Student Veterans of America (SVA) is widely known as the nation’s largest organization focused on student veterans, with chapters on more than 1,600 campuses and a National Conference billed as the largest gathering of student veterans in the country.
But SVA’s own policies and public materials show participation in the organization is not limited to veterans. This is a distinction that has fueled growing questions about donor expectations, restricted funding, and governance, particularly as scrutiny of the organization’s finances has intensified.
SVA describes its National Conference, known as NatCon, as bringing together “veteran and military-affiliated students, their families, supporters, and allies,” language that appears prominently on the organization’s website. Similar language appears throughout SVA’s chapter guidance, which frames the organization as a community that includes supporters and allies alongside veterans.
That breadth is not hidden, but it can come as a surprise to local partners and donors who assume “Student Veterans of America” refers to a group of student veterans. The distinction has practical consequences, particularly when local veterans organizations or civic groups consider funding travel or programming under rules restricting spending to veterans only.
Why Non-Veterans Might Be Included
SVA chapters operate as registered student organizations at their respective colleges and universities, and they are required to follow campus rules governing student groups. Many universities condition official recognition and access to funding or facilities on nondiscrimination and open-membership policies. Vanderbilt University, for example, requires registered student organizations to be open to all students, with some exceptions for things like single-sex organizations.
Public universities often adopt similar “all-comers” policies, which the Supreme Court upheld in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, allowing institutions to require recognized student groups to accept any student as a member. As a result, many campus organizations with a specific identity or mission allow non-members of that identity to participate as supporters.
That approach differs from fraternities and sororities, which operate under a statutory exemption in federal law allowing sex-based membership restrictions under Title IX. No comparable exemption exists for veteran-only student organizations.
In practice, some SVA chapters attempt to navigate this by creating informal distinctions between veteran members and non-veteran supporters. A number of campus veteran organizations explicitly recognize “friend” or “supporter” categories for students who have not served but wish to support veterans. SVA does not mandate a single national structure for how chapters handle those distinctions.
When Branding Meets Restricted Funds
The membership question might have remained a niche campus governance issue if not for its intersection with funding. Many local veterans posts, foundations, and community funds operate under bylaws restricting spending to veterans only. When those entities consider sponsoring SVA members to attend NatCon or other events, ambiguity over who qualifies as a “member” can create tension.
That issue was brought into sharper focus by Marine veteran and writer Elizabeth Hartman, who published a series of posts questioning SVA’s governance and finances on her Substack called All Due Respect. Hartman has argued that while SVA is entitled to define its community broadly, its branding can create misunderstandings when local partners assume they are supporting veterans exclusively.
Her commentary circulated widely on LinkedIn and Substack, drawing attention to both SVA’s membership model and its financial disclosures. After Hartman criticized SVA, she received a cease-and-desist from Lyon’s legal counsel and a visit from the FBI to investigate her comments.
The Financial Scrutiny
Student Veterans of America publishes its IRS Form 990 filings on its website, and those disclosures form the basis of the current financial scrutiny. In FY2024, SVA reported total revenue of $3,719,636, including $2,782,423 in contributions and grants, according to its Form 990. Because most of the organization’s funding comes from donations rather than earned income, its spending decisions are largely shaped by donor expectations about how contributed funds will be used to support student veterans.
That same filing shows a significant share of SVA’s revenue was directed toward salaries and professional services. In FY2024, SVA reported spending more than $1.1 million on compensation for five employees, representing roughly 30% of total revenue. The filing also lists hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to outside firms for consulting, marketing, accounting, and event management services.
When compensation and major consulting expenses are combined, the Form 990 indicates approximately 70% of SVA’s annual revenue was allocated to overhead and professional services rather than direct programmatic support.
Executive compensation increased sharply during this same period. SVA’s Form 990 for the FY2023 lists then-President and CEO Jared S. Lyon’s reportable compensation at $258,596. In FY2024, that figure rose to $288,939. By FY2025, SVA reported Lyon’s compensation at $412,500 – an increase of roughly 60% over two years – even as the organization reported lower overall revenue in its most recent filing.
Nonprofit boards have wide discretion to set executive pay, and Form 990 figures alone do not establish wrongdoing. Still, spending patterns in which a large majority of donor-funded revenue goes to salaries and overhead have historically drawn scrutiny in the veteran nonprofit space.
In 2016, the Wounded Warrior Project controversy centered on claims that the charity’s program spending was far lower than donors expected; while WWP publicly reported about 80% of expenses as going to programs, independent analyses put actual program spending closer to roughly 54%-60%, meaning around 40%-46% of revenue was used for administrative and other overhead costs rather than direct services to veterans. In that case, Congress held hearings and leadership changes followed, even though the share of revenue reaching veterans was still substantially higher than the portion Student Veterans of America reports directing toward programmatic support in its most recent filings.
In SVA’s case, the filings show most of the organization’s annual revenue in recent years has been consumed by compensation and professional services. That allocation has fueled questions from veteran advocates and donors about how much of each contributed dollar ultimately reaches student veterans themselves and whether SVA’s spending priorities align with the expectations created by its name and mission.
Leadership Changes After The Criticism
After Hartman’s public criticisms surfaced, a leadership transition occurred at SVA. This change became visible during and after the organization’s most recent National Conference in early January. Lyon announced NatCon 2026 would be his last in the President and CEO role after roughly a decade leading the organization. Around the same time, SVA updated its website to list Cory Boatwright as Interim President and CEO.
SVA has not publicly stated whether the leadership change was connected to the questions raised about governance, membership, or spending. Military.com contacted Student Veterans of America and Lyon seeking comment on the membership model, the compensation figures reflected in SVA’s filings, and the leadership transition. As of publication, neither responded.
An Ongoing Credibility Test
At its core, the controversy surrounding SVA reflects a familiar challenge for veteran-adjacent nonprofits operating on college campuses. Broad inclusion can be a practical necessity under university rules, but branding that emphasizes “veterans” carries expectations – especially when money is involved.
SVA’s own materials make clear that it serves a wider community than veterans alone. The unresolved question is whether that distinction is communicated clearly enough to donors and local partners who operate under veteran-only funding rules. Combined with questions about executive compensation and governance, the membership debate has become a test of transparency rather than legality.
SVA has the documents, policies, and platform needed to answer those questions directly. For as long as they remain unanswered, the scrutiny will continue.
