Two Rulings Just Rewrote Combat-Related Pay: Soto, Smoke, and the Money DoD Owes Retirees

Brad Cummings • 15 July 2026

Share this article

A unanimous Supreme Court decision, a class settlement over burn pits, and a May 2026 policy reversal all point the same direction: combat-related special compensation has been underpaid, and the government is being forced to fix it.

Supreme Court building with white marble columns and statues beneath a partly cloudy sky

While everyone's watching Congress argue over veterans funding, the courts have been quietly settling a different question: what the government already owes disabled military retirees. Two decisions in the past year, and a Pentagon policy reversal that followed them, add up to real money for a specific group, medically retired veterans with combat-related disabilities. If that's you or someone in your family, here's what changed.


First, what CRSC is



Combat-Related Special Compensation exists because of the offset problem: military retired pay and VA disability compensation generally reduce each other. CRSC is the workaround Congress built for combat-related disabilities. If your disability traces to armed conflict, hazardous duty, training that simulates war, or an instrumentality of war, CRSC restores the retired pay the offset takes, tax-free. It's application-based, decided by your branch, and chronically underclaimed, partly because the rules are opaque and partly because, until recently, the government capped how far back it would pay.


Soto: the Supreme Court kills the six-year cap


For years, DoD applied a six-year limit to retroactive CRSC, so a retiree who applied late, usually because nobody told them the program existed, lost everything older than six years. In June 2025, in Soto v. United States, a unanimous Supreme Court said no. The Court held that the CRSC statute contains its own settlement mechanism and no limitations period, which means the six-year Barring Act cap never lawfully applied. Over 9,000 class members were directly affected, and the principle reaches every retiree whose retroactive CRSC was clipped.


Implementation got bumpy. DoD issued guidance in August 2025, then narrowed it in later policies, and then, in May 2026, reversed course again with new guidance requiring the branches to follow the statute's effective dates and to review and correct the decisions of veterans shorted under the earlier policies. Translation: if your CRSC award was ever limited to six years of back pay, your file is supposed to be re-reviewed, and if it isn't happening, that's a fight worth having.


Smoke: burn pits count as instruments of war


The second case reaches the PACT Act generation. In Smoke v. Driscoll, settled in March 2026, the Army agreed that open-air burn pits in combat zones qualify as instrumentalities of war for disability purposes. That designation is the hinge for combat-related status, which drives both CRSC eligibility and favorable tax treatment of disability severance. The Army also agreed to review the records of veterans already retired for burn pit conditions presumed service-connected under the PACT Act to determine whether their conditions merit the combat-related designation.


Put plainly: a veteran medically retired for a burn pit condition who was told it wasn't "combat-related" may have that answer changed, with money attached, and the review obligation sits on the Army, not the veteran. Veterans of other branches with parallel facts should be watching closely, because settlements like this tend to set the template.


The pattern, and who should act


Line up Soto, Smoke, and the May 2026 guidance and the through-line is the same one we've written about in Nehmer country: when the government owes retroactive compensation, it tends to build artificial caps and narrow readings until a court strikes them down. The veterans who recover are the ones who check their files after the law moves.


Three checks worth making now. If you're a medical retiree who never applied for CRSC and your disability has any combat-related theory, hazardous duty and training accidents count more often than people think, apply; there's no longer a six-year guillotine waiting. If you received CRSC with capped back pay, confirm your re-review is actually happening under the May 2026 guidance. And if you were medically retired or separated for a burn pit condition and combat-related status was denied or never considered, your record is in the class of files the Army agreed to look at again.


One connection to keep in view: CRSC restores offset pay for combat-related conditions under current law. The broader fix for all combat-injured medical retirees, full concurrent receipt under the Major Richard Star Act, is still pending in Congress, and we've covered that fight separately. The courts are handling the past; Congress is arguing about the future. Your file may have business with both.


Where we come in


We're a veteran-led firm, and untangling retired pay, CRSC, and VA compensation is exactly the kind of records-and-money fight we handle. If your retroactive CRSC was capped, your burn pit retirement never got a combat-related look, or you can't tell whether the new guidance reached your file, reach out and we'll find out where your money is.

Recent Posts

Open drawer with two papers: a worn beige sheet and a white punched form, with a hand holding the right edge.
by Brad Cummings • 18 October 2026
Over 8,000 troops were separated over the COVID vaccine. The Air Force has corrected its records; other branches lag. Who the review misses and how to apply.
Tripod-mounted sensor in a desert at sunset, with a hard case beside it and mountains in the distance.
by Brad Cummings • 18 October 2026
The Pentagon is seeking standards to assess blast-induced brain injury after a new GAO report found screenings were incomplete. What it means for TBI claims.
Brown file folders on metal shelves in an archive or storage room
by Brad Cummings • 18 October 2026
The VA’s inspector general found errors in 34% of rating-reduction cases in 2024. What the errors were, which way they cut, and what to check in your own letter.
Woman kissing child on the forehead while another woman holds him in a doorway.
by Brad Cummings • 11 October 2026
A Family Care Plan isn’t a will. How parents name a guardian, keep SGLI and TSP money out of a court-supervised account, and split the guardian and trustee roles.
Soldier crouches under a military truck, inspecting the underside in a garage.
by Brad Cummings • 11 October 2026
Guard and Reserve VA claims fail at the threshold, not the medicine. Active duty, ACDUTRA, drill weekends, state orders: what counts, and how to prove it.
Open notebook and pen on a desk in a quiet room overlooking a dining area
by Brad Cummings • 11 October 2026
The Major Richard Star Act petition hit 218 signatures, forcing a House vote after the midterms. What it means for medical retirees, and what doesn’t change.
Person kneels by a grave placing flowers in a cemetery under overcast trees
by Brad Cummings • 11 October 2026
The VA burial allowance rose October 1, but most families get $300, not $1,032. The condition the news skipped, the two-year deadline, and the 2027 COLA date.
U.S. Supreme Court building lit at dusk, with glowing columns reflected on wet pavement
by Brad Cummings • 11 October 2026
The Supreme Court heard the veterans jurisdiction case Monday. What each side argued, where the justices pushed, and why a narrow decision looks likeliest.
Two people talking on a bench in a garden, with potted plants behind them.
by Brad Cummings • 3 October 2026
Every estate document hands authority to a person. How the three fiduciary roles differ, what each one requires, and the veteran-specific pieces most plans miss.
Woman practicing step exercise with a trainer in a gym studio
by Brad Cummings • 3 October 2026
A fit-for-duty finding means no rating and no retirement. Why PEBs get it wrong, how to contest the informal findings, and what wins at the formal hearing.
Show More