Hot off the press from former State Senator Lou Correa, a candidate for Congress in CD-46. Correa tells TheLiberalOC that this bill would be among the first he offers should he be fortunate enough to be elected to Congress. With this move, Correa has outflanked his remaining progressive opponents with a pro-LGBTQ/pro-Veteran position just as the race for Congress starts to heat up.
Correa tells TheLiberalOC, “Throughout my career I have stood up for ALL veterans by fighting to ensure that the brave men and women who fought for our freedoms are taken care of here at home. The numbers are astounding. Since WWII, over 100,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers have been dishonorably discharged because of their sexual orientation. While the damage cannot be undone, reversing their records to reflect the honorable discharge they deserve is long overdue. That is why I am making veterans affairs and reversing these dishonorable discharges a top priority in Congress.”
Here’s the announcement:
CORREA ANNOUNCES PLANS TO REVERSE DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE OF GAY VETERANS UNDER DON’T ASK DON’T TELL
Former Senator Lou Correa Prioritizes Making Amends to Openly Gay Servicemembers Who Were Dishonorably Discharged Under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Santa Ana, CA—Today, Congressional candidate and former California Senator Lou Correa unveiled that one of his top priorities if elected to Congress is to introduce a policy that reverses the dishonorable discharge of openly gay servicemembers under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Upon announcing his plan to reverse and remove these dishonorable discharges, former State Senator Lou Correa released the following statement:
“This is long overdue. We as a nation have wronged over 100,000 individuals in the US military who were dishonorably discharged because of their sexual orientation and it is time we make it right. While the damage done to these brave men and women cannot be undone, their records can still be reversed to reflect the honorable discharge they earned. By doing so we are finally giving these wronged veterans the legal, health, and employment benefits they deserve.
“While those servicemembers who were dishonorably discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell can currently get their records changed on a case-by-case basis, this is not enough. We need to take mass action to reverse the 14,000 dishonorable discharges under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the 100,000 dishonorable discharges dating back to WWII. America is the land of freedom and opportunity I intend to rightfully honor the openly gay and lesbian men and women who fought for these ideals.
“I have a strong track record in ensuring that the brave men and women who fought for our freedoms are taken care of here at home and that means standing up for all veterans. They sacrificed time away from their families and their personal safety to make our country great and deserve to live a comfortable middle class life with access to the health care and services they need.”
Throughout his career Lou Correa has been a strong advocate for well-being of our veterans. In 2006, Senator Correa was appointed to the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and later served as committee chair from 2010 to 2013. During his tenure, he championed legislation to expand healthcare, jobs, and educational opportunities for veterans and members of the military, arguing that California can and must do better. Some of his landmark legislation protecting our nation’s veterans includes Promoting Housing for Veterans, Providing Education Accommodations for Military Service, Reducing Veteran Homelessness, and Restoring County Veterans Service Office (CVSO) Funding.
In recognition of his efforts in support of veterans, Senator Correa received the following awards and commendations:
- Legislator of the Year 2008, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California
- Legislator of the Year 2009, American Legion, Department of California
- Legislator of the Year 2010, California Association of County Veteran Service Officers, Inc.
- Legislator of the Year 2010, Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council
- Legislator of the Year 2011, American Veterans (AMVETS) of California
Lou previously served on the California State Assembly for three terms. Lou then served two years on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, representing the 1st District. Following that, Lou was elected to the California State Senate, representing the 34th District, in 2006 and again in 2010 serving the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Stanton and Westminster. Lou Correa lives in Santa Ana with his wife of 25 years, and their four children. Correa was named “Father of the Year” by the American Diabetes Association of Orange County, and he is a member of Christ Cathedral Catholic Church.
Seems a little presumptive of Lou at this point – but what-the-hey his chances are looking pretty good.
I would like to see Lou consider similar legislation in support of veterans who, in spite of serving our country honorably, have been deported as a result of being undocumented.
BTW – I think an Honorable Discharge is pretty darn good documentation.
