U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

98–279 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–74] 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF SURVIVOR 

BENEFIT PLAN AND DEPENDENCY AND 

INDEMNITY COMPENSATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey, Vice 

Chair 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

PAUL COOK, California 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

DAVE GIACHETTI, Professional Staff Member 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative from Nevada, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Committee on 

Armed Services ..................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Davis, Joseph E., Director of Public Affairs, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 

the United States Washington Office ................................................................. 8 

Kinnard, Chris, Co-Chair for Government Relations Committee, Gold Star 

Wives of America .................................................................................................. 4 

Ostrowski, Senior Chief Jon, USCGR (Ret.), Director, Government Affairs, 

Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States ......................... 6 

Strobridge, Col Steve, USAF (Ret.), Director, Government Relations, Military 

Officers Association of America .......................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Joseph E. ............................................................................................... 49 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J. ........................................................................................ 17 

Kinnard, Chris .................................................................................................. 20 

Ostrowski, Senior Chief Jon ............................................................................ 38 

Strobridge, Col Steve ........................................................................................ 28 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 18 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statements of: 

American Military Retirees Association ......................................................... 59 

Livingston, MajGen James E., USMC (Ret.) .................................................. 63 

National Association for Uniformed Services ................................................. 66 

National Military and Veterans Alliance ....................................................... 76 

National Military Family Association ............................................................. 71 

Prout, Kathleen M., Gold Star Surviving Spouse .......................................... 79 

Smith, Edith G., Citizen Advocate for Deceased Military Retirees and 

Their Survivors ............................................................................................. 89 

Society of Military Widows .............................................................................. 113 

The Retired Enlisted Association .................................................................... 83 

Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors .................................................... 116 

Wersel, Dr. Vivianne Cisneros ........................................................................ 120 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 135 

Mr. Walz ............................................................................................................ 137 

(1) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN 

AND DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Wednesday, December 9, 2015. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:58 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Heck (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Dr. HECK. I want to welcome everyone to today’s Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. We are here today to hear from military and veterans service organizations on the significant policy 

and financial issues that are associated with the Survivor Benefit 

Plan and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, most notably 

the issue of concurrent receipt. 

As originally created in 1972, the military Survivor Benefit Plan, 

or SBP, was designed to provide annuity to the survivors of retirement-eligible military personnel. Congress expanded the coverage 

to the survivors of individuals who died while on Active Duty. 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, was established in 1956 for survivors of certain service members and veterans. This benefit is administered by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. DIC is a monthly tax-free cash payment to survivors and 

dependents of service members killed while on active military duty. 

Certain eligible veterans who die from service-related conditions 

are also eligible for DIC. The significant policy issues that are associated with these benefits include the DIC offset of Survivor Benefit Plan payments, often referred to as the widow’s tax; adequacy 

of the payment for survivors compared with other retirement systems payments to surviving spouses; the remarriage age of 57; and 

the maximum DIC payments for parents based on income levels 

that have not been adjusted for inflation. 

Our panel was asked to share their views and that of their members and help inform us about the impacts on survivors of these 

policy issues. 

Before I introduce our panel, I would like to offer Congresswoman Davis, our ranking member, an opportunity to make any 

opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Heck can be found in the Appendix on page 17.] 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 

also want to welcome all of you here today. Thank you for joining 

us. 

As we all know, the SBP–DIC offset is a critically important 

issue, and we have certainly recognized that here on the committee, but particularly we recognized it with our beneficiaries. 

And we have attempted to fix some of the issues in the past, but 

we also know that those darn budget rules get in the way and that 

makes it really challenging, I think, to try and address it, certainly 

in total. 

In 2009, this committee addressed a portion of the SBP–DIC offset when we created the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance, by 

finding a small amount of mandatory dollars to provide an additional stipend to those receiving that benefit. And unfortunately, 

the mandatory offsets required to address this issue have become 

extremely difficult to find now, especially in the amounts required, 

and of course, we look to you to help us do that as well. 

I am interested to hear your thoughts today on any solutions 

that you may have to help us address the offset so we can finally 

make some positive change. Thank you so much for being here. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the following testimony be entered into the record: From the American Military Retirees Association; Major General James E. Livingston, United States Marine 

Corps, retired; National Association for Uniformed Services; National Military Family Association; National Military [and] Veterans Alliance; Kathy M. Prout, Gold Star surviving spouse; The 

Retired Enlisted Association; Edith Smith; Society of Military Widows, Janet Snyder; Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; Dr. 

Vivianne Wersel, Gold Star surviving spouse; and that Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, former chairman of this subcommittee, be allowed to participate and read his statement for the 

record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The testimony referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 59.] 

Dr. HECK. I will now recognize Mr. Wilson for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

leadership for military families by holding this important hearing 

today on the concurrent receipt of Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, and 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC. 

I am grateful for your recognition of this problem and your efforts in correcting it, which is bipartisan as confirmed by the cosponsorship of this legislation by Ranking Member Susan Davis. 

I would also like to thank the organizations testifying before the 

subcommittee today for their dedication to this critical issue: Gold 

Star Wives of America, Military Officers Association of America, 
3 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States. 

Additionally, I was really grateful to hear about a letter of support from General James Livingston of Mount Pleasant, South 

Carolina, a distinguished recipient of the Medal of Honor, and a 

real champion for military families. Without their efforts, this issue 

would not have made the progress that we have had. 

As you know, we have been working on this situation for several 

years, and currently in the 114th Congress we have over 170 cosponsors of H.R. 1594, the Military Survivor Spouses Equity Act, 

which originally was a cause of my predecessor, the late Armed 

Services Committee Chairman Floyd Spence. This bill would end 

the clearly identified widow’s tax or the dollar-for-dollar offset of 

payments between the Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency and 

Indemnity Compensation program. 

