TexasCHLforum.com

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 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.

To each his own...
I will contact my Rep, to express my unhappiness with any policy that provide benefit directly or in kind to a Vet discharged with anything other than an Honorable Discharge.

I spent 29 years personally observing the level of character, professionalism, honor and dedication of duty for those discharged under all possible characterization of service. My personal opinion based on my observations is it is a discredit to those that did right and were discharged with an Honorable Discharge to allow others the same after service benefits.

E.Marquez wrote:

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 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.

To each his own...
I will contact my Rep, to express my unhappiness with any policy that provide benefit directly or in kind to a Vet discharged with anything other than an Honorable Discharge.

I spent 29 years personally observing the level of character, professionalism, honor and dedication of duty for those discharged under all possible characterization of service. My personal opinion based on my observations is it is a discredit to those that did right and were discharged with an Honorable Discharge to allow others the same after service benefits.

I was of that age in the late 70s when the Viet Nam effort wound down and services were shrinking and draft registration was discontinued for a 4 year window. At the time, I didn't consider the military a viable option for mne. I didn't serve and have always regretted that. However, as a citizen enjoying the freedom those that served provide, I agree with E.Marquez that benefits should be reserved for those that have an Honorable Discharge. Others with less may have gone on to have exemplary lives and should be judged according to that, but the service benefit should be reserved for those with the Honorable Discharge.

Also, E.Marquez and all the others who served, I honor you and your willingness to sacrifice on behalf of me and my family, THANK YOU.

Screwed up the post couldn't fix so deleted everything.

Although I didn't read every post within this thread I do agree a General Discharge under honorable conditions is nowhere near the Honorable Discharge. Hopefully the following hasn't been mentioned already.

It seems to me, at least back when I served that the general discharges were were coded. These codes would give the reason for the discharge. I seem to remember reading an article about employers checking these codes before hiring. Does anyone else know about this? I served with one guy that got some kind of general discharge because his wife couldn't adjust to military life. I think it was a hardship discharge. Something like that anyway.

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 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.

I have to amend this a bit, it was actually the senator's aide, not the senator himself. My bad.

E.Marquez wrote:

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 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.

To each his own...
I will contact my Rep, to express my unhappiness with any policy that provide benefit directly or in kind to a Vet discharged with anything other than an Honorable Discharge.

I spent 29 years personally observing the level of character, professionalism, honor and dedication of duty for those discharged under all possible characterization of service. My personal opinion based on my observations is it is a discredit to those that did right and were discharged with an Honorable Discharge to allow others the same after service benefits.

Sounds like my update may have created a whole new dust-up, but that was not the intention.

That said, there are many benefits afforded to Vets with "general under honorable" discharges.

E.Marquez wrote:

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 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.

To each his own...
I will contact my Rep, to express my unhappiness with any policy that provide benefit directly or in kind to a Vet discharged with anything other than an Honorable Discharge.

I spent 29 years personally observing the level of character, professionalism, honor and dedication of duty for those discharged under all possible characterization of service. My personal opinion based on my observations is it is a discredit to those that did right and were discharged with an Honorable Discharge to allow others the same after service benefits.

I agree and will contact my reps as well.

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!

And while there was much debate whether OP should have received a discount, it was clear in the statutes that he should NOT have received the "Veteran" designation:

(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.

for gaming the system

On a side note, I received my updated CHL and that one STILL didn't have the "Veteran" designation, even though they have my DD-214, I asked them for it, and received an honorable discharge. I guess I should contact the Senator's office and file a complaint

casp625 wrote:

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!

And while there was much debate whether OP should have received a discount, it was clear in the statutes that he should NOT have received the "Veteran" designation:

(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.

for gaming the system

On a side note, I received my updated CHL and that one STILL didn't have the "Veteran" designation, even though they have my DD-214, I asked them for it, and received an honorable discharge. I guess I should contact the Senator's office and file a complaint

I'm not going to rehash the whole thread, but I take issue with your statement that someone "gamed the system". There is NOTHING on my discharge that says it's an "Honorable Discharge". Nothing.

My DD214 says "type of separation", and lists DISCHARGED.
It then says "character of service", and lists HONORABLE

Mine is clearly an "Honorable Discharge". The problem arises because someone else's may say "under honorable conditions"; actually some of the others may say "TRANSFER" (or even "TRF"), "RETIRED", "RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY, or any of the other number of designations. The end result though is that the person has left the military. Surely no one here is advocating that the words "HONORABLY DISCHARGED" in those exact wording, is the only thing that qualifies for the section (2) mentioned above? That would preclude a lot of retirees... The problem is that section doesn't define their term "honorable discharge". They should.

