![deadhorse :deadhorse:](./images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
![deadhorse :deadhorse:](./images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
![deadhorse :deadhorse:](./images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
![deadhorse :deadhorse:](./images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
![deadhorse :deadhorse:](./images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif)
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?Right2Carry wrote:Why are you his mouthpiece?ScooterSissy wrote:That's not what he said, but it's interesting that you see into his head and somehow know differently. I'll let it go at differing opinions. Regardless, he still acted instead of whining.Right2Carry wrote:I disagree with you that he sought out an interpretation. If he sought out an interpretation he would have contacted DPS and not a Senator. Again my guess is that he MAY have contacted DPS didn't like what he was told and then contacted the Senators office to put pressure on DPS.
I don't agree with the decision if in fact it happened.Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.Right2Carry wrote:I will ask you this question directly. If you had a child in school making straight A's and belonged to the National Honor Society, would you be OK with C students getting the same Reconition and benefits as your child?
I'll repeat, the root of the argument was always that "discharged honorably" is a description, rather than a designation (as opposed to an "honorable discharge".) That view is supported by fact that on at least one instance, the DPS uses the term "discharged honorably", and lists a "general under honorable conditions" as a qualification.
I guess that tells the story.Taypo wrote:I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?Right2Carry wrote:Why are you his mouthpiece?ScooterSissy wrote:That's not what he said, but it's interesting that you see into his head and somehow know differently. I'll let it go at differing opinions. Regardless, he still acted instead of whining.Right2Carry wrote:I disagree with you that he sought out an interpretation. If he sought out an interpretation he would have contacted DPS and not a Senator. Again my guess is that he MAY have contacted DPS didn't like what he was told and then contacted the Senators office to put pressure on DPS.
I don't agree with the decision if in fact it happened.Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.Right2Carry wrote:I will ask you this question directly. If you had a child in school making straight A's and belonged to the National Honor Society, would you be OK with C students getting the same Reconition and benefits as your child?
I'll repeat, the root of the argument was always that "discharged honorably" is a description, rather than a designation (as opposed to an "honorable discharge".) That view is supported by fact that on at least one instance, the DPS uses the term "discharged honorably", and lists a "general under honorable conditions" as a qualification.
![]()
The "mouthpiece" for what? If you mean for him, I'm not; and never claimed to be. I did originally post an update, because he's no longer on the forum; but he did send me an update that he got his CHL discount after the Senator's office intervened.Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?
Sorry, incorrect. I "took up the torch" way back when he first asked a question about it. Frankly, I thought my DD 214 stated that I had a general discharge under honorable conditions. When I first was discharged out of boot camp (for medical reasons), some of the paperwork I had stated "General discharge under honorable conditions - erroneous enlistment". I remember it because I contacted the JAGs office to fight it.Taypo wrote:I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?Right2Carry wrote:Why are you his mouthpiece?ScooterSissy wrote:That's not what he said, but it's interesting that you see into his head and somehow know differently. I'll let it go at differing opinions. Regardless, he still acted instead of whining.Right2Carry wrote:I disagree with you that he sought out an interpretation. If he sought out an interpretation he would have contacted DPS and not a Senator. Again my guess is that he MAY have contacted DPS didn't like what he was told and then contacted the Senators office to put pressure on DPS.
I don't agree with the decision if in fact it happened.Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.Right2Carry wrote:I will ask you this question directly. If you had a child in school making straight A's and belonged to the National Honor Society, would you be OK with C students getting the same Reconition and benefits as your child?
I'll repeat, the root of the argument was always that "discharged honorably" is a description, rather than a designation (as opposed to an "honorable discharge".) That view is supported by fact that on at least one instance, the DPS uses the term "discharged honorably", and lists a "general under honorable conditions" as a qualification.
![]()
You appear to have taken over the role as spokesperson for the OP for reasons only known to you.ScooterSissy wrote:The "mouthpiece" for what? If you mean for him, I'm not; and never claimed to be. I did originally post an update, because he's no longer on the forum; but he did send me an update that he got his CHL discount after the Senator's office intervened.Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?
If you mean for that particular interpretation, I'm not the "mouthpiece", and never claimed to be; however, I saw his point in the how the wording can be interpreted. I believe that words have meaning; and when the military chooses to put the words "under honorable conditions", that they mean exactly that; that the person was discharged under honorable conditions.
I also completely understand that some people have a different view. I just figured it could be discussed rationally, without putting others down and name-calling.
I'm not a mouthpiece; just someone with an opinion. That's what makes "discussion forums" interesting.
Actually not. I've voiced my opinion, and answered questions when asked. In addition, I agreed with his position early on in the discussion, so it had nothing to do with his "departure".Right2Carry wrote:You appear to have taken over the role as spokesperson for the OP for reasons only known to you.ScooterSissy wrote:The "mouthpiece" for what? If you mean for him, I'm not; and never claimed to be. I did originally post an update, because he's no longer on the forum; but he did send me an update that he got his CHL discount after the Senator's office intervened.Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?
If you mean for that particular interpretation, I'm not the "mouthpiece", and never claimed to be; however, I saw his point in the how the wording can be interpreted. I believe that words have meaning; and when the military chooses to put the words "under honorable conditions", that they mean exactly that; that the person was discharged under honorable conditions.
I also completely understand that some people have a different view. I just figured it could be discussed rationally, without putting others down and name-calling.
I'm not a mouthpiece; just someone with an opinion. That's what makes "discussion forums" interesting.
Interesting. I'm new here and missing something... How did the OP get booted?Right2Carry wrote:
I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?
He was booted for "other than honorable blogging activities". Generally. But I hear he may resist...[/quote]rbwhatever1 wrote:[quote="dale blanker" Interesting. I'm new here and missing something... How did the OP get booted?
The OP has no "spokesperson" that I'm aware of, and your continued claim that I am such speaks to your level of "honor".Right2Carry wrote:I know that this isn't about becoming a DPS trooper but you can see that they are quite aware of the different discharges and the meaning and will not accept General under honorable conditions at face value. Inviduals with Honorable discharges are automatically eligible for further consideration. I believe DPS knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the discount and intended it for Honorable discharges. I am done with this topic since neither the OP or his spokesperson can prove that the OP was actually able get the discount. Peace.
This makes you his spokesman.ScooterSissy wrote: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 for one, am glad to see that the effort got some results.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?"
(edited to reflect that the information was from Senator Campbell's aide, not the senator)