Currently, surviving spouses Survivor Benefit Plan payments are 

offset dollar for dollar either partially or totally as a result of receiving Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The offset wipes 

out most or all of the SBP entitlement and affects over 60,000 widows and widowers. The substitution of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Survivor Benefit Plan payments is clearly 

unjust. 

The spouses of military service members are owed a debt of gratitude and appreciation. These spouses provide the support and 

strength to our men and women in uniform when they secure our 

freedom at home and abroad. As a military spouse, they too devote 

their lives to serving our country. Military families make necessary 

arrangements for their spouses to be taken care of in the event of 

their death. We owe it to these fallen heroes to carry out their 

wishes and ensure their expectations are fully met. 

Finally, I would like to acknowledge two individuals that have 

been extremely important to me: Maggie McCloud and Edie Smith. 

Maggie previously testified before this subcommittee regarding 

this exact issue and continues to advocate for a correction. Her 

husband served as a military fellow in the office that I hold, before 

he tragically lost his life in Iraq. I will always treasure the service 

of Lieutenant Colonel Trane McCloud for America. It is through 

her unwavering advocacy that I became involved in this issue and 

hope that today we can finally come to a resolution. 

Additionally, Edie, who is just effervescent in her support, continues to work hard educating members about the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act and has been a fantastic resource for a 

number of members and their offices. Thank you for your designation and tireless efforts. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 18.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

We are joined again today by an outstanding panel. We will give 

each witness the opportunity to make opening comments, and each 

member an opportunity to question the witnesses. I respectfully 

ask the witnesses to summarize to the greatest extent possible the 

high points of your written testimony in no more than 5 minutes. 
4 

Your complete written statements will be entered into the hearing 

record. 

As a reminder, the lights in front of you will turn yellow when 

you have 1 minute remaining and red when your time is concluded. 

And this would not be a Military Personnel Subcommittee meeting if we did not have votes scheduled to interrupt the committee 

meeting at some point. So please bear with us. When the bell rings, 

we will run over and vote and then come on back to finish up. 

We are joined today by Ms. Chris Kinnard, Co-Chair for Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America; Mr. Steven Strobridge, Colonel, United States Air Force, retired, Director 

of Government Relations of the Military Officers Association of 

America; Mr. Jon Ostrowski, Senior Chief, United States Coast 

Guard Reserve, retired, Director of Government Affairs of the Non 

Commissioned Officers Association of the United States; and Mr. 

Joe Davis, Director of Public Affairs, the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

of the United States. 

With that, I will recognize Ms. Kinnard for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS KINNARD, CO–CHAIR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF 

AMERICA 

Ms. KINNARD. First of all, I would like to thank you, Chairman 

Heck, and Ranking Member Davis, and everybody else that is here 

for allowing the Gold Star Wives to testify before this committee. 

I have been going with Wreaths Across America. It has been late 

nights and a lot of interesting, emotional things. So I just want to 

bring the testimony to you. 

You have my written testimony. There is a couple of things 

that—did a typo in going through it. But I just want to give some 

examples that maybe that would make it a little bit more personal 

to you that this really does affect, in a heavy-duty way, our surviving spouses and our military families. And we need to do something about it. 

The first thing is—talked a little bit about the DIC, but getting 

down to the actual surviving spouses benefit program, there is a 

couple of different ways that you can get the offset. And then if you 

have children you are told, first of all, you have the shock that your 

husband has been killed or passed away or you found them committing suicide. 

And then the next thing that you have is, okay, you have children, you can get SBP and DIC, only full benefits if you relinquish 

to your children everything. But you don’t always get told that at 

age 18, not 16, it was 16 when my, I am a Vietnam war widow. 

My son was 16 when we lost his benefits. But now it is 18. 

When you lose the benefits at 18 years old, for instance, I have 

a lady from Texas and she has four children. And she found her 

husband, he had committed suicide, and she was the one that 

found him. Then she went through this process and turned everything over to her children. Each year her money goes down as her 

children become older. 

She has two masters’ degrees and is not working at the time, 

raising four children, single parent. And therefore, at the end of 

the time, she will probably be 20 years out, be 48 years old with 
5 

no experience. And even though she has the degrees, who is going 

to hire her? Her money started out at $2,200. It will be down to 

$900 when she finally has her last child turn 18. So that is one example and that needs to be changed to the 18. 

There is another part where, you know, Congress did recognize 

the fact that there was some problems and the offset is not fair because the men will deploy and they think that they are providing 

for their family, but it also depends on rank and age and—or not 

age, but time in service. And when you are military or young— 

which most of them are young that don’t survive. They are the ones 

out on the field—then their offset is maybe 100 percent. 

And a lot of times they don’t realize that the widow would get 

the DIC. So they may think they are going to get more than what 

they actually get. So what happens then when you figure it out, 

again, a lot of times you get the SBP first and then all of a sudden 

you get the DIC and it is like, the SBP is out the window, which 

is a little devastating because you are thinking you are going to get 

$2,500 when you are only going to get $1,200. And at this point in time, DIC is only $1,254. How many people in this country could live on $1,254 a month? And for our military 

widows to survive on that is horrible, just horrible. 

I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and I have a lady there that 

was from Vietnam and she is living in her car. She has nowhere 

to go. Nowhere to go. 

Then to go on to the SSIA [Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance], that, again, I made a typo, it is supposed to be 2017 not 

2016. But the last thing is, the only way that a widow can really 

get her DIC or her SBP full benefits, and DIC full benefits, is to 

remarry after 57. However, if she got a premium, premiums paid, 

then she’s got to pay it back. A lady in Florida had remarried and 

had to pay $41,000 back after 20 years. A shock. 

