Garfield Heights Veteran's Fight for Benefits Continues as Bill Stalls in Congress

GARFIELD HEIGHTS, OH — The Major Richard Star Act, a piece of legislation aiming to address long-standing inequities in benefits for combat-injured veterans, has drawn national attention as advocates push for its passage through Congress. The bill would allow over 50,000 veterans, many of whom were forced into early retirement due to combat-related injuries, to receive both their earned retirement pay and disability compensation without financial offsets. Despite bipartisan support, the legislation remains stalled, leaving many veterans to grapple with financial difficulties and legal challenges.

Born in Garfield Heights, Ohio, Major Richard A. Star's story has become a symbol of the struggle faced by thousands of combat-injured veterans. Star served in the U.S. Army from 1988, with deployments during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. His career as a combat engineer involved high-risk operations, including clearing improvised explosive devices. After nearly 19 years of service, his military career was cut short by a terminal cancer diagnosis, which doctors later linked to his time in combat zones. Forced to retire just shy of 20 years of service, Star was denied concurrent receipt of his retirement and disability benefits, a financial burden he fought to change up until his passing in 2021.

"He died with this goal incomplete. It would have meant the world to him to know it may finally come to pass," said Star Lusher, his widow, reflecting on his advocacy for the Major Richard Star Act. For her and many other families, the bill represents hope for financial relief and recognition of sacrifices made.

The issue at hand is known as "concurrent receipt." Under current U.S. law, veterans who retire due to combat-related injuries before reaching 20 years of service must choose between receiving their retirement pay or disability benefits; they cannot receive both without a reduction. This offset, established by a 2004 law, has been criticized by veterans and advocacy groups who argue it unfairly penalizes those forced into early retirement due to injuries sustained while serving. Advocates have called this a deep injustice, noting that veterans who complete a full career do not face this financial penalty.

The Major Richard Star Act seeks to close this gap. If passed, it would ensure that combat-injured veterans can receive both forms of compensation without offset, regardless of the length of their service. The bill has garnered support from major veteran organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans and the Military Officers Association of America, which have been vocal about the need for equitable treatment of all veterans.

Yet, despite support from 327 House members and 74 senators, the bill has been stalled in Congress. Advocates cite political gridlock and concerns over costs as significant obstacles. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would require an estimated $9.75 billion over the next decade, a figure that has been a sticking point for some lawmakers, particularly under strict fiscal rules that demand spending offsets. Critics, however, argue that these cost estimates are inflated, assuming that all eligible veterans would opt for concurrent receipt, which they say is unlikely.

Behind the scenes, the Department of Defense (DoD) has also been a quiet opponent of the Star Act, citing the potential increase in personnel costs. Yet, the DoD's financial oversight has been called into question following its failure to account for 61% of its assets during a 2023 audit. Critics argue that if billions can be misallocated or sent abroad without clear accounting, denying veterans the benefits they earned over budgetary concerns reflects misplaced priorities.

The implications of inaction on the Major Richard Star Act are not only financial but also legal and personal. Veterans have begun exploring potential lawsuits, arguing that the offset violates their constitutional rights. If successful, these legal challenges could lead to substantial payouts in back benefits, further straining government resources. Additionally, the ongoing denial of benefits sends a troubling message about how the nation values its military members, potentially affecting future recruitment and retention.

Recent surveys have shown a decline in the number of veterans recommending military service to younger generations, a trend that correlates with disillusionment over how their benefits are handled. In 2019, 75% of surveyed veterans said they would recommend joining the military; by 2023, that figure had dropped to 57.6%. Advocacy groups fear that without change, the military's recruitment crisis could deepen, impacting national defense.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Mike Johnson have the authority to bring the Major Richard Star Act to a vote, yet it remains in legislative limbo. Senator Schumer has publicly supported the bill, stating during a 2023 visit to Copenhagen, N.Y., that "veterans deserve the full benefits they have earned," but no vote has been scheduled. Advocates are urging constituents to contact key lawmakers and push for action, believing that with enough public pressure, the bill could finally see the floor.

The Major Richard Star Act represents not just a legislative change but a moral imperative. For families like that of Major Star, it is a fight for justice. The bill stands as a promise that the nation will no longer turn its back on those who have borne the brunt of war. The question remains: How much longer will America ask its combat-injured veterans to wait?