Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably"

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
loren
Banned
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:19 pm

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#136

Post by loren »

sugar land dave wrote: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.
Actually DPS policy is now consistent with respect to the term honorably discharged. It was properly handled with respect to driver's licenses but deviated for CHL. DPS was directed to make this change by a member of the State Senate who is also chairperson of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. If you disagree, take it to Texas Supreme Court.

If I had to do it over again, I would take the rules more seriously and obtain the Honorable Discharge. I believe I could get my General upgraded because my job proficiency ratings were high and infractions were minor - some even debatable.

Anyway, there has been a lot of irrelevant input to the original question and emotional rantings to this thread. Too bad, because a major point that may affect a number of veterans getting CHLs in the future is being overshadowed. I agree that all that can be said in this tread has probably been said but I would not call for censorship. Those who are weary with this discussion should simply unsubscribe. Or do they believe in the 2nd Amendment but not the 1st?
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#137

Post by The Annoyed Man »

My view is like this: I know I am an honorable man, and when doing work for someone else, I intentionally try to fulfill that obligation well and honorably. But a couple of times in my past, my efforts were judged not good enough, and I was fired. I did nothing wrong or immoral, nor criminal, but it apparently wasn't good enough. I was let go. That is kind of how I understand a general discharge under honorable conditions. Now, I understand that some people probably receive a general discharge under "honorable conditions" because it is just easier, faster, and less paperwork hassle for the military to get rid of a truly undesirable person that way, than it is to court-martial the person and have to go through all the trial nonsense, and then pay the expense of locking that person up in the brig for some period of time. But that can't possibly describe every person discharged that way. I am sure that some are discharged that way because it is found out later that they gamed the enlistment systems somehow and were not qualified for service.......so they are "let go".

[sidebar]
This actually happened to a friend of mine during the Vietnam War. He has a wandering eye and is colorblind in both eyes, but he had learned how to game the colorblindness tests before he enlisted. He wanted to be a helicopter mechanic, and he figured that colorblindness wouldn't matter, so he enlisted. He went through basic, but he got found out when he had to take another battery of vision tests that were more complicated after the army had shipped him off to mechanics school. He was generally discharged "under honorable conditions". I guess you could say on one hand that he had tried to defraud Uncle Sam, but on the other hand he genuinely wanted to serve, and he liked being in the Army.
[/sidebar]

I am sure that others are let go for being ongoing disciplinary problems; others for simply not being physically able to perform up to military expectations. Whatever. Are we really going to say to someone that really, in good faith, gave it their best shot and failed and were discharged, that they were not honorable?

Unlike most of you all, I never served, so I'm not going to swing that particular bat at anybody unless the reason for their discharge was criminal behavior of some kind. I also fully realize that because I did not serve, this opinion of mine may not count for much with some who did. I'm OK with that because at my age, I'm not going to spend my remaining years living in regret.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

Right2Carry
Banned
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#138

Post by Right2Carry »

The Annoyed Man wrote:My view is like this: I know I am an honorable man, and when doing work for someone else, I intentionally try to fulfill that obligation well and honorably. But a couple of times in my past, my efforts were judged not good enough, and I was fired. I did nothing wrong or immoral, nor criminal, but it apparently wasn't good enough. I was let go. That is kind of how I understand a general discharge under honorable conditions. Now, I understand that some people probably receive a general discharge under "honorable conditions" because it is just easier, faster, and less paperwork hassle for the military to get rid of a truly undesirable person that way, than it is to court-martial the person and have to go through all the trial nonsense, and then pay the expense of locking that person up in the brig for some period of time. But that can't possibly describe every person discharged that way. I am sure that some are discharged that way because it is found out later that they gamed the enlistment systems somehow and were not qualified for service.......so they are "let go".