Its a bold move by Lou. I have to wonder how this will be perceived by LGBTQ leaders in OC and throughout So Cal.
Dan:
They remember that Lou could not even bring himself to support SR7, the Senate Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 8, especially since Proposition 8 (aka “Prop H8”) sought to ban Marriage Equality in California. They wonder how anyone could believe that Lou would lead on any LGBT issue, since he consistently refused to do so in his 16 years in Sacramento. Some might even see Lou as supporting the right of the LGBT community to fight and die for this country and believes they should be entitled to equal military benefits and recognition for such service, but not believing in their right to marriage equality in the same country.
They are likely questioning how Lou, as a Freshman U.S. Representative, will somehow “introduce a policy” to correct this injustice, when there has been both Senate and House bills on this exact issue since 2013, including 2 currently pending bills. They probably wonder how Lou could possibly not be aware of The “Restore Honor to Service Members Act” which has twice been separately introduced in both the Senate (S 1766 (Schatz, with 23 co-sponsors, including both Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) in 2013, and S 1956 (Schatz, with 23 co-sponsors, including both Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) in 2015) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 2839 (Pocon, with over 100 Co-Sponsors) in 2013 and H.R. 3068 (Pocon, with over 100 co-sponsors) in 2015). This is especially bizarre as the policy has not exactly been low-profile, especially for anyone interested in either Veteran issues or LGBT issues.
If Lou WAS aware of the “Restore Honor to Service Members Act”, they probably wonder what Lou finds so deficient in the existing bills. As a freshman Congressman, why does Lou believe he could succeed in “making this policy a top priority in Congress” as you say he told the Liberal OC (in quotation marks, at that), when there are 125 co-sponsors to these bills, suggesting this is already a pretty high policy priority among at least these 125 members of Congress. They might wonder why Lou believes he can bring a more unifying, effective or persuasive voice to the debate than the 125 co-sponsors of the bill, which include some pretty senior party leaders in the Democratic Party – like Charlie Rangel and Diane Feinstein.
Hopefully Lou can answer some of these concerns, since he is reading and responding to reader comments on this topic.
Junior, as Americans, we have a moral responsibility to take care of all our veterans. And, I will address and write and support such legislation as well, if I get elected.
I believe that Veterans that have served our country, have earned the opportunity to become an American Citizen, not deportation.
As a Sacramento legislator, I authored a resolution asking Congress to grant U.S. Citizenship to a young Marine posthumously, Jose Angel Garibay. Jose Angel was O.C.’s first Marine to die in Iraq (O.C.R. March 25, 2003). He came to this country undocumented, and made the ultimate sacrifice for our great country.
Thank you Junior for your comments.
Lou:
I am curious if you are aware that the very legislation you propose to “introduce” into the House actually already has been introduced. In both the House AND the Senate. You may want to review House Bill H.R. 3068 (Pocon/Rangel, with about 100 Co-Sponsors) “The Restore Honor to Service Members Act” and Senate Bill S 1956 (Schatz/Gilliibrand/Udall) “The Restore Honor to Service Members Act.”
The text of H.R. 3068 follows:
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3068
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2015
Mr. Pocan (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Brownley of California, Mrs. Bustos, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cummings, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delaney, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. DelBene, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Esty, Mr. Farr, Mr. Foster, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutiérrez, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Heck of Washington, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Honda, Mr. Israel, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Meng, Ms. Moore, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Payne, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Peters, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Polis, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Ribble, Miss Rice of New York, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Sires, Ms. Speier, Mr. Takai, Mr. Takano, Ms. Titus, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Walz, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Yarmuth, and Mr. Beyer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Defense to review the discharge characterization of former members of the Armed Forces who were discharged by reason of the sexual orientation of the member, and for other purposes.
Section 1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the “Restore Honor to Service Members Act”.
Sec. 2.Review of discharge characterization
(a)In general.—
In accordance with this section, the appropriate discharge boards—
(1)shall review the discharge characterization of covered members at the request of the covered member; and
(2)if such characterization is any characterization except honorable, may change such characterization to honorable.
