Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably"

[ScooterSissy]

I don't really care if you agree with me or not. The OP wrote "Those with a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, have honorably served and been honorably discharged" and that is false. He did not serve honorably. If he had, he would have received an Honorable Discharge. If he said, those with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions are eligible for the veterans discount according to DPS, that would be true and accurate. But that's not what he said.

And yeah, this is a big deal to me. My cousin, Donald Carlson, was KIA in Vietnam, and it matters a great deal to me that people who received General Discharges Under Honorable Conditions do not represent themselves as having served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did.

Since you asked, here's my DD-214 (the relevant part):

The OP never said he "served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did." Nor did the OP ever claim he had an Honorable Discharge

He said that he served honorably. According to the DPS, he did. The DPS's definition, and how it applies to a CHL is what this is all about. To turn your own words back to you, if that bothers you, take it up with the DPS.

By the way, I do have an Honorable Discharge. I also know that I served honorably. I would never say that I "served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did". I did not.

Finally, no where on your DD214 does it say "honorably discharged". It classifies your type of service as HONORABLE and your type of separation as DISCHARGE.

You have created a straw man, and attacked it so vigorously that you seem to have convinced yourself the truth of it. There is no truth to it. The OP never made the claim you are implying he did. This isn't a matter of how you or I define the term "honorably discharged", it's a matter of the DPS defines it.
Earlier, you made two comments in one post, that I thought expressed your viewpoint. The second comment was this:

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.)

. You seem to have changed course, and now are accusing the OP of doing exactly that. He did not.

The earlier point you made is the critical one thought:

Throughout this thread I have tried to stick to the facts and the law.

Now, it appears that when the opinion of those that determine the rules (and yes, the DPS is the agency that determines those rules), you want to veer off from "the facts and the law", and base the way things "should be" on your opinion.

Again, the OPs statement that he (and others like him) where honorably discharged is false in your opinion. It's not your opinion that counts.

[baldeagle]

I don't really care if you agree with me or not. The OP wrote "Those with a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, have honorably served and been honorably discharged" and that is false. He did not serve honorably. If he had, he would have received an Honorable Discharge. If he said, those with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions are eligible for the veterans discount according to DPS, that would be true and accurate. But that's not what he said.

And yeah, this is a big deal to me. My cousin, Donald Carlson, was KIA in Vietnam, and it matters a great deal to me that people who received General Discharges Under Honorable Conditions do not represent themselves as having served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did.

Since you asked, here's my DD-214 (the relevant part):

The OP never said he "served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did." Nor did the OP ever claim he had an Honorable Discharge

He claimed he was honorably discharged. That's false.

He said that he served honorably.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me. He did not serve honorably. If he had, he would have received an honorable discharge.

According to the DPS, he did.

Wrong. According to the DPS he qualifies for the veterans discount.

The DPS's definition, and how it applies to a CHL is what this is all about. To turn your own words back to you, if that bothers you, take it up with the DPS.

By the way, I do have an Honorable Discharge. I also know that I served honorably. I would never say that I "served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did". I did not.

That's also wrong. You did. That's what Honorable Discharge means.

Finally, no where on your DD214 does it say "honorably discharged". It classifies your type of service as HONORABLE and your type of separation as DISCHARGE.

You have created a straw man, and attacked it so vigorously that you seem to have convinced yourself the truth of it. There is no truth to it. The OP never made the claim you are implying he did. This isn't a matter of how you or I define the term "honorably discharged", it's a matter of the DPS defines it.

The DPS is not defining what honorably discharged means. They are defining what is required to qualify for the veterans discount.

Earlier, you made two comments in one post, that I thought expressed your viewpoint. The second comment was this:

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.)

. You seem to have changed course, and now are accusing the OP of doing exactly that. He did not.

Because in his last post that's exactly what he did.

The earlier point you made is the critical one thought:

Throughout this thread I have tried to stick to the facts and the law.

Now, it appears that when the opinion of those that determine the rules (and yes, the DPS is the agency that determines those rules), you want to veer off from "the facts and the law", and base the way things "should be" on your opinion.

No, not at all. I am trying to point out the facts. The DPS has made a determination regarding who qualifies for the veterans discount. They have not made a judgement that he was honorably discharged. That is your (and now the OP's) misinterpretation of what this means.

Again, the OPs statement that he (and others like him) where honorably discharged is false in your opinion. It's not your opinion that counts.

