On January 6, the U.S. Department of Defense agreed to reform its process for LGBTQ veterans seeking honorable discharges after being excluded from service due to their sexual orientation, according to a filing in San Francisco federal court. The department, along with five gay and transgender plaintiffs, jointly filed for approval of a settlement to resolve a 2023 proposed class action. The lawsuit alleged that the military’s treatment of LGBTQ service members violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The Defense Department denied any wrongdoing.
From 1993 to 2011, the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibited openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving in the military and allowed for “other than honorable” discharges for LGBTQ service members who disclosed their sexual orientation.
As part of the settlement, the Defense Department will establish a streamlined process for veterans to have their sexual orientation removed from discharge documents and agree to review requests to upgrade veterans’ discharges to honorable. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, who is overseeing the case, is set to hold a hearing on February 12 to review the deal. The settlement must be approved by the court.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys stated that the settlement would benefit thousands of veterans by restoring access to benefits associated with an honorable discharge. Elizabeth Kristen of Legal Aid at Work emphasized that the new process would be more accessible and less stigmatizing, addressing long-standing difficulties in correcting discharge records.
Veterans discharged with “other than honorable” status face barriers to various benefits, including healthcare, loans, job opportunities, and tuition assistance. Approximately 14,000 individuals were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and more than 20,000 others were discharged since 1980 due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
In June, Judge Spero rejected the Defense Department’s claim that the class action could not proceed because the plaintiffs had not requested changes to their discharge paperwork through the established agency process. He noted that the plaintiffs’ claims highlighted the stigma and trauma associated with the process.
The case is Farrell v. U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-04013.
Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
