Veterans' Affairs Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5592
AN ACT REDEFINING "VETERAN" AND ESTABLISHING A QUALIFIED
Title: CONDITION REVIEW BOARD.
Vote Date: 3/18/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
PH Date: 2/11/2021
File No.: 255
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Veterans' Affairs Committee
Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan, 2nd Dist.
Rep. Jeff Currey, 11th Dist.
Sen. Alex Kasser, 36th Dist.
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, 147th Dist.
Rep. Christine Palm, 36th Dist.
Rep. Michael A. Winkler, 56th Dist.
Rep. John "Jack" F. Hennessy, 127th Dist.
Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria, 105th Dist.
Rep. Dorinda Borer, 115th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill expands the definition of "veteran" under CT State Law to include those released
with an "other than honorable" (OTH) discharge 1) based on a determination that a mental
health condition more likely than not was a contributing factor or 2) based on a determination
that sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression was more likely than not the
sole reason for OTH discharge. The determinations will be made by a newly created
"Qualified Review Board" established by the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs.
HB 5592 includes language from SB 788 (which included only sexual orientation) and SB
918, which focused on mental health. For all who may be impacted by this legislation, it
creates a clear process to allow for access to state veterans benefits. This bill
recognizes that there may be veterans who received an OTH discharge prior to the repeal of
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010 who deserve to receive state veterans benefits. In addition,
while PA 18-47 did expand the definition of a veteran to include those who had received an
OTH due to certain "qualifying conditions" (diagnosis of PTSD, TBI or an experience of
military sexual trauma), this legislation expands eligibility for state veterans benefits to those
for whom other mental health conditions more likely than not led to their OTH discharge. The
formation of a Qualified Review Board to develop a standardized application for those who
believe they fall under these criteria and then to review those applications creates a
consistent procedure for determining eligibility for state veterans benefits.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Thomas Saadi, Commissioner, Department of Veterans' Affairs: Commissioner Saadi offered
written and spoken testimony on HB 5592, SB 788, and SB 918. He spoke in favor of HB
5592 and SB 788, and recognizes that there are some disagreements within the veterans
community over SB 918. He made it clear that this bill does not relate to dishonorable
discharges or bad conduct discharges. Commissioner Saadi also stated agreement to work
with other stakeholders on the development of the process to determine eligibility for state
veterans benefits.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Support for HB-5592
Millie VandenBroek, Policy Counsel & Staff Attorney for Discharge Upgrade, CT Veterans
Legal Center. Ms. VandenBroek submitted written testimony from her role in representing
clients in discharge upgrade petitions to correct discharges that have resulted from anti-
LGBTQ discrimination. She noted that the process is incredibly time consuming, can take
years, that veterans who were discharged under DADT do not receive automatic upgrades,
and that during the COVID-19 pandemic in many cases the process stopped all together. In
such a context, access to state veterans benefits is even more important.
Additional testimony in support of HB-5592
Multiple people also submitted written testimony in support of HB-5592, stating that it is an
important step in rectifying the discrimination that was part of the discharge process until the
repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Many noted that while there are a small number of people
who would be impacted, and therefore a negligible fiscal impact, the impact on those affected
can be life changing.
Representative Raghib Allie-Brennan, 2nd Dist
Representative Jeff Currey, 11th Dist.
Patricia Lang
Support for HB-5592 & SB-788
Multiple people submitted written testimony in support of both HB-5592 and SB-788. They
referenced the harm done by discriminatory policies. They affirmed that Connecticut should
not perpetuate that discrimination by continuing to find those veterans ineligible for state
veterans benefits. SB 788 and HB 5592 would correct that and demonstrate support for the
mental health of these veterans: financial instability negatively affects peoples mental health.
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO)
Kathy Flaherty, Executive Director, CT Legal Rights Project
Nicholas Kapoor, Commissioner, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
Kelly McConney Moore, interim senior policy counsel, ACLU-CT
Steve Kennedy, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America
Page 2 of 5 HB-5592
 Thomas C. Flowers, Chairman, CT American Legion Legislative Affairs (support for
SB-788; no mention of HB-5592)
Sen. Catherine A. Osten, 19th Dist. (support for SB-788; no mention of HB-5592)
Support for SB-918
Cinthia Johnson Deputy Director, Connecticut Veterans Legal Center Chair, Veterans and
Military Affairs Section, Connecticut Bar Association. Ms. Johnson provided spoken and
written testimony in support of SB-918. She advocated for possibility of extending state
veterans benefits to those who received OTH discharges to include former service members
who have gone through the VAs rigorous review and whose service the federal government
has found to be honorable, faithful and meritorious and a benefit to the nation. She
described the VA process in detail and notes that "it can dredge up old traumas and looks at
a veteran's service under a microscope. For those veterans who have been through that VA
adjudication and proven their honor, Connecticut should not stand in further judgment of
them, excluding them from benefits unnecessarily."