[sidebar]
This actually happened to a friend of mine during the Vietnam War. He has a wandering eye and is colorblind in both eyes, but he had learned how to game the colorblindness tests before he enlisted. He wanted to be a helicopter mechanic, and he figured that colorblindness wouldn't matter, so he enlisted. He went through basic, but he got found out when he had to take another battery of vision tests that were more complicated after the army had shipped him off to mechanics school. He was generally discharged "under honorable conditions". I guess you could say on one hand that he had tried to defraud Uncle Sam, but on the other hand he genuinely wanted to serve, and he liked being in the Army.
[/sidebar]

I am sure that others are let go for being ongoing disciplinary problems; others for simply not being physically able to perform up to military expectations. Whatever. Are we really going to say to someone that really, in good faith, gave it their best shot and failed and were discharged, that they were not honorable?

Unlike most of you all, I never served, so I'm not going to swing that particular bat at anybody unless the reason for their discharge was criminal behavior of some kind. I also fully realize that because I did not serve, this opinion of mine may not count for much with some who did. I'm OK with that because at my age, I'm not going to spend my remaining years living in regret.
Tam,

What is forgotten is if one feels wronged they can apply and fight to get their discharge upgraded. The OP went through all that trouble for 35.00 when he could have simply had his discharge upgraded. That IMHO would have been a better use of his time and effort instead of with DPS. It is possible that the OP already tried to get his discharge upgraded and failed leaving this as his last resort.

There is a reason the type of discharges exist and whether one agrees or not, benefits are not the same for those receiving a general under honorable conditions and a Honorable discharge. This is explained to those receiving a general discharge. They are fully aware of the type of discharge they are receiving and its meaning. If they don't like it there is a process to upgrade the discharge and most are aware of that as well.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
User avatar

sugar land dave
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:03 am
Location: Sugar Land, TX

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#139

Post by sugar land dave »

loren wrote:
sugar land dave wrote: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.
Actually DPS policy is now consistent with respect to the term honorably discharged. It was properly handled with respect to driver's licenses but deviated for CHL. DPS was directed to make this change by a member of the State Senate who is also chairperson of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. If you disagree, take it to Texas Supreme Court.

If I had to do it over again, I would take the rules more seriously and obtain the Honorable Discharge. I believe I could get my General upgraded because my job proficiency ratings were high and infractions were minor - some even debatable.

Anyway, there has been a lot of irrelevant input to the original question and emotional rantings to this thread. Too bad, because a major point that may affect a number of veterans getting CHLs in the future is being overshadowed. I agree that all that can be said in this tread has probably been said but I would not call for censorship. Those who are weary with this discussion should simply unsubscribe. Or do they believe in the 2nd Amendment but not the 1st?
One month ago you joined the forum and posted this thread. In that time you have made 10 posts, all in this thread. It would be good to see you post in someone elses thread so we might better get to know you.

Claims of change are still unsubstantiated. An unnamed aid for a Senator calls an unnamed manager in one version. In another version the Senator herself directed DPS to make a change. Can a State Senator of and by themself force the Director of a State agency to accede to a demand without act of legislature? Perhaps we are discussing a one time bending of a rule to make a problem go away? In any event, I guess my definition of evidence is a little more strict than that of some others. There is no one to call or a link to visit.

As for upgrading your discharge, some very good members suggested that on page one of this now ten page long thread. It was a good suggestion then and is still a good suggestion now.

Ending a thread which serves to divide members more than it educates them is not censorship, but good forum management. Now deleting the thread or any of it's posts WOULD constitute censorship. As for the 1st amendment, isn't inviting me to not attend the thread and post my opinion more of an anti-1st amendment move than suggesting an end of debate? These are my opinions.
DPS Received Forms- 1/18/11 Online Status - 1/27/11 My Mailbox - 2/12/11
NRA Life Member

Topic author
loren
Banned
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:19 pm

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#140

Post by loren »

sugar land dave wrote:
One month ago you joined the forum and posted this thread. In that time you have made 10 posts, all in this thread. It would be good to see you post in someone elses thread so we might better get to know you.

Claims of change are still unsubstantiated. An unnamed aid for a Senator calls an unnamed manager in one version. In another version the Senator herself directed DPS to make a change. Can a State Senator of and by themself force the Director of a State agency to accede to a demand without act of legislature? Perhaps we are discussing a one time bending of a rule to make a problem go away? In any event, I guess my definition of evidence is a little more strict than that of some others. There is no one to call or a link to visit.