My time is up. Do you have any questions? Thank you for your 

support. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kinnard can be found in the Appendix on page 20.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Ms. Kinnard. 

Colonel Strobridge. 

STATEMENT OF COL STEVE STROBRIDGE, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Chairman Heck, Ranking Member Davis, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, and Congressman 

Wilson, we are grateful for your calling this hearing and for championing the cause of SBP–DIC widows. 

This committee’s leadership efforts are the sole reason there has 

been even partial progress toward eliminating the unfair deduction 

of DIC from SBP. In establishing the Special Survivor Indemnity 

Allowance for SBP–DIC widows in 2008, and then in 2009 by establishing a schedule of annual SSIA increases through 2017, you 

gave hope to thousands of survivors that Congress was finally taking action on their cause. 

The stark reality of their situation and the reason why the deduction is so wrong was stated best in the August 2009 Federal 
6 

Court of Appeals ruling, in Sharp v. United States, which required 

payment of both SBP and DIC to certain dual-eligible survivors. 

After all, the ruling stated, the service member paid for both benefits, SBP with premiums, DIC with his life. 

But that narrow case applied only to SBP–DIC survivors who remarry after age 57, as we just heard from Ms. Kinnard. Ironically, 

it highlighted the inequity even more starkly. The law has always 

penalized survivors who remarry before age 55 for SBP and 57 for 

DIC by stopping their payments. Since Sharp v. United States, the 

law now also imposes a financial penalty by continuing the offset 

for survivors who choose not to remarry after age 57. So it is kind 

of like they have got you coming and going. 

The ideal solution would be to eliminate the offset for all SBP– 

DIC survivors. Because of budget issues, our hope has been that 

Congress would do that on a phased basis by steadily increasing 

the SSIA amounts over time. As of fiscal year 2017, the $310 

monthly SSIA will restore about 25 percent of the offset. But there 

is a very near problem, as the statutory authority to pay the SSIA 

will expire on October 1, 2017. 

As a minimum, Congress needs to extend the SSIA in the fiscal 

year 2017 Defense Authorization Act, or SBP widows will be made 

to forfeit the $310 monthly allowance this committee worked so 

hard to win for them. We are sensitive to the mandatory spending 

challenge. But we have to recognize that on two prior occasions the 

committee managed to convince House and Senate leaders to use 

outside offsets to fund the SSIA. 

And when leadership recently managed to find far larger offsets 

to us to provide Medicare premium relief to millions of wealthier 

beneficiaries, it is hard to explain to SBP–DIC widows who have 

suffered five-digit annual losses for decades why their situation 

should have a lower priority. Our hope is that their immediate 

plight is urgent enough to warrant similar leadership involvement 

to find a way to extend the SSIA authority and make some further 

progress on phasing out the offset. 

In closing, I want to highlight one further inequity affecting survivors of Guard and Reserve members who die on inactive duty for 

training. Their survivor benefits are calculated with a reduced formula compared to members who die on Active Duty. Their lower 

SBP amounts are typically wiped out by the offset. The coalition 

believes strongly that their SBP formula should be the same as for 

Active Duty deaths. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present them. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Strobridge appears in the 

Appendix on page 28.] 

Dr. HECK. Thanks, Colonel. 

Senior chief. 

STATEMENT OF SENIOR CHIEF JON OSTROWSKI, USCGR 

(RET.), DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

Senior Chief OSTROWSKI. Chairman Heck, Ranking Member 

Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf 

of the Non Commissioned Officers Association [NCOA] and its 
7 

nearly 80,000 members, we are grateful to the committee for the 

opportunity to express our views concerning SBP. 

NCOA recognizes all who serve in Congress or in uniformed service who swear an oath of office, enlistment, or commissioning, in 

which the following affirmation is sacredly promised: To support 

and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. 

NCOA remains cognizant, as you must also, that the military enlistment or commissioning, the significance of those words bear the 

possibility of extreme sacrifice and even death. 

NCOA understands that a national debt in excess of $18 trillion 

impacts all citizens including military members, veterans, and 

their family members. There is real concern across the Nation relative to the resolution of this national debt. Many military members, disabled veterans, and veterans feel that they will become 

disenfranchised from their healthcare programs and promised benefits as a result of being forced to bear the brunt of cost savings 

plans. 

Simply stated, don’t make our veterans pay double for this debt. 

Do not put the burden of balancing the budget on the backs of veterans and their survivors. We say, however, that this debt was not 

caused by the Nation’s approximately .0016 percent of the population whose loved ones served in the Armed Forces and whose personal sacrifice ensured the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans. 

The NCOA believes strongly that current law is unjust in reducing military SBP annuities by the amount of any survivor benefits 

payable for the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] DIC program. 

The NCOA believes strongly that SBP and DIC payments are paid 

for different reasons. Just as military retired pay and VA disability 

compensation compensates for different reasons. 

SBP is insurance purchased by the retiree from his or her employer, the DOD [Department of Defense], and is intended to preserve a portion of service-earned retired pay for the survivor upon 

the retiree’s death for any reason. DIC is a special indemnity compensation paid to the survivor by the VA when a member’s service 

has caused his or her premature death. 

In such cases, the VA indemnity compensation should be added 

to the SBP annuity for the retiree’s survivor, not substituted for it. 

NCOA would like to also state that this offset affects the enlisted 

members the most. 

