TexasCHLforum.com

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

To answer your first reply (now deleted), a statute, not "statue", is just a law. A law as in the government code 411, which I referenced a bunch throughout this thread. They can also be found online here: www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm

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. When I ask you a question, you can either 1) answer it or 2) deflect and say I am "pretending you said something you didn't", which is what you've done this entire time. Would you still support OP if he received a Bad Conduct Discharge under honorable conditions (if it existed)? I mean, this entire thread is focused on the conditions attributed to the discharge RATHER than the TYPE of discharge when concerning benefits.

ScooterSissy wrote:That way you're bound to win.

Why do I need to "win"? OP is claiming a victory in receiving a benefit that is for those "honorably discharge." Since OP received a General Discharge, it's easy to see why this thread was controversial, especially since OP DD214 separation reason was "UNSATSIFACTORY PERFORMANCE" which would not be considered "honorably discharged." Now, prove my derived claim wrong and I will agree he was honorably discharged.

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

The statute actually states you have to request it:
Sec. 411.179. FORM OF LICENSE.
(e)(1) requests the designation; and
(2) provides proof sufficient to the department of the veteran's military service and honorable discharge.

And not only did OP state a general discharge could get the discount, he proposed that those who didn't should get reimbursed. Talk about adding insult to injury.

ScooterSissy wrote: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.

If I see someone in uniform that clearly isn't a service member, I am going to confront them. If I see someone trying to game the system by defining honorable discharge to equate their general discharge for benefits, they will be confronted just the same.

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

When one is given a benefit for getting a certain discharge (honorable) and then someone comes and complains (OP) about not receiving that same benefit with a lower discharge (general), then it's easy to see the distinction. A discharge is either: Honorable, General, Bad Conduct, or Dishonorable and every other "code" describes the condition of the discharge. If there was a bad conduct discharge under honorable conditions, I am sure you would argue in their favor as well, correct?

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

Your argument is that since most of the statute is "vague" when talking about discharges and that DPS needed to clarify it. For the only part that is very specific, you argue that "honorable discharge" is undefined. No matter how you try to twist this, (e)(2) was very clear he needed an "honorable discharge" to receive the Veteran designation. Since he does not and the language is very specific, then that is just gaming the system

But before you misquote me...

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

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

ScooterSissy wrote: 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).

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.

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

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

As Charles has just noted, it has been shown that to be considered a *Veteran* one of the requirement states: honorably discharged. Naturally, by adding "-ly" to a word, we are modifying the word it describes: Discharge. Thus, the discharge must be honorable (base word of honorably = honorable, correct?) HOWEVER, to receive a *Veteran* designation on your CHL you must be considered a *Veteran* (as described in Sec 411.1951) AND specifically request the *Veteran* designation on your CHL (Per Sec. 411.179(e)(1)) AND must have received an honorable discharge (Per sec. 411.179(e)(2)). If *Veteran* and consequently "honorably discharged" was only to mean honorable discharge for CHL purposes, then I doubt it would be specifically listed in Sec 411.179(e)(2) a second time around since it was already covered in Sec. 411.1951, thus general discharge under honorable conditions should get the discount, just not the *veteran* designation.

On a side note, I still believe honorably discharged = honorable discharge which does not equal general discharge. Any benefits for "honorably discharged" should be reserved to those with an honorable discharge unless there is language to include a general discharge under honorable conditions. I have read laws for other states that specifically mentions either one or both when qualifying for benefits. If I was providing a benefit to honorably discharged military members and submitted the following DD214, I wouldn't honor it with unsatisfactory performance listed:

Also, if you want to receive "Honorably Discharged" license plates in Texas, you must have an Honorable Discharge (http://txdmv.gov/motorists/license-plat ... army?ml=1):

Eligibility: Former U.S. Armed Forces member with an Honorable Discharge

The bottom line: General Under Honorable Conditions may result in DPS giving you the discount. However, you are not eligible for the *Veteran* designation on your CHL. You are, however, eligible for it on your TX DL. Can this thread now be closed?

ETA:
This how Nebraska looks at benefits in relation to Honorable and General (http://ago.nebraska.gov/ag_opinion_view?oid=4057):

3-7. (a) Honorable discharge: An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

3-7. (b) General discharge:
(1) A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

(Emphasis added.) Clearly, an honorable discharge and general discharge (under honorable conditions) are two separate and distinct administrative discharges. Further there is nothing in either the Department of Defense Directive or the Army Regulations that lists or even suggests that there is an "equivalent" to an honorable discharge
...
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we believe that there is no equivalent to an honorable discharge, and therefore that characterization of service should not be compromised by including a general discharge (under honorable conditions) as its equivalent when determining veterans' eligibility for Nebraska benefits.

So if one moves to Nebraska, then realize that they don't have the same views as the VA, VFW, etc., etc.

Just going to re-post this since this is what is in the code:

loren wrote:Ahh, the real question I'm raising is: what does the Texas law really mean? There is no question about the merits of Honorable vs General discharges - never was. The question is what is actually intended by the Texas law makers when they use the term "honorably discharged" instead of "Honorable Discharge". Think about it. I don't really care about the license fee discount but after 58 years, learning that Texas CHL licensing thinks I was NOT honorably discharged is a little annoying when my DD-214 clearly says: separated under HONORABLE conditions.

