Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably"

[loren]

In addition to confirmation from the American Legion and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, I just received this email response from the VFW:
"If the veteran in question has served at least 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in Korea, or if they were awarded the Korea Service Medal or the Korean Defense Service Medal, they are eligible for membership in the VFW. A discharge of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” meets the VFW’s requirement for honorable service."

In VFW's website description of eligibility for membership, it says:
"Assuming that a person is a United States citizen or United States national and has an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces, it only remains to be proven that the person has earned a recognized campaign medal or badge; served in Korea between June 30, 1949, until present; or earned Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger Pay eligibility."

Note that when VFW uses the term "honorable discharge" (as opposed to Honorable Discharge) it means to include General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Hope this helps with better understanding the term. Tell your friends!

[baldeagle]

In addition to confirmation from the American Legion and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, I just received this email response from the VFW:
"If the veteran in question has served at least 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in Korea, or if they were awarded the Korea Service Medal or the Korean Defense Service Medal, they are eligible for membership in the VFW. A discharge of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” meets the VFW’s requirement for honorable service."

In VFW's website description of eligibility for membership, it says:
"Assuming that a person is a United States citizen or United States national and has an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces, it only remains to be proven that the person has earned a recognized campaign medal or badge; served in Korea between June 30, 1949, until present; or earned Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger Pay eligibility."

Note that when VFW uses the term "honorable discharge" (as opposed to Honorable Discharge) it means to include General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Hope this helps with better understanding the term. Tell your friends!

You just won't let this go. What the VFW and the American Legion do has a lot more to do with increasing their pool of potential paying members than it does about the meaning of Honorable Discharge. No matter what some organization outside the US military says, the fact still remains that they are two different discharges. That distinction is not lost on most veterans. Your discharge is not equal to an Honorable Discharge. Never was and never will be.

For the umpteenth time, if that bothers you, appeal your discharge.

BTW, you are, for the first time in this thread, claiming you have "confirmation from the US Department of Veterans Affairs". Confirmation of what? And in what form did that confirmation come?

[anygunanywhere]

Looks like once the VA, American Legion, and VFW start issuing CHLs you are good to go.

[C-dub]

In addition to confirmation from the American Legion and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, I just received this email response from the VFW:
"If the veteran in question has served at least 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in Korea, or if they were awarded the Korea Service Medal or the Korean Defense Service Medal, they are eligible for membership in the VFW. A discharge of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” meets the VFW’s requirement for honorable service."

In VFW's website description of eligibility for membership, it says:
"Assuming that a person is a United States citizen or United States national and has an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces, it only remains to be proven that the person has earned a recognized campaign medal or badge; served in Korea between June 30, 1949, until present; or earned Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger Pay eligibility."

Note that when VFW uses the term "honorable discharge" (as opposed to Honorable Discharge) it means to include General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Hope this helps with better understanding the term. Tell your friends!

We've either reached this point or are very close.

[sugar land dave]

[video][/video]

[C-dub]

[video][/video]

Love that movie. Love that line. I use it often.

[ScooterSissy]

You know, I think some folks here really need to check their attitudes a bit. First, the response became "If you don't like it, you should ask to have yours changed". Then when the OP found that the rules have changed, and general under honorable now gets the discount, it became "I don't agree with their interpretation".

Hmmmm, maybe those that disagree with their interpretation should apply for a job with the DMV.
/SnarkyComment

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. I was discharged early, against my will. I felt bad about it for a long time, as if I somehow didn't measure up. A family member (that was retired military) told me I took the same oath as him, and I served until they no longer wished me to serve, through no fault of my own.

I don't know the OPs reasons for a general discharge, nor am I in a position to insist he tell me. Until I have a reason to believe differently, I feel the same way about his service.

I will never feel I did as much as those that served in combat zones, but I really don't feel my commitment was any less than some pencil pusher who stayed stateside for 3 or 4 years. We both took the oath, we both fulfilled our commitments.

[Taypo]

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.

[ScooterSissy]

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.

[Taypo]

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.

[ScooterSissy]

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)?

[ScottDLS]

In my service no combat. My DD-214 says Honorable. I was the first man in my family to serve... I am proud of my service.

[anygunanywhere]

I applied for Military plates today for my truck. It is interesting to note that the application requires proof of honorable discharge and the requirement is underlined for emphasis on the form.

[ScooterSissy]

In my service no combat. My DD-214 says Honorable. I was the first man in my family to serve... I am proud of my service.

Mine also says "Honorable" (though at the time - 1978, I know some of my paperwork stated "General - erroneous enlistment). There are two lines that concern the discharge. Line 9 says TYPE OF SEPARATION and is filled in DISCHARGED. Two lines down, it says CHARACTER OF SERVICE and is filled in HONORABLE.

Maybe one of the experts on here can tell me if that's "honorably discharged", "honorable discharge", or just "discharged". I don't know. It's not a big deal to me, though sometimes I wish I'd had more knowledge of exactly how to request a captain's mast when it all happened. I really wanted to finish out my commitment. I'd already finished the worst of boot camp (though I don't know how anyone called Navy boot "bad").

[Right2Carry]

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.