Posted on 06/29/2017 6:24:56 PM PDT by markomalley
Two Army veterans, with the help of Harvard Law School, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday against the Massachusetts treasury, claiming it was unrightfully denying “welcome home” bonuses to them and other veterans with other-than-honorable discharges.
The Massachusetts legislature created the “Welcome Home Bonus” in 2005 for post-9/11 servicemembers. Under the program, those who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan — and lived in Massachusetts for a period of least six months before enlisting — are eligible to apply for a one-time, tax-free $1,000 bonus.
The program, run by the state treasury, is for veterans with honorable discharges. The two veterans named in the lawsuit enlisted multiple times, and they’re arguing that the honorable discharge they received before their later, other-than-honorable discharge should make them eligible.
“Both of these members deployed and were honorably discharged and re-enlisted. From a plain reading of the statute, they should be eligible,” said Dana Montalto, the senior fellow at Harvard Law School’s Veterans Legal Clinic working on the case.
Chandra Allard, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, said Thursday the office could not comment on pending legal matters.
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Army veteran and Massachusetts native Jeffrey Machado, deployed to Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2012-13, received an honorable discharge and immediately re-enlisted. The complaint filed in Massachusetts Superior Court states his military service ended in an other-than-honorable discharge in 2014 that was “given out after the wounds of war and the stress of service became too great.”
Machado was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He applied for the bonus during a particularly tough time, Montalto said, after the business he worked for closed and he was facing the possibility of homelessness.
“He turned to this program as a lifeline, as a little bit of money to put some food on the table, and he was denied it,” Montalto said.
The Veterans Legal Clinic estimates there are 4,000 veterans in Massachusetts who met the criteria for the bonus but, like Machado, ended their service with an other-than-honorable discharge.
Though the case centers on several thousand veterans in Massachusetts, Montalto contended it was characteristic of a broader trend of veterans with “bad paper” being denied benefits.
Discharges that are other-than-honorable, including a “general” discharge, are known as “bad paper” and can prevent veterans from receiving federal assistance, such as health care, disability payments, education and housing.
Lawmakers and veteran advocates have long argued servicemembers with bad paper were, in many cases, unjustly released from the military because of mental health issues. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office in May, more than 13,000 servicemembers separated from the military for misconduct in recent years suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or another disorder.
“This is a state program that affects a smaller percentage of people, but it’s really indicative of the much larger issues that affect veterans programs nationally, where there are criteria that exclude veterans with bad paper,” Montalto said. “What this case is about is thousands of Massachusetts veterans who did volunteer to serve their country in a time of war, and ensuring they get the recognition they earned.”
Machado and the other veteran named in the lawsuit, Herik Espinosa, appealed the treasurer’s denial of their bonuses in March to the Massachusetts Veterans’ Bonus Appeal Board. In both instances, the appeals board affirmed the treasury’s decisions.
A document outlining the board’s ruling states Machado’s other-than-honorable discharge supersedes his honorable one.
The board made the same conclusion in Espinosa’s case. Espinosa enlisted in the Army in 2004 and deployed to Afghanistan in 2011-12. After receiving honorable discharges for two enlistments, he enlisted again in 2015. At the time, he had recently been treated for cancer. He was given an other-than-honorable discharge in 2016.
A release from Harvard Law School states Espinosa was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The treasury will now have time to respond to the veterans’ complaint, and the case could lead to oral arguments before a Superior Court judge.
A general is not a bad paper discharge but all the others are.
Who would bother getting into a long fight for $1000.00?
I’d cut my losses and move on.
.
I worked as a Social Security claims rep for two years. One of the things we would have claimants bring in would be their military discharge papers.
I can recall the Navy veterans proudly saying they had a “Battleship Discharge”. Sure enough their DD-214 would have an old battleship engraving on the top. That or course meant they had an honorable discharge.
You mean *beside* the lawyers?
Seems like they can give bonuses to anyone they like, or not. What possible grounds could there be to sue?
If bad paper meant anything John Hanoi Kerry would not have been able to run.
This is a poorly written article. By design, most likely because at a certain level the lack of clarity takes special effort.
Nobody gets a BCD for having PTSD. The article sort of implies that they were discharged for mental issues, or getting cancer. They don’t mention what these servicemembers actually did, or didn’t do, to merit being drummed out.
To be sure, there is a sort of carrot and stick approach to behavior. The military is a good example. They try to reward good behavior, and punish bad behavior. The threat of punishment is a known influence on people.
The state legislature enacted the law. They wanted to give a thousand bucks to veterans. And decided, “Hey, let’s not give tax money to people kicked out for dereliction of duty etc”. The military doesn’t hand out “other than honorable” discharges for the hell of it. Why didn’t the article spell out what events led to these other than honorable conditions?
What if they were separated for dealing drugs? Beating their wife? Armed robbery?
Technically if they re-enlisted every time with no breaking service they were never discharged.
Typical non military person wrote this story. There is way more to the story than published.
Any E-4 could unravel this mystery.
My guess, using my journalism school decoder ring, is that he got kicked out for doing drugs: “and the stress of service became too great.”
The military can be awfully forgiving, and it can also be awfully callous. I've seen people retained and allowed to reeling after multiple DUIs, and in the same unit people booted for busting tape (being fat by a 1950's definition of the term.)
I thought drugs or DUI myself reading the article. Given how inconsistent military medical care is (motrin for most regardless of pain level, oxycodone for some others, also regardless of pain level) I don't blame the troops out of hand. I can't say I would be stronger in their situation, though I hope I would.
I think a DD-214 stamped honorable should qualify in this case even if there is a subsequent enlistment ending in less than honorable or general. You signed up, fulfilled your duty. Maybe you try again and it turns out different. You still had one good run and the nation (and state in this case) should be appreciative that you accomplished what you were able to accomplish.
I believe that previous Honorable Discharges would give them the right to utilize VA medical facilities and other entitlements. Therefore, I think they are entitled to these bonuses as well.
Sooo they are different, does the general give them Veterans Benefits, or it depends? Is their record clouded then?
My ex-wife received a general discharge. She was in the air force in New Hampshire at the Dover air base. As I look back on those years, she was a useless airman. She pretty much refused to work, as she did for the remainder of her life to this day.
Her discharge came after about 2.5 years in...she got really drunk and had to go to sick call instead of her work the next day. That was all they were waiting on - they wrote her up and discharged her, because they could.
There are five characterizations of discharges;
1. Honorable
2. General under honorable - you screwed up a few times
3. General - you screwed up a lot
4. Bad Conduct Discharge- you committed some actual crimes (but not felonies) and/or screwed up a whole bunch.
5. Dishonorable Discharge- you committed crimes that are considered felonies in the civilian world or military crimes that are considered equivalent to felonies.
This is recorded on block 19 b.of the dd form 2-14. Block 19 a. Records the type of separation; Discharge, transfer to the inactive ready reserve, etc.). And block 28 gives you the reason for separation; completion of active service, pt/weight control failure, good of the service etc.
Thank you, Knew most of that, but had not heard much about the general, maybe used more now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.