Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably"

[mojo84]

Are these the codes?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DjZ7KYMO4Q

[E.Marquez]

Are these the codes?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DjZ7KYMO4Q

At the time that page was published, but before the deluge of ALARACT messages for the next few years and then a republishing of the AR. Yes, those would appear to have been the SPD codes at the time. Like I said , not state secrets. The idea is.. Honorable discharge means one thing,, completion of Honorable service. That is what the public needs to know.

anything less than an honorable discharge is issued for a reason.. You want to know the reason.. ask the owner to say so and support his position.. Or do a FOIA and find out for yourself.
I have several times....its not that hard

[mojo84]

I'm not arguing with you.

Here are the current ones per militarypay.defense.gov

Edit to add link.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... zAZ8VMnM1A

[E.Marquez]

I'm not arguing with you.

Here are the current ones per militarypay.defense.gov

Im not arguing with anyone...

I simply said, the AR is restricted, it is not publicly made available. That some member of a military service or Gov worker decided to publish that section of the reg is not surprising at all.

Once the news broke (well before my time in the service ) mid 1970's...Most service members i know are aware of the SPD code, and know exactly what is on the DD214.
When I processed out in 2014 i was shown the SPD on my DD214, and shown in the reg what it represented. Seemed a pretty standard procedure then.. For sure it was not in 1970...but that was then, this is now.

[ScottDLS]

I'm not arguing with you.

Here are the current ones per militarypay.defense.gov

Im not arguing with anyone...

I simply said, the AR is restricted, it is not publicly made available. That some member of a military service or Gov worker decided to publish that section of the reg is not surprising at all.

Once the news broke (well before my time in the service ) mid 1970's...Most service members i know are aware of the SPD code, and know exactly what is on the DD214.
When I processed out in 2014 i was shown the SPD on my DD214, and shown in the reg what it represented. Seemed a pretty standard procedure then.. For sure it was not in 1970...but that was then, this is now.

I'm wondering is it restricted to FOIA requests? If so, what exemption to FOIA? I'm thinking they'll cite privacy as entities may use categorizations to discriminate against individual veterans beyond the mere "categorization" of their discharge.

ScottDLS = NAVY, HONORABLE, FBK

[rc-mike]

You guys made me dig it out and look.... AF, Honorable, RBD.

-Mike-

[baldeagle]

I don't even understand what all this means, but mine says Honorable and under Type of Certificate Issued - DD Form 256N.

[casp625]

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...

[E.Marquez]

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...

Not all pages (copies) of the DD214 have the narrative and SEP code. And the narrative is free text typed in by the retirement clerk, the code is a separate thing added.. so Yes it is very possible for the narrative to say one thing and the code be for something else.
In example..
My narrative states "Sufficient service for separation" There are however more then a dozen SEP codes which could have been used with that narrative .. Mine says RBD which is "Retirement - 20 - 30 Years Service"
But had the military wanted to, they could have used NET - RBB - Retirement - Other, SFJ - Permanent Disability - Retired, or any of another dozen codes that could apply to me..
And then there are the ones that have a negative implication which could be in contention to the narrative

member copy (page) 4 does not show the type of discharge at all.

[loren]

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 honorably 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?

[louisf1]

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?

Personally I think you're just setting yourself up for more disappointment. The overwhelming majority believe that a general discharge is regarded as lower than honorable. Therefore I believe most will agree that a discount is not really called for let alone a refund.

[Right2Carry]

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.

[casp625]

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.

[baldeagle]

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 honorably 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?

I'm not certain that this interpretation is correct. The relevant section of law is the Texas Government Code Section 411.172, Subsection (g)(2), but it applies to eligibility to obtain a CHL license when one is not yet 21

(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.

So legally someone with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions can obtain a CHL before their 21st birthday, but that says nothing about the discounted fee.

The discount is mentioned in another place, Section 411.135, Subsection (c).

(c) The department by rule may require, in addition to the amount of the fee or charge, the payment of:
(1) a discount, convenience, or service charge for a payment transaction; or
(2) a service charge in connection with the payment of a payment transaction that is dishonored or refused for lack of funds or insufficient funds.

So DPS can decide by rule who gets the discount and who doesn't. It appears to me that the DPS caved under the pressure of a Senator questioning their policy, but I doubt seriously others could obtain a refund for not being allowed to take advantage of the discount previously. By law, the DPS can set any prices and discounts they want and determine who is eligible.

Your 2-star AF general is confused, if you are quoting him accurately. If there were no difference between an Honorable Discharge and a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions, then one of the two categories would not exist. Words have meaning. A General Discharge is not an Honorable Discharge, regardless of its conditions.

[C-dub]

Has the OP enlightened us as to why his discharge was general: under honorable conditions yet rather than honorable?