Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably"

[sugar land dave]

My father fought actual ground combat in WW2 and Korea. He had the purple heart and bronze star, several others which I don't recall right now. He spent his whole life in service and, as such I grew up in that social arena. The lifers know the difference and it does have meaning for them, so please allow that their emotions are as valid as anyones even though this thread is about a benefit.

[E.Marquez]

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"...

No we are not.

Honorable Discharge is just that
General discharge under honorable conditions is just that.
Those that received a General discharge did not EARN an Honorable Discharge ..Its really not that hard to understand unless you are looking to justify why you or a loved one failed to earn a Honorable Discharge.

[comp73]

I've been watching this thread for a while.

For the record, I have a General Discharge Honorable Conditions. To my knowledge, the only thing I lost was the GI Bill. All my other vet benefits at the fed and state level are not effected.

That being said, I have never considered my discharge to be a "Honorable Discharge". It has always been a General, under Honorable Conditions. Better than a General other than honorable and a whole lot better than a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, but still, not a "honorable discharge".

When I initially started the CHL process, I took a hard look at the vet discount. I agree with the OP that based on the language used, a person with a General honorable conditions would qualify for the discount. I do not believe that any General Discharge should be able to receive the reduced fee so I have chosen to pay full price for my CHL.

In my eyes, that discount is reserved for Honorably discharged veterans only, and I don't qualify.

I agree with the "Honorable Discharge" vets and completely understand why they take issue with someone equating a General Discharge to an Honorable discharge

If you got a General, then you did something to deserve it. If you don't like it, then take it to the review board for your branch of service and plead your case.

*Edited to ensure clarity*

[ScooterSissy]

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"...

No we are not.

Honorable Discharge is just that
General discharge under honorable conditions is just that.
Those that received a General discharge did not EARN an Honorable Discharge ..Its really not that hard to understand unless you are looking to justify why you or a loved one failed to earn a Honorable Discharge.

I will repeat (since it's becoming apparent some didn't understand); my discharge says "Honorable". It doesn't say "general under honorable conditions". One line says TYPE OF SEPARATION and is filled in DISCHARGED. Two lines down, it says CHARACTER OF SERVICE and is filled in HONORABLE. I'll repeat, nowhere does it say "Honorably discharged" (though it's implied).

I will also repeat, no one here ever said an Honorable Discharge was the same as a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions.

The question wasn't about an Honorable Discharge, the question was about the rule that says "honorably discharged". The OP originally stated he believed that "General under honorable" was considered "honorably discharged". Apparently, the DPS now agrees.

The rules don't say "received an Honorable Discharge", they say "honorably discharged". That term (honorably discharged) doesn't appear on my discharge papers; so I'm going to assume that it's a description, not a designation. It would seem to me "General under honorable conditions" could be interpreted as "honorably discharged" though not an "Honorable Discharge" (I've never heard the description "generally discharged").

My problem with this thread are the folks with the snarky comments, to the OP, along the lines of "... once the VA, American Legion, and VFW start issuing CHLs you are good to go"

That interpretation of the rules, as one person pointed out, is up to the Department of Public Safety. Apparently, their interpretation meshes with the OPs, and they are the entity that issues CHLs. So, he should be good to go. (I doubt he's going to get a refund on his original, but he's probably going to get the discount on renewals).

The OPs point (as I understand it) was never about getting "all the benefits of a vet with an Honorable Discharge", it was about this particular benefit, which appears (according to those that decide the matter) that it applies to the OP with his "General under Honorable Conditions".

[anygunanywhere]

Putting a rock in an oven doesn't make it a biscuit.

Calling a general discharge an honorable discharge does not make it so.

[ScooterSissy]

Putting a rock in an oven doesn't make it a biscuit.

Calling a general discharge an honorable discharge does not make it so.

Again, no one here has said that, or made that claim.

Does the general description of "honorably discharged" (not an official designation, but a description) fit both of the following:

Honorable

General under honorable conditions

By their very specific designation that includes the word "honorable", I'd say that they fit the description.

No, were the "rules" for the CHL meant to be only for an "Honorable Discharge", or was the term "honorably discharged" meant as a description. If it was the former, wonder why they didn't use the official terminology?

[RogueUSMC]

Wow...and I read this whoooole thread...lol

[anygunanywhere]

Putting a rock in an oven doesn't make it a biscuit.

Calling a general discharge an honorable discharge does not make it so.

Again, no one here has said that, or made that claim.

