BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AJR 44
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AJR 44 (Bloom)
          As Amended  June 12, 2014
          Majority vote 

           VETERANS AFFAIRS    8-0                                         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Quirk-Silva, Ch�vez,      |     |                          |
          |     |Brown, Eggman, Fox,       |     |                          |
          |     |Muratsuchi, Salas, Yamada |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Urges the Department of Defense, the United States  
          Congress, and the President of the United States to create a  
          more efficient process of upgrading the status of those who were  
          "dishonorably" or other than honorably discharged from the Armed  
          Forces of the United States, and to provide benefits, including  
          applicable spousal benefits, to those veterans discharged solely  
          on the basis of their sexual orientation.  

          Directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of  
          this resolution to the President and Vice President of the  
          United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,  
          to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and  
          Representative from California in the Congress of the United  
          States, and to the Department of Defense.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the Servicemembers' Legal Defense  
          Network:

               The discharge characterization for those discharged  
               under DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] or the prior policy  
               should accurately reflect the character of their  
               service.  This is not always the case.

               Service members who were discharged under DADT  
               generally received an Honorable or General Under  
               Honorable Conditions discharge based on their service  
               records. However, a service member discharged for a  
               "Homosexual Act" that involved a so-called  
               "aggravating factor" might have been given an Other  
               Than Honorable (OTH) discharge characterization.  Most  








                                                                  AJR 44
                                                                  Page  2


               of the factors on the list (such as acts involving  
               minors, prostitutes or coercion) constituted  
               unacceptable behavior and should have resulted in an  
               OTH.  But there were two "aggravating factors" that  
               did not inherently constitute misconduct and that  
               should not necessarily have resulted in OTH  
               discharges.  These were acts committed openly in  
               public view (e.g., holding hands at a restaurant) and  
               acts committed on base or on post (e.g., a quick hug  
               while being dropped off).

               In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps gave those  
               discharged for "marriage" or "attempted marriage" an  
               OTH, while in the Army and the Air Force, members  
               discharged for same conduct received Honorable or  
               General Under Honorable Conditions discharges, based  
               on their service record.

               Service members discharged under the pre-DADT policy  
               were very likely to receive discharges that were less  
               than Honorable.

               Less than Honorable discharge characterizations can  
               have lifelong consequences, such as limiting the  
               veteran's access to the GI Bill or Veterans  
               Administration healthcare.

               Former service members who received a less than  
               Honorable discharge characterization that is not  
               reflective of their service are eligible to apply to  
               have that discharge upgraded to mirror their service?

               Even if their discharges were Honorable, service  
               members discharged under DADT or the prior policy have  
               two notations on their discharge paperwork that they  
               might find troubling.

               The negative reentry code (usually an RE-4  
               [reenlistment eligibility] code) marks the veteran as  
               someone who the military has made a judgment is not  
               fit for military service.  It is typically reserved  
               for veterans whose discharge was related to  
               misconduct, such as drug or alcohol abuse.









                                                                  AJR 44
                                                                  Page  3


               The narrative reason for discharge summarizes the  
               basis of a veteran's separation from the military.  In  
               the case of a DADT discharge, the narrative reason is  
               often "Homosexual Conduct," "Homosexual Admission" or  
               even just "Homosexual."

               Veterans often need to submit their discharge  
               paperwork when applying for jobs in the civilian  
               world.  When the narrative reason for separation is  
               "Homosexual" or a variation on that, the former  
               service member is compelled to be immediately "out" to  
               perspective employers and anyone else who sees the  
               document.  When there is a negative re-entry code,  
               employers may conclude the former service member had  
               engaged in misconduct while in the armed service.

               The repeal of DADT and the adoption of a new  
               regulatory framework allowing LGB [lesbian, gay, and  
               bisexual] service members to serve openly allows those  
               discharged under DADT or the prior policy to apply to  
               have their discharge paperwork changed. Discharge  
               Review Boards (DRBs) can "change a discharge or  
               dismissal, or issue a new discharge" based on  
               "propriety and equity."  This includes taking into  
               account current regulations and deeming a discharge  
               inequitable if policies and procedures "under which  
               the applicant was discharged differ in material  
               respects from those currently applicable on a  
               Service-wide basis" and if the "current policies or  
               procedures represent a substantial enhancement of the  
               rights afforded" to the applicant.  Boards of  
               Correction for Military Records can likewise make  
               corrections to any military record when it is  
               necessary to "correct an error or remove an  
               injustice."

          The existing discharge review board process is not easy to  
          understand, can take twelve months or more, and places the time,  
          expense, etc., all the burden on the discharged individual.   
          This may make sense in other contexts, but to truly undo the  
          damage caused by DADT and prior policies, it is inequitable to  
          make each servicemember fight his or her own individual battle.   
          Moreover, it is a waste of resources to have the Review Boards  
          hear the same issue over and over again only to reach the same  








                                                                  AJR 44
                                                                  Page  4


          conclusion.
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    John J. Spangler / V.A. / (916)  
          319-3550                                               FN:  
          0004026