Order Code RL33571
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
July 21, 2006
Charles A. Henning, Coordinator
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Richard A. Best, Jr., David F. Burrelli, and Lawrence Kapp
Specialists in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many
Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging
operational role of the Reserve Components, has further heightened interest and
support for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues.
CRS has selected a number of issues being considered by Congress as the
FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act evolves. In each case, a brief synopsis
is provided that includes background information, a comparison of the House and
Senate provisions, if any, and a brief discussion of the issue. Where appropriate,
other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information
and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual authorization process. It does not
include appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any
discussion of separately introduced legislation. After any revisions to H.R. 5122/S.
2766 by a conference, this report will be updated.
It is anticipated that this will become an annual CRS report.

---

Contents
Time-in-Grade for Promotion to 0-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sexual Harassment and Violence at Service Academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sexual Assault Information included in Department of Defense
Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Purple Heart Medal for Prisoners of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Military Chaplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Targeted Shaping of the Manpower Distribution of the Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . 7
Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater of Combat
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Military Pay Raise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Full Coverage for OIF
and OEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Repeal of the Requirement of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities
(SBP) by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eligibility of Certain Additional Dependent Children for Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) Annuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Expansion of Conditions for Direct Payment of Divisible Retired Pay under
the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) . . . . . 14
Authority for Cost of Living Adjustments of Retired Pay Treated as
Divisible Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Notice and Copy to Members of Court Orders on Payment of Retired Pay . . . . 16
Concurrent Receipt for Military Retirees with Service-Connected Disabilities
Rated as Total by Virtue of Unemployability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tricare Coverage for Forensic Examination Following Sexual Assault or
Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Prohibition of Increases in Enrollment Fees for Tricare Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Limitation on Increased Tricare Premiums for Reservists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

---

DOD Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Comptroller General Study and Report on the Defense Health Program . . . . . . 22
Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal
Procurement of Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Health Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Disallowing Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for Tricare
Enrollment for Federal Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Mail-Order Pharmacy Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Early Diagnosis/Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) . . . . . . . 28
Extension on Limitation of Conversion of Military Medical and Dental
Positions to Civilian Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Roles for Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Modification of Presidential Reserve Call Up Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Revision in Computation of Disability Retired Pay Formula for Certain
Reserve Component Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Tricare Benefits for Non-Activated Members of the Selected Reserve . . . . . . . . 33
Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Role of National Guard Bureau and Status of National Guard Bureau Chief . . . 35

---

The FY2007 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy
Issues
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committee report their
respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These
contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees and their family
members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another, treated
differently, or, in certain cases, they are identical. Following passage of each by the
respective legislative body, a Conference Committee is typically convened to resolve
the various differences between the House and Senate versions. If a Conference
Committee reports its final version of the Authorization Act, the bill is returned to
the House and Senate for their consideration. Upon final passage the act is sent to
the President for his consideration.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many
constituent requests for information on provisions contained within the annual
NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem to generate
the most intense constituent interest and tracks their status in the FY2007 House and
Senate versions of the NDAA. Each presentation offers the background on a given
issue, tracks its legislative status, discusses the proposed language, identifies other
relevant CRS products, and designates a CRS issue expert.
With a conference on H.R. 5122/S. 2766 pending, this report will be updated as
warranted.

---

CRS-2
Time-in-Grade for Promotion to 0-3
Background: 10 U.S.C. 619 currently requires a minimum of 18 months in grade as a second lieutenant or Navy ensign
before promotion to first lieutenant or Navy lieutenant junior grade and 24 months in grade as a first lieutenant or Navy
lieutenant junior grade before promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant. As an exception, officers promoted to first lieutenant
or Navy lieutenant junior grade before October 1, 2005 are only required to serve 18 months in grade. This exception was
included in the FY2002 National Defense Authorization Act to support the Global War on Terror.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
The House provision would
The Senate supports 18 months in grade
permanently reduce the time-in-grade as
as a temporary measure and extends the
a first lieutenant or Navy lieutenant
exception date from October 1, 2005 to
junior grade to 18 months before
October 1, 2008.
eligibility for promotion to captain or
Navy lieutenant.
Discussion: Historically, time-in-grade requirements have varied from one to two years in grade for promotion to first
lieutenant or Navy lieutenant junior grade and another one to two years for promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant. Time
from commissioning to promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant has therefore ranged from two to four years. Generally,
time- in-grade requirements are reduced during periods of hostilities and increased in the absence of conflict. Because many
military positions must be filled by officers of specific ranks, time-in-grade reductions provide maximum management
flexibility for the services in filling their operational requirements.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at 7-8866.

