Make us your home page

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

Vets' spouses lose a death benefit by staying single

Nona Chubboy's husband, an officer in the Navy, paid the premiums on a government insurance policy for years, expecting it to help his wife if he died.

Her husband, Louis, died of cancer linked to military atomic testing. But the only way Chubboy can collect the benefit is to do something she finds disloyal to her spouse's memory.

The Tierra Verde woman would have to remarry.

In a seemingly absurd quirk of federal laws on death benefits, up to 54,000 military widows and widowers around the nation are losing up to $13,000 a year in death benefits unless they take another walk down the aisle after age 57.

A federal appeals court in a recent decision made note of the unusual condition, saying, "Perhaps Congress intended to encourage marriage for older surviving spouses."

To Chubboy, 80, whose husband died in 1981 at age 54, Uncle Sam is punishing her for standing by her man.

"You love your husband and you are a dutiful wife to him," she said. "Now they're saying to go out and find a new one if you want this money. But I don't want another man. I found the best of the litter."

Lawyers who represented the Department of Defense in a case in which military widows sought lost benefits declined to comment. And a representative of the Department of Veterans Affairs with knowledge of the benefit quirk could not be reached.

But in court papers, government lawyers say they are simply following the law, though they, too, have told an appeals court that the marriage rule is "an absurd result."

Veterans advocates say the government is treating surviving spouses who don't remarry unfairly.

"It's pretty bizarre," said Vivianne Wersel, chairwoman of the governmental relations committee of the Gold Star Wives of America Inc. "It's unethical and immoral that we're forced to have to choose another man to receive what our spouses worked so hard for."

The history of this odd provision of federal law gets a little complicated.

The dispute involves monthly payments from two government programs that pay benefits to the surviving spouses or children of veterans: the Survivor Benefit Plan and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program.

The DIC is administered by the VA and pays the spouse of a veteran who dies on active duty or of a service-connected illness or injury after retirement from the military. The SBP, administered by the Pentagon, is akin to a life insurance annuity paid to the spouse or children of active-duty troops or veterans who die for any reason.

Active-duty troops are automatically covered by SBP. But when they retire, they must opt to stay in the program and pay premiums.

The government, however, has long barred spouses from collecting both benefits at the same time, regardless of age or marital status. So Uncle Sam subtracts whatever a spouse was owed under the DIC from the payment owed under the SBP — a loss of $1,154 a month for most spouses.

Here's where it gets even more confusing.

Congress passed a law in 2003 that said the surviving spouses of veterans could collect both SBP and DIC at the same time. But there was one condition: Spouses could only do so if they remarried after age 57.

Congress was trying to fix an unrelated problem: DIC payments stopped if a spouse remarried.

The bottom line: The only way to get both benefits is to find a new spouse after your 57th birthday.

If a veteran's children are designated as beneficiaries in the SBP program, a spouse can get around the provision. Then the monthly payment would be made to the children via the surviving spouse. And the spouse could still get DIC money.

But when the kids turn 18, the payments would stop.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has worked for several years to repeal the ban on the simultaneous receipt of SBP and DIC benefits for all surviving spouses, regardless of their age or marital status.

"They're two separate benefits," Nelson said in an interview last week. "Why should they offset one another? You can't make an argument for that with a straight face."

Nelson, however, said the problem is funding, which is why his efforts to repeal the offset have been defeated in previous years. One estimate said the 10-year cost of a complete repeal would be $7 billion.

"We'll try again next year," he said.

Critics say that veterans would never have signed up for the SBP insurance program if they had known.

Freda Schroeppel, 73, of Brooksville, said she attended her husband's benefits briefing before he retired from the Air Force after 35 years in 1975. She said nobody told them both benefits could not be collected at the same time.

Her husband died in 2003 of a service-connected illness, and sure enough, Schroeppel said, the government deducts $1,154 from the check it sends her every month.

"Nobody should have to get married to collect a benefit they deserve," she said. "The insurance was bought and paid for."

William R. Levesque can be reached at or (813) 226-3432.

Vets' spouses lose a death benefit by staying single 11/14/09 [Last modified: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:28pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times


Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Tampa Bay Times journalists wins 17 Green Eyeshade Awards

    Human Interest

    Tampa Bay Times journalists placed first in seven categories of the prestigious Green Eyeshade awards, which honors outstanding journalism in the Southeast.

  2. A manatee swims near the entrance to Three Sisters Springs on Kings Bay, some of many springs that feed the Crystal River in Citrus County. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is considering a proposal that would allow a decrease to the amount of fresh water flowing in the Crystal River so that water can be diverted to fuel development. Critics say similar proposals around the state could threaten Florida's environmental health. [DOUGLAS R. CLIFFORD | Times (2014]
  3. Ailing Florida springs could be tapped further to fuel development


    BROOKSVILLE — Efforts by state officials to set a minimum flow for its iconic springs have stirred up a wave of public opposition. Opponents contend the state is willing to destroy its springs in order to justify continuing to provide water for new development.

    A manatee swims near the entrance to Three Sisters Springs on Kings Bay, one of many springs that feeds the Crystal River in Citrus County. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is considering a proposal to decrease the amount of fresh water flowing in Crystal River so that water can be diverted to fuel development. Critics say similar proposals around the state could threaten Florida's environmental health. [DOUGLAS R. CLIFFORD | Times (2014
  4. Canned by lawmakers, PTC staff say they are now forgotten


    TAMPA — After roughly 20 years in the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Mike Gonzalez got another job with a uniform and badge when he was hired in 2015 as an inspector for the Public Transportation Commission.

    The badge that PTC inspectors carry while on duty. State lawmakers voted to abolish the agency this year leaving its remaining employees fearing for their future.
  5. Ferries from Florida not a priority for Cuban government


    Cruises and commercial flights now link Tampa and Havana, but before the U.S. government approved either for such journeys, ferries had the nod.

    Baja Ferries was among a handful of companies the U.S. government approved to service Cuba two years ago.
But Cuba's ambassador to the United States recently said the wait may be long. Ferries are not a high priority for Cuba.
This is an example of one of the overnight passenger ferries the  Baja Ferries wanted  to use to reach Cuba from Florida.

Photo Credit: Baja Ferries USA LLC