Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee amends veteran-definition bill to align state language with recent House measure
Summary
The House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee adopted an amendment to Senate Bill 448 to avoid conflicting definitions of "veteran" across statutes, then voted 13‑0 to report the bill ought to pass as amended. Testimony highlighted gaps that kept some honorably serving veterans from benefits and municipal implementation concerns.
The House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday adopted a technical amendment to Senate Bill 448 that strikes a contested definition clause and aligns the statute with a version already enrolled in the House.
Representative Tom Manning introduced SB 448 as a cleanup measure to make New Hampshire statutes that reference "veteran" point back to RSA 21:50’s definitive language. Major General David Michalaitis, the state Adjutant General and commissioner of the Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services, told the panel that federal DD‑214 discharge codes include eight types and that the bill’s purpose is to ensure state law treats both "honorable" and "general under honorable conditions" discharges consistently with federal practice.
Kevin Grady of the State Veterans Advisory Committee testified that some veterans who served honorably have been classified with a "general under honorable conditions" discharge (for example after discharges related to the pre‑'don't ask, don't tell' era or vaccine policies) and that inconsistent statutory language had produced anomalies in eligibility for veteran plates, preferences and other benefits.
Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association urged caution, saying assessors worried the Senate drafting — which replaced the phrase "an honorable discharge" with "any discharge under honorable conditions" in one passage — could be read to exclude currently qualifying veterans for certain local tax exemptions. Deshaies recommended adopting the House‑enrolled language or adding an applicability clause so municipalities would not need to readopt local ordinances. He also advised aligning the law’s effective date with the tax year (April 15) to avoid proration and administrative burdens for assessors.
Committee members and staff drafted and reviewed amendment 1444h in the panel’s executive session; the committee then adopted that amendment and voted 13‑0 to report SB 448 "ought to pass as amended." Because the committee amended a Senate bill, the chair noted the change will require Senate concurrence or a committee conference before the measure can be enrolled.
The committee’s action aims to make eligibility clearer across state law while minimizing disruption at the municipal level; the amendment directs statutory references to the definition now in law rather than overwriting it with potentially narrower wording.