---

CRS-3
Sexual Harassment and Violence at Service Academies
Background: Public Law 108-136 (sec. 527) added a section to 10 United States Code entitled “Actions to Address Sexual
Harassment and Violence at the Service Academies.” This section contained three main parts: (1) the establishment of a
policy on sexual harassment and violence, (2) an annual assessment, and (3) annual reporting requirements.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No language reported.
Sec. 567 modifies this language in a
number of ways. First, it redefines
‘violence’ to the more narrow definition
of ‘sexual violence.’ Second, instead of
directing DOD to conduct the
assessment, the proposed language
allows DOD to ‘provide’ and
‘administer’ an assessment. Last, it
removes the ‘annual’ requirement for
the assessment and reporting and
instead requires such for 2008 and 2010.
Discussion: Such a modification would allow DOD to administer an assessment without actually having to conduct the
assessment itself. Further, the annual nature of the assessment/report is modified to be every other year until 2010.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-4
Sexual Assault Information included in Department of Defense Annual
Report
Background: Public Law 108-375, sec. 577, “Department of Defense Policy and Procedures on Prevention and Response
to Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the Armed Forces,” directed the Secretary of Defense to create and implement
a ‘comprehensive policy on the prevention and response to sexual assault.’ It also directed the Secretaries of each of the
military departments to submit to the Secretary of Defense a report regarding sexual assaults involving members under the
jurisdiction of each respective Secretary. Among the information to be reported is a “synopsis of, and the disciplinary
action taken in, each substantiated case.”
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 595 would modify the reporting
No reported language.
requirement concerning disciplinary
action by requiring “the results of the
disciplinary action” be reported as well.
Discussion: Crime rates committed by members of the armed forces are generally lower than those in the general public.
Nevertheless, a number of high profile assaults have resulted in increased congressional oversight, scrutiny and legislative
interest in the policies concerning the prevention, reporting and handling of these cases.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-5
Purple Heart Medal for Prisoners of War
Background: The Purple Heart medal is awarded to any member of the armed forces for wounds or death as a result of
an act of an opposing armed force, international terrorist attack, or as the result of military operations while serving as part
of a peacekeeping force. In 1962, Executive Order 11016 expanded authority for the awarding of the medal to wounds and
death resulting from conflicts other than war. Later that same year, Army policy was modified to allow prisoners of war
(POW) to receive the medal if wounded or injured by their captors. The policy change was not retroactive. In 1996, Public
Law 104-106, expanded eligibility for the Purple Heart to those prisoners of war who were wounded before April 25, 1962,
while held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive, in the same manner as a prisoner of war on or after that date.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 553 expands eligibility for the
Sec. 589 states “Not later than March 1, 2007,
Purple Heart to the death of a member
the President shall provide the Committees on
of the armed forces who dies in
Armed Services of the Senate and House of
captivity and is eligible for the Prisoner
Representatives a report on the advisability of
of War Medal, or who dies following
modifying the criteria for the award of the
captivity as a POW due to disease or
Purple Heart to authorize the award of the
disability incurred as a POW and who
Purple Heart to military members who die in
was issued a POW medal.
captivity under unknown circumstances or as a
result of conditions and treatment which
currently do not qualify the decedent for award
of the Purple Heart; and for military members
who survive captivity as prisoners of war, but
die thereafter as a result of disease or disability
incurred during captivity.”
Discussion: House language would expand the eligibility to receive the Purple Heart to POWs who die while in captivity
or die after release of injuries or illnesses incurred while a POW. The former group would receive the Purple Heart not
necessarily as a result of wounds or injuries suffered but because they died as prisoners. The second group includes those
who suffer a disease or disability (not necessarily related to their treatment by their captors) as a POW. Senate language
seeks a presidential report on the issue.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-6
Military Chaplains
Background: In recent years, military chaplains have come under scrutiny for the “sectarian nature” of some of their public
pronouncements. Complaints have been made that chaplains are not being ‘inclusive’ in their statements and have offended
individuals of other religions. Within the past year, both the Navy and Air Force have issued rules allowing chaplains to
pray as they wish during voluntary worship services but to be nonsectarian, or utilize a ‘moment of silence,’ during public
meetings or ceremonies. Religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians, have complained that such rules are a
violation of freedom of religion, represent a “gag order” on leaders of faith, and appear to be motivated by “political
correctness.” Any administrative or legislative activity in this area seems to beg constitutional questions, particularly with
regard to the First Amendment.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 590 would add language to each of
No language was reported.
the service sections (including the
Academies) stating that chaplains “shall
have the prerogative to pray according
to the dictates of the Chaplain’s
conscience, except as must be limited
by military necessity, with any such
limitation being imposed in the least
restrictive manner feasible.”
Discussion: If enacted, this language would allow chaplains to invoke sectarian comments (i.e., mention Jesus Christ,
Allah, or Buddha, for example), during public meetings or ceremonies. In other words, military necessity considered,
sectarian comments would not be limited to private, voluntary meetings or services.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-7
Targeted Shaping of the Manpower Distribution of the Armed Forces
Background: The Air Force and Navy have both announced plans to reduce their manpower levels between now and 2012,
the Air Force by approximately 40,000 and the Navy by 60,000. The Army is simultaneously increasing its strength by
30,000, from 482,400 to 512,400. To facilitate this reshaping of the Armed Forces, Congress has provided a variety of tools
for the services with emphasis on voluntary separations and transfers between the services. Specifically, the Voluntary
Separation Incentive (VSI) offers a financial incentive for separation while the “Blue to Green” program encourages
transfers from the Air Force and Navy to the Army.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
In Section 619, the House increases the
Section 618 doubles the current
incentive bonus for transfer between the
maximum amount of VSI (from two to
services from $2,500 to $10,000 but
four times the full amount of separation
does not address the Voluntary
pay for a member who is involuntarily
Separation Incentive (VSI).
separated) and extends this shaping
program from Dec. 31, 2008 to Dec. 31,
2012.
This section also increases the incentive
bonus for transfer between the services
from $2,500 to $10,000.
Discussion: Experience from the Armed Forces drawdowns of the early and mid-1990s has demonstrated that voluntary
separation programs are preferable to involuntary programs. VSI allows the services to target overstrength ranks, years of
service, skill, rating, military specialty or competitive category to best shape the force for the future. Using the Senate
provision as an example, an Air Force captain with 10 years of service would be eligible for a maximum VSI payment of
approximately $235,000. According to Army officials, the incentive bonus to transfer to another service (Blue to Green)
has prompted 213 officer and 488 enlisted transfers since 2004, including 95 and 259, respectively, so far in FY2006.
References(s): None.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

