Veterans Affairs and Support InitiativesDate: 24 Oct 2025
Subject: A structured policy debate examining whether the federal government should grant military funeral honors to Hmong and Lao Special Guerrilla Unit (SGU) veterans who are already eligible for burial in national cemeteries—exploring the tension between maintaining strict legal definitions and fulfilling moral obligations to allied combatants.
The Central Question:
Why does federal law grant SGU veterans eligibility for burial in sacred national cemetery ground (under Title 38/VA authority) while simultaneously denying them military funeral honors like flag folding and playing of Taps (under Title 10/DoD authority)? Is this a necessary legal distinction or a contradictory failure to complete the recognition their service deserves?
Sources:
* Hmong Veterans’ Service Recognition Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-141)
* 38 U.S.C. §2402(a)(10) - VA Cemetery Eligibility
* 10 U.S.C. §1491 - Military Funeral Honors
* DoDI 1300.15 - DoD Funeral Honors Policy
* DA PAM 638-2 - Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Regulations
* Minnesota Veterans of the Secret War in Laos Act (SF 1959/Chapter 30, 2025)
* Minnesota Statute §197.231 - VSO Honor Guard Reimbursement
* Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000
Position 1: The Current Policy is Fundamentally Flawed and Must Be Harmonized
The Core Argument: The fragmented recognition system creates an unsustainable and conceptually contradictory form of honor. When the government grants the most permanent benefit (burial in sacred ground) yet denies the most visible final symbols of honor (flag ceremony, Taps), it renders recognition incomplete and creates profound symbolic injury to families.
Key Points:
* Inseparable in Meaning: Burial and funeral honors are inseparable in the minds of military families and the broader community. The 2018 Act already established that SGU service was worthy of the highest recognition—placement alongside U.S. veterans in national cemeteries. Denying the ceremony that accompanies that burial is contradictory.
* Congressional Intent Incomplete: If service was sufficient to warrant permanent, sacred ground under Title 38, then administrative complexity of verifying and funding a two-person detail and flag ceremony should be resolved federally, not used as an excuse for incomplete recognition.
* The Integrity Argument Fails: Congress already “compromised” Title X purity in 2018 by allowing non-U.S. Armed Forces personnel into VA national cemeteries. If we can compromise for the most solemn entitlement (the land itself), why is the symbolic honor of the flag and Taps suddenly the unforgivable line?
* State Solutions as Federal Failure: SGU service wasn’t state service—it was national service directed and funded by the CIA and U.S. military during the Cold War. Relying on patchwork state efforts (robust in Minnesota, potentially nonexistent elsewhere) ensures honor is unequal and geographically determined. National service deserves national recognition, not a local VSO stipend.
* Family Experience: Families successfully navigate incredibly complex verification processes (decades-old documentation, sometimes classified), achieve burial in a national cemetery, then are told at the ceremony: “Yes, you get the headstone and ground, but sorry, we cannot fold the flag or play Taps.” This is confusing, deeply hurtful, and undermines the moral gravity of sacrifice.
Proposed Solution: Amend Title 38 to specifically allow the VA to fund and administer an equivalent ceremonial honor detail for legislatively recognized allied personnel, bypassing Title 10 constraints entirely for this specific group.
Position 2: The Current Distinction is Necessary and Legally Sound
The Core Argument: While appearing contradictory on the surface, the current approach accurately maintains strict legal distinctions between service under Title 10 (governing U.S. Armed Forces/DoD operations) and recognition under Title 38 (governing VA benefits). This legal precision is vital for protecting the integrity of the military entitlement system.
Key Points:
* Precise Congressional Action: The 2018 Act was deliberately targeted—Congress amended only Title 38 (Section 2402(a)(10)) to extend cemetery eligibility. Congress consciously stopped short of granting full veteran status or amending Title 10, which governs DoD funeral honors. This wasn’t an oversight; it was intentional legal precision.
* Not a Symbolic Slight—An Operational Constraint: Denial of military funeral honors isn’t intended as disrespect. DoDI 1300.15 and DA PAM 638-2 make clear that MFH uses active or reserve military personnel and federally funded resources. Strict verification that individuals meet Title 10 definitions is required before dedicating active-duty resources.
