Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans And Military Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears bill to align state-active-duty benefits with federal compensation for Nevada militia members
Summary
AB281 would make compensation and benefits for Nevada militia members on state active duty equivalent to federal benefits those members would receive under Title 10 or Title 32; sponsors and military leaders told the committee the change responds to an unclear benefits process after a guard member's death on state duty.
Assemblymember Ruben Da Silva presented Assembly Bill 281 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 26, asking lawmakers to revise how Nevada determines compensation for militia members injured, disabled or killed while on active state duty.
"The bill . . . would change this compensation mechanism to instead provide that the member or the dependents of the member are entitled to receive compensation and benefits equivalent to federal compensation or benefits the member would be entitled to receive if the wound, injury, disability, or death arose from military duty performed pursuant to title 10 or title 32 of The United States code," Da Silva told the committee.
Da Silva said the measure grew from the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Government Affairs after the Office of the Military described a case in which a widow struggled to obtain benefits after her spouse, a Guard member filling a state-duty role, died in a vehicle accident. Dan Waters, Adjutant General of Nevada, described the same incident and said ambiguity about the definition of "in line of duty" and applicability of state statutes led to benefit denials and confusion. "When we put people on state active duty . . . how we determine once an accident has occurred, a line of duty investigation, how we define that . . . is through an investigation," Waters told the committee.
Waters and Assemblymember Ken Gray, a veteran who joined the presentation, said the proposed statutory change is intended to provide parity with federal compensation for top-priority benefits: death gratuity/burial assistance, survivor income (one speaker cited "66 and 2 thirds of pay" language already in Nevada law) and education benefits (tuition waivers and related transfers). Waters said these priorities seek to address immediate family needs after a death or catastrophic injury; Da Silva and Gray said the amendment on NELIS narrows definitions (including defining full-time "Nevada National Guard employee" and clarifying that active state duty covers the entire 24-hour period of service).
Committee members asked for scope and fiscal detail. Assemblymember Golding asked for a rough sense of differences between federal and state benefits; Waters said the bill prioritizes the top three federal benefits while remaining fiscally responsible and that most other federal benefits are broader. Vice Chair Wynne asked whether the bill should allow the family to receive whichever benefit is greater (state or federal); members agreed that ensuring maximum benefit to families was a concern to consider in drafting.
Supporters at the hearing included Andrew Lee Pilbitt, chairman of the United Veterans Legislative Council for Nevada, who said the organization "fully support[s] this bill. It's actually long overdue." Christian Mersch, a Las Vegas-area parent of a Guard member, also testified in support.
No committee vote was taken during the hearing; sponsors and the Adjutant General invited committee members to work on language during possible amendment and work-session consideration.
Ending: The committee closed the hearing on AB281 with the sponsor and military leadership available for follow-up on language and fiscal impacts.