And this is precisely my point. The DPS is NOT defining what honorably discharged means. Why can you not see that? They are simply offering a discount and defining what discharges qualify for that discount. He was not honorably discharged. The DPS is not saying that he was honorably discharged. That is a false interpretation, and that is what has caused all the fluff in this thread. To be honorably discharged, you must receive an Honorable Discharge. A General Under Honorable Conditions does not cut the mustard. Yes, he qualifies for benefits that worse discharges do not. But he is not, nor will he ever be, honorably discharged unless and until he appeals his discharge (which I have also pointed out repeatedly.)

Numerous veterans in this thread have made this point in various ways.

[loren]

I don't really care if you agree with me or not. The OP wrote "Those with a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, have honorably served and been honorably discharged" and that is false. He did not serve honorably. If he had, he would have received an Honorable Discharge. If he said, those with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions are eligible for the veterans discount according to DPS, that would be true and accurate. But that's not what he said.

And yeah, this is a big deal to me. My cousin, Donald Carlson, was KIA in Vietnam, and it matters a great deal to me that people who received General Discharges Under Honorable Conditions do not represent themselves as having served with the same honor and distinction that Donald did.

This is just silly. Never have I compared my service record with anyone deployed to a combat zone, much less someone killed in action. After I joined the Marine Corps during the Korean Conflict, I did spend a few hours when I should have been sleeping wondering how I would act in combat but the truce happened before I finished boot camp so I never had to find out. Unfortunately I had a critical skill that keep me stateside instead of seeing the world as I hoped and attempts to transfer to another MOS were denied. I had high proficiency ratings in my job but failed to take some minor rules seriously and hence missed getting a Good Conduct Medal when my 3-year enlistment ended and I was transferred to inactive Ready Reserve. Until DPS implied that I did not serve honorably I never thought there was a question about it. It does appear that I have succeeded in convincing DPS with the help of a Texas law maker that I might have served honorably but I will never convince some others in this forum. That's ok but don't misquote me.

[casp625]

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

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.

[ScooterSissy]

...
The DPS is not defining what honorably discharged means. They are defining what is required to qualify for the veterans discount.
... Why can you not see that? They are simply offering a discount and defining what discharges qualify for that discount. He was not honorably discharged. The DPS is not saying that he was honorably discharged. That is a false interpretation, and that is what has caused all the fluff in this thread. To be honorably discharged, you must receive an Honorable Discharge. A General Under Honorable Conditions does not cut the mustard. Yes, he qualifies for benefits that worse discharges do not. But he is not, nor will he ever be, honorably discharged unless and until he appeals his discharge (which I have also pointed out repeatedly.)

Numerous veterans in this thread have made this point in various ways.

This is where it is you that "runs off the rails."

When the DPS states that they give a discount for someone who is "honorably discharged", then they include as a method of proof that one provide a DD214 showing "general (under honorable conditions)" then they are indeed defining "honorably discharged", at least for their purposes.

Their meaning was all this was ever about.

And yes, indeed, "numerous veterans have made this point in various ways", and at least one (myself) made the opposite point. The OP also pointed out that "numerous veterans" have made the opposite point when he listed the various veterans organizations that specifically state that general under honorable qualify for membership.

Finally, you reveal that you do not fully understand these terms when you claim that I served with "honor and distinction" (although I had previously stated that I did not). My service was "honorable", but I received no ribbons and no promotions. There was was nothing I did to earn the term "distinction".

[Jaguar]

Interesting thread. I joined the Army Reserves at age 17 while still in high school, split my basic training and AIT so I could finish my senior year. I spent the next 12 years in the USAR, and I left the Reserves as an E-4, irritated I was passed over for E-5 after PLDC because I didn't have enough college credit (promotion board gave me 1 point not enough on my last attempt.)

So this thread got me looking at my DD214. It doesn't list anything after AIT, has me listed as PV2, E-2, and the box 23. Type of Separation is "Relief from ADT" - box 24. Character of Service is "Honorable." The "record of service" states "i. Reserve Oblig. Term. Date" is 1989, but I re-upped and was discharged in 95, although I went IRR in 93.

I never went active, didn't go overseas, did not receive any medals of importance, and just did what was expected and had some fun days, some crappy days, and got to take interesting two week "vacations" to military bases and depots around the US. I do not equate my service with someone like my dad who did two tours in the Vietnam War and won the Distinguished Flying Cross, I was just a guy that liked playing solder once a month and two weeks a year and did an okay job at it while learning electronics.