The reality is that in every SBP–DIC case, Active Duty or retired, the true premium extracted by the service from both a member and the survivor was the ultimate one: The very life of the 

member. NCOA is grateful to the subcommittee for its significant 

efforts in past years to improve the survivor benefits plan, and we 

thank you for that. 

Undoubtedly, the best solution is to eliminate the SBP–DIC offset. This is the right thing to do. We know that each of you on the 

subcommittee and in Congress is compassionate about this goal. 

In closing, I would like to share a quote by George Washington: 

‘‘The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve 

in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional 

to how they perceive how veterans of earlier wars were treated and 

appreciated by our Nation.’’ 
8 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am prepared to 

take any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senior Chief Ostrowski can be found 

in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED 

STATES WASHINGTON OFFICE 

Mr. DAVIS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Davis, members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share the collective voice of 1.7 million members of the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] and our auxiliaries. For the sake 

of brevity, I will not repeat in depth what has already been said. 

But it cannot be overstated that the Survivor Benefit Plan is a 

DOD insurance program paid by military retirees. The Dependency 

and Indemnity Compensation is a VA benefit meant to compensate 

a family for losing a loved one whose premature death was a direct 

result of their military service. It is a longtime VFW goal to eliminate this dollar-for-dollar offset that exists only to save the government money, which is perhaps the ultimate insult our government 

can inflict on surviving military families, on their spouses, because 

the two payments are mutually exclusive and paid for two different 

reasons from two different Federal agencies. 

Earlier this year, the Military Compensation Retirement Modernization Commission [MCRMC] recommended a new SBP program with a substantially higher monthly premium in order to receive a full DIC without offset. The VFW concurs with the commission’s ultimate goal to eliminate the offset, but we disagree with its 

funding method. 

We want a full repeal of the offset, not to subsidize it out of the 

pockets of military retirees who are already required to relinquish 

up to 6.5 percent of their monthly pay for 30 consecutive years just 

to ensure that their surviving spouse will receive 55 percent of 

their retirement pay. 

Mr. Chairman, the way things are done must be changed. I am 

not a Gold Star family member, but I, and hopefully the rest of 

America, do believe in the fundamental rule of fairness. There is 

nothing fair about financially penalizing widows and widowers. Let 

there be no doubt that the VFW stands with the Gold Star Wives 

everywhere to eliminate this terrible penalty. 

We are painfully aware that the Federal Government’s resources 

are very finite, and that sequestration is still the law of the land. 

But our Nation’s first priority is to defend the homeland; and our 

second priority must be able to defend those who do defend, regardless of whether they served 4 years or 40. The VFW has long maintained that if our Nation cannot afford to take care of veterans, 

then we should quit creating them. 

Our military has answered every call and met every challenge. 

Now it is Congress’ turn. We salute Congressman Joe Wilson of 

South Carolina for once again reintroducing legislation to end the 

offset. It is our hope that today’s hearing will provide the necessary 

momentum to propel H.R. 1594 forward. Thank you. 
9 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

Dr. HECK. Well, I want to thank you all for taking the time to 

be here this afternoon and to present your perspective or the perspective of your agencies. 

And I also want to thank everyone else who has taken the time, 

all the Gold Star Wives present, for taking the time to be here, and 

my favorite Gold Star Wife, Janet Snyder from Nevada, for taking 

the time to travel out here. I can tell you, the organization has no 

stronger advocate than Janet Snyder who is on a first-name basis 

with everybody in my office, she calls so often. 

You know, Mr. Davis, you addressed the question that I was 

going to bring up which was the MCRMC’s recommendation. I 

would like to get the answer from the other three members. So the 

Military Compensation Retirement Modernization Commission, 

also known as the MCRMC in these circles, made the recommendation that if total repeal of the offset was not possible, to charge a 

higher premium on the SBP to allow somebody to get full benefits 

out of both. Understanding that that is not the desired outcome for 

probably everybody in this room, just as a potential intermediate 

step or as a step forward, is that something that your organization 

would embrace? Ms. Kinnard. 

Ms. KINNARD. Not really. Our widows are, we are already there, 

already suffering. So for the premiums to be higher, that is not 

really going to do anything for us. We need to have an offset repealed or adjusted so that by the future, as they were trying to do 

with the SSIA to try to eliminate the offset, that is where we want 

to go. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. Colonel. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Yes, sir, we would agree. To us, that is no 

solution at all. Number one, as she said, it doesn’t do anything for 

the current survivors. But even for the future survivors, to me that 

is worse than the current situation because it, A, gives up on the 

government owing any obligation and it makes the member fund 

it completely. 

Not only that but it puts the member in the decision of trying 

to guess whether he or she might die of a service-connected cause 

and pay the full price upfront whether or not that is going to happen, and most people wouldn’t be willing to do that. So to us, it 

wouldn’t solve a thing. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. Thanks. Senior chief. 

Senior Chief OSTROWSKI. Mr. Chairman, NCOA absolutely does 

not support the MCRMC solution. We do believe in to eliminate the 

offset completely. It is unfortunate that we are in the budget situation we are in and looking for outside-the-box solutions, but in this 

case this needs to be eliminated completely. They are separate pots 

of money and they were earned for separate reasons, and we don’t 

want to have another bandage. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Davis, you answered in your statement, do you want 

to expand on the previous statement you made? 

Mr. DAVIS. We don’t support it, sir. We don’t believe in offsetting. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 
10 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your being so articulate and, I think, making what has always been a very strong case, and you did a very 

good job of that. 

You know, I remember a number of years ago, my veterans reminding me that in many ways we became a military at war and 

not a Nation at war. I think we all need to take responsibility and 

to do that in a number of ways, and part of it is in the way that 

we make sure that all of this is funded properly and that we are 

able to repeal the SBP–DIC. And I agree with that. 

