Empowering NYC Veterans: Using Artificial Intelligence for a Brighter Future

Despite efforts to support veterans during post-deployment, hundreds of thousands of veterans in New York City alone live in households with earnings insufficient to cover basic necessities. Veterans frequently struggle with substance abuse, disabilities, homelessness, mental health problems, and financial hardships, making it difficult to adjust to civilian life. Combined with these issues, the lack of affordable housing, healthcare, and education for veterans substantially decreases their chances of improvement and perpetuates poverty. Even though more than 20,000 New York veterans live below the poverty level, current solutions have not achieved a significant enough impact because they often require more funding than is allocated. A fresh approach is required. A legal plan that incorporates the emerging artificial intelligence industry can provide the affordable solution New York City needs.

The legal history of veteran poverty in the United States is intricate. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924, also known as the Bonus Act, arranged compensation for veterans based on the length of their service during World War I. However, veterans didn’t receive this payment until their birthday in 1945 and were unable to take out loans from banks based on their bonus certificates after 1932. Widespread discontent about the government’s inability to carry out the act culminated in the Bonus Army March of 1932, organized by the Bonus Expeditionary Forces. The veterans demanded immediate bonus payments because they were struggling financially. In response to the frustration among many U.S. veterans, Congress passed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the GI Bill of Rights, which signaled a significant shift by providing veterans with educational and financial benefits, easing their transition back into civilian life. During the Vietnam War era, however, veterans once more struggled with reintegration, resulting in rising rates of homelessness, mental health issues, and poverty. 

Since the passage of the GI Bill of Rights, many veterans have sued for benefits that they were promised but were unable to obtain. One such case is Cleland v. National College of Business (1978). This case specifically centered on provisions of the GI Bill that required the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to reject educational assistance if a course consists of more than 85% of students with financial assistance. In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court held that such a requirement does not violate the Fifth Amendment and is a reasonable method of distinguishing between quality courses (those with significant non-subsidized student enrollment) and those of lower educational quality. This decision meant that veterans seeking VA educational benefits were limited in their course selections and did not have the same opportunities as other students who could choose any courses they wanted. 

Another case, Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety (2022), questioned the rights of veterans under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Former army reservist Le Roy Torres sustained lung damage during his deployment. Torres' previous employer, the Texas Department of Public Safety, refused to provide disability accommodations upon his return and instead offered him a temporary position. In response, Torres sued the Department of Public Safety, claiming that the USERRA protects reemployment for both active military and veterans, including disability accommodations. The Department of Public Safety argued that sovereign immunity shielded it from USERRA lawsuits. The Supreme Court rejected this request for sovereignty in a 5-4 decision, holding that the Department of Public Safety was required to comply with the USERRA. Unlike the case of Cleland v. National College of Business, this case strengthened the rights of veterans in the United States, specifically those with post-service disabilities.

Some cases regarding veterans continue to be argued today, such as Rudisill v. McDonough, which once again discusses the GI Bill's implementation and focuses on the interpretation of educational benefits under more recent iterations of the GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.James Rudisill claims that, because he served during two distinct periods, he is entitled to a total of 48 months of educational benefits from both GI Bill programs combined without having to exhaust his remaining Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Therefore, he should be allowed access to the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, as they are more generous. This case should determine the extent to which veterans can use the benefits that were promised to them in both iterations of the GI Bill.

The prevalence of such cases on a national level provides legal precedents for veterans' rights concerns on city levels. The New York State Supreme Court decision in Callahan v. Carey (1983) established New York City's legal responsibility to provide housing for the homeless, many of whom were veterans. Nevertheless, a significant number of violations of the ruling have occurred, including insufficient shelter capacity, denial of stable shelter placements, and no action by the city regarding flooding of sleeping areas. Also, New York City has attempted many times to limit the Callahan decision. For instance, the City denied shelter to homeless people due to their non-compliance with social services. Similarly, the Bloomberg administration attempted to change eligibility rules, denying shelter to thousands of people suffering from mental and physical illnesses, many of whom were veterans. These instances led the Coalition for the Homeless and the Legal Aid Society to file a motion in the New York State Supreme Court to ensure proper enforcement of the Callahan decision.

According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, cities in the United States are required to act in accordance with federal laws. Since the GI Bill is a federal law, New York City is required to follow its mandates. Therefore, New York City’s non-compliance with both the Callahan decision and the GI Bill must be rectified. While previous solutions temporarily helped reduce the hardships of those facing challenging times, none have adequately addressed veteran poverty. One way to advance the concepts introduced in the GI Bill using modern technology is through AI.

