TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:I know that this isn't about becoming a DPS trooper but you can see that they are quite aware of the different discharges and the meaning and will not accept General under honorable conditions at face value. Inviduals with Honorable discharges are automatically eligible for further consideration. I believe DPS knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the discount and intended it for Honorable discharges. I am done with this topic since neither the OP or his spokesperson can prove that the OP was actually able get the discount. Peace.

The OP has no "spokesperson" that I'm aware of, and your continued claim that I am such speaks to your level of "honor".

My views have been my own. I understand you disagree with them, but I'm going to ask you one last time to quite attributing falsehoods to me. If you persist, then I will begin complaining.

I will repeat, it is my view that the term "discharged honorably" is ambiguous within the DPS, and they are not consistent in the way they use it. It's an opinion I developed completely on my own. Your false information about me speaks volumes about you, and nothing about me.

Right2Carry wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?

The "mouthpiece" for what? If you mean for him, I'm not; and never claimed to be. I did originally post an update, because he's no longer on the forum; but he did send me an update that he got his CHL discount after the Senator's office intervened.
If you mean for that particular interpretation, I'm not the "mouthpiece", and never claimed to be; however, I saw his point in the how the wording can be interpreted. I believe that words have meaning; and when the military chooses to put the words "under honorable conditions", that they mean exactly that; that the person was discharged under honorable conditions.

I also completely understand that some people have a different view. I just figured it could be discussed rationally, without putting others down and name-calling.

I'm not a mouthpiece; just someone with an opinion. That's what makes "discussion forums" interesting.

You appear to have taken over the role as spokesperson for the OP for reasons only known to you.

Actually not. I've voiced my opinion, and answered questions when asked. In addition, I agreed with his position early on in the discussion, so it had nothing to do with his "departure".

It seems several on here have made assumptions as to what he has done, and his motivations. I don't speak to either, and try to make no assumptions. Some of those folks then started making similar assumptions about me, and how I would behave in other situations.

C'mon guys, you can do better than the name calling. State your position, leave the personalities, assumptions, and name-calling out of it.

Taypo wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I disagree with you that he sought out an interpretation. If he sought out an interpretation he would have contacted DPS and not a Senator. Again my guess is that he MAY have contacted DPS didn't like what he was told and then contacted the Senators office to put pressure on DPS.

I don't agree with the decision if in fact it happened.

That's not what he said, but it's interesting that you see into his head and somehow know differently. I'll let it go at differing opinions. Regardless, he still acted instead of whining.

Right2Carry wrote:I will ask you this question directly. If you had a child in school making straight A's and belonged to the National Honor Society, would you be OK with C students getting the same Reconition and benefits as your child?

Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.

I'll repeat, the root of the argument was always that "discharged honorably" is a description, rather than a designation (as opposed to an "honorable discharge".) That view is supported by fact that on at least one instance, the DPS uses the term "discharged honorably", and lists a "general under honorable conditions" as a qualification.

Why are you his mouthpiece?

I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?

Sorry, incorrect. I "took up the torch" way back when he first asked a question about it. Frankly, I thought my DD 214 stated that I had a general discharge under honorable conditions. When I first was discharged out of boot camp (for medical reasons), some of the paperwork I had stated "General discharge under honorable conditions - erroneous enlistment". I remember it because I contacted the JAGs office to fight it.

When he asked about the discount, I told him I got the discount and was pretty sure my discharge was "general under honorable conditions". When he asked me to look, I checked, and turned out it wasn't. But, I still agreed with his interpretation.

I agree though, it's a dead horse. Apparently the DPS has looked at the issue and accepts "under honorable conditions" as a qualifier for "discharged honorably" (just like they do for the Veterans plates). I guess those that are offended should now do what the OP did, and take it up with someone who can do something about it.

Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?

The "mouthpiece" for what? If you mean for him, I'm not; and never claimed to be. I did originally post an update, because he's no longer on the forum; but he did send me an update that he got his CHL discount after the Senator's office intervened.
If you mean for that particular interpretation, I'm not the "mouthpiece", and never claimed to be; however, I saw his point in the how the wording can be interpreted. I believe that words have meaning; and when the military chooses to put the words "under honorable conditions", that they mean exactly that; that the person was discharged under honorable conditions.

I also completely understand that some people have a different view. I just figured it could be discussed rationally, without putting others down and name-calling.

I'm not a mouthpiece; just someone with an opinion. That's what makes "discussion forums" interesting.

Right2Carry wrote:I disagree with you that he sought out an interpretation. If he sought out an interpretation he would have contacted DPS and not a Senator. Again my guess is that he MAY have contacted DPS didn't like what he was told and then contacted the Senators office to put pressure on DPS.

I don't agree with the decision if in fact it happened.

That's not what he said, but it's interesting that you see into his head and somehow know differently. I'll let it go at differing opinions. Regardless, he still acted instead of whining.

Right2Carry wrote:I will ask you this question directly. If you had a child in school making straight A's and belonged to the National Honor Society, would you be OK with C students getting the same Reconition and benefits as your child?

Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.