I wonder, Ms. Kinnard, if you had suggested, because, you know, we are looking at $7 billion essentially for this, and at the same 

time you all have spoken in some ways of perhaps interim, perhaps 

phasing, et cetera. And that has been looked at in the past as well. 

But, Ms. Kinnard, you raised the issue in terms of children and 

young people who are 18 and younger. What would you do with 

that? Where do you think that those lines should be drawn, and 

how would you suggest that? 

Ms. KINNARD. Well, first of all, when you first learn of your husband’s fate, you are in shock. And for a widow to have to decide, 

shall I give the money to my children or to myself, you know, to 

get the full benefit to give it to the children and not being told, or 

if you are told, you don’t remember anything in the first year anyway, that you are going to lose and never be able to regroup that 

SBP at the end of the—when the last child reaches 18. 

You are getting the SBP for the children, the full benefit. By the 

time the last child turns 18, you don’t get any benefit at all. You 

just get the DIC. So it needs to be given to the widow, and she is 

the one that is responsible for it. Plus the fact that the children are 

having to pay taxes which, you know, the widow is going to have 

to. But every year you get a little note saying, is your one-and-ahalf-year-old remarried, you know, things that are just bizarre. So 

I would say that we want to have it just go to the widow. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Just go to the widow. 

Ms. KINNARD. There shouldn’t be a choice because you are not in 

a place to make that choice at that time. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Others? Do you have thoughts about 

that as well? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I think what we have felt, you know, one 

option is an inequity of the current situation, like Ms. Kinnard 

said, is that it goes away. Well, one of the options we have supported is saying when the children are gone, it should revert to the 

survivor. 

Senior Chief OSTROWSKI. We concur. NCOA concurs with Gold 

Star Wives. Nothing further. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Mr. Davis. 

All right. Thank you very much. 

And in terms of the number of spouses subject to the SBP–DIC, 

do you think that that is going to increase dramatically, that number? Does anybody have a sense of that? 

Ms. KINNARD. I could answer that for you. I mean, just I am a 

widow from Vietnam, and believe me, after that, what I went 

through, I was 7 months pregnant with my son, my husband was 

20 years old, I didn’t want anybody to have to go through what I 
11 

went through. And when we started going to war again and again 

and again, and all these women back here who have suffered the 

same thing and each one has a different story, I just told you two 

little ones, it is going to happen unless we learn to not go to war. 

And until we learn that war is not just the military part going 

to war but it is paying for our veterans when they come home, our 

widows, our widowers, our children, like Abraham Lincoln said, it 

is time to heal the country and take care of the widows and the 

orphans, and we are not doing that. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Right. That is all part of it. 

Ms. KINNARD. It is all part of it, and we don’t consider that in 

the big budget. You know, DOD says, oh, we are going to spend 

this money on war. Why are they taking our widows’ money away? 

It is wrong. It is just wrong. It wouldn’t happen in the civilian 

world. It just wouldn’t. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you all so much. Appreciate 

you being here. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And first of all, I would like to begin by thanking each of you for 

your testimony today and your advocacy. And the only thing I can 

read into the wider-than-desired attendance by my colleagues on 

the committee is that you have the support because you’ve been so 

effective outside of this hearing, in our offices, as our chairman has 

said. 

I would like to thank Mrs. Costello, who has worked with our office to ensure that we make the right decision on this bill. We 

sponsored it. We were a cosponsor last session of Congress. We will 

this session again. 

But the argument that you have made in my opinion is incontrovertible. And you have made it on its merits, on the facts. You 

have also appealed to, I think, our more important sensibilities, the 

moral dimension of this, of what we ask of our service members 

and then ensuring that we fulfill our end of the obligation. 

Mr. Davis, I serve on the Veterans Affairs Committee as well for 

the last 3 years, and you eloquently and efficiently put it: If we 

cannot afford to take care of our veterans and their spouses and 

their dependents, then we cannot afford to go to war. 

And I think if we entered these factors into our calculations 

when we went to war, perhaps put an escrow percentage of what 

it costs for every $1 billion we put into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, 

Libya, and we have U.S. Armed Forces stationed in over 150 countries around the world, if some percentage was put away for that 

veteran, his or her spouse, their dependents, you know, I think we 

would do a better job and we would make that connection that is 

so obvious to us, especially when you say it the way you did, Mr. 

Davis, but make that connection in law. So that we don’t have 

these problems in the VA, in having you have to come to our offices, testify before us to do something that makes only the most 

common sense to any American listening to you. 

So I want to thank Mr. Wilson in his absence for, again, introducing this; for the chairman and ranking member for holding this 

committee; for your tireless advocacy which brings this issue to 

home for us in a very personal, very compelling, and I hope very 
12 

effective way, so that we make the fix in law that is necessary, that 

it is fixed in perpetuity so that you are not coming back here to 

advocate for this. 

There are certainly no end of problems that you could come back 

here to remind us of or help us fix. Let’s use your amazing talents 

on those. This one we should dispense with after this hearing. I 

really hope that we do. 

So I don’t have any questions because you have answered them 

for us. I just want to thank everyone who is here and especially 

the Costello family for their service to my community, to our country, and to all surviving spouses and dependents going forward. It 

is that personal advocacy that is making a difference. 

So with that, I yield back to the chair. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today. 

My late father was a career soldier and I am retired military, 

and I think one of the toughest things I do as a Member of Congress is when a soldier, airman, sailor, or marine has died, whether 

it be from a training accident or in combat itself, I spend time with 

those families. And it is always something that is very difficult to 

do. And every family mourns in their own way the loss of their 

loved one. 

