TexasCHLforum.com

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'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)

This makes you his spokesman.

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.

Military Discharges

Applicants with military service must submit a certified copy of their most current military history form (DD-214 Member-4 Copy, or NGB-22) with the required forms and documents once they have been approved through the pre-screen process.

Military service will be reviewed using the following guidelines:
A.Applicants who possess an honorable discharge will be eligible for further consideration.
B.Applicants who possess a general discharge under honorable conditions should be considered; however, all disciplinary action must be thoroughly investigated and an evaluation of military performance must be made in order to determine if the applicant is eligible for further consideration.
C.Any applicant who possesses a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct discharge shall be rejected and the applicant process will be discontinued.
D.Applicants whose discharge from military service was for ineptitude, unsuitability, undesirability, or like causes will be rejected.

http://dps.texas.gov/trainingacademy/re ... charge.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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?

I guess that tells the story.

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?

ScooterSissy wrote:

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

I agree and will contact my reps as well.

Screwed up the post couldn't fix so deleted everything.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The discount as well as the eligibility and controlling definitions are in the Government Code and are not set by DPS.

I'm going to Austin Tuesday to testify on one of Sen. Huffman's bills; I'll ask Sen. Campbell about this thread and what has been said about her involvement.

Loren, if you "have no interest in any other threads on this forum[,]" then do you want me to deactivate your registration?

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.1951 wrote: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.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall waive any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is:
(1) a member of the United States armed forces, including a member of the reserves, national guard, or state guard; or
(2) a veteran who, within 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of service in which the person served.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the applicant is a veteran who, more than 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the applicant served:
(1) the applicant must pay a fee of $25 for the issuance of an original or renewed license under this subchapter; and
(2) the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required of the applicant for a duplicate or modified license under this subchapter.

Any update?

A good description of the different types of discharges being discussed and why they are given.

Characterization of Service. Characterization at separation is based upon the quality of the member's service, including the reason for separation and guidance below. The military determines the "quality of service" in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), directives and regulations issued by the Department of Defense and the Military Departments, and the time-honored customs and traditions of military service.
The quality of service of a member on active duty or active duty for training is affected adversely by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Military Services or is prejudicial to good order and discipline, regardless of whether the conduct is subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Characterization may be based on conduct in the civilian community, and the burden is on the respondent to demonstrate that such conduct did not adversely affect the respondent's service.
The Military considers the reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the separation, on the issue of characterization. As a general matter, regulations require the military to determine characterization upon a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident. There are circumstances, however, in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for characterization.

Honorable. The Honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (For example, a Medal of Honor recipient would almost always receive an Honorable Discharge, unless he/she was involved in the most serious of misconduct). In the case of an Honorable Discharge, an Honorable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256) is awarded and a notation is made on the appropriate copies of The DD Form 214/5.

General (Under Honorable Conditions). If a member's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as General (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member's military conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the record. A General (under honorable conditions) characterization of discharge may jeopardize a member's ability to benefit from the Montgomery G.I. Bill if they, in fact, had contributed. Moreover, the member will not normally be allowed to reenlist or enter a different military service.Here is a good description of the differences and types of discharges being discussed.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicel ... harge1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Annoyed Man wrote:My view is like this: I know I am an honorable man, and when doing work for someone else, I intentionally try to fulfill that obligation well and honorably. But a couple of times in my past, my efforts were judged not good enough, and I was fired. I did nothing wrong or immoral, nor criminal, but it apparently wasn't good enough. I was let go. That is kind of how I understand a general discharge under honorable conditions. Now, I understand that some people probably receive a general discharge under "honorable conditions" because it is just easier, faster, and less paperwork hassle for the military to get rid of a truly undesirable person that way, than it is to court-martial the person and have to go through all the trial nonsense, and then pay the expense of locking that person up in the brig for some period of time. But that can't possibly describe every person discharged that way. I am sure that some are discharged that way because it is found out later that they gamed the enlistment systems somehow and were not qualified for service.......so they are "let go".

[sidebar]
This actually happened to a friend of mine during the Vietnam War. He has a wandering eye and is colorblind in both eyes, but he had learned how to game the colorblindness tests before he enlisted. He wanted to be a helicopter mechanic, and he figured that colorblindness wouldn't matter, so he enlisted. He went through basic, but he got found out when he had to take another battery of vision tests that were more complicated after the army had shipped him off to mechanics school. He was generally discharged "under honorable conditions". I guess you could say on one hand that he had tried to defraud Uncle Sam, but on the other hand he genuinely wanted to serve, and he liked being in the Army.
[/sidebar]

I am sure that others are let go for being ongoing disciplinary problems; others for simply not being physically able to perform up to military expectations. Whatever. Are we really going to say to someone that really, in good faith, gave it their best shot and failed and were discharged, that they were not honorable?

Unlike most of you all, I never served, so I'm not going to swing that particular bat at anybody unless the reason for their discharge was criminal behavior of some kind. I also fully realize that because I did not serve, this opinion of mine may not count for much with some who did. I'm OK with that because at my age, I'm not going to spend my remaining years living in regret.

