-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Every November, we hang flags from our homes, march in parades and gather at memorials to thank Americans who served our country in the armed forces. As a retired Army general, I am grateful for gestures that honor those who took the oath and agreed to risk their lives for our nation.
But after 33 years of military service, I’m more convinced than ever that the most important question every Veterans Day is not whether we appreciate our veterans. It’s whether we’re keeping our promises to them.
For veterans whose discharge status stands between them and the care they need, the answer too often is no.
Congress made that promise unmistakably clear in 1944. With World War II still raging, it passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the GI Bill. The law was designed to help veterans build productive lives after service — to obtain an education, find work, buy homes and receive the healthcare and support they needed to return to civilian life. Congress understood that sending a service member home was not the end of our country’s obligation, but the beginning of a new one.
Congress also made a deliberate decision about who should receive those post-service benefits, ensuring that eligibility extended to veterans discharged under conditions labeled “other than honorable.” This was not an accident. Lawmakers recognized that an imperfect service record should not automatically disqualify someone from the critical assistance they had earned.
Yet somewhere along the way, that’s exactly what happened. While the vast majority of veterans leave the military under honorable conditions, in recent years commanders have increasingly relied on “other-than-honorable” discharges to quickly remove service members for all manner of misbehavior.
The Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission, which I direct, has documented this pattern. Our research found that Veterans Affairs denials have barred hundreds of thousands of veterans from receiving the healthcare and other benefits Congress promised them back in 1944.
Consider the destructive cycle this creates. A service member develops post-traumatic stress or suffers a brain injury during deployment. Symptoms contribute to misconduct, which often leads to an other-than-honorable discharge. That discharge blocks the veteran from obtaining healthcare, making it harder to treat the very condition that underlies the problem.
In short, the people most in need of help are now those least able to get it.
This reality should trouble every American. Because these veterans are not abstractions. They are young men and women who made a choice to serve in our military. And while they were honored to wear the uniform, the job of defending our country leaves a legacy that, for some, can be difficult to bear.
Most veterans navigate the transition from service successfully and contribute enormously to their communities. But others struggle — with trauma, substance use disorders, mental health problems or homelessness. Tens of thousands end up in prison.
Our commission’s work has illuminated how discharge status is linked to these problems. Research shows that veterans with other-than-honorable discharges face an elevated risk of suicide, homelessness and incarceration. For example, while 6% of all recent veterans received other-than-honorable discharges, that group makes up 18% of all incarcerated veterans.
These figures do not prove that denial of benefits causes incarceration. They do show why reaching this population should be a priority.
Among its recommendations, the Veterans Justice Commission identified two changes that could help. First, it proposes that the Department of Veterans Affairs align its eligibility practices with the original intent of the GI Bill. In addition, commissioners urged Congress to require automatic enrollment in VA healthcare for all eligible transitioning service members.
These are common sense actions that should draw bipartisan support. When veterans cannot get help early, relatively manageable problems can become crises, and families and communities often share in the consequences.
The words “thank you for your service” carry a responsibility. If we mean them, we should remove unnecessary barriers to benefits. That’s a debt we incurred and agreed to pay when we asked them to serve.
This Veterans Day, let’s do more than thank veterans for what they gave us, and ask whether we’re giving them what we promised. A nation that truly honors its veterans does not remember them one day a year. It honors them every day by keeping its word.
Retired Brig. Gen. David “Mac” MacEwen is director of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column argues that Veterans Day gratitude should mean keeping the government’s promises to former service members, including people whose discharge is classified as “other than honorable.” It contends that Congress’s 1944 choice of an “other than dishonorable” standard reflected an intent not to make an imperfect service record an automatic bar to support.[3]
- It warns that a discharge tied to misconduct can leave veterans without timely care for conditions such as trauma or brain injury that may have contributed to that conduct. The column says the resulting barriers can compound problems including homelessness, suicide risk and incarceration, and argues that these veterans warrant earlier support.
- As remedies, the column urges the VA to align its eligibility decisions with the GI Bill’s original intent and calls on Congress to require automatic VA health care enrollment for eligible service members as they leave the military.
Different views on the topic
- A countervailing concern, documented in the VA’s rulemaking, is that broadening benefits for former service members found responsible for serious misconduct could weaken an incentive used by the military to maintain discipline. The VA retained several eligibility bars while revising others, describing its approach as balancing expanded access with discipline and accountability.[5]
- The VA’s policy also differs from a blanket exclusion: an other-than-honorable discharge does not automatically disqualify someone from care or benefits. The agency reviews the circumstances of the discharge, and its 2024 rule expanded access for some former service members, including through a “compelling circumstances” exception.[1][4]
- Congressional Research Service materials likewise describe a case-by-case eligibility system: some people with other-than-honorable discharges may qualify, while specified statutory or regulatory bars can still prevent access to benefits. This perspective supports retaining individualized review rather than treating discharge status alone—or service history alone—as decisive.[2]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