The first step is for New York City to mandate the availability of free skills training seminars and certification programs for veterans. The GI Bill of 1944 included federal funding for both higher education and job training. These services are still crucial and should be revamped with modern technology that can address the wide array of veterans’ needs. Even with funding set aside for these programs, many veterans struggle to find employment due to inadequate job networks. Skills training and certificate programs should focus on high-demand industries to which veterans can contribute their unique skills and insights. For instance, veterans can effectively contribute to the technology industry due to the attention to detail, accuracy, and record-keeping skills taught in the military. AI systems can be used to create lesson plans, teach veterans, and track their progress, allowing the government to assist veterans without incurring excessive costs. These programs can provide veterans with more choices and opportunities that were limited by Cleland and fulfill the spirit of the Post-9/11 GI Bill at issue in Rudisill. 

In addition, affordable housing and job-matching tools must be made available to all veterans in New York City. The GI Bill of 1944 provided federal loans for veterans to use to purchase homes and land. However, in today’s New York City, this “solution” leads to vast amounts of debt for veterans. To fulfill its obligations under Callahan to provide housing for those in need, it is necessary for New York City to create online portals with centralized information about both housing and job availability to improve the current fragmented systems. AI technology can match veterans with housing and employment across New York City based on their needs, preferences, and qualifications.

Furthermore, under the GI Bill, additional hospitals were established for veterans and they were provided with physical medical care. However, veterans’ mental health, which is crucial to their success, was always overlooked. Therefore, the final aspect of the solution is to require that affordable healthcare providers incorporate AI to create a healthcare system that properly diagnoses and treats veterans’ mental health issues. This entails creating a comprehensive healthcare portal and using AI technology to improve the success of treatment for issues such as PTSD. Research funded by the Department of Defense demonstrates AI’s ability to diagnose PTSD more accurately than doctors because veterans tend to be more open about their symptoms when talking anonymously to an AI rather than to a physician. Furthermore, an NYU School of Medicine study demonstrated AI’s ability to diagnose PTSD using voice analysis with 89% accuracy. 

The GI Bill was created to provide US veterans with opportunities and resources for a better life post-service. However, in the modern age, the GI Bill is not enough. Veteran poverty remains a persistent issue in New York City and across the United States, and its underlying causes demand fresh, cutting-edge solutions. Using government intervention and AI technology, a multifaceted approach, rooted in the values of the original GI Bill, must be implemented. This approach should focus on skills training, housing and job matching, and mental healthcare. Ultimately, this strategy will improve veterans’ lives while also furthering the larger initiative to use artificial intelligence as a tool for greater positive social change.

____________

1 “Bonus Expeditionary Forces March on Washington (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. www.nps.gov/articles/bonus-expeditionary-forces-march-on-washington.htm#:~:text=In%20May%201932%2C%20jobless%20WWI,they%20really%20needed%20the%20money. Accessed October 26, 2023. 

2 Callahan v. Carey, 53 A.D.3d 404, 861 N.Y.S.2d 624, NY Slip Op 05968 (App. Div. 2008).

3 Cleland v. National Coll. of Business, 435 U.S. 213 (1978). 

4 Conlin, Spencer. “Report Shows New York Veterans Are Struggling Financially.” Spectrum News, November 11, 2022. spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/capital-region/human-interest/2022/11/12/report-shows-new-york-veterans-are-struggling-financially.

5 Frankel, Joseph. “How AI Is Helping Veterans with PTSD Get Treatment.” Newsweek, Newsweek, October 12, 2017. www.newsweek.com/ptsd-treatment-how-ai-could-help-veterans-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-682857. 

6 “G.I. Bill.” History.com, www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/gi-bill#section_2. Accessed November 10, 2023.

7 Ktori, Sophia. “PTSD Diagnosed through Voice Analysis Using AI.” GEN, April 23, 2019. www.genengnews.com/news/ptsd-diagnosed-through-voice-analysis-using-ai/. 

8 Montgomery GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq.

9  “New York City Veterans Demographics.” NYC Veterans. www.nyc.gov/assets/veterans/downloads/pdf/NYCveterandemographics.pdf. 

10 Post-9/11 GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. §§ 3301 et seq.

11 Rudisill v. McDonough, No. 22-184 (U.S. argued Nov. 8, 2023).

12 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, ch 268, title II, 58 Stat. 284. (1944). 

13 “The Callahan Legacy: Callahan v. Carey and the Legal Right to Shelter.” Coalition For The Homeless. www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/our-programs/advocacy/legal-victories/the-callahan-legacy-callahan-v-carey-and-the-legal-right-to-shelter/. Accessed October 26, 2023. 

14 Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).

15 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335 (1994).

16 U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Services Policy, "Toward Understanding Homelessness: 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research: Housing Models," last modified March 2007, aspe.hhs.gov/reports/toward-understanding-homelessness-2007-national-symposium-homelessness-research-housing-models-0. 

18 Valentino, Alexandra, and Michelle Mikhels. “Veteran Poverty.” Personal Interview. March 10, 2023.

19 World War Adjusted Compensation Act, ch.157, 43 Stat. 121 (1924).