State of NH in violation of Fed Law re: Vets

[Snobrdr]

Jurisdiction

New Hampshire

I'm writing with a very specific question. I feel as though the State of NH has made & passed a state law (RSA 21:50) which is in conflict with The Supermacy Clause (U. S. Constitution Art. VI) and Federal Law (38 USC 101) by redefining what a Veteran is. Under Federal Law a Vet is (essentially) anyone who ever served in armed forces however, amount of time depends when one served to be eligible for VA benefits. Back in the 80's one had to serve 24+ consecutive months to qualify. Also, one had to receive an eligible character of discharge which had to be above a "less than honorable."

So, I served 79 months (6 yr, 7 mo) consecutive active duty and my character of dicharge states "under honorable conditions." I did get out 6 wks prior to end of enlistment but RIF (reduction in forces) was in effect at the time & my rate was at 103% meaning 4% of people in my rate had to go (early retirement, early out if less than 1 yr left, no reenlistments, etc...).

I AM qualified for and do receive some VA benefits. I have a VA ID card in my wallet with my pic on it. So here is my issue... according to The State of NH for any state benefits (Vet lic plates, prop tax exemption, etc...) I am "NOT" a Veteran because my character of discharge states "under honorable conditions." According to the state RSA 21:50, one's DD 214 must state "honorable" (only) to be considered to be a Vet. This directly conflicts with both The Supremacy Clause & 38 USC 101. But here is the kicker... the state WILL pay one a "war bonus" if one was "discharged under honorable conditions (NH RSA 115:9)." So they contradict themselves by paying "war bonuses" to people who (according to them) are "NOT" Vets! What...?? Seriously...??

I am being discriminated against by this state & it's unnecessarily costing me money as they won't allow me to receive an earned benefit i.e. property tax exemption. I am on very limited income (SSDI) and NH prop tax is outrageously high! I have contacted Vet oraganizations, state legislators, US Congress folks, both Senators, and the media about this unfair discrimination and have NOT received even one response!

At this point, I would like to sue the state for violatating my rights (earned!) and for violations of both Fed law and The US Constitution (Art. VI). Can I sue the state for this issue in Fed Civil Court...?? If so, how...?? Like what kind of case... discrimination, negligence (a duty to abide by Fed law & failed to do so), abuse of power, etc...?? What specialty of law would I need a lawyer in...?? Would a lawyer take issue on contingency...??

I would sure appreciate any/all answers to my questions and thank you in advance...!! Have a great day...!!

 

[army judge]

Can I sue the state for this issue in Fed Civil Court...??

Yes

If so, how...?

You can sue as a "pro se" plaintiff.

Read this to get the ball rolling:

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/ProSe_Guide_2017.pdf

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Inmate Complaint USDCNH-11.pdf

You'll also need to do other research, but the above pamphlets provided by the NH Federal District Court will get your motor running.

Like what kind of case... discrimination, negligence (a duty to abide by Fed law & failed to do so), abuse of power, etc...??

You laid it out in your first couple of sentences, assuming you can PLEAD and PROVE your case.

You could also consult with some local veterans agencies (VFW, DAV, American legion, etc)

The Federal VA might even be able to assist you.

What specialty of law would I need a lawyer in...??

Start by talking to general practice lawyers to see what you can learn about your potential cause of action. Most lawyers will meet with a prospective client FREE of charge to assess your case.

Would a lawyer take issue on contingency?

I wouldn't think so, but you can always ask.

 

[adjusterjack]

I would like to sue the state for violatating my rights (earned!) and for violations of both Fed law and The US Constitution (Art. VI).

Reality check. Your chances of success are slim to none even if you had the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that it would take to run the constitutional issue up the court ladder.

You'd be better off trying to get your discharge changed to honorable. Lot of stuff on the internet about that.

change under honorable conditions to honorable at DuckDuckGo

There may actually be some vet charitable agencies that will help you with that.

But suing the state over it. Forget it.

 

[Tax Counsel]

So here is my issue... according to The State of NH for any state benefits (Vet lic plates, prop tax exemption, etc...) I am "NOT" a Veteran because my character of discharge states "under honorable conditions." According to the state RSA 21:50, one's DD 214 must state "honorable" (only) to be considered to be a Vet. This directly conflicts with both The Supremacy Clause & 38 USC 101.

Sorry, but there is no conflict here. The state doesn't have to offer vets benefits in the first place. When it does, it gets to decide which veterans will get those benefits. The state can do that by defining what the term veteran means for the purposes of its own benefit programs. There is no conflict here because what the state is doing does not in any way interfere with what the federal government does with respect to veterans. As a result, should you sue I think you would lose, probably by dismissal or summary judgment. There just isn't a supremacy clause issue involved here.

 

[zddoodah]

This directly conflicts with both The Supremacy Clause & 38 USC 101.

No it doesn't. 38 USC 101 defines "veteran" for purposes of benefits provided by the federal government. The New Hampshire law does not conflict with that because the New Hampshire law defines the term "veteran" for purposes of benefits provided by the State of New Hampshire. Nothing in the Supremacy Clause or any case interpreting the Supremacy Clause restricts a state from restricting benefits on whatever basis it sees fit, aside from things like discrimination based on race, gender, etc.

But here is the kicker... the state WILL pay one a "war bonus" if one was "discharged under honorable conditions (NH RSA 115:9)." So they contradict themselves by paying "war bonuses" to people who (according to them) are "NOT" Vets! What...?? Seriously...?

Whether you think this is or isn't logical, it's unquestionably legal. The same term may have different definitions for different purposes, and a state is free to provide certain benefits to certain persons but not provide other benefits to those same persons.

Can I sue the state for this issue in Fed Civil Court...?? If so, how...?? Like what kind of case... discrimination, negligence (a duty to abide by Fed law & failed to do so), abuse of power, etc...?? What specialty of law would I need a lawyer in...?? Would a lawyer take issue on contingency...??

I suggest you read the 11th Amendment to the federal Constitution. Putting aside issues you would face relating to that, you've articulated no basis for a lawsuit. Your recourse is to lobby your elected state representatives to change the existing law.

 

[mightymoose]

The state is free to determine the conditions that must be met to receive state benefits.
The state could not create a law that would interfere with your eligibility for federal benefits.

 

[Disabled Vet]

Not so fast...... A state can make laws and state benefits. Yet sometimes they can't exclude some vets and include others. Without going into detail this happened in my state. After a two year battle the court ruled that all veterans were entitled to the state benefit. This guy needs to talk with the state VA dept.