---

CRS-8
Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater of Combat
Operations
Background: Among the services/expenses covered “incident to death” in 10 United States Code is section 1482(a)(8):
“the Secretary concerned may pay the necessary expenses of ... [t]ransportation of the remains, and round trip transportation
and prescribed allowances for an escort of one person, to the place selected by the person designated to direct disposition
of remains or, if such a selection is not made, to a national or other cemetery which is selected by the Secretary and in which
burial of the decedent is authorized.”
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 563 modifies the above language in
No reported language.
a number of ways. First, it requires a
uniformed escort at all times. Second, it
requires that the transportation of
remains from Dover Air Force Base,
DE, to a military airfield shall be by
military or contracted aircraft whose
exclusive mission is the transportation
of remains. Last, in addition to the
above escort, there shall be a military
escort either from Dover AFB, or at the
receiving airfield. This escort, or
‘honor guard’ shall be of sufficient
number to transfer the casket to a hearse
for local transportation. This escort
shall attend the remains until delivery to
the next-of-kin. This escort shall
consist of active duty or Ready Reserve
members of the armed forces.
Discussion: This language would expand the role the military performs with regard to the delivery of remains.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli and Jennifer
R. Corwell, and CRS Report RS21545, Military Funeral Honors, by Barbara Salazar Torreon.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-9
Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with recruiting challenges, continue to
highlight military pay issues. 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for annual military pay raises that indexes the
raise to annual increases in the Economic Cost Index (ECI). However, for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006, Congress
approved the raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5%. The FY2007 President’s Budget requested a 2.2% military pay raise
which is consistent with the permanent formula.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
In Section 601, the House supports a
In Section 601, the Senate supports a 2.2%
2.7% across-the-board pay raise that
across-the-board pay raise (the amount
would become effective on January 1,
requested in the President’s Budget)
2007. Section 602 supports an
effective January 1, 2007. Senate also
additional targeted pay raise on April 1,
supports a targeted April 1, 2007
2007 for mid-grade and senior
additional pay raise but limited to
noncommissioned officers and warrant
E5/E6/E7 (junior and mid-grade
officers.
noncommissioned officers). The Senate
also extends the military pay table to 40
years to provide continuing longevity
raises for the most senior officer, warrant
officer and enlisted grades.
Discussion: Three issues remain to be resolved in conference: 1.) The actual amount of the raise-2.2 or 2.7%, 2.) the ranks
to be targeted with the mid-year raise, and 3.) whether to extend the pay table to 40 years. The House’s 2.7% would be
consistent with the past three raises in FYs 2004, 2005 and 2006. The Senate version is consistent with the administration’s
request. Targeted raises, used to enhance retention and eliminate perceived inequities in the pay table, have been used
successfully since 1999. The current pay table based on rank and longevity has been in use since 1958 and ranges from two
to more than 26 years of service. Adding additional longevity increases to 40 years of service would add to personnel costs
and, with more senior servicemembers on active duty in the most senior grades, could slow promotion rates, albeit
marginally, to those grades.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

---

CRS-10
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Full Coverage for OIF and
OEF
Background: All servicemembers are automatically insured under SGLI for a maximum of $400,000 in coverage unless
they elect lesser coverage in $50,000 increments or cancel the coverage entirely, but doing so requires that they request this
in writing. The cost (currently $26.00 per month for full coverage) is paid by the servicemembers through payroll deduction.
The FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act required the services to reimburse the cost of the first $150,000 in
coverage elected by the member for all servicemembers serving in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF
and OEF). In contrast to most civilian life insurance providers, SGLI pays benefits in the event of combat-related deaths.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 607 expands on the FY2006 SGLI
No provision.
provision by requiring the services to
reimburse servicemembers serving in
OIF and OEF for all levels of coverage
under SGLI (up to the $400,000
maximum).
Discussion: Under H.R. 5122, while deployed to OIF or OEF, servicemembers would receive life insurance coverage up
to $400,000 at no cost. The cost to the Department of Defense is estimated at $31M and would be paid from Defense
Supplementals.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and
Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles A. Henning,
and CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli and Jennifer R. Corwell.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

---

CRS-11
Repeal of the Requirement of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities
(SBP) by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the survivors of military personnel and
retirees. If the military retiree was eligible to receive disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
that retiree’s surviving spouse would be eligible to receive VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Under
law there is a dollar-for-dollar offset to SBP for any DIC payments. Language in the Senate version of the FY2006 National
Defense Authorization Act would have eliminated this offset, but it was removed by the Conference Committee. Instead,
Congress ordered the Comptroller General to report on the actuarial soundness of the SBP (P.L. 109-163, January 6, 2006,
sec. 666.).
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No reported language.
Sec. 642 repeals this offset effective the
first day of the first month following
enactment. This language would also
require a surviving spouse to repay any
refunded SBP premiums paid as a result
of the offset unless the Secretary of
Defense waives such repayment.
Discussion: Congress recently repealed the disability payment offset to the military retirement pay of certain retirees. By
extension, surviving spouses have argued that it is only appropriate that they too should be allowed to receive VA DIC
benefits and military SBP payments concurrently. Critics contend that this is a form of dual compensation based on the
same period of military service.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-12
Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP)
Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the survivors of military personnel and
retirees. The SBP is funded, in part, via deductions in the retired pay of participants. In 1999, Congress reduced the cost
of SBP to certain retirees by enacting the so-called “paid-up” provision. Under this language, reductions in retired pay
made to cover the retiree’s share cease when two conditions are met: (1) the retiree reaches age 70; and (2) the retiree has
participated in the SBP for 360 months. As enacted, these provisions become effective October 1, 2008 (P.L. 105-261, 112
Stat. 2045 October 17, 1998). Language was included in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 to move the effective date of this provision to October 1, 2005. This language was dropped by the
Conference Committee (U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
