An Act to amend 45.51 (2) (a) 1.; to create 45.01 (12) (jm) of the statutes; Relating to: the definition of âveteranâ for purposes of certain state veterans benefits.
Summary
AB1006 would expand Wisconsin’s statutory definition of “veteran” for certain state veterans benefits. Under the bill, a current or former member of the National Guard would qualify as a veteran if they satisfactorily completed their initial obligated term of service and received an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions. The bill amends the veterans benefits statute to recognize this additional category of service member for most state-level veterans programs.
The bill specifically notes that the expanded definition would apply to most veterans benefits, but not to admission to a state veterans home or burial in a veterans cemetery. Those two benefits remain excluded because they are governed by federal regulation. In effect, the measure would broaden eligibility for a range of state benefits while preserving existing federal limits on certain veteran-related services.
Impact
AB1006 would change Wisconsin statutes by creating a new definition of “veteran” in s. 45.01 and by amending s. 45.51 to incorporate that definition for state veterans benefits. The practical effect would be to extend eligibility for most state veterans programs to qualifying National Guard members who completed their initial service obligation and received an honorable or general discharge under honorable conditions. It would not alter eligibility for state veterans home admission or veterans cemetery burial.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public debate to characterize. Based on the bill text and its introduction by a bipartisan group of Assembly and Senate members, the measure appears to have been framed as a benefits-expansion bill for National Guard service members. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not become law.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of who should be treated as a “veteran” under state law. Support would likely come from those who believe National Guard members who complete their initial service obligation deserve access to the same state benefits as other veterans. Any opposition would likely focus on the cost or policy implications of expanding eligibility, or on whether the state should distinguish between National Guard service and other military service for benefit purposes. The bill also draws a clear line excluding federally regulated benefits, which limits but does not eliminate the expansion.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 45.51 (2) (a) 1.; to create 45.01 (12) (jm) of the statutes; Relating to: the definition of âveteranâ for purposes of certain state veterans benefits.