Does the general description of "honorably discharged" (not an official designation, but a description) fit both of the following:

Honorable

General under honorable conditions

By their very specific designation that includes the word "honorable", I'd say that they fit the description.

No, were the "rules" for the CHL meant to be only for an "Honorable Discharge", or was the term "honorably discharged" meant as a description. If it was the former, wonder why they didn't use the official terminology?

My DD214 shows:
Type of separation: Discharged. Character of Service: Honorable.

Words have meanings.

[mojo84]

Wow...and I read this whoooole thread...lol

You need a life.

[ScooterSissy]

Putting a rock in an oven doesn't make it a biscuit.

Calling a general discharge an honorable discharge does not make it so.

Again, no one here has said that, or made that claim.

Does the general description of "honorably discharged" (not an official designation, but a description) fit both of the following:

Honorable

General under honorable conditions

By their very specific designation that includes the word "honorable", I'd say that they fit the description.

No, were the "rules" for the CHL meant to be only for an "Honorable Discharge", or was the term "honorably discharged" meant as a description. If it was the former, wonder why they didn't use the official terminology?

My DD214 shows:
Type of separation: Discharged. Character of Service: Honorable.

Words have meanings.

Exactly what mine says.
I don't know what a "General discharge" says. Can someone verify?

Some of the research I've done says that typically, a general discharge has "under honorable conditions" listed on the Character of Service line. I don't know if it's true, but would be interesting (that would sound to me as if someone was honorably discharged). It's probably worth mentioning that same research said that those who do finish boot camp (like me) have "Uncharachterized (entry level separation)" which mine did not.

Who knows, maybe ones paper life in the military is determined by what kind of day some E3 clerk is having...

[JP171]

it will say in the character of service block "under honorable conditions" nothing more nothing less it is NOT considered an "HONORABLE" discharge because your term of service wasn't completed it is an administrative discharge for some form of failure to adapt to military life under AR 635-200

[E.Marquez]

it will say in the character of service block "under honorable conditions" nothing more nothing less it is NOT considered an "HONORABLE" discharge because your term of service wasn't completed it is an administrative discharge for some form of failure to adapt to military life under AR 635-200

General discharges are not limited to only those who were separated early.
You can serve your entire enlistment and still receive a general discharge.

And to answer another person suggestion.. NO the type of discharge is NOT decided upon by the clerk (mostly civilians these days) that process your separation and DD214.
That is the commanders call, and his commander as well if it is anything other than honorable.

That means if a service member received anything other than an honorable discharge AT LEAST to commanders reviewed and approved that discharge type.

[ScooterSissy]

it will say in the character of service block "under honorable conditions" nothing more nothing less it is NOT considered an "HONORABLE" discharge because your term of service wasn't completed it is an administrative discharge for some form of failure to adapt to military life under AR 635-200

General discharges are not limited to only those who were separated early.
You can serve your entire enlistment and still receive a general discharge.

And to answer another person suggestion.. NO the type of discharge is NOT decided upon by the clerk (mostly civilians these days) that process your separation and DD214.
That is the commanders call, and his commander as well if it is anything other than honorable.

That means if a service member received anything other than an honorable discharge AT LEAST to commanders reviewed and approved that discharge type.

My comment about a clerk was more about what was entered, rather than the decision made. I stand by that comment. I've only seen one DD214 - mine. It says "Honorable". Nowhere on it does it say "General". But I know 100% sure that during the process of my separation, the paperwork I was given stated "General - erroneous enlistment" (I remember because I sought help in trying to request a Captain's Mast to fight it).

That said, the information I remember is not consistent with the procedures I've found since. This is typical of information I've gotten (from various sources):

Erroneous Enlistment.
A member may be separated on the basis of an erroneous enlistment, induction, or extension of enlistment. An enlistment, induction, or extension of enlistment is erroneous in the following circumstances, if:
(1) It would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the government or had appropriate directives been followed;
(2) It was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member; and
(3) The defect is unchanged in material respects.

Erroneous Enlistment. normally receive an Honorable Discharge, unless eligible for an Entry Level Separation (Less than 180 days of military service).

My discharge met all three of those requirements; however, according to the same document, I should not have received an Honorable, but rather an Entry Level Separation (I had less than 180 days of service).

