Posted on Jan 2, 2026
One Household, One Set of Benefits: How Military and VA Rules Affect Dual-Service Couples
554
35
7
10
10
0
Since I am married to another veteran, I know what this is all about...
One Household, One Set of Benefits: How Military and VA Rules Affect Dual-Service Couples
Posted from military.com
Marriage
Military service
Finance
Money
Benefits
Edited 22 d ago
Posted 22 d ago
Responses: 4
9
9
0
Throughout the article, it identifies each "issue" as a perception problem, not a real fairness issue. Nuff said?
(9)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
I have become very disappointed with the writers for military.com lately. This article is an example of gross negligence and/or sloppy research on the facts presented. Certain facts the author got incorrect go beyond the normal 'creative interpretation of facts' that someone with a particular bias might present - they are just plain wrong and presented as correct.
The entire thrust of the article seems to be that service members/veterans married to each other (hereafter referred to as 'dual-military') are discriminated against financially by the government. However, as LTC Matthew Schlosser pointed out, the only thing that might be present is a perception of unfairness by the author.
As was pointed out correctly, dual-military receive the BAH w/o dependents rate (if there are dependents such as children, elder parents, etc. then the higher ranking individual will received the 'BAH with' rate).
However, in all cases, the total BAH received by the dual-military couple far exceeds what would be received by a service member married to a civilian. Even in some extreme example such as a O-7+ married to an E-1, the 'without rate' for the E-1 still exceeds the difference the O-7+ would get between the 'with' and 'without' rates.
The author states that the policy rationale is that the government will not pay twice for a single housing unit which is incorrect. The policy rationale is that the military won't pay twice for the same dependent and that the military does not classify active duty service members as dependents.
Even the author's comments about the VA disability compensation and pension are wrong or misleading. Contrary to the author's statement, two veterans that are rated at 30%+ can claim each other as a dependent in the eyes of the VA (the author states they can't).
For the rest, the author seems to bemoan the fact that dual-veteran couples are not treated differently from a veteran-civilian couple. It seems that in the author's mind it is offensive that the VA calculates income levels by household and that this somehow discriminates against dual-veteran even though they are treated the exact same as veteran-civilian households.
While it wasn't mentioned in the article In fact, the only thing that would go inline with the thrust of the article is that dual-veteran couples ARE collapsed to a single entity for calculations*. The base (i.e., no add-ons for Aid and Attendance, Housebound, etc.) Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR) for a veteran and a dependent spouse is the same as that from two veterans married to each other ($22,839).
Still, the context would be misleading as veteran pensions are designed to fill the gap between the household income and the MAPR.
--------------------------------------------------
* VA Current pension rates for Veterans - https://www.va.gov/pension/veterans-pension-rates/
The entire thrust of the article seems to be that service members/veterans married to each other (hereafter referred to as 'dual-military') are discriminated against financially by the government. However, as LTC Matthew Schlosser pointed out, the only thing that might be present is a perception of unfairness by the author.
As was pointed out correctly, dual-military receive the BAH w/o dependents rate (if there are dependents such as children, elder parents, etc. then the higher ranking individual will received the 'BAH with' rate).
However, in all cases, the total BAH received by the dual-military couple far exceeds what would be received by a service member married to a civilian. Even in some extreme example such as a O-7+ married to an E-1, the 'without rate' for the E-1 still exceeds the difference the O-7+ would get between the 'with' and 'without' rates.
The author states that the policy rationale is that the government will not pay twice for a single housing unit which is incorrect. The policy rationale is that the military won't pay twice for the same dependent and that the military does not classify active duty service members as dependents.
Even the author's comments about the VA disability compensation and pension are wrong or misleading. Contrary to the author's statement, two veterans that are rated at 30%+ can claim each other as a dependent in the eyes of the VA (the author states they can't).
For the rest, the author seems to bemoan the fact that dual-veteran couples are not treated differently from a veteran-civilian couple. It seems that in the author's mind it is offensive that the VA calculates income levels by household and that this somehow discriminates against dual-veteran even though they are treated the exact same as veteran-civilian households.
While it wasn't mentioned in the article In fact, the only thing that would go inline with the thrust of the article is that dual-veteran couples ARE collapsed to a single entity for calculations*. The base (i.e., no add-ons for Aid and Attendance, Housebound, etc.) Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR) for a veteran and a dependent spouse is the same as that from two veterans married to each other ($22,839).
Still, the context would be misleading as veteran pensions are designed to fill the gap between the household income and the MAPR.
--------------------------------------------------
* VA Current pension rates for Veterans - https://www.va.gov/pension/veterans-pension-rates/
Current pension rates for Veterans | Veterans Affairs
Review current VA pension rates for Veterans, including VA Aid and Attendance rates. If you qualify for these benefits, we’ll base your payment amount on the difference between your income for VA purposes and a limit that Congress sets (called the Maximum Annual Pension Rate, or MAPR).
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
No impact on Me as I'm the Retired Military Veteran and and My wife a Military dependent of mine. . I'm not quite sure what to think of this, both if service embers active or retired have each earned their benefits. I wasn't aware of this issue with households where both people were veterans. It would be interesting to hear what other veterans think of this policy.
(8)
(0)
Lt Col Charlie Brown
We are both receiving disability but we would actually get more if he wasn't and was just my dependent.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
Lt Col Charlie Brown, I'm interested in what the situation you are describing would be. As I pointed out under LTC Matthew Schlosser's comment, there are so many misleading and factually incorrect statements in the article that I'm tempted to throw the whole thing out as 'junk journalism'.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Lt Col Charlie Brown I read this article word for word. Veterans who planned to live their lives in financial security (in some scenarios) end up being handled as double dippers. Whereas, often times veteran no veteran marriages end up with the Non veteran sucking the life, resources, and benefits out of the veteran. It seems like people who invest little to nothing get the greater advantages across the board into the veteran's life who has earned , paid taxes to have benefits opportunities that are treated like welfare. Hence, welfare broke up strong families and now to have all that has been earned, some veterans will have to pass on a strong, committed spouse.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google