I'll repeat, the root of the argument was always that "discharged honorably" is a description, rather than a designation (as opposed to an "honorable discharge".) That view is supported by fact that on at least one instance, the DPS uses the term "discharged honorably", and lists a "general under honorable conditions" as a qualification.

Right2Carry wrote:...
I agree and if I had to hazard a guess my money would be on that the OP tried and failed to get his discharge upgraded hence the approach he took.

That's not what he related to me in the email he sent. He may have been lying, I have no way of knowing; but know of no reason he would do so, and can't think of a reason to do so.

His contention, as he stated in his original post, is that the CHL discount (this never had anything to do with the Veteran designation on the CHL) applied to those "honorably discharged", and that he believed a discharge under "honorable conditions" qualified. He asked opinions on here, and was pretty much rebuked - but one thing he apparently took to heart - he did something about besides whining on here.

He approached the office the Senator that serves as the Chair of the Texas Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs. According to him, an aide from the Senator's office got back and with and confirmed his (the OPs) interpretation.

Some here don't agree with that aide's decision (which is likely the Senator's as well). That's fine, we're all supposedly grown ups here. We don't have to agree on everything.

But, I will not sit idly by and have people who have no knowledge of me personally presume to speak for me as to what I would do in a particular situation. Especially when it comes to respect for the military.

The section that speaks of the discount does not define "honorably discharged"
The section that speaks of the Veteran under the age of 21 qualifying for a CHL speaks specifically of a general under honorable conditions (as qualifying).
The section that speaks of the Veteran designation on a CHL speaks specifically of an Honorable Discharge

These are all from code concerning CHLs, and there does appear to be some inconsistency.

In addition, the DPS has, on their web page, information concerning the Veteran's designation on a person's driver's license (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... rvices.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
On that web page, the use the term same term - "honorably discharged"

Eligibility
To be eligible for the veteran designation, an individual must be a veteran who was honorably discharged.

They then specifically state (my emphasis added):

Veterans must visit a driver license office and present their DD-214, DD-215, NGB-22, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disability letter, or U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Proof of Service/Verification of Honorable Service Card. The document can be a copy or an original, but it must show that the veteran received an honorable discharge or a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

One can disagree with the DPS's interpretation, or even the Senator's interpretation (or her aide's); but there is little doubt that the DPS, in at least some cases, consider a general under honorable to be "honorably discharged". Since they used "honorably discharged" with no further definition in the section concerning the discount, I still agree with the OP, that it's open to interpretation.

He sought out interpretation. Good for him.

As I said, anyone feel free to disagree, and even discuss to your heart's content. Once someone starts making false allegations about me personally though, I will stop the discussion with that person.

casp625 wrote:1) I ask you a question, and you deflect. I ask the same question again, you yet again deflect. I'll assume the answer to my question is in the affirmative since you are so defensive about it.

2) I bring up one point regarding the veteran designation, that has no room for interpretation, and you counter it with the discount has room for interpretation.

3) OP has yet to show proof of being honorably discharge. He received a General discharge, probably due to misconduct. And instead of getting his discharge upgraded, he got the rules reinterpreted for his favor to receive a benefit for those who actually were honorably discharged. Pretty low

And I will repeat, as long as you try to speak for me, I will refuse to engage you in any further discussion. You claimed to be "sure" of what I would do. Your assumption was false, no matter how sure you are.

casp625 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself.

I've quoted everything in direct response to you.

Actually false - I refer you to this:

casp625 wrote:... If there was a bad conduct discharge under honorable conditions, I am sure you would argue in their favor as well, correct?

The section you quoted refers to the veteran designation, not the discount.

The discount requirement does not state one needs proof of an "honorable discharge", but that one must show proof they were "honorably discharged".
See Sec. 411.1951

WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF FEES FOR MEMBERS OR VETERANS OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES:
(a) In this section, "veteran" means a person who:
(1) has served in:
(A) the army, navy, air force, coast guard, or marine corps of the United States;
(B) the Texas military forces as defined by Section 437.001; or
(C) an auxiliary service of one of those branches of the armed forces; and
(2) has been honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the person served.

Show me a DD214 that says "honorably discharged", and I'll agree with you. Until then, I'll disagree,

Without any of the silliness.

Now, as I mentioned before, go play the game with yourself. You don't speak for me, now matter how "sure" you are of your position.

Right2Carry wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself. That way you're bound to win.

Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

I doubt seriously that DPS put the designation on there without his request. Why are you the mouthpiece for the OP? All of this is hearsay and there is no proof what you are reporting actually happened.

Yes I am one of those honorable discharged veterans who takes offense. For the record he didn't change any minds at DPS, he found a Senator( who may be ill informed himself) to do his dirty work for him. I guess you be be happy if a student was doing C class work but receiving the grade and benefits of an A student?

I'm not going to engage folks over their suppositions of what I believe. If you want to know what I believe about something, simply ask.

As far as the "ill informed" senator, he deliberately chose the chair of the Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs & Military Installations. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself. That way you're bound to win.

Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

casp625 wrote: Well you're not the OP and no one is questioning you, so, there's that.