(b)Criteria.—
In changing the discharge characterization of a covered member to honorable under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that such changes are carried out consistently and uniformly across the military departments using the following criteria:
(1)The original discharge must be based on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (in this Act referred to as “DADT”) or a similar policy in place prior to the enactment of DADT.
(2)Such discharge characterization shall be so changed if, with respect to the original discharge, there were no aggravating circumstances, such as misconduct, that would have independently led to a discharge characterization that was any characterization except honorable. For purposes of this paragraph, such aggravating circumstances may not include—
(A)an offense under section 925 of title 10, United States Code (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), committed by a covered member against a person of the same sex with the consent of such person; or
(B)statements, consensual sexual conduct, or consensual acts relating to sexual orientation or identity, or the disclosure of such statements, conduct, or acts, that were prohibited at the time of discharge but after the date of such discharge became permitted.
(3)When requesting a review, a covered member, or their representative, shall be required to provide either—
(A)documents consisting of—
(i)a copy of the DD–214 form of the member;
(ii)a personal affidavit of the circumstances surrounding the discharge; and
(iii)any relevant records pertaining to the discharge; or
(B)an affidavit certifying that the member, or their representative, does not have the documents specified in subparagraph (A).
(4)If a covered member provides an affidavit described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3)—
(A)the appropriate discharge board shall make every effort to locate the documents specified in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph within the records of the Department of Defense; and
(B)the absence of such documents may not be considered a reason to deny a change of the discharge characterization under subsection (a)(2).
(c)Request for review.—
The appropriate discharge board shall ensure the mechanism by which covered members, or their representative, may request to have the discharge characterization of the covered member reviewed under this section is simple and straightforward.
(d)Review.—
(1)In general.—
After a request has been made under subsection (c), the appropriate discharge board shall review all relevant laws, records of oral testimony previously taken, service records, or any other relevant information regarding the discharge characterization of the covered member.
(2)Additional materials.—
If additional materials are necessary for the review, the appropriate discharge board—
(A)may request additional information from the covered member or their representative, in writing, and specifically detailing what is being requested; and
(B)shall be responsible for obtaining a copy of the necessary files of the covered member from the member, or when applicable, from the Department of Defense.
(e)Change of characterization.—
The appropriate discharge board shall change the discharge characterization of a covered member to honorable if such change is determined to be appropriate after a review is conducted under subsection (d) pursuant to the criteria under subsection (b). A covered member, or the representative of the member, may appeal a decision by the appropriate discharge board to not change the discharge characterization by using the regular appeals process of the board.
(f)Change of records.—
For each covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e), or for each covered member who was honorably discharged but whose DD–214 form reflects the sexual orientation of the member, the Secretary of Defense shall reissue to the member or their representative a revised DD–214 form that reflects the following:
(1)For each covered member discharged, the Separation Code, Reentry Code, Narrative Code, and Separation Authority shall not reflect the sexual orientation of the member and shall be placed under secretarial authority. Any other similar indication of the sexual orientation or reason for discharge shall be removed or changed accordingly to be consistent with this paragraph.
(2)For each covered member whose discharge occurred prior to the creation of general secretarial authority, the sections of the DD–214 form referred to paragraph (1) shall be changed to similarly reflect a universal authority with codes, authorities, and language applicable at the time of discharge.
(g)Status.—
(1)In general.—
Each covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e) shall be treated without regard to the original discharge characterization of the member, including for purposes of—
(A)benefits provided by the Federal Government to an individual by reason of service in the Armed Forces; and
(B)all recognitions and honors that the Secretary of Defense provides to members of the Armed Forces.
(2)Reinstatement.—
In carrying out paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall reinstate all recognitions and honors of a covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e) that the Secretary withheld because of the original discharge characterization of the member.
(h)Definitions.—
In this section:
(1)The term “appropriate discharge board” means the boards for correction of military records under section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, or the discharge review boards under section 1553 of such title, as the case may be.
