The U.S. Department of Defense is moving towards granting honourable discharges to more than 30,000 gay and bisexual veterans who were barred from military service due to their sexual orientation, according to legal filings made public on Monday, January 6 2025.
This change could grant these veterans access to critical benefits, including healthcare and educational assistance.
A settlement agreement filed in a San Francisco federal court seeks to resolve a 2023 class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that the military violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by discharging them under discriminatory policies. While the Defense Department denies any wrongdoing, the agreement outlines steps to streamline the process for veterans to remove mentions of sexual orientation from discharge paperwork and to upgrade discharges to honourable.
The lawsuit centres on discharges issued under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, in effect from 1993 to 2011. This policy prohibited openly gay and bisexual individuals from serving in the military and led to “other than honourable” discharges for those who disclosed their orientation.
Chelsea Corey, an attorney with Haynes Boone and one of the lead lawyers in the case, highlighted the discriminatory impact of including sexual orientation on discharge papers. Such discharges have historically denied veterans access to healthcare, tuition assistance, home loans, and employment opportunities. Corey noted that the settlement would finally enable many affected veterans to access these long-overdue benefits.
The agreement now awaits approval from U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, who will hold a hearing on February 12.
Approximately 14,000 individuals were discharged under DADT. An additional 20,000 servicemembers have reportedly been discharged since 1980 due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation, legal documents revealed. The settlement could help correct a decades-long injustice for LGBTQ veterans.
Neither the Defense Department nor the U.S. Department of Justice has commented on the matter.
