The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission has voted unanimously that veterans' genetic makeup — which might show predisposition to certain illnesses before entering service — is not a reasonable topic for the commission to study in its review of "service connection" and disability payments.

During an Oct. 14 public hearing in Washington, D.C., the commission also rejected, on a 10-1 vote, a proposal to study whether veterans' disability benefits should be reduced at some "normal" retirement age to reflect the typical income drop of most American workers as they retire.

The two votes came as commissioners shaped research questions they want answered by staff or through contracted studies to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science and by the Center for Naval Analyses over the next year or more.

"If you cannot determine at time of entry into service what the genetic makeup of the potential serviceman is, how can you, when the serviceman leaves in two years, three years or 20 years, base disability benefits on the genetic issue?" asked retired Army Lt. Gen. James T. Scott, commission chairman, in summing up the panel's decision not to delve into genetics.

Some critics contend that the veterans disability compensation system is overly generous because it assumes that any disease or ailment that surfaces while a service member is on active duty is "service-connected" and, therefore, compensable, even if family history is suspected to be a factor.

Congress chartered the 13-member commission to conduct a comprehensive review of federal disability benefits for veterans and their survivors. Lawmakers set a tentative deadline for the commission to deliver a final report to the president and Congress within 17 months of its first meeting, which was held May 16.

But Ray Wilburn, the commission's executive director, said a final report might be delayed at least a year, until the fall of 2007, to allow the Institute of Medicine and Center for Naval Analyses time to complete their studies, integrate their work and inform commissioners.

The center will study the appropriateness of compensation levels for veterans. It also will analyze the effectiveness of the rating schedule in meeting the original intent of Congress that compensation be sufficient to replace "average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations."

Commissioner John H. Grady, an actuary with Mellon Financial Corp. in Dallas, said the commission needs at least to consider whether disability benefits should follow earnings and income patterns of civilian occupations, which routinely fall as they retire.

Commissioner Rick Surratt argued that disabled veterans don't have normal working careers. Some cannot build a retirement nest egg like their able-bodied counterparts. Also, he said, a veteran who becomes a double amputee in war won't grow his limbs back in retirement. The disability continues to affect quality of life.

Surratt's motion to strike such research was approved 10-1, with Grady dissenting.