H.Rept. 109-360, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., H.R. 1815, December 18, 2005: 738).
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No reported language.
Sec. 643 would move the effective date
of the “paid-up” provision from October
1, 2008 to October 1, 2006.
Discussion: The SBP was created on September 21, 1972. It is possible for military retirees who entered the service prior
to 1978 to both reach the age of 70 and participate in the SBP for 360 months but be prevented from benefitting under the
“paid-up” provision because of the October 1, 2008 effective date. As noted earlier, in the FY2006 National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress ordered the Comptroller General to report on the actuarial soundness of the SBP (P.L. 109-
163, January 6, 2006, sec. 666).
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-13
Eligibility of Certain Additional Dependent Children for Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) Annuities
Background: As originally created, the military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provided coverage for the survivors of
military retirees and those active duty personnel who were eligible to retire. Recent legislation (P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1151
et seq.; December 28, 2001) has expanded the coverage to the survivors of individuals who die while on active duty and who
are not retirement-eligible, effective September 10, 2001.Under these provisions, the surviving spouses of active duty
personnel who die are provided an annuity. In 2003, Congress allowed for these benefits to be paid to the surviving children,
if any, of an active member who dies (P.L. 108-136, November 24, 2003). This provision was effective after November
23, 2003. With the children as the SBP beneficiaries, the surviving spouse avoids any offsets from the receipt of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) (See the sec. entitled “Survivor Benefit Plan and Veterans’ Affairs
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation”).
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 645 expresses the sense of the Congress
Sec. 652 replaces the November 23,
that eligibility for the surviving child in lieu
2003 date with October 7, 2001. Any
of the surviving spouse of an active member
benefits as a result of this change are
dying while on active duty should be
payable for months after enactment of
extended to cover children of members
this language
dying after October 7, 2001.
Discussion: Survivors of those who died while serving on active duty were potentially able to increase the benefits they
received by designating their child or children, if any, as the SBP beneficiary(ies), while allowing the surviving spouse to
receive VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. As the result of designating the beneficiaries in this manner, it is
possible to avoid any offset of SBP as a result of receiving DIC. Survivors of those who died before November 24, 2003,
were not able to select children as an SBP beneficiary and were therefore subject to the offset. House language expresses
the sense of Congress that such a SBP beneficiary designation option should be extended to all eligible survivors of active
duty personnel dying while on duty after October 7, 2001. Senate language allows this designation back to October 7, 2001.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-14
Expansion of Conditions for Direct Payment of Divisible Retired Pay under
the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)
Background: Under the USFSPA, courts were given the authority to divide military retired pay as part of a divorce
proceeding. If the marriage lasted 10 years during which member served 10 years of creditable service, the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) had the authority to mail the court-ordered division directly to the former spouse.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No language was reported.
Sec. 644 expands the authority of the
Defense Finance and Accounting
Service to send court-ordered property
divisions directly to the former spouse
by removing the “10 year rule.”
Discussion: This language would eliminate the “10 year rule” and allow DFAS to make direct payments for any property
division that is otherwise in compliance. Retroactive payments are not allowed.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-15
Authority for Cost of Living Adjustments of Retired Pay Treated as Divisible
Property
Background: Under the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), courts are authorized to divided
military retired pay as part of a divorce proceeding. Such a division is usually stated as a percentage of disposable retired
pay or as a dollar amount. If stated as a dollar amount, the former spouse’s portion would not increase as a result of cost
of living adjustments to retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No language was reported.
Sec. 645 provides that if the amount of
divisible property is expressed in
dollars, such amount may be adjusted at
the same time and in the same manner
as military retired pay subject to cost of
living adjustments.
Discussion: Such a change allows courts to state the division of retired pay in dollars and to express that such amounts
be subject to cost of living adjustments. This language does not make cost of living adjustments automatic. Changes made
by this language apply would only to court orders that become effective after a 90-day period following the enactment of
this language.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-16
Notice and Copy to Members of Court Orders on Payment of Retired Pay
Background: Under law, the military is required to report to the service member when the Secretary concerned receives
effective service of a court order concerning military retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No language was reported.
Sec. 646 allows the service member to
waive notification.
Discussion: This language would allow the member to waive notification. If enacted, members may request a copy of the
court order. This language would become effective with regard to court orders received 90 or more days after enactment.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-17
Concurrent Receipt for Military Retirees with Service-Connected Disabilities
Rated as Total by Virtue of Unemployability
Background: Prior to 1999, military retirees who were eligible to receive disability payments from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) had their retired pay reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the VA disability benefits. Since that
time, language has been introduced, and in some cases enacted, that would afford these retirees additional compensation
by allowing them to receive both the VA and DoD benefits (also known as Concurrent Receipt). The FY2005 NDAA
language on concurrent receipt did not address what the Department of Veterans Affairs defines as “Individual
Unemployability,” also known as “100% Unemployables.” Instead, the law focused on military retirees with service-
connected or combat-related VA disability ratings. The FY2006 NDAA contained a partial step toward inclusion of 100%
unemployables. It authorized full concurrent receipt for 100% unemployables beginning October 1, 2009, over four years
earlier than the January 1, 2014 date in prior law (the date of full concurrent receipt for all retirees, regardless of disability
rating).
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No reported language.
Sec. 649 authorizes full concurrent
receipt for military retirees rated as
100% unemployable by the Department
of Veterans Affairs effective December
31, 2004.
Discussion: The Senate provision, if accepted by the Conference Committee, will retroactively authorize, to December
31, 2004, concurrent receipt for those with a VA Individual Unemployability rating of 100% regardless of the disability
rating.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