Written testimony submitted in alignment with the CT Veterans Legal Center position in
support of SB-918:
Christopher Brogan, volunteer attorney for CVLC
Cara Cancelmo, graduate student, UCONN
Rosendo Garza, Jr, volunteer CVLC, veteran
Jane Milas, volunteer attorney for CVLC
Andrew M. Minor, former volunteer attorney for CVLC
Garry Monk, Executive Director, National Veterans Council for Legal Redress
David Rosenthal, Physician, Yale School of Medicine
Michael J. Wishnie, Director, Veterans Legal Services Clinic, Yale Law School
James Craven, retired Judge Advocate, US Army
John Henningson, resident of Guilford, veteran Mr. Henningson offered written testimony in
support of SB-918 based on his military experience. In the Marine Corps as an Infantry
Officer between 2004-2007, he saw many Marines after a combat deployment in Iraq
discharged based on drinking and misusing drugs. He now believes that they were suffering
at the time and he did not know the collateral consequences of losing benefits due to Other
Than Honorable discharge.
Danya E. Keene, Associate Professor, Yale School of Public Health Dr. Keene submitted
written testimony from her perspective as a public health researcher, attesting to the
significant impact the lack of access to veterans benefits has on the individual.
Nicholas Montini, resident of Fairfield, veteran Mr. Montini testified and submitted written
testimony in support of SB-918 stating that as of 2020, 2.7million U.S. Service members have
deployed to active war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. He stated that committee should
consider many stressors of frequent deployments.
Sarah Ryan, J.D., Ph.D., Esq. Practicing Attorney and Associate Professor of the Practice
Wesleyan University Dr. Ryan testified and submitted written testimony based on her
personal experience representing veterans seeking discharge upgrades. She stated that the
Page 3 of 5 HB-5592
process is rigorous, as the review panel must go through different channels of medical,
personnel and other evidence to determine reclassification.
Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, Legal Counsel Director Office of Chief Public Defender Ms.
Sullivan offered written testimony in support of SB-918 as "amending the definition of veteran
as provided makes eligible those veterans currently ineligible to apply for certain pretrial
diversionary programs. As a first-time offender, certain veterans will be eligible to apply for
certain pretrial diversionary programs. If their application is granted by the court, these
veterans would benefit from these rehabilitative programs."
Stephen Kennedy Connecticut Team Leader, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA) Mr. Kennedy provided written and spoken testimony in support of the bill. He noted
that because the discharge system prioritizes the unit over individual considerations, the
follow-on review should favor the veteran, especially in the light of the increased numbers of
less than honorable discharges given over the last two decades. He stated that the military's
review system currently is not up to the task and litigation is still ongoing to get the review
boards to even follow their own stated policies as regards mental health conditions. He also
stated that excluding "excluding veterans with OTH discharges from these benefits is not only
unjust, it's actually counterproductive. These are veterans who signed up for incredibly
difficult jobs, suffered a trauma and had a hard time dealing with it. Many of these veterans
could have just as easily gotten an honorable discharge under other circumstances, say if
they hadn't been deployed or if they'd gotten out of the military before their symptoms began
to manifest."
Thomas Burke, Associate Minister for Children, Youth and Families, Norfield Congregational
Church, Weston. Pastor Burke provided spoken testimony in support of SB-918. He gave his
personal experience in the Marine Corps, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. During his
deployment, the trauma he experienced led to substance abuse and an OTH discharge. He
was able to get the VA re-characterization so he could access substance abuse treatment
services and educational benefits, but the discharge upgrade process with DOD is still
ongoing. He spoke of the need for support for veterans like him to access state benefits and
the pride he now feels in having veterans license plates on his car.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Francis Brady, resident of West Granby. Mr. Brady provided written testimony in opposition to
SB 918. From Mr. Brady's perspective, the proper method of changing a veteran's status
should happen through the DOD discharge upgrade protocol, stating that "the pursuit of such
protocol is the proper avenue to secure such an upgrade --- not through the imputation from a
limited VA designation expressly intended for VA purposes."
Emily Trudeau, past chair CT Bar Association Veterans & Military Affairs Section. Ms.
Trudeau provided written and spoken testimony in opposition to SB 918, stating that the bill
as written will undermine the Department of Defense policy and rewarding those that were
not honest and faithful to their service, as well as interfering with the Military's ability to
administer good order and discipline. She also stated that the majority of veterans do not
support this change. Lastly, "I cannot support any legislation that effectively tells me that my
Page 4 of 5 HB-5592
honoring my commitment to my country, doing what was asked of me, and serving honorably
doesnt really matter to the state in which I was raised."
James Trudeau, veteran, US Navy. Mr. Trudeau provided written and spoken testimony in
opposition to SB 918. He said that a better way to support veterans seeking discharge
upgrades would be to provide the state DVA with resources to assist veterans in pursuing
records correction through the DOD process.
Reported by: Erica Byrne, Clerk Date: March 29, 2021
Page 5 of 5 HB-5592


Statutes affected:
Committee Bill: 27-103, 8-75, 12-93, 14-254, 27-109, 27-118, 27-125, 27-140, 31-3zz, 31-22u, 51-49h, 54-56n
VA Joint Favorable: 27-103, 8-75, 12-93, 14-254, 27-109, 27-118, 27-125, 27-140, 31-3zz, 31-22u, 51-49h, 54-56n
File No. 255: 27-103, 8-75, 12-93, 14-254, 27-109, 27-118, 27-125, 27-140, 31-3zz, 31-22u, 51-49h, 54-56n
File No. 673: 27-103, 8-75, 12-93, 14-254, 27-109, 27-118, 27-125, 27-140, 31-3zz, 31-22u, 51-49h, 54-56n
Public Act No. 21-79: 27-103, 8-75, 12-93, 14-254, 27-109, 27-118, 27-125, 27-140, 31-3zz, 31-22u, 51-49h, 54-56n