(2)The term “covered member” means any former member of the Armed Forces who was discharged from the Armed Forces because of the sexual orientation of the member.
(3)The term “discharge characterization” means the characterization under which a member of the Armed Forces is discharged or released, including “dishonorable”, “general”, “other than honorable”, and “honorable”.
(4)The term “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” means section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect before such section was repealed pursuant to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–321).
(5)The term “representative” means the surviving spouse, next of kin, or legal representative of a covered member.
Sec. 3.Reports
(a)Review.—
The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the consistency and uniformity of the reviews conducted under section 2.
(b)Reports.—
Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter for a four-year period, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the reviews under subsection (a). Such reports shall include any comments or recommendations for continued actions.
Sec. 4.Historical review
The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that oral historians of the department—
(1)review the facts and circumstances surrounding the estimated 100,000 members of the Armed Forces discharged from the Armed Forces between World War II and September 2011 because of the sexual orientation of the member; and
(2)receive oral testimony of individuals who personally experienced discrimination and discharge because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation of the individual so that such testimony may serve as an official record of these discriminatory policies and their impact on American lives.
Sec. 5.Modification of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Section 925(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking “with another person of the same or opposite sex”.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3068/text
The text of Senate Bill S 1956 is remarkably similar:
113th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 1956
To direct the Secretary of Defense to review the discharge characterization of former members of the Armed Forces who were discharged by reason of the sexual orientation of the member, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 16, 2014
Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Defense to review the discharge characterization of former members of the Armed Forces who were discharged by reason of the sexual orientation of the member, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Restore Honor to Service Members Act”.
SEC. 2. Review of discharge characterization.
(a) In general.—In accordance with this section, the appropriate discharge boards—
(1) shall review the discharge characterization of covered members at the request of the covered member; and
(2) if such characterization is any characterization except honorable, may change such characterization to honorable.
(b) Criteria.—In changing the discharge characterization of a covered member to honorable under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that such changes are carried out consistently and uniformly across the military departments using the following criteria:
(1) The original discharge must be based on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (in this Act referred to as “DADT”) or a similar policy in place prior to the enactment of DADT.
(2) Such discharge characterization shall be so changed if, with respect to the original discharge, there were no aggravating circumstances, such as misconduct, that would have independently led to a discharge characterization that was any characterization except honorable. For purposes of this paragraph, such aggravating circumstances may not include—
(A) an offense under section 925 of title 10, United States Code (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), committed by a covered member against a person of the same sex with the consent of such person; or
(B) statements, consensual sexual conduct, or consensual acts relating to sexual orientation or identity, or the disclosure of such statements, conduct, or acts, that were prohibited at the time of discharge but after the date of such discharge became permitted.
(3) When requesting a review, a covered member, or the member’s representative, shall be required to provide either—
(A) documents consisting of—
(i) a copy of the DD–214 form of the member;
(ii) a personal affidavit of the circumstances surrounding the discharge; and
(iii) any relevant records pertaining to the discharge; or
(B) an affidavit certifying that the member, or the member’s representative, does not have the documents specified in subparagraph (A).
(4) If a covered member provides an affidavit described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3)—
(A) the appropriate discharge board shall make every effort to locate the documents specified in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph within the records of the Department of Defense; and
(B) the absence of such documents may not be considered a reason to deny a change of the discharge characterization under subsection (a)(2).
(c) Request for review.—The appropriate discharge board shall ensure the mechanism by which covered members, or their representative, may request to have the discharge characterization of the covered member reviewed under this section is simple and straightforward.
(d) Review.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—After a request has been made under subsection (c), the appropriate discharge board shall review all relevant laws, records of oral testimony previously taken, service records, or any other relevant information regarding the discharge characterization of the covered member.
(2) ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.—If additional materials are necessary for the review, the appropriate discharge board—
(A) may request additional information from the covered member or the member’s representative, in writing, and specifically detailing what is being requested; and
(B) shall be responsible for obtaining a copy of the necessary files of the covered member from the member, or when applicable, from the Department of Defense.