No, he can no longer post. Guess some would consider that an "easy target". Is it only the OP that is permitted to take issue with a false statement?

casp625 wrote:All discharges come with a reason, hence the three-digit separation code. If OP chooses not to disclose it, that is his prerogative, but don't expect anyone to believe he was screwed out of a honorable discharge, which he did not receive.

As the title of the post pretty clearly alludes to, he made no such claim. Actually reading the thread would make it even more clear.

casp625 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: The problem is that section doesn't define their term "honorable discharge". They should.

I guess it would be less confusing if the Military would define the term "honorable discharge" as well

Not really, since it's not the military offering the discount. Again, as was noted in the thread, the DPS (which is the entity offering the discount) has conflicting definitions. In some instances, the department openly qualifies "under honorable conditions" as an honorable discharge. Not in this one, it's left undefined. In another, they specifically designate that a DD214 showing "Honorable" as the nature of discharge as a requirement for another benefit. For this particular one, again, they leave it undefined.
As was mentioned, several on here made the comment that he should stop whining and do something about it. He did. He called for clarification, and got his discount.

casp625 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:The OP in this thread sent me an email that he did finally get his CHL, and it even said Veteran on it!

And while there was much debate whether OP should have received a discount, it was clear in the statutes that he should NOT have received the "Veteran" designation:

(e) In this subsection, "veteran" has the meaning assigned by Section 411.1951. The department shall include the designation "VETERAN" on the face of any original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter or on the reverse side of the license, as determined by the department, if the license is issued to a veteran who:
(1) requests the designation; and
(2) provides proof sufficient to the department of the veteran's military service and honorable discharge.

for gaming the system

On a side note, I received my updated CHL and that one STILL didn't have the "Veteran" designation, even though they have my DD-214, I asked them for it, and received an honorable discharge. I guess I should contact the Senator's office and file a complaint

I'm not going to rehash the whole thread, but I take issue with your statement that someone "gamed the system". There is NOTHING on my discharge that says it's an "Honorable Discharge". Nothing.

My DD214 says "type of separation", and lists DISCHARGED.
It then says "character of service", and lists HONORABLE

Mine is clearly an "Honorable Discharge". The problem arises because someone else's may say "under honorable conditions"; actually some of the others may say "TRANSFER" (or even "TRF"), "RETIRED", "RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY, or any of the other number of designations. The end result though is that the person has left the military. Surely no one here is advocating that the words "HONORABLY DISCHARGED" in those exact wording, is the only thing that qualifies for the section (2) mentioned above? That would preclude a lot of retirees... The problem is that section doesn't define their term "honorable discharge". They should.

That said, I'm not about to pretend that my 1 month of military service, for which I received an "Honorable Discharge" (even by the definition of most that have chimed in) was somehow more than a guy that served a 4 year enlistment, transferred to the reserves, served 5 more years, and was given a "General Discharge" (which is NOT described on his DD214).

The OP was told by several that if he didn't like the results, he should do something other than just complain on a forum. He did. Good for him.

With that, I'm done.

E.Marquez wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:The OP in this thread sent me an email that he did finally get his CHL, and it even said Veteran on it!

He said he expressed to Senator Campbell that (quoted below):

I was more interested in DPS policy correction than getting my license and he said: "they [DPS] stated they have included that in their verbiage to remove doubt, debate, or interpretation as to the difference in honorable under other conditions." and he said: "I will do a follow up and see if they can send me a memo they posted or how they train their personnel and get back to you if that is fine with you?"

I for one, am glad to see that the effort got some results.

To each his own...
I will contact my Rep, to express my unhappiness with any policy that provide benefit directly or in kind to a Vet discharged with anything other than an Honorable Discharge.

I spent 29 years personally observing the level of character, professionalism, honor and dedication of duty for those discharged under all possible characterization of service. My personal opinion based on my observations is it is a discredit to those that did right and were discharged with an Honorable Discharge to allow others the same after service benefits.

Sounds like my update may have created a whole new dust-up, but that was not the intention.

That said, there are many benefits afforded to Vets with "general under honorable" discharges.

ScooterSissy wrote:The OP in this thread sent me an email that he did finally get his CHL, and it even said Veteran on it!

He said he expressed to Senator Campbell that (quoted below):

I was more interested in DPS policy correction than getting my license and he said: "they [DPS] stated they have included that in their verbiage to remove doubt, debate, or interpretation as to the difference in honorable under other conditions." and he said: "I will do a follow up and see if they can send me a memo they posted or how they train their personnel and get back to you if that is fine with you?"

I for one, am glad to see that the effort got some results.

I have to amend this a bit, it was actually the senator's aide, not the senator himself. My bad.

The OP in this thread sent me an email that he did finally get his CHL, and it even said Veteran on it!

He said he expressed to Senator Campbell's aide that (quoted below):

I was more interested in DPS policy correction than getting my license and he said: "they [DPS] stated they have included that in their verbiage to remove doubt, debate, or interpretation as to the difference in honorable under other conditions." and he said: "I will do a follow up and see if they can send me a memo they posted or how they train their personnel and get back to you if that is fine with you?"

I for one, am glad to see that the effort got some results.

(edited to reflect that the information was from Senator Campbell's aide, not the senator)