---

CRS-18
Tricare Coverage for Forensic Examination Following Sexual Assault or
Domestic Violence
Background: Congressional concerns regarding sexual assault and domestic violence have resulted in various legislative
proposals to address these issues.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 701 would add to the list of services
Sec. 704 contains identical
covered under allowable contracts for medical
language.
care for spouses and children, the following:
“Forensic examination following a sexual
assault or domestic violence may be provided.”
Discussion: This language would allow Tricare to contract with health care providers for forensic examinations for eligible
spouses and children of military personnel. What, if any, reporting requirements (e.g., police reports) would be needed to
facilitate payment for such contracts is not clear.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-19
Prohibition of Increases in Enrollment Fees for Tricare Prime
Background: In early 2006, DOD proposed increases in Tricare enrollment fees for retired personnel under age 65.
Legislation currently under consideration would prohibit increases in Tricare Prime enrollment fees (Tricare Prime functions
as an HMO for eligible beneficiaries). There are currently no enrollment fees for Tricare Standard (the fee-for-service
option) or Tricare Extra (the preferred provider option).
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 704 would prohibit increases in
Section 705 forbids increases in Tricare
premiums, deductibles, copayments and
Prime enrollment fees in FY2007. The bill
other charges during the period April 1,
omits any authorization for imposing
2006 through December 31, 2007.
enrollment fees for Tricare Standard or
Tricare Extra.
Discussion: DOD had requested authority to raise Tricare enrollment fees (including, for the first time, the establishment
of fees for Tricare Standard and Tricare Extra) and copayments for retired beneficiaries not eligible for Medicare as part
of its FY2007 budget submission. The goal is to limit growth in health care spending, which is growing both in real terms
and as a percentage of the defense budget. The initiative was met with widespread opposition, in part, because of the
substantial fee increases involved.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, and CRS Report RS22402, Increases
in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-20
Limitation on Increased Tricare Premiums for Reservists
Background: The FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-375) established Tricare Reserve Select (TRS), a
voluntary program for reservists returning from active duty who agree to remain in the Reserves for at least a year. TRS
currently requires monthly premiums of $81 for an individual; $253 for family coverage.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 709 would repeal TRS and
Section 706 prohibits increases beyond
make Tricare Standard available to all
2.2% of current TRS premiums during
non-active duty reservists.
FY2007.
Discussion: The Senate bill would preclude any increases in TRS premiums while the House version abolishes TRS in
favor of opening Tricare Standard (the fee-for-service option) to all non-active duty drilling reservists. Reservists enrolling
in Tricare Standard would pay a premium that would be 28 percent of the total amount determined to be reasonable for the
Tricare coverage.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr., and CRS
Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-21
DOD Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care
Background: DOD officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, have testified about growing costs of defense health care and
the increasing percentages of the defense budget that it is absorbing. DOD proposals in early 2006 to raise copayments and
premiums, however, generated significant opposition from the retiree community.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 711 would establish a DOD
No comparable provision.
Task Force to examine and report on
efforts needed to improve and sustain
Defense health care over the long term.
The Task Force is to consist of military
and civilian officials with experience in
health care budgetary and management
issues. DOD would be charged with
forwarding recommendations for
sustaining the military health care
benefit to congressional oversight
committees.
Discussion: This provision reflects congressional recognition of the budgetary implications of rising costs of defense health
care, the need to provide medical care for a larger percentage of the population, and the unpopularity of increased fees that
are charged to beneficiaries. The Task Force would be free to develop recommendations that would address relevant issues
that could be forwarded to congressional committees.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers; and CRS Report RS22402, Increases
in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-22
Comptroller General Study and Report on the Defense Health Program
Background: DOD officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, have testified about increasing costs of defense health care
and the increasing percentages of the defense budget that it is absorbing; the significance of cost growth is widely
understood. DOD proposals in early 2006 to raise copayments and premiums, however, generated significant opposition
from the retiree community and the larger public.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 713 requires that the
No comparable provision.
Government Accountability Office
(GAO), in cooperation with the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
analyze DOD’s health care costing
methodologies, including an assessment
of the rates of inflation used by the
Department in calculating future
medical costs. The resulting report is to
be forwarded to Congress by June 1,
2007.
Discussion: This study is to assess both the rationale for cost shares imposed on beneficiaries since 1995 and the future
increases that DOD has proposed. The study could provide the analytical basis for actions that Congress might consider
when addressing future defense budgets.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers; CRS Report RS22402, Increases in
Tricare Fees: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-23
Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal Procurement
of Pharmaceuticals
Background: Pharmaceuticals obtained by DOD are procured under federal pricing rules; there has been a dispute
regarding pharmaceuticals dispensed by the Tricare retail network. DOD has maintained that federal pricing rules apply;
the pharmaceutical industry disagrees. There is a pending court case.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No comparable provision.
Section 721 states that the Tricare Retail
Pharmacy Network “shall be treated as
an element of the Department of
Defense for purposes of the
procurement of drugs by Federal
agencies.”
Discussion: The provision could save an estimated $251 million in 2007. Others argue, however, that the retail pharmacies
are not part of the Defense Department and that treating them as government agencies is an unfair restriction on private
enterprise. Some may question the propriety of Congress legislating while there is a legal case pending.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-24
Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Health Plans
Background: Military personnel retire from active duty at a relatively young age. Many enter second careers. In 2005,
it was reported that certain states and companies were offering military retiree employees supplemental health care coverage
or other incentives if they use Tricare as their primary health care coverage. Doing so enables these second employers to
shift a portion of the cost of their employee health care to the federal government to enhance the personal benefits of
employed military retirees. This increased utilization of Tricare threatens to substantially raise military health care
spending. Traditionally, federal health care plans (including military, Veterans Affairs, Medicare and Medicaid) have been
the second payer.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Sec. 710 prohibits offering financial or
Sec. 722 provides that an employer shall
other incentives to make Tricare the
provide a military retiree employee
primary health care provider for
benefits and services under the group
military retirees, effective Jan. 1, 2008.
health plan offered by the employer in
This language requires employers to
the same manner and to the same extent
treat military retirees in the same
as other similarly situated employees. It
manner as other similarly situated
prohibits the establishment of any
employees. It provides for a $5,000
condition (i.e., benefits or agreement)
penalty for each violation. This
applicable to participation in the group
restriction applies to employers who
health plan in terms of eligibility or
have 20 or more employees. Military
benefits/services. It prohibits offering
retirees remain eligible for Tricare.
incentives to not enroll in or to disenroll
from group health plans and allows for a
$5,000 penalty for each violation. This
language applies to employers with 20
or more employees and is effective Jan.
1, 2008.
Discussion: The above language would make Tricare consistent with other federal laws in that it would prohibit certain
employers from shifting military retirees from their group health plans to the federal government via Tricare. Military
retirees and many in the business community argue that these retirees have earned their Tricare benefits and that there
should be no limitations on employers offering incentives to encourage these retirees to make Tricare the primary provider.
It has been noted that such a shift would allow retirees to be treated differently than other similarly situated employees,
would unfairly increase the taxpayers’ burden by shifting health care coverage from the employer to the Federal

---

CRS-25
government, and that it could establish a precedent in that it would allow federal health care to be the primary provider in
cases where other group health care coverage is available.
Reference(s): Burrelli, David F., Tricare and Employer-Sponsored Incentives Offered to Military Retirees, CRS
Memorandum, June 14, 2006.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