And so I don’t think this country appreciates enough those who 

serve our Nation in uniform and make tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our freedom. So I just want to thank you and the service 

and the sacrifice of your families. And thank you for being here 

today. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. HECK. Mrs. Davis, any other questions? Okay. 

Well, that was the vote bell. So it seems like timing was somewhat fortuitous. 

Look, again, we want to thank all of those who took the time to 

travel here to present your testimony. As Mr. O’Rourke, and I 

think Chairman Wilson has been the champion on this issue, at 

least since I have been in Congress. I will look forward to working 

with him as well as the rest of the subcommittee and the full committee as we try to move forward with a solution to this issue that 

doesn’t, as Mr. O’Rourke said, require you to come back time and 

time again. 

So, again, thank you all for your service and sacrifice to our Nation and for taking the time to be here. And this hearing will be 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

(17) 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

(59) 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

(135) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Mr. COFFMAN. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC payments for 

spouses who remarry before the age of 57? 

Ms. KINNARD. Probably the biggest problem with the suspension of SBP/DIC payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57 is loss of independence which 

was paid for by the military spouse’s ultimate sacrifice. Why is it that the age of 

57 makes it okay to receive both benefits in full? Here again is another widow’s 

story. Her name is Misty Jeannette Brammer: 

‘‘As a surviving military spouse, my life has been a constant state of uncertainty since losing my husband over ten years ago. At the young age of 31, I 

found myself to be a widow. The sudden and tragic loss left me devastated, unsure of my future, and as a single mom raising two children affected by the loss 

of their father. I came to rely on the connections and support the military offered. It has become a way of life. My husband’s service is important to the 

United States and, as a family we have continued to support military life. As 

a widow, my life shifted and changed and so did the support from the military. 

It steadily decreased over time and has been reduced to SSIA, DIC, SBP, 

Tricare (in which I now have to pay my own premiums), some educational benefits and VA home loan. These benefits have, and continue to be, an important 

resource to establishing and continuing my life as a surviving military spouse, 

mother, and productive member of my community. This is not easy to do after 

a traumatic loss. I have come to rely on these resources to be independent and 

not vulnerable. 

It has taken time to rebuild by life. It has been difficult and unbearable at 

times. The benefits afforded to me by the loss of my husband are both a resource and burden. Under current military law, if I remarry before the age of 

57 (completely arbitrary age), I lose all of these benefits and thus my independence. It is as if the United States disregards my loss in the presence of another 

spouse. This is so contradictory to current United States values. More importantly, it forces me to revisit the trauma I have already experienced and places 

me in a vulnerable economic position. It also violates my civil right to marry 

(without penalty). This has caused even more undue stress in my life including 

jeopardizing relationships, the ability to have additional children (out of wedlock) and causing social distance. This burden has been an emotional strain. 

The current law is penalizing to younger spouses. It doesn’t make sense that 

those over the age of 57 keep benefits upon remarriage. Still further, those who 

remarry and that marriage ends get some of their benefits reinstated. The current law forces surviving spouses to be dependent on another (new) spouse despite their loss. A remarriage doesn’t negate the loss of our soldiers. It doesn’t 

take away the pain or the hardship we have and continue to experience. It 

doesn’t remove the ongoing trauma. Worse yet, it forces us to be economically 

vulnerable. 

We are respectfully requesting assistance in changing current law. It is important to keep all benefits intact for survivors regardless of marital status. To 

lose these benefits creates further undue burden and places surviving spouses 

at risk.’’ 

Many of the younger surviving spouses feel this way. Those that have made the 

choice to turn over SBP and DIC to their children in order to receive full SBP and 

full DIC benefits have come to regret it. This is especially true when they realize 

that the SBP will end forever when the children reach maturity. This decision for 

many was made shortly after learning of the spouse’s death when they are in shock 

and really not in a frame of mind to make such a life changing decision. 

It is the same with remarriage before age 57, many are not aware that they will 

lose most of their benefits. However at the age of 57 with remarriage, the widow 

will receive the full SBP and the full DIC with no offset. The catch is that the premiums paid to the widow originally must now be paid back to the government in 

full. Depending on the amount, this again could be a burden for the re-married 

widow. 
136 

Mr. COFFMAN. This question highlights two separate inequities: (a) the difference 

in remarriage age for various programs after which the survivor benefit payment 

continues, and (b) a highly unique inequity facing SBP–DIC widows in particular. 

Almost all Federal survivor payments terminate if the survivor remarries before 

age 55, and can be resumed if the second or subsequent marriage ends in death or 

divorce. 

For DIC, however, the age of remarriage after which DIC payments may be continued is age 57. The age difference was solely because of a funding shortfall in the 

legislative effort to fix the DIC age disparity. Congress only found enough money 

to reduce the age to 57. 

However, that same law change that reduced the DIC remarriage eligibility age 

to 57 also included language specifying that dual-eligible SBP and DIC survivors 

who remarry after age 57 are entitled to receive both SBP and DIC annuities in 

full, without offsetting one for the other. This interpretation was upheld by a 2009 

Federal Court of Appeals ruling (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2008–5108, Patricia R. 

Sharp v. United States). 