* Different Jurisdictions, Different Missions: Title 38 (VA’s domain) relates to benefits and land use—the VA can extend cemetery access to honor those who served the nation, including allied forces recognized by specific congressional acts. Title 10 (DoD’s domain) is operational—it relates to active deployment of military personnel and resources. The VA can provide the plot; the DoD cannot, under current law, provide the honor detail without compromising Title 10 structure.
* Protecting Core Definitions: SGU members, while absolutely heroic, were never subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), never under U.S. command structure, and never bore the unique legal obligations of U.S. service members. Extending Title 10 honors would require Congress to define which allied groups qualify across all conflicts—a massive, legally complex undertaking that could affect millions of federally recognized Title 10 veterans.
* State Solutions as Appropriate Response: States like Minnesota (2025 Chapter 30) recognize the gap and step in with state-funded funeral honors, expanded VSO reimbursements, and state cemetery access. This layered system provides recognition without fundamentally compromising the structure relied upon by millions of Title 10 veterans. It’s not “passing the buck”—it’s the appropriate mechanism for localized recognition.
Why “Harmonization” is Problematic: Harmonization would require either (1) extending Title 10 eligibility to allied combatants across all conflicts, or (2) having the VA execute ceremonies typically reserved for DoD under Title 10. Neither is administratively simple or legally sound without wholesale structural changes to both titles.
Challenges and Concerns:
Legal vs. Moral Framework: The debate reveals fundamental tension between legal precision (maintaining statutory boundaries that define millions of veterans’ status) and moral obligation (completing the recognition for allied service already deemed worthy of sacred burial).
Verification Complexity: The “secret war” nature created massive documentation gaps. Even with the 2000 Naturalization Act providing some documentation, Minnesota needed to create an SGU Verification Task Force (report due February 15, 2026) just to establish criteria for proving service for state benefits.
Geographic Inequality: Current system creates unequal recognition based on state of residence. Minnesota provides robust state honors; veterans in other states may receive nothing beyond cemetery access.
Family Navigation Burden: Families must understand two separate government agencies (VA and DoD) and why one recognizes service as worthy of highest honor (burial) while the other denies fundamental symbols of that service.
Precedent for Future Conflicts: This case raises broader questions about how the U.S. will recognize allied combatants who serve alongside American forces in future conflicts—and whether current legal structures adequately address the moral obligations incurred.
Recommendations:
For Advocates of Harmonization:
* Support federal legislation to create a Title 38-funded ceremonial honor program specifically for congressionally recognized allied personnel
* Advocate for DoD policy updates that create a specific carve-out for SGU veterans within Title 10 framework
* Push for comprehensive documentation of allied service in current conflicts to avoid future verification challenges
For Supporters of Current Structure:
* Encourage more states with SGU populations to follow Minnesota’s example
* Support the Minnesota SGU Verification Task Force’s work and similar efforts
* Develop clearer VA guidance for families explaining the distinction between cemetery eligibility and funeral honors
* Advocate for increased VSO funding at state level to ensure ceremonial quality matches federal standards
For All Stakeholders:
* Recognize urgency as SGU veteran population ages
* Support declassification of CIA and military records to aid verification
* Explore alternative documentation methods (oral histories, community verification) for service proof
* Engage in broader policy discussions about recognizing allied forces in future conflicts
Conclusion:
This debate illuminates the precarious balance between honoring tremendous moral debts incurred during conflict and adhering strictly to established legal definitions of service and entitlement. The SGU veterans’ experience demonstrates the complex interplay between legal statutes, moral recognition, and symbolic meaning.
The question ultimately remains: Is the current system a necessary protection of legal integrity that requires state-level solutions to complete the recognition? Or is it a federal failure to harmonize benefits that Congress itself deemed worthy when it granted the most sacred ground?
What’s clear is that much more policy development—and difficult conversations—are needed to fully resolve these questions for allied forces who have served alongside America’s military in past and future conflicts.
Get full access to Veteran Voice at veterannews.substack.com/subscribe
