I. Benefits and Eligibility 

Requirements for Programs Containing 

Offset Provisions 
Page 13 GAO-03-575T 

Social Security: Congress Should Consider Revising the Government 

Pension Offset “Loophole.” GAO-03-498T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 

2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the 

Veteran Affairs. GAO-03-110. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119. Washington, D.C.: January 

2003. 

Veterans’ Benefits: Claims Processing Timeliness Performance Measures 

Could Be Improved. GAO-03-282. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2002. 

Veterans’ Benefits: Quality Assurance for Disability Claims and Appeals 

Processing Can Be Further Improved. GAO-02-806. Washington, D.C.: 

August 16, 2002. 

SSA and VA Disability Programs: Re-Examination of Disability 

Criteria Needed to Help Ensure Program Integrity. GAO-02-597. 

Washington, D.C.: August 9, 2002. 

Veterans’ Benefits: Despite Recent Improvements, Meeting Claims 

Processing Goals Will Be Challenging. GAO-02-645T. Washington, D.C.: 

April 26, 2002. 

Workers’ Compensation: Action Needed to Reduce Payment Errors in 

SSA Disability and Other Programs. GAO-01-367. Washington, D.C.: May 

4, 2001 

SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for Improving 

Return-to-Work Efforts. GAO-01-153. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2001. 

Related GAO Products 

(130252)