All that said, I sent my DD214 in when I got my CHL and was given the discount.

[sugar land dave]

It is interesting to me that a new member with nine total posts could make such an inflamatory thread for a first effort. I dare say that does not happen often around here.

I question if DPS is voluntarily defining the OP as a veteran for the CHL discount purpose if they are indeed under the duress of being questioned by a "distinguished" politician. I will politely call that a gentle form of coercion in my opinion. At this point, I have no concrete evidence presented that DPS unequivocally considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge, thus I would argue that this thread has no further value except to inflame forum members as it has for several pages and therefor should be locked.

[ScooterSissy]

It is interesting to me that a new member with nine total posts could make such an inflamatory thread for a first effort. I dare say that does not happen often around here.

I question if DPS is voluntarily defining the OP as a veteran for the CHL discount purpose if they are indeed under the duress of being questioned by a "distinguished" politician. I will politely call that a gentle form of coercion in my opinion. At this point, I have no concrete evidence presented that DPS unequivocally considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge, thus I would argue that this thread has no further value except to inflame forum members as it has for several pages and therefor should be locked.

Again with the straw man. No one has proposed that the DPS "considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge"; only that they consider both to be "honorably discharged".

It's probably worth mentioning that several agencies have the exact same policy. The search this thread "inspired" me to do found several references to policies that considered Honorable Discharge and General (Under Honorable Conditions) to be "honorably discharged" and everything below that to be "dishonorably discharged".

It's probably worth noting that even though "General (Under Other Than Honorable Conditions)" was considered "dishonorably discharged".

I'm going to repeat though, just so it doesn't get lost in the noise:

No one has proposed that the DPS "considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge"; only that they consider both to be "honorably discharged".

[baldeagle]

No one has proposed that the DPS "considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge"; only that they consider both to be "honorably discharged".

IOW, A does not equal B, except A is considered equal to B.

Great logic.

[ScooterSissy]

No one has proposed that the DPS "considers General under honorable to be equal to an Honorable discharge"; only that they consider both to be "honorably discharged".

IOW, A does not equal B, except A is considered equal to B.

Great logic.

You just don't get it. Look at subsets instead.

Here's one to think on. Why do you think the DPS used the term "honorably discharged" instead of saying "Has received and Honorable Discharge"? Keep in mind, both ac Honorable Discharge, and General Under Honorable Conditions indicate honorable service. Using the exact terminology would have eliminated the latter. Using a description instead leaves it open to interpretation.

Using a description, then including the latter as one of the available methods of establishing that one has met the requirements would seem that they've made their intent clear.

It really does sound as if your beef is with the DPS.

[casp625]

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.

[casp625]

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

[sugar land dave]

I will stand by my above post. No one has presented indisputatable evidence that DPS policy is one way or the other in every instance. At this point the thread is trending more towards a discussion of the concept of "stolen valor" than DPS policy, so I will repeat my assertion that this thread is best locked.

[Abraham]

SLD,

Hey, some of us like to debate more than others.

No one is forcing you to read these threads.

Right?

Don't liky - Don't read.

Easy.

The "mods" decide when to lock threads.

Me, I continue to be interested in this topic.

[ScooterSissy]

I think it's funny the people that say "I'm right, let's close the thread".

I'm going to state again, the OP never said he had an "Honorable Discharge", nor did he state that his general under honorable was equal to an honorable discharge. His point was that he felt that the DPS' interpretation of "honorably discharged" was incorrect. He has since discovered that they have (apparently) now changed their interpretation to mesh with what he saw. Anyone that is "inflamed" by this thread and stolen valor has no reason to be so inflamed, because it's never had anything to do with stolen valor (though it appears some tried to steer it that way).

Personally, I think the thread is a great one, as it has done several things.

It's exposed that there is some inconsistency in how the DPS interprets "honorably discharged", and in how they allow discounts to those that they consider "honorably discharged". It's encouraged at least one person (me) to find out more about the specifics of the different designations (in my case, I've found that I'm eligible for several benefits I wasn't aware of).

There's been no name-calling here, merely facts and opinions on how they are (or should be) interpreted. If someone is inflamed by those things, then I suggest they simply no longer read the thread. Open discussion is a good thing.