It's probably worth noting, I did meet with a JAG about the possibility of a captain's mast. The JAG I met with warned me that if I fought the designation (General - erroneous enlistment), the Navy could come back and charge me with fraudulent enlistment, which would result in a court-martial which could result in a dishonorable discharge. The "fraud" was based on the fact that I had indicated no recurring health problems. I had had 4 or 5 earaches during my life that I didn't report (until questioned further by the Navy doctor examining me). They didn't seem to me to be "recurring health problems". Neither did an occasional headache, a few sneezes here and there, or a couple of hangnails. In short, I suspect now (with a few more years life experience behind me) that it was far easier to shuffle out a new recruit than work with him trying to fight to stay in.

But I digress. I know for sure that my initial paperwork mustering me out showed a general under honorable conditions. 33 years later, I needed the DD214 to get the discount on my CHL. I had never needed it in the past, so I never worried about what became of the original. I really didn't even pay much attention to what it said when I got it, just sent one of the two copies in with my paperwork. It was only when going back to dig it up for this thread that I saw that it said "Honorable".

Ironically, in the research I've done in the past few days (this really has been an interesting search for me), it turns out that many of the benefits I thought I didn't have, I could have availed myself to in spite of what I was originally told. I don't know if some CC heard I didn't want out and felt sorry for me, or if some mistake was made over the years in the designation, or possibly some changes in the way the military does things caused changes on mine from what it was in 1977; it doesn't really matter to me now.

However, all of this research and discussion has convinced me of one thing completely. Everyone should exercise caution when deciding the nature of another person's military service, without first knowing all of the details of said service.

Matthew 7:1-2 is the Truth.

With that, though I seldom say "never", I'm probably about done with this thread.

[baldeagle]

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"...

Throughout this thread I have tried to stick to the facts and the law. Obviously I can't speak for every man or woman who ever served, and I'm relatively certain that you can find some that think their service was better than others because they served in combat. However, it's been my experience that, in general, every honorably discharged vet that I know (and that is quite a few from the Vietnam era) feels that my service is every bit as honorable as theirs. I served on the east coast doing signals intelligence for my entire tour (six years). Many of these men I know served multiple years in Vietnam, in combat infantry units, special forces units and CIA service. Some of them were POWs. A few of them are even nationally famous. Several of them were career officers and a few hold Ph.D.s. To a man they treat me as an equal. Whenever I express how humbled I feel in their presence, they immediately point out that they feel humbled in mine.

I think this is the attitude that most honorably discharged service persons have toward their fellow honorably discharged peers.

What you have witnessed in this thread is the anger that honorably discharged vets feel when they sense that someone is trying to elevate themselves to the same position, even though they haven't earned it. (And I am NOT referring to the OP, although his words were all it took to generate this heat.) It takes commitment to serve in the US military, both in years and in terms of obedience and discipline. Every person who has served honorably understands what that means, and they also understand why it's important that that honor be reserved only for those who earned it. In the final analysis NONE of us has earned what those who paid the ultimate sacrifice have, and it is in honor of them that we strive to uphold the high standards of service that we all were trained to do.

[ScooterSissy]

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"...

Throughout this thread I have tried to stick to the facts and the law. Obviously I can't speak for every man or woman who ever served, and I'm relatively certain that you can find some that think their service was better than others because they served in combat. However, it's been my experience that, in general, every honorably discharged vet that I know (and that is quite a few from the Vietnam era) feels that my service is every bit as honorable as theirs. I served on the east coast doing signals intelligence for my entire tour (six years). Many of these men I know served multiple years in Vietnam, in combat infantry units, special forces units and CIA service. Some of them were POWs. A few of them are even nationally famous. Several of them were career officers and a few hold Ph.D.s. To a man they treat me as an equal. Whenever I express how humbled I feel in their presence, they immediately point out that they feel humbled in mine.

I think this is the attitude that most honorably discharged service persons have toward their fellow honorably discharged peers.

What you have witnessed in this thread is the anger that honorably discharged vets feel when they sense that someone is trying to elevate themselves to the same position, even though they haven't earned it. (And I am NOT referring to the OP, although his words were all it took to generate this heat.) It takes commitment to serve in the US military, both in years and in terms of obedience and discipline. Every person who has served honorably understands what that means, and they also understand why it's important that that honor be reserved only for those who earned it. In the final analysis NONE of us has earned what those who paid the ultimate sacrifice have, and it is in honor of them that we strive to uphold the high standards of service that we all were trained to do.

Well said sir. Your experience with vets closely matches mine (with my mere 30 odd days of "service"). As I indicated earlier in this, a vet that did serve combat duty (two wars, multiple tours) and retired after his 20 is the guy that told me "You took the same oath as me, and you served as long as they would allow you".