Tam,

What is forgotten is if one feels wronged they can apply and fight to get their discharge upgraded. The OP went through all that trouble for 35.00 when he could have simply had his discharge upgraded. That IMHO would have been a better use of his time and effort instead of with DPS. It is possible that the OP already tried to get his discharge upgraded and failed leaving this as his last resort.

There is a reason the type of discharges exist and whether one agrees or not, benefits are not the same for those receiving a general under honorable conditions and a Honorable discharge. This is explained to those receiving a general discharge. They are fully aware of the type of discharge they are receiving and its meaning. If they don't like it there is a process to upgrade the discharge and most are aware of that as well.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Taypo wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Taypo wrote:I'll throw my two cents in here after lurking for a bit.

As someone who has an Honorable Discharge from active duty Army, its fairly aggravating to watch someone with anything short of that be lumped into the same category with the same benefits and recognition. I don't pretend to have saved the world, been a Scout Seal Sniper Assassin or done dozens of tours in the sandbox. What I did do is fulfill the terms or my enlistments honorably and with distinction. Those folks with General Under Honorable Conditions may have served, but at some point, something prevented them from receiving an Honorable Discharge. They absolutely do not deserve to be categorized in the same fashion as those of us who have one.

If DPS chooses to do so to avoid arguments and save time, its disappointing.

I wonder if those that did do something extraordinary (let's not exaggerate, say - saved some folks, became a Seal Sniper, and did multiple tours in the sandbox) are as resentful that folks such as yourself are "lumped into the same category with the same benefits and recognition"...

Just something to think about.

BTW, this discussion hasn't been about receiving the same benefits and recognition, but rather about one particular benefit. When I was discharged, it was made clear to me that I only received a very small subset of the benefits most vets received. I never took advantage of the few I was due, except the CHL discount.

Sadly, as soon I clicked the submit button, this was exactly the response I expected. Speaking from experience, the guys that have saved the world will never stand out and never own it, especially in the real world. Also speaking from experience, the harder someone crows for a discount, a freebie or a benefit, the opposite is probably the case.

At this point, I'm out. The folks that have convinced themselves they still deserve full vet benefits aren't going to be swayed and the people on the other side of fence are probably done arguing.

I'm going to repeat, this discussion had absolutely nothing to do with folks that "convinced themselves they still deserve full vet benefits". Why the straw man? When you propose an argument that is not valid, you should expect that type of response.

I was promised two benefits when I mustered out. I was eligible for treatment at a VA center, and eligible for extra points as a veteran when I applied for civil service jobs (and qualified for jobs restricted to vets). I never took advantage of either, and don't expect I ever will (I'm nearing retirement age now).

I'll repeat though, no one here is talking about "full benefits"; but if a rule says people under xyz are entitled to a benefit, who are you (or anyone else) to decide they don't deserve it because their service didn't match up with yours (whose service likewise doesn't match up to some others)?

The intent is clear that honorably discharged veterans are to receive the discount per the below taken from the website.

Veteran (Honorably Discharged) Original Renewal
Individuals honorably discharged from military service.
$25
$25
GC §411.174 GC §411.1951
GC §411.174 GC §411.1951 GC §411.185

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/do ... hedule.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The OP may have convinced a Senator he was right but I believe he is wrong. If the above stated honorable service I think he would be entitled but it clearly states honorable discharge which IMHO would not include a general discharge as they are not the same.

loren wrote:FINAL UPDATE:
The policy for determining if a veteran with a General Discharge, under honorable conditions was "honorably discharged" and is eligible for the CHL veteran's fee discount has been CORRECTED: Yes, they were honorably discharged and are eligible. The Texas CHL law has not changed, only the interpretation. And the funny thing is that the eligibility was correct a few years ago but then changed to exclude General under honorable conditions because they were getting so many veteran applications. Could the reason for the change be fewer discounts / increased revenue? Thanks to Texas Senator Campbell, chairperson of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and her aid for getting this corrected.

To review, when I started this topic the question was never about the differences between Honorable and General discharges but what did the law makers mean when they used the term "honorably discharged" for CHL's veterans fee. According to the American Legion and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, General, under honorable conditions IS considered honorable discharged. Of course the Texas law makers could define the term differently but they didn't, so it made no sense for the CHL licensing folks to do it. Also, DPS refers to veterans discharged under honorable conditions as honorably discharged for adding the word "veteran" on their driver's license. So why the inconsistency?

I spoke over the weekend with a 2-star retired AF general about the meaning of "honorably discharged". Like me, he could not understand why one would not include General, under honorable conditions. I asked him why he thought that and he said "well the word honorable is there isn't it?"

The question now is: should veterans that should have been eligible for the CHL veterans fee but were denied because of having a General Discharge, under honorable conditions, be reimbursed?

Your statement above about honorable discharged is once again incorrect. They were generally discharged under honorable conditions. I wish you would stop using the term honorably discharged for those who received a general discharge. It is like calling a C student an A student. You want the A student Grade do the A student work.