Bill Overview
Title: Discharge Review Board Outreach Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Discharge Review Board Committee to advise the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on matters relating to the boards that review the discharge or dismissal (other than a discharge or dismissal by sentence of a general court-martial) of any former member of an armed force. The committee must provide the Department of Defense (DOD) and the VA with recommendations on the strategic direction for the joint coordination and sharing efforts between and within DOD and the VA on matters regarding the review boards.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Former members of the U.S. armed forces
Estimated Size: 18800000
- The bill impacts former members of the U.S. armed forces who might seek to have their military discharges reviewed.
- It targets individuals who may have received a discharge or dismissal that was not through a general court-martial.
- The bill focuses on advisory and strategic coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding discharge review boards.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is former members of the U.S. armed forces, particularly those who might seek to have their military discharges reviewed. This is a specialized segment estimated at around 18.8 million veterans in the U.S. However, not all will need or want a discharge review. The bill primarily affects the efficiency and perception of the discharge review process rather than direct financial benefits, which suggests the impact might be low in terms of immediate wellbeing improvement.
- Given the budget limitations, the direct impact of the policy is expected to be moderate and primarily administrative, aiming to streamline and improve the discharge review process through better advice and coordination between the DoD and VA.
- Since the policy improves processes rather than direct services or infrastructure changes, many veterans will not perceive a high degree of direct benefit. However, those who engage with the discharge review process may experience higher satisfaction and support due to improved strategic direction.
Simulated Interviews
Electrician (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds promising if it means the review process will be more efficient. I've been trying to get my discharge status reviewed to help with job applications.
- It could mean a fairer process for people like me who need this corrected for better access to jobs and VA benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this will lead to improvements in how discharge appeals are managed, especially for cases involving mental health.
- The process has been frustratingly slow and disorganized, so any help in improving this is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any effort to improve the discharge review process is good, but it doesn't affect me directly anymore.
- It's crucial for younger veterans who need this service for their well-being and access to benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy helps individuals with unjust discharges, then it could make a big difference for those of us trying to move on with our lives.
- I'm concerned about how long changes will take to implement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The process improvements sound positive for those who need it, but I don't see a direct impact on my life.
- I'm supportive of anything that aids other veterans in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Corporate Trainer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving the discharge review process could provide more opportunities through benefits I currently can't access.
- I'm hopeful but cautious about promised changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Artist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help individuals like me who have had a tough time because of unjust discharges.
- It's a step forward in ensuring fairer treatment and access to veterans' benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not directly impacted, I support policies that benefit my fellow veterans who had unfair discharges.
- Veterans need all the help they can get for readjustment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been hard accepting my discharge isn't what I feel it should be. This policy might offer another chance for reconsideration.
- I'm skeptical but willing to see if these improvements will help me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that this policy might streamline my case and help me access benefits not available under my current discharge.
- It's essential that these processes become clearer and more accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Year 5: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Year 10: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Year 100: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring seamless integration between the DoD and VA processes to effectively handle the review board recommendations.
- Monitoring initial costs closely against effectiveness to adjust operational strategies as needed.
- Ensuring that adequate personnel are allocated to support the committee's functions without significantly impacting broader DoD/VA tasks.