---

CRS-26
Disallowing Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for Tricare
Enrollment for Federal Contractors
Background: Private employers are usually permitted to charge employee health care to the federal government as a cost
of administering contracts. Heretofore, incentives offered to military retiree employees have been included in these charges.
Secretary Rumsfeld and other DOD officials have expressed concern about civilian firms providing incentives for their
employees who are military retirees to use Tricare rather than their company’s health care plan. These incentives ultimately
result in more civilian beneficiaries using Tricare and thus drive up the overall costs of defense health care. Special
attention has focused on employers who are themselves federal contractors.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 721 makes unallowable as
Although not solely pertaining to
federal contract costs any financial
“federal contract costs,” see Sec. 722
incentives that are offered by federal
description on page CRS-26.
contractors to their employees to enroll
in Tricare instead of company-provided
health care.
Discussion: DOD has viewed with concern the increasing numbers of retirees not eligible for Medicare but employed in
civilian capacities who use Tricare because of financial incentives offered by their employers. This provision would address
the issue in the case of employers who are federal contractors by making any such incentives unallowable as contract costs.
Some contractors may consider the provision to be an unfair restriction on their personnel policies.
References: RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for Congress, by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-27
National Mail-Order Pharmacy Program
Background: Beneficiaries with access to DOD health care may obtain maintenance-type medications (i.e., medications
taken regularly rather than only for a brief period) through the National Mail-Order Pharmacy (NMOP) at considerable
savings to DOD (and to themselves inasmuch as lower co-payments are required) since costs associated with retail
pharmacies are avoided.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 731 precludes co-payments for
Section 702 requires that effective April
generic and formulary medications
1, 2007 refills of maintenance
obtained through the NMOP. (Non-
medications shall be available solely
formulary agents would remain subject
through the NMOP (unless clinical
to co-payments.)
requirements dictate otherwise). DOD
may not impose co-pays or cost-shares
on refills of generic medications or
brand-name medications that are
determined to be medically necessary.
Discussion: DOD seeks to encourage greater use of the NMOP as a means to control escalating pharmacy costs; provisions
in either bill would provide a major incentive for beneficiaries to acquire pharmaceuticals from the NMOP. Both House
and Senate would remove required co-payments for pharmaceuticals obtained from the NMOP; the Senate bill would go
further and mandate that beneficiaries obtain maintenance medications from the NMOP. Pharmacy industry representatives
may criticize the provision requiring use of the NMOP as an unfair restriction on their businesses. Some beneficiaries may
argue that they find retail pharmacies more convenient.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-28
Early Diagnosis/Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Background: There has been widespread concern about the potential for personnel who have served in Afghanistan and
Iraq to suffer mental disorders subsequent to their transfer to other duty stations or their release from active duty.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No comparable provision.
Section 741 would establish pilot
projects to evaluate the efficacy of
different approaches to earlier diagnosis
and treatment of PTSD and other mental
health disorders. One project would be
carried out in a large military health
facility; another at a National Guard or
Reserve installation whose health care
needs are served by civilian community
health resources, and the third utilizing
internet-based tools. Reports by DOD
on the pilot projects would be due to
Congress by the end of 2008.
Discussion: There has been widespread concern that individuals who have the potential for suffering from PTSD are not
being identified and provided early treatment. This provision would evaluate different approaches to addressing this
concern.
References: CRS Report RL32961, Veterans’ Health Care Issues in the 109th Congress, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-29
Extension on Limitation of Conversion of Military Medical and Dental
Positions to Civilian Positions
Background: Congress has long been skeptical of efforts by DOD to replace military medical personnel with civilian care
providers; current legislation requires a certificate by the Secretary of the relevant military department that quality or access
to care would not be decreased by any planned military-to-civilian conversion.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No comparable provision.
Section 761 extends an existing
requirement that any proposal to
civilianize a military medical position
must be accompanied by a certificate
that the quality or access to care will not
decrease as a result.
Discussion: Current law affects only FY2006; the Senate language would establish an ongoing requirement for annual
certifications. The certification requirement might, however, be viewed as unnecessarily and inappropriately complicating
the professional judgment of senior defense officials.
References: None.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-30
Roles for Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
Background: Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) are units of full-time National Guard
personnel established under 10 U.S.C. 12310(c). Currently, these teams “perform duties in support of emergency
preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any emergency involving – (A) the use of weapons of mass
destruction...or (B) a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in
catastrophic loss of life or property.” In the event of an incident that fits this description, a WMD-CST is supposed to
rapidly deploy, assist civil authorities with assessing the situation, provide advice on response options, and facilitate the
flow of additional response equipment and forces.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 545 authorizes the use of WMD-
Section 532 expands existing authority of WMD-
CSTs to prepare for or respond to two
CSTs to prepare for, or respond to, emergencies
new categories of events – (a) the
involving weapons of mass destruction and terrorist
release of nuclear, biological,
attacks to include those occurring in Canada and
radiological, or toxic or poisonous
Mexico. Authorizes the use of WMD-CSTs to
chemical materials and (b) natural or
prepare for, or respond to, two new categories of
manmade disasters – that occur in the
events – (a) the release of nuclear, biological,
United States and that result in, or could
radiological, or toxic or poisonous chemical
result in, in catastrophic loss of life or
materials and (b) natural or manmade disasters –
property.
that occur in the United States, Canada, or Mexico
and that result in, or could result in, in catastrophic
loss of life or property.
Discussion: Some have argued that WMD-CSTs, with their sophisticated equipment, should be available to respond to
other types of emergencies as well. However, expanded authority may generate higher workloads for the limited number
of teams that exist and may necessitate a modified training regimen. The House and Senate bills are in agreement on
expanding the authority of WMD-CSTs to respond to two new types of events – manmade and natural disasters, and the
release of certain hazardous materials, which result in or could result in catastrophic loss of life or property. However, the
Senate provision enabling the teams to respond to events in Mexico and Canada has no House equivalent.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31615, Homeland Security: The Department of Defense's Role, by Steve Bowman.
CRS POC: Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609 or Steve Bowman at 7-7613.

---

CRS-31
Modification of Presidential Reserve Call Up Authority
Background: One of the statutory authorities for involuntarily ordering Reserve Component personnel to active duty, codified
at 10 U.S.C. 12304, is commonly referred to as Presidential Reserve Call-up authority (PRC). Currently, PRC allows the
President to activate certain reservists for a period of up to 270 days for specified purposes. However, one paragraph of the
statute (12304(c)) specifically prohibits the President from using this authority to perform “any of the functions authorized by
Chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title” (related to suppressing insurrection) or for “providing assistance to either the Federal
Government or a State in time of a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 511 permits the use of personnel
Section 1042 repeals 10 U.S.C. 12304(c),
activated under 10 U.S.C. 12304 to respond
thereby removing the prohibition on the use
to “a serious natural or manmade disaster,
of reservists activated under this authority to
accident, or catastrophe that occurs in the
suppress insurrection or respond to disasters,
United States, its territories and possessions,
accidents, and catastrophes. It also amends
or Puerto Rico.” It also changes the
10 U.S.C. 333 to provide authorization for
maximum length of duty under 10 U.S.C.
the President to use the armed forces to
12304 from 270 to 365 days and requires
restore public order and enforce the law in
that consideration be given to several factors
specific circumstances following a natural
before activating individuals, in order to
disaster, epidemic, public health emergency,
ensure equitable sharing of the burden of
terrorist attack, or other condition.
activation.
Discussion: Both the House and Senate provision would give the President the ability to involuntarily order reservists to
active duty to perform disaster relief operations under the PRC authority, while the Senate provision would also allow their
use for restoring public order in certain circumstances as well. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina led to calls for more
robust federal authority to respond to disasters. However, activating National Guard personnel in disaster-affected states
could result in state governors being stripped of control over one of their most valuable emergency response assets, and it
could also lead to more frequent activation of members of the purely federal reserve components (i.e. the Army Reserve,
Air Force Reserve, etc.). Extending the maximum duration of the PRC responds to concerns that the current maximum is
too short to allow efficient utilization of activated reservists.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

