Great News for Retirees Qualified for Combat Related Special Compensation

NVLSP Issues FAQ for Veterans on Retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) under Supreme Court Unanimous Ruling on Soto v. United States

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a class of over 9000 disabled Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard veterans who were wrongfully limited to six-years of retroactive combat-related special compensation (CRSC). The Supreme Court unanimously held that there is no six-year cap on retroactive CRSC payments.

On August 25, 2025, NVLSP published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide regarding the Soto case. These questions include:

• Which Veterans will Benefit?

Veterans who (1) have been granted CRSC benefits, (2) qualified for retroactive CRSC benefits for a period longer than six years from the date they filed for CRSC, and (3) whose retroactive benefits were limited to only six years from the date of their initial application.

• How do I know if I am a member of the Soto class?

In 2021, DOD sent notices to approximately 9,000 individuals who were identified as belonging to the Sotoclass at that time.For veterans who were retired, obtained service connection, or received a CRSC decision after the 2021 notice to class members, there has not been any class notice. A detailed review of files would be required to determine whether a veteran is a class member. 

• Will retroactive benefits be the same as current CRSC benefits?

Probably not. CRSC rates are based on VA compensation rates and there has been a cost-of-living adjustment most years. Rates paid in 2025 are different than rates paid, for example, 10 years ago.

• What is being done to implement Soto?

Counsel for the military has stated in a court filing in mid-August 2025: “The Department of Defense (DoD) is in the process of drafting a directive to the military branches and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with guidance for implementing the decision in Soto both retroactively to individuals who have had the Barring Act applied to their Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims and prospectively with respect to future CRSC claims."

About The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP)
The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is an independent, nonprofit veterans service organization that has served active duty military personnel and veterans since 1981. NVLSP strives to ensure that our nation honors its commitment to its 18 million veterans and active duty personnel by ensuring they have the benefits they have earned through their service to our country. NVLSP has represented veterans in lawsuits that compelled enforcement of the law where the VA or other military services denied benefits to veterans in violation of the law. NVLSP’s success in these lawsuits has resulted in more than $5.6 billion dollars being awarded in disability, death and medical benefits to hundreds of thousands of veterans and their survivors. www.nvlsp.org.

Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service

22 Feb 2019
Military.com | By Patricia Kime (FORWARDED BY PAUL BERGERON)

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department's authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement.

The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The denial of Larrabee's petition marks the high court's second rebuff in a year of a case involving a military retiree accused of non-military crimes in retirement.

Retired Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Steven Larrabee was convicted of sexually assaulting a bartender, the wife of an active-duty Marine, at a bar in Iwakuni, Japan, where he worked as a civilian. He had been retired -- technically, placed on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve status list -- for three months.

Following a general court-martial in which he wore civilian clothes, Larrabee was sentenced to eight years' confinement, a reprimand and a dishonorable discharge. In a pre-trial agreement, Larrabee's prison term was reduced to 10 months.

Larrabee served his sentence but tried to have his conviction overturned on appeal, arguing that he should have been tried in a civilian court, as the offenses occurred after he was retired.

The case closely resembles that of retired Gunnery Sgt. Derek Dinger who, also while living on Okinawa and on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve list and, later, the Active Duty Retired List, was found to be in possession of and producing child pornography. He was arrested and initially indicted within the civilian courts, but his case ended up in the military court system, where he was convicted and sentenced to nine years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

Dinger appealed his discharge, arguing that the case should not have fallen under the military court system and that a dishonorable discharge should be reserved for "those who separated under conditions of dishonor."

His challenge also was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied last June.

Attorneys for both Marines argued that the cases should have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court because they have far-reaching consequences for military retirees. The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise.

But Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who represented Larrabee, said that this argument no longer holds true with the rise of the reserve component. He called the idea that retirees are reserved for future service "anachronistic," adding that military retirees are no longer among the "pool of persons at the ready" and thus should not be subject to the UCMJ.

"Increasingly, the function has been performed by reserves, not retirees," he said.

Furthermore, Vladeck said in an interview with Military.com, there are articles in the UCMJ that could place many military retirees at risk for arrest, and the U.S. Supreme Court has an interest in weighing in on how cases involving retirees are handled.

He cited one provision in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer "against the president, the vice president, Congress" and others as punishable by court-martial.

"From Adm. Bill McRaven to Gen. Michael Hayden and Gen. Martin Dempsey, some of President Donald Trump's more visible critics of late have been retired military officers. And a provision of federal law ... makes it a crime, triable by court-martial," he wrote in a blog post on Lawfare. "But does the Constitution really allow the government to subject to military trial those who have retired from active duty -- in some cases, long ago -- even for offenses committed while they are retired?"

Yes, it does, according to the Supreme Court, in its denial of Larrabee's and Dinger's writs of certiorari.

Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, concurs.

In a Feb. 16 post on Duke University School of Law's Lawfire blog, Dunlap said Congress explicitly states that the UCMJ applies to retirees and that Vladeck's arguments about the impropriety of senior officers speaking out against the president, as well as the "anachronistic" idea that retirees can be recalled to active duty, aren't valid.

He added that the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge.

"As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Larrabee case may not be the end of the legal road for the retired Marine. According to Vladeck, Larrabee may consider suing for back pay in the Court of Federal Claims. Vladeck believes his client is entitled to do so under the Military Pay Act.

-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @patriciakime.

Stolen Valor Law Struck Down by Supreme Court

Upholding a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court, the Supreme Court recently struck down the Stolen Valor Law, which now makes it "free speech" for military wanna-bees to claim receiving the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, Purple Heart and other awards for military valor and service. Sounds disgusting, right?

Right! I understand the free speech bit, but I've had the unpleasant duty of outing a friend and fellow church member who pretended to be a POW, holder of the Combat Infantry Badge, Parachute Badge, Drill Sergeant Badge, Purple Heart and other decorations and badges. He tossed in stuff about being with the 101st Airborne for extra flavor. The man was elderly and quite sick when his wife asked me to help with his veterans benefits which should have flowed from his POW status...didn't take long to uncover the distasteful truth about this phony. Maybe I'd have looked the other way, but the wife showed me his prepared obituary...and I tried mightily to get her to drop the phony stuff before he passed, stuff which certainly wouldn't survive publication upon his death. She wouldn't budge...and the phony stuff hit the fan with a vengeance as the local newspaper, in great outrage, corrected in multiple columns the lies in the obituary.

"Capt" MacKenzie, with Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, etc.
--got 'em the easy way...MAIL ORDER PHONY!

We love the poetry of Robert Burns and attended the traditional Bobby Burns dinner in Salem, Oregon. The distinguished MC was a retired Navy captain, and on his Prince Charlie jacket wore his medals with pride: Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart. Again, all phony, and this former Navy PO1 never was commissioned, never got a Masters in Film Studies, etc. Admiring the heroism these medals implied, I looked up the Navy Cross citation but was disappointed the last recipient with his name got it in the Civil War! So...we dropped a dime on this phony to Doug Sterner, who champions efforts to stop this disgusting and dishonorable garbage. BTW, when last noticed this phony Scot was still driving his POV with 06 decals on the windshield. His current "story" is that he is a retired Merchant Marine captain.

Phonies keep coming out of the woodwork, and the recent decision by the Supremes will only encourage them until such time as Congress enacts a modified Stolen Valor Act, one which grasps the issue more directly without challenge to the First Amendment.

Advice? Earn 'em before you wear 'em.

Sometimes, ya just gotta laugh!