That said, I'm not about to pretend that my 1 month of military service, for which I received an "Honorable Discharge" (even by the definition of most that have chimed in) was somehow more than a guy that served a 4 year enlistment, transferred to the reserves, served 5 more years, and was given a "General Discharge" (which is NOT described on his DD214).

The OP was told by several that if he didn't like the results, he should do something other than just complain on a forum. He did. Good for him.

With that, I'm done.

The Wall wrote:Although I didn't read every post within this thread I do agree a General Discharge under honorable conditions is nowhere near the Honorable Discharge. Hopefully the following hasn't been mentioned already.

It seems to me, at least back when I served that the general discharges were were coded. These codes would give the reason for the discharge. I seem to remember reading an article about employers checking these codes before hiring. Does anyone else know about this? I served with one guy that got some kind of general discharge because his wife couldn't adjust to military life. I think it was a hardship discharge. Something like that anyway.

Yes, that is correct. I was a Navy recruiter for four years and two things on a DD-214 can tell the whole story. The first is the three digit letter separation code at the bottom of the form, and the other is the reenlistment code. I used to have the codes memorized but it's been too long ago.

Added: in the case of the one posted on the previous page, the code JHJ is for unsuitability based on unsatisfactory performance. And the RE-3 reenlistment code is reenlistment eligible with waiver at the recruiting area HQ level.

One important difference in types of military discharges should be whether the veteran served in a combat zone or not.

I have a brother that served 20 years in the Marine Corps, going in as a private and progressing through the enlisted ranks through master sergeant to warrant officer to OCS and finally commissioned officer, retiring as a captain. He did serve a lot of missions as "the guy in back" (radio/radar technician) in a 2-man all-weather fighter/bomber in the Korean conflict.

I asked what he thought of veterans receiving benefits that had general discharge (under honorable conditions) versus honorable discharge. He said that he needed a lot more info about the veteran's service record to make any kind of judgement and without that info would have to assume there was some disciplinary problem for the general discharge but that the veteran's overall contribution to the cause was probably pretty much the same - unless one was in a combat area and the other was not. He could see providing additional benefits to combat veterans whether their discharge type was Honorable or General but not otherwise.

Just another perspective...

'Nuff said.

ScooterSissy wrote: I'm not going to rehash the whole thread, but I take issue with your statement that someone "gamed the system". There is NOTHING on my discharge that says it's an "Honorable Discharge". Nothing.

Well you're not the OP and no one is questioning you, so, there's that.

ScooterSissy wrote: That said, I'm not about to pretend that my 1 month of military service, for which I received an "Honorable Discharge" (even by the definition of most that have chimed in) was somehow more than a guy that served a 4 year enlistment, transferred to the reserves, served 5 more years, and was given a "General Discharge" (which is NOT described on his DD214).

All discharges come with a reason, hence the three-digit separation code. If OP chooses not to disclose it, that is his prerogative, but don't expect anyone to believe he was screwed out of a honorable discharge, which he did not receive.

ScooterSissy wrote: The problem is that section doesn't define their term "honorable discharge". They should.

I guess it would be less confusing if the Military would define the term "honorable discharge" as well

anygunanywhere wrote:'Nuff said.

I hate to say it, but

casp625 wrote: Well you're not the OP and no one is questioning you, so, there's that.

No, he can no longer post. Guess some would consider that an "easy target". Is it only the OP that is permitted to take issue with a false statement?

casp625 wrote:All discharges come with a reason, hence the three-digit separation code. If OP chooses not to disclose it, that is his prerogative, but don't expect anyone to believe he was screwed out of a honorable discharge, which he did not receive.

As the title of the post pretty clearly alludes to, he made no such claim. Actually reading the thread would make it even more clear.

casp625 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: The problem is that section doesn't define their term "honorable discharge". They should.

I guess it would be less confusing if the Military would define the term "honorable discharge" as well

Not really, since it's not the military offering the discount. Again, as was noted in the thread, the DPS (which is the entity offering the discount) has conflicting definitions. In some instances, the department openly qualifies "under honorable conditions" as an honorable discharge. Not in this one, it's left undefined. In another, they specifically designate that a DD214 showing "Honorable" as the nature of discharge as a requirement for another benefit. For this particular one, again, they leave it undefined.
As was mentioned, several on here made the comment that he should stop whining and do something about it. He did. He called for clarification, and got his discount.