(e) Change of characterization.—The appropriate discharge board shall change the discharge characterization of a covered member to honorable if such change is determined to be appropriate after a review is conducted under subsection (d) pursuant to the criteria under subsection (b). A covered member, or the member’s representative, may appeal a decision by the appropriate discharge board to not change the discharge characterization by using the regular appeals process of the board.
(f) Change of records.—For each covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e), or for each covered member who was honorably discharged but whose DD–214 form reflects the sexual orientation of the member, the Secretary of Defense shall reissue to the member or the member’s representative a revised DD–214 form that reflects the following:
(1) For each covered member discharged, the Separation Code, Reentry Code, Narrative Code, and Separation Authority shall not reflect the sexual orientation of the member and shall be placed under secretarial authority. Any other similar indication of the sexual orientation or reason for discharge shall be removed or changed accordingly to be consistent with this paragraph.
(2) For each covered member whose discharge occurred prior to the creation of general secretarial authority, the sections of the DD–214 form referred to paragraph (1) shall be changed to similarly reflect a universal authority with codes, authorities, and language applicable at the time of discharge.
(g) Status.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e) shall be treated without regard to the original discharge characterization of the member, including for purposes of—
(A) benefits provided by the Federal Government to an individual by reason of service in the Armed Forces; and
(B) all recognitions and honors that the Secretary of Defense provides to members of the Armed Forces.
(2) REINSTATEMENT.—In carrying out paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall reinstate all recognitions and honors of a covered member whose discharge characterization is changed under subsection (e) that the Secretary withheld because of the original discharge characterization of the member.
(h) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “appropriate discharge board” means the boards for correction of military records under section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, or the discharge review boards under section 1553 of such title, as the case may be.
(2) The term “covered member” means any former member of the Armed Forces who was discharged from the Armed Forces because of the sexual orientation of the member.
(3) The term “discharge characterization” means the characterization under which a member of the Armed Forces is discharged or released, including “dishonorable”, “general”, “other than honorable”, and “honorable”.
(4) The term “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” means section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect before such section was repealed pursuant to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–321).
(5) The term “representative” means the surviving spouse, next of kin, or legal representative of a covered member.
SEC. 3. Reports.
(a) Review.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the consistency and uniformity of the reviews conducted under section 2.
(b) Reports.—Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter for a four-year period, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the reviews under subsection (a). Such reports shall include any comments or recommendations for continued actions.
SEC. 4. Historical review.
The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that oral historians of the department—
(1) review the facts and circumstances surrounding the estimated 100,000 members of the Armed Forces discharged from the Armed Forces between World War II and September 2011 because of the sexual orientation of the member; and
(2) receive oral testimony of individuals who personally experienced discrimination and discharge because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation of the individual so that such testimony may serve as an official record of these discriminatory policies and their impact on American lives.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1956/text
Lou, are you saying that you would support existing HR 3068 and join the 100+ co-sponsors of the “Restore Honor to Services Member Act,” or are you saying that you find HR 3068 to be deficient in some manner, and planning on correcting these deficiencies by authoring a new bill on the same topic? If so, how would you change the bill, and why? Is it too broad? Too limited?
As for the LGBTQ Community, they likely already know of these bills, which have existed in one form or another since 2013, and are not anything new.
Lou, your support for these existing bills is, of course, welcome and reassuring. It is also nice to see you directly engaging with the readers of the Liberal OC as part of your campaign.
LGBTQ issues are at the forefront of eliminating discrimination and harassment suffered by our LGBTQ brothers and sisters to this day. Perhaps you can take this time to explain why you failed to support:
SB 48 (Requiring the contributions of LGBTQ persons to be included in history classes) which was did not receive a single “nay” vote from any Democrat;
AB 1266 (Allowing Transgender persons to use the bathroom for their identified gender at school), which was did not receive a single “nay” vote from any Democrat; and,
Most importantly, can you explain why you failed to support SR7, the Senate Resolution declaring Opposition to Proposition 8 (which sought to ban Marriage Equality in the State of California)?