---

CRS-32
Revision in Computation of Disability Retired Pay Formula for Certain
Reserve Component Members
Background: A servicemember’s “years of service” can be an important factor in determining the amount of disability retired
pay. Under current law, the amount of disability retired pay is based on either disability rating or years of service, whichever
produces the higher payment. Years of service is calculated in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1208. For regular
component personnel, who are on duty every day of the year, this provision essentially awards a year of service for each year
of duty. For reserve component personnel, who usually do not serve on duty every day of the year, years of service are calculated
by a more complex formula. To simplify somewhat, the reserve formula totals up reserve training assemblies attended and days
of active duty service performed and divides by 360, to produce the number of “years of service.” Given the less than full-time
nature of normal reserve service, this means that an individual who has been serving in the reserves for 20 years may only have
four or five “years of service” as calculated by 10 U.S.C.1208. As a result, the years of service calculation will almost always
be less beneficial to a reservist than the disability rating calculation for disability retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 643 authorizes “years of service” to be
No similar provision
calculated under 10 U.S.C. 12732 for reserve
component members who are granted disability
retirement, or who have been placed on the temporary
disability retired list, and whose disability resulted in
the award of a Purple Heart.
Discussion: Title 10 U.S.C. 12732 awards a “year of service” for any year in which a reserve component member earns
50 “points.” Reservists earn 15 points per year for being a member of the Selected Reserve, one point for each unit training
assembly (UTA), and one point for each day of active duty (including annual training); points can also be earned by
completing certain correspondence courses. As participating reservists typically earn more than 50 points each year, this
provision would generally have the effect of awarding a “year of service” for retired pay calculations for each year of
reserve service, provided the qualifying disability was incurred in such a manner that it merited the award of a Purple Heart
(i.e., for injuries sustained in combat).
Reference(s): CRS General Distribution Memo, Disability Benefits Provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs, February 18, 2005.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp 7-7609.

---

CRS-33
Tricare Benefits for Non-Activated Members of the Selected Reserve
Background: Until quite recently, non-activated reservists had limited access to Tricare for themselves and no access for
their families. This recently began to change. The 108th Congress passed legislation allowing reservists who had served
on active duty in support of a contingency operation since September 11, 2001, and who agreed to continue serving in the
Selected Reserve, to enroll themselves and their families in Tricare Standard. The premium for this coverage was set at
28% of the cost of the coverage. The 109th Congress established two new “tiers” of eligibility – one for those who are
unemployed, ineligible for employer provided health care coverage, or self-employed (premiums set at 50% of cost), and
one for those who did not otherwise qualify (premiums set at 85% of cost) – provided the member agreed to continue
serving in the Selected Reserves. These new tiers effectively extend access to Tricare to all members of the Selected
Reserve and their family members, though at different premium levels.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 709 would repeal the three-tiered
Section 708 makes an “employee of a business
cost share system established in the first
with 20 or fewer employees” eligible for
session of the 109th Congress and instead
Tricare coverage in the 50% premium category.
provide Tricare Standard coverage to nearly
It also lowers the premium for those in the
all non-activated members of the Selected
highest premium category from 85% to 75%.
Reserve and their families, with premiums
set at 28% of cost. However, reservists who
are federal employees entitled to coverage
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program would not be eligible.
Discussion: The House provision would repeal the three-tier system for non-activated reservists (with premiums set at
28%, 50%, and 85%) and replace it with a single-tier system (with premiums set at 28%) for nearly all non-activated
reservists no later than October 1, 2007. The House provision would also eliminate the requirement that reservists agree
to continue serving in the Selected Reserves for a given period of time in order to qualify for this benefit; instead, eligibility
for the benefit would simply terminate upon departure from the Selected Reserve. The Senate provision would maintain
the three-tier system but add employees of small businesses to the middle-tier (i.e., those with premiums set at 50%) and
lower the premiums paid in the highest premium tier from 85% to 75% of cost.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr.,
and CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609 or Richard Best at 7-7607.

---

CRS-34
Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities
Background: Active duty personnel are eligible for full retirement benefits, including retired pay and access to Tricare,
after 20 years of active duty, regardless of their age. Reservists are also eligible to retire after completing 20 years of
qualifying service; however, they do not receive retired pay and access to retiree health care benefits until age 60. In recent
years, a number of legislative proposals have been introduced to either eliminate the minimum age at which retired
reservists can draw retired pay and access military retiree health care benefits, to lower it to age 55 or to lower it to some
point below 60 based on the amount of active duty performed .
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
No similar provision
Section 653 reduces the age for receipt of retired pay
by three months for each aggregate of 90 days of
specified duty performed in any fiscal year after
September 11, 2001. Specified duty includes active
duty or active service under certain provisions of
Title 10 (sections 688, 12301(a), 12301(d), 12302,
12304, and 12406), Title 15 (any section), and Title
32 (section 502(f), if responding to a national
emergency declared by the President and supported
with federal funds). Eligibility age for retired pay
cannot be reduced below age 50. Maintains age 60
as the minimum age for reserve retirees to access
retiree health care benefits.
Discussion: This provision is narrower in scope than some other legislative proposals, such as those that would lower the
age for receipt of retired pay and retiree health care benefits to 55 for all reservists. This provision would reduce the age
for receipt of retired pay for a specified population of reservists, while maintaining it at age 60 for others. Additionally,
it maintains at 60 the age at which reserve retirees can access retiree health care benefits. The reserve population eligible
to receive retired pay at a reduced age would be those who have performed active duty or active service under the specified
activation authorities since September 11, 2001. These reservists would have the age at which they can draw retired pay
drop by three months for each aggregate of 90 days of such service performed.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