So the net effect of current law is to: (a) punish survivors for remarrying before 

age 57 (for DIC) or 55 (for SBP) by suspending their annuity payments, and (b) punish dual-eligible SBP/DIC annuitants for NOT remarrying after age 57 by continuing to deduct the DIC amount from SBP for unremarried survivors. The only 

fair way to rectify this absurd situation is to eliminate the SBP–DIC offset requirement. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Our members definitely believe the two have separate purposes. SBP is a retiree-purchased insurance plan that is intended to replace 55% 

of SBP-covered retired pay in the event of the servicemember/retiree’s death for any 

reason. DIC, on the other hand, is indemnity compensation paid by the VA to the 

survivor of a servicemember or retired servicemember whose death is acknowledged 

to have been caused by service in uniform. If a veteran serves a career as a federal 

civilian, purchases federal civilian SBP upon retirement, and subsequently dies of 

a service-caused condition, the federal civilian’s survivor is not required to forfeit 

any of his or her federal civilian survivor benefit. There is no reason to impose that 

kind of penalty on the survivor of a military retiree who dies in the same circumstance. Likewise, no civilian-purchased insurance plan has a clause that denies 

payment if the survivor is eligible for a different survivor benefit. 

Mr. COFFMAN. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC payments for 

spouses who remarry before the age of 57? 

Senior Chief OSTROWSKI. Probably the biggest problem with the suspension of 

SBP/DIC payments for spouses who remarry before the age of 57 is loss of independence which was paid for by the military spouse’s ultimate sacrifice. Why is it that 

the age of 57 makes it okay to receive both benefits in full? Here again is another 

widow’s story. Her name is Misty Jeannette Brammer: 

‘‘As a surviving military spouse, my life has been a constant state of uncertainty since losing my husband over ten years ago. At the young age of 31, I 

found myself to be a widow. The sudden and tragic loss left me devastated, unsure of my future, and as a single mom raising two children affected by the loss 

of their father. I came to rely on the connections and support the military offered. It has become a way of life. My husband’s service is important to the 

United States and, as a family we have continued to support military life. As 

a widow, my life shifted and changed and so did the support from the military. 

It steadily decreased over time and has been reduced to SSIA, DIC, SBP, 

Tricare (in which I now have to pay my own premiums), some educational benefits and VA home loan. These benefits have, and continue to be, an important 

resource to establishing and continuing my life as a surviving military spouse, 

mother, and productive member of my community. This is not easy to do after 

a traumatic loss. I have come to rely on these resources to be independent and 

not vulnerable. 

It has taken time to rebuild my life. It has been difficult and unbearable at 

times. The benefits afforded to me by the loss of my husband are both a resource and burden. Under current military law, if I remarry before the age of 

57 (completely arbitrary age), I lose all of these benefits and thus my independence. It is as if the United States disregards my loss in the presence of another 

spouse. This is so contradictory to current United States values. More importantly, it forces me to revisit the trauma I have already experienced and places 

me in a vulnerable economic position. It also violates my civil right to marry 

(without penalty). This has caused even more undue stress in my life including 

jeopardizing relationships, the ability to have additional children (out of wedlock) and causing social distance. This burden has been an emotional strain. 

The current law is penalizing to younger spouses. It doesn’t make sense that 
137 

those over the age of 57 keep benefits upon remarriage. Still further, those who 

remarry and that marriage ends get some of their benefits reinstated. The current law forces surviving spouses to be dependent on another (new) spouse despite their loss. A remarriage doesn’t negate the loss of our soldiers. It doesn’t 

take away the pain or the hardship we have and continue to experience. It 

doesn’t remove the ongoing trauma. Worse yet, it forces us to be economically 

vulnerable. 

We are respectfully requesting assistance in changing current law. It is important to keep all benefits intact for survivors regardless of marital status. To 

lose these benefits creates further undue burden and places surviving spouses 

at risk.’’ 

Many of the younger surviving spouses feel this way. Those that have made the 

choice to turn over SBP and DIC to their children in order to receive full SBP and 

full DIC benefits have come to regret it. This is especially true when they realize 

that the SBP will end forever when the children reach maturity. This decision for 

many was made shortly after learning of the spouse’s death when they are in shock 

and really not in a frame of mind to make such a life changing decision. 

It is the same with remarriage before age 57, many are not aware that they will 

lose most of their benefits. However at the age of 57 with remarriage, the widow 

will receive the full SBP and the full DIC with no offset. The catch is that the premiums paid to the widow originally must now be paid back to the government in 

full. Depending on the amount, this again could be a burden for the re-married 

widow. 

Mr. COFFMAN. What is the impact of the suspension of SBP/DIC payments for 

spouses who remarry before the age of 57? 

Mr. DAVIS. The threat of suspension provides two choices: it forces survivors to 

exist years on an offset pittance, while bearing the full cost of rearing, educating 

and housing their children; or it forces survivors to live a lie with a new love they 

are unable to marry until a certain age gate is met. There should be no suspension 

of SBP/DIC payments because a surviving spouse wants to remarry—at any age. 

SBP is similar to life insurance that’s purchased by a military retiree to provide 

up to 55 percent of their retirement pay to a surviving spouse; however, unlike life 

insurance, all payouts stop if the surviving spouse remarries before age 55. No life 

insurance company stops paying eligible beneficiaries just because they remarry, yet 

the Department of Defense does. 

DIC is a modest indemnity compensation benefit of $1,254 per month that the VA 

pays to surviving spouses whose loved ones died prematurely from a service-connected wound, illness or injury. 

As stated in testimony, the two payments are mutually exclusive and paid for two 

different reasons from two different federal departments, yet all monthly SBP payments are first offset by the full DIC amount, which is why the offset is aptly called 

the ‘‘Widow’s Tax.’’ 

To receive concurrent SBP and DIC payments, the annuitant must not only be 

eligible to receive both, but the DIC entitlement must be a result of a remarriage 

after the age of 57. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALZ 

Mr. WALZ. How does the current law impact the value of these benefits and the 

perception of the impacts to the quality of life for surviving spouses? 