As for upgrading your discharge, some very good members suggested that on page one of this now ten page long thread. It was a good suggestion then and is still a good suggestion now.

Ending a thread which serves to divide members more than it educates them is not censorship, but good forum management. Now deleting the thread or any of it's posts WOULD constitute censorship. As for the 1st amendment, isn't inviting me to not attend the thread and post my opinion more of an anti-1st amendment move than suggesting an end of debate? These are my opinions.
I appreciate the interest in me but I have no interest in other threads in this forum. I'm busy with grandkiddos, sailing, bicycling, square dancing, dog agility training, and keeping my bride of 53 years happy - there, you have some personal info!

If you don't believe DPS policy has changed, call them at 512-424-7293 and ask. I received a phone call from a DPS CHL manager that my veterans discount would be honored after all and that department policy had changed back to what it was 4-5 years ago. I never knew exactly how the directive to correct DPS policy was given, whether Senator Campbell called DPS personally or not, but the Senator must have been involved. Resolving the question as I did was much quicker and easier than doing it via upgrading my discharge - and more satisfying.

Speaking of censorship and the 1st amendment, it's too bad our congress doesn't communicate across the aisle more. IMHO, communicating can sometimes result in better understanding and compromise but not if the participants are unwilling to listen and learn but instead are determined to look good and be right.
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#141

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

The discount as well as the eligibility and controlling definitions are in the Government Code and are not set by DPS.

I'm going to Austin Tuesday to testify on one of Sen. Huffman's bills; I'll ask Sen. Campbell about this thread and what has been said about her involvement.

Loren, if you "have no interest in any other threads on this forum[,]" then do you want me to deactivate your registration?

Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.1951 wrote: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.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall waive any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is:
(1) a member of the United States armed forces, including a member of the reserves, national guard, or state guard; or
(2) a veteran who, within 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of service in which the person served.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the applicant is a veteran who, more than 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the applicant served:
(1) the applicant must pay a fee of $25 for the issuance of an original or renewed license under this subchapter; and
(2) the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required of the applicant for a duplicate or modified license under this subchapter.
User avatar

sugar land dave
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:03 am
Location: Sugar Land, TX

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#142

Post by sugar land dave »

Thanks Charles. It will be interesting to hear the Senator's opinion on the matter.
Last edited by sugar land dave on Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
DPS Received Forms- 1/18/11 Online Status - 1/27/11 My Mailbox - 2/12/11
NRA Life Member

casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#143

Post by casp625 »

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:

Image

Right2Carry
Banned
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#144

Post by Right2Carry »

A good description of the different types of discharges being discussed and why they are given.

Characterization of Service. Characterization at separation is based upon the quality of the member's service, including the reason for separation and guidance below. The military determines the "quality of service" in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), directives and regulations issued by the Department of Defense and the Military Departments, and the time-honored customs and traditions of military service.
The quality of service of a member on active duty or active duty for training is affected adversely by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Military Services or is prejudicial to good order and discipline, regardless of whether the conduct is subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Characterization may be based on conduct in the civilian community, and the burden is on the respondent to demonstrate that such conduct did not adversely affect the respondent's service.
The Military considers the reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the separation, on the issue of characterization. As a general matter, regulations require the military to determine characterization upon a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident. There are circumstances, however, in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for characterization.

Honorable. The Honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (For example, a Medal of Honor recipient would almost always receive an Honorable Discharge, unless he/she was involved in the most serious of misconduct). In the case of an Honorable Discharge, an Honorable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256) is awarded and a notation is made on the appropriate copies of The DD Form 214/5.

General (Under Honorable Conditions). If a member's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as General (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member's military conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the record. A General (under honorable conditions) characterization of discharge may jeopardize a member's ability to benefit from the Montgomery G.I. Bill if they, in fact, had contributed. Moreover, the member will not normally be allowed to reenlist or enter a different military service.Here is a good description of the differences and types of discharges being discussed.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicel ... harge1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985

Topic author
loren
Banned
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:19 pm

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#145

Post by loren »

Has anyone noticed unexplained deletions of postings in any thread at this forum?
Please send me a private email if you have. What I've noticed was probably just a "glitch" but if it seems to be happening somehow it should be reported.