---

CRS-35
Role of National Guard Bureau and Status of National Guard Bureau Chief
Background: There have been long-standing tensions between the senior leadership of the military services and their
respective reserve components regarding policy and resource allocation decisions. This conflict resurfaced over the past
year with respect to several decisions that directly impacted the Army and Air National Guard. Additionally, the
devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina has generated great interest in revamping the way in which the federal and state
governments prepare for and respond to disasters or other catastrophic events. Modifying the role that the National Guard
might play in future events has been an area of particular area of interest, given its unique status as both a state and federal
force. The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act (H.R. 5200/S. 2658), introduced in April
2006, is one approach to these issues. It would make major changes in the role of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and
the authority of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB). Specifically, it would:
(1) change the NGB from a “joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force” to a “joint
activity of the Department of Defense”;
(2) modify current statutory language specifying that the NGB serve as the channel of communications between the (a) the
Departments of the Army and Air Force and (b) the states on all matters pertaining to the National Guard, to specify that
the NGB will serve as the channel of communications between (a) the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
the commanders of the combatant commands for the United States, (b) the Departments of the Army and Air Force, and
(c) the states on all matters pertaining to the National Guard;
(3) modify current statutory language to specify that the CNGB serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on National Guard matters, in addition to the CNGB’s current duties as principal
advisor to the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Air Force, and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force on these matters;
(4) designate the CNGB as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), with all the attendant duties designated in law for
members of the JCS, including the ability to attend JCS meetings and to provide advice and opinions to the President, the
Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Congress as specified by 10 U.S.C. 151;
(5) prescribe the grade of the CNGB as general (i.e., a four-star general), rather than the current grade of lieutenant general
(i.e., a 3-star general);
(6) modify the statutory authority which codifies the functions of the NGB so that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, is responsible for developing the NGB charter, rather
than the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force as currently specified;

---

CRS-36
(7) add a new function which the NGB charter must cover: “facilitating and coordinating with other federal agencies, and
with the several states, the use of National Guard personnel and resources for and in contingency operations, military
operations other than war, natural disasters, support of civil authorities, and other circumstances”;
(8) give the CNGB the responsibility of identifying gaps between federal and state capabilities to prepare for and respond
to emergencies, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on National Guard programs for military
assistance to civil authorities (MACA) which can address these gaps. To fulfill these duties, the legislation would require
the CNGB, in consultation with the various state Adjutants General, to assume the following responsibilities: validate
requirements of the states and territories with respect to MACA; develop training and doctrine relating to the provision of
MACA; acquire equipment and supplies for the provision of MACA; assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing budget
materials for training and equipping the National Guard for purposes of MACA and other domestic operations; administer
funds provided to the National Guard for MACA; and carry out other responsibilities related to the provision of MACA
as specified by the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out these duties, the legislation would require the Chairman of the
JCS to assist the CNGB, and require the CNGB to consult with the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force;
(9) require that budget justification documents submitted to the Congress in support of the President’s budget specify
separate amounts for training and equipping the National Guard for MACA and other domestic operations. Require that
the amounts specified in these documents be sufficient for the purposes of developing and implementing doctrine and
training requirements, and for acquiring equipment and supplies, for such MACA and domestic operations;
(10) require the Secretary of Defense, to the extent practical, to prevent any increase in National Guard personnel to address
administrative or other requirements arising out of this legislation;
(11) require the CNGB to submit an annual report to Congress on (a) the requirements of the states and territories related
to MACA which the CNGB validated during the previous fiscal year, (b) those requirements for which funding will be
requested in the next budget, and (c) those requirements for which funding will not be requested in the next budget;
(12) establish within the Joint Staff an Assistant to the Chairman of the JCS for Reserve Matters, who would be an officer
of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or Marine Corps Reserve and hold the grade of major general or
rear admiral, and who would advise the Chairman on matters relating to the reserves;
(13) require the Secretary of Defense to establish guidance to ensure that, to the maximum extent practical, reserve
component officer representation on the Joint Staff is commensurate with the role of the reserve components in the total
force;

---

CRS-37
(14) state that it is the sense of Congress that whenever officers are considered for promotion to lieutenant general or vice
admiral on the active duty list, reserve component officers should are eligible for promotion to this grade should be
considered for promotion; require the Secretary of Defense to submit a proposal to Congress on how best to achieve this
objective; and require the President, when nominating any officer on the active duty list to lieutenant general or vice
admiral, to submit to Congress a certification that all reserve officers who were eligible for promotion to that grade were
considered in the nomination process; and
(15) require that the position of Deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command be a National Guard officer eligible for
promotion to lieutenant general.
House (H.R. 5122)
Senate (S. 2766)
Conference
Section 594 requires the Commission on
Section 932 and 933 contain some, but
National Guard and Reserves to study
not all, of the provisions of The
“the advisability and feasibility of
National Defense Enhancement and
implementing the provisions of H.R.
National Guard Empowerment Act (S.
5200 of the 109th Congress” and “as an
2658). Section 932 has provisions
alternative to implementation of the
virtually identical to items 1-3, 5-7, and
provisions of [H.R. 5200] that provide
10 mentioned above. Section 932 also
for the Chief of the National Guard
has a provision similar to item 8, above,
Bureau to be a member of the Joint
but omits the portions related to
Chiefs of Staff and hold the grade of
acquiring equipment and supplies for
general, the advisability and feasibility
the provision of MACA and assisting
of providing for the Chief of the
the Secretary of Defense in preparing
National Guard Bureau to hold the
budget materials related to MACA and
grade of general in the performance of
other domestic operations. Section 932
the current duties of that office.”
has a section similar to item 11, but
omits the reporting requirements related
to budget content. Section 933 is
virtually identical to item 15. Items 4,
9, and 12-14 are not included.
Discussion: Supporters of H.R. 5200/S.2658– including representatives of the Adjutants General Association of the United
States and the National Guard Association of the United States – have argued that this legislation will give the National
Guard a greater and much deserved role in the national security decision-making process, thereby avoiding or minimizing
the policy and resource allocation conflicts that have occurred in the past. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England
recently voiced opposition to this legislation during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (June 13, 2006,

---

CRS-38
hearing on National Guard Enhancement). One of his primary objections was that the Army National Guard is an integral
part of the Army, and the Air National Guard is an integral part of the Air Force; this legislation, he argued, could damage
that relationship and lead to these organizations becoming less integrated with the Army and Air Force. Additionally, he
argued that the legislation has not been adequately studied and could have negative unforseen consequences. The House
version of the NDAA directs to Commission on the National Guard and Reserve to study H.R. 5200 and an alternative
proposal which would simply elevate the CNGB to the rank of four-star general. The Senate version of the NDAA contains
a scaled-back version of S. 2658 which omits some of the most controversial provisions of that bill (for example, the
provision making the CNGB a member of the JCS) . Nonetheless, the Senate provisions would still make substantial
changes in the role of the NGB and the authority of the CNGB.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

---