74 Am. U. L. Rev. 1057 (2025).
Abstract
Although most military service members receive an Honorable discharge at the completion of their service, thousands of former service members are discharged under less-than-honorable conditions, often for misconduct that is likely the result of a mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Veterans with a less-than-honorable discharge are ineligible for most veterans benefits. The consequences can be dire for these former service members, including homelessness, unemployment, mental health conditions, criminal involvement, and suicide. These veterans can restore their access to benefits by appealing to a military discharge review board, seeking a discharge upgrade.
To apply for a discharge upgrade, applicants must complete the Department of Defense Form DD-293. Most discharge upgrade applications are submitted by pro se veteran-applicants, and most applications are denied. Though there may be varied reasons for the denials, this Article engages with rhetorical theory to consider how the DD-293 form operates as a barrier to relief and how it could be revised to assist pro se veteran-applicants in putting forward the best application possible.
A pro se veteran-applicant typically does not have law training and thus is likely unaware of the form as an opportunity for individualized discourse rather than a static thing to be filled in. A pro se veteran-applicant’s lack of awareness of the limitations of the form and lack of understanding how to individualize the form call for redevelopment and redesign of the form to stimulate discourse. This Article explores how the DD-293 could be redesigned to facilitate and support pro se veteran applicants’ rhetorical discourse—a worthwhile path toward improving the overall discharge upgrade process, especially for pro se veteran-applicants who need and deserve the support.
* Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law. Thank you to the Association of Legal Writing Directors Scholars’ Forum hosted by Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in March 2022, and in particular to Tenielle Fordyce-Ruff, Bruce Ching, and Christine Venter for their comments on an idea stage version of this Article. Thank you to Sonya Bonneau for countless Zoom writing workshops and rounds of feedback. Thank you to Hugh McClean and Dr. Kirsten Davis for reading a draft and providing insightful and supportive feedback. Thank you to law librarian Sara Burriesci for her thorough research assistance, and to my research assistant, Zoë Kern, for her attention to detail in downloading and compiling data from the discharge review boards. Thank you to University of Baltimore School of Law Dean LaVonda Reed and former Dean Ron Weich for the research support. I also thank the American University Law Review editors for their exceptional attention to detail throughout the editing process.