Could be even my imagination or operator error but I edited the first post of this thread and part of that edit is shown but a paragraph is missing. Strange.

Thanks.
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 13562
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#146

Post by C-dub »

loren wrote:Has anyone noticed unexplained deletions of postings in any thread at this forum?
Please send me a private email if you have. What I've noticed was probably just a "glitch" but if it seems to be happening somehow it should be reported.

Could be even my imagination or operator error but I edited the first post of this thread and part of that edit is shown but a paragraph is missing. Strange.

Thanks.
Sometimes it's all of the above and then sometimes a post is so inflammatory that mods may delete it all together. In the later, however, there is often or usually a notification. I have thought I posted something, but due to a glitch in my wireless router connection there have occasionally been times where the transaction wasn't completed. It's usually no big deal and I just redo it and or forget about it.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#147

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

loren wrote:Has anyone noticed unexplained deletions of postings in any thread at this forum?
Please send me a private email if you have. What I've noticed was probably just a "glitch" but if it seems to be happening somehow it should be reported.

Could be even my imagination or operator error but I edited the first post of this thread and part of that edit is shown but a paragraph is missing. Strange.

Thanks.
Regarding your so-called second "edit," it was deleted from your original post. It wasn't an "edit," or an update. You grossly characterized 10 pages of posts by Forum Members because you didn't like what was said. You don't get to control, edit, or summarize the posts of other Members. I'm also not at all pleased with your insinuation about disappearing posts. The Forum wasn't created just to provide you a place to complain about the DPS. Since you're not interested in anything other than this now exhausted thread, I trust you're through posting.

Chas.

Right2Carry
Banned
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#148

Post by Right2Carry »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The discount as well as the eligibility and controlling definitions are in the Government Code and are not set by DPS.

I'm going to Austin Tuesday to testify on one of Sen. Huffman's bills; I'll ask Sen. Campbell about this thread and what has been said about her involvement.

Loren, if you "have no interest in any other threads on this forum[,]" then do you want me to deactivate your registration?

Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.1951 wrote: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.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall waive any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is:
(1) a member of the United States armed forces, including a member of the reserves, national guard, or state guard; or
(2) a veteran who, within 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of service in which the person served.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the applicant is a veteran who, more than 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the applicant served:
(1) the applicant must pay a fee of $25 for the issuance of an original or renewed license under this subchapter; and
(2) the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required of the applicant for a duplicate or modified license under this subchapter.
Any update?
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#149

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Right2Carry wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:The discount as well as the eligibility and controlling definitions are in the Government Code and are not set by DPS.

I'm going to Austin Tuesday to testify on one of Sen. Huffman's bills; I'll ask Sen. Campbell about this thread and what has been said about her involvement.

Loren, if you "have no interest in any other threads on this forum[,]" then do you want me to deactivate your registration?

Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.1951 wrote: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.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall waive any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is:
(1) a member of the United States armed forces, including a member of the reserves, national guard, or state guard; or
(2) a veteran who, within 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of service in which the person served.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the applicant is a veteran who, more than 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the applicant served:
(1) the applicant must pay a fee of $25 for the issuance of an original or renewed license under this subchapter; and
(2) the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required of the applicant for a duplicate or modified license under this subchapter.
Any update?
I didn't talk to Sen. Campbell. When they came off the floor late, we went right into committee hearings and I didn't have the opportunity to talk to her before I left for home.

Chas.

ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 36
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: Discharged "under honorable conditions" = not "honorably

#150

Post by ScooterSissy »

The OP in this thread sent me an email that he did finally get his CHL, and it even said Veteran on it!

He said he expressed to Senator Campbell's aide that (quoted below):
I was more interested in DPS policy correction than getting my license and he said: "they [DPS] stated they have included that in their verbiage to remove doubt, debate, or interpretation as to the difference in honorable under other conditions." and he said: "I will do a follow up and see if they can send me a memo they posted or how they train their personnel and get back to you if that is fine with you?"
I for one, am glad to see that the effort got some results.

(edited to reflect that the information was from Senator Campbell's aide, not the senator)
Last edited by ScooterSissy on Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”