Here is a good write-up about the types of discharges, courtesy of The Fort Hood Sentinel:

In general, there are five different types of discharges from the Army: Honorable; General, Under Honorable Conditions; Under Other than Honorable Conditions; Bad Conduct; and Dishonorable. The latter two may only be adjudged as a consequence of either a special or general court-martial conviction pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Each of these discharges carries a different meaning and can seriously affect veterans’ benefits and employment after service.

Of the five types of discharges, three are available to Soldiers when they are discharged administratively: Honorable, General Under Honorable Conditions, and Under Other than Honorable Conditions.

If you did not receive an Honorable Discharge, then you were not discharge honorably... it was a General with some honorable conditions (read, honorable conditions outweighed the negatives). Now we can dig a little further into the Texas code. According to Texas DPS, you should be able to receive a "Veteran" designation on your driver's license because your DD-214 "must show that the veteran received an honorable discharge or a general discharge (under honorable conditions)."

Now for the CHL portion.
Veteran (Honorably Discharged) is governed under Texas Government Code:

• GC §411.174
• GC §411.1951

Sec. 411.174 APPLICATION:

(9)
(b-1) The application must provide space for the applicant to:
(1) list any military service that may qualify the applicant to receive a license with a veteran's designation under Section 411.179(e); and
(2) include proof required by the department to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive that designation.

Sec. 411.179 FORM OF LICENSE:

(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.

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.

If we look at 411.179 we see it specify "honorable discharge." But wait, if we argue the definition of 411.1951, we once again see "honorably discharged." So now we are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "discharge" because a General (with conditions being honorable) still does not equal an Honorable Discharge. But just to prove the Texas DPS and lawmakers know exactly what they are talking about, let's take a look at Sec. 411.172

Sec. 411.172. ELIGIBILITY:

(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.

Now we can see 2 different sections that directly address "Honorable Discharge" (Sec 411.1951) and "Honorable Conditions" (Sec 411.172). IANAL, but I'd place my best guess that you can get a Veteran designation on your driver's license, would be eligible for a CHL if you were between 18-21 with a General under Honorable Conditions, are not qualified for a reduced fee. If anyone else would look to provide an interpretation, please do.

Analysis: Sec. 411.1951 states a *Veteran* has to be honorably discharged. So he may qualify for the discount, depending on who processes the application. HOWEVER, per Sec. 411.179, you should NOT receive the *Veteran* designation on your CHL since Sec. 411.179(e)(2) specifically states that you MUST HAVE HONORABLE DISCHARGE.

G26ster wrote:I have followed this thread but hesitated in joining it as I'm a bit confused with some of the things being said. So, let me ask a hypothetical question and see if I can wrap my head around this discussion.

Let's say a person joins the military, completes their basic training, goes on to advanced training in a specialty, and then half way through that training, is found to have a previously undiscovered disqualifying medical condition, and are discharged because of it. Are they given an "Honorable Discharge" or a "General Discharge" - under honorable conditions?"

Depends on if the person intentionally hid the medical condition during enlistment. If you did, you probably would receive a General. However, if you never been to the doctor for the ailment and you didn't receive any disciplinary action, you would get a Honorable once you get med boarded.

ScooterSissy wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

loren wrote:Those with a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, have honorably served and been honorably discharged according to veterans organizations, the laws of this state, and now even DPS. Believe it or not.

Right here is where you go off the rails and is what has caused all the contention in this thread. You were NOT honorably discharged, and no amount of parsing of words will change that. You have no right to claim you were honorably discharged, and doing so is offensive to many who have served and been honorably discharged. You received a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions. What this precisely means only you can say, and you clearly have not done so, despite repeated requests. (You have every right to keep the details of your discharge private.) A General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions means that you did something wrong, which caused your discharge, but it did not rise to the level of a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.

The DPS doesn't use the term "Honorable Discharge", they use the term "honorably discharged". Unless you (or someone else) can show a DD214 that uses the exact term "honorably discharged", then I think it's more than fair to say, that it is the Texas DPS that is "parsing words"; and they have made it pretty clear what they mean by the term.

Since we are getting very technical, the word *discharge* isn't used anywhere on the 2009 edition of the DD214:


Of course, if you look at the one I just Google searched, you can see it say *discharge* followed by *under honorable conditions* but the narrative states "Unsatisfactory Performance":


But I guess since the DD214 above shows "under honorable conditions" it completely negates the "unsatisfactory performance."

Right2Carry wrote:

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.

Without intending to insult the OP, I tend to agree with this rationale. If someone were to ask "under what conditions were you separated?" then sure, honorable. However, for most benefits (such as VA), they ask what was the type of discharge you received: General. It almost seems like a misinterpretation of the law to gain benefits reserved for others. If instead the discharge was titled "General Discharge: Under Satisfactory Conditions," we would not even be having this conversation.

Your "separation code" and "narrative reason for separation" are on in the same. You don't need to look up the code since the narrative already shows it...

Line 26 is your 3 digit separation code where Line 28 is the "Narrative Reason For Separation."

Gunner4640 wrote:Speaking of Veteran on a CHL I just renewed my Dl and I did not take DD214 or Discharge to get my renewal DL I showed my CHL which has Veteran on it and was told they will not accept it as proof of Veteran status and guess what my new Dl does not have Veteran on it.

My DL has "Veteran" on it but they have omitted it from my CHL... Even though I sent in a copy of my DD214 and my *status in the system* shows I have military affiliation