Ms. KINNARD. When one loses a spouse, usually they lose at least half of their 

combined income. The service member thought when they signed up for the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), that they were helping to offset that loss if they died before the spouse. Because of the current law with SBP/Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset, the income is even less than half, often times as low as a 

third of what the combined income had been. To put it mildly, this does make a 

dramatic difference in the surviving spouse quality of life. An example from a military widow, Deborah Tainsh, is provided here as presented: 

‘‘My husband, USMC Sgt Major David Tainsh who retired in 1994, served 28 

years in the Marine Corps that included serving in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War. 

When he retired he paid into the SBP program to protect me in the event 

of his death. 

After our son was KIA in 2004 in Iraq, my husband was placed at 100% disabled/unemployable from service connected issues. With the passing of concurrent receipt for Veterans, his Marine Corps retirement, VA, and Social Security 

provided a household income that allowed me a home and lifestyle that my hus-
138 

band had earned through 28 years of service in the Marine Corps and health 

issues that followed. 

After his death on December 23, 2014 from stage 4 lung and brain cancer 

that doctors attributed to Agent Orange, my monthly income dropped to 1/3 of 

what our household income had been. Hence, I lost my home due to the inability to make the payment. 

If I had been able to receive both my husband’s VA and the full SBP he paid 

for, I could have afforded to keep my home. 

It is issues such as this that bring to the surface the reason for Congress to 

pass concurrent receipt for military and veteran’s widows.’’ 

This widow’s story is one of many. Every story maybe a little different, however 

the bottom line is the same that there is a huge adjustment that must be made for 

military surviving spouses to even survive. 

Mr. WALZ. How do your members view SBP and DIC in terms of different programs for different circumstances? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Our members definitely believe the two have separate purposes. SBP is a retiree-purchased insurance plan that is intended to replace 55% 

of SBP-covered retired pay in the event of the servicemember/retiree’s death for any 

reason. DIC, on the other hand, is indemnity compensation paid by the VA to the 

survivor of a servicemember or retired servicemember whose death is acknowledged 

to have been caused by service in uniform. If a veteran serves a career as a federal 

civilian, purchases federal civilian SBP upon retirement, and subsequently dies of 

a service-caused condition, the federal civilian’s survivor is not required to forfeit 

any of his or her federal civilian survivor benefit. There is no reason to impose that 

kind of penalty on the survivor of a military retiree who dies in the same circumstance. Likewise, no civilian-purchased insurance plan has a clause that denies 

payment if the survivor is eligible for a different survivor benefit. 

Mr. WALZ. How does the current law impact the value of these benefits and the 

perception of the impacts to the quality of life for surviving spouses? 

Senior Chief OSTROWSKI. When one loses a spouse, usually they lose at least half 

of their combined income. The service member thought when they signed up for the 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), that they were helping to offset that loss if they died 

before the spouse. Because of the current law with SBP/Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset, the income is even less than half, often times as low as a 

third of what the combined income had been. To put it mildly, this does make a 

dramatic difference in the surviving spouse quality of life. An example from a military widow, Deborah Tainsh, is provided here as presented: 

‘‘My husband, USMC Sgt Major David Tainsh who retired in 1994, served 28 

years in the Marine Corps that included serving in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War. When he retired he paid into the SBP program to protect me 

in the event of his death. After our son was KIA in 2004 in Iraq, my husband 

was placed at 100% disabled/unemployable from service connected issues. With 

the passing of concurrent receipt for Veterans, his Marine Corps retirement, 

VA, and Social Security provided a household income that allowed me a home 

and lifestyle that my husband had earned through 28 years of service in the 

Marine Corps and health issues that followed. After his death on December 23, 

2014 from stage 4 lung and brain cancer that doctors attributed to Agent Orange, my monthly income dropped to 1/3 of what our household income had 

been. Hence, I lost my home due to the inability to make the payment. If I had 

been able to receive both my husband’s VA and the full SBP he paid for, I could 

have afforded to keep my home. It is issues such as this that bring to the surface the reason for Congress to pass concurrent receipt for military and veteran’s widows.’’ 

This widow’s story is one of many. Every story maybe a little different, however 

the bottom line is the same that there is a huge adjustment that must be made for 

military surviving spouses to even survive. 

Mr. WALZ. How do your members view SBP and DIC in terms of different programs for different circumstances? 

Mr. DAVIS. The 1.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. 

reflect the overall demographics provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, in that there are roughly 2 million military retirees out of the nation’s 

21 million total veterans. As such, less than 10 percent of all veterans (and VFW 

membership) would know what the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan is, and even fewer 

would know about the VA’s Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program. 

However, once educated about the two programs being mutually exclusive and 

paid for two different reasons from two different federal departments, all are united 

in eliminating the offset, and not to just to subsidize it with increased SBP pay-
139 

ments, as recommended by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

Ending the SBP–DIC offset is reflected in the passage of VFW National Resolutions, the most recent of which, Resolution 415, was passed unanimously by delegates attending the 116th VFW National Convention in Pittsburgh on July 20, 2015. 

Similarly, the VFW also supports eliminating the dollar-for-dollar offset that continues to impact service-connected disabled military retirees with VA ratings of 40 

percent or below, and Chapter 61 retirees who were medically retired with less than 

20 years. 

The 10-year concurrent receipt phase-in period for retirees with 50 percent or 

higher disability ratings was accomplished in 2014. Now it’s time to provide the 

same equity to all military retirees, regardless of their disability rating percentage. 

This VFW position is supported by Resolution 413, which was also passed unanimously by delegates attending the 116th VFW National Convention in Pittsburgh 

on July 20, 2015. 

Æ