TexasCHLforum.com

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

When one is given a benefit for getting a certain discharge (honorable) and then someone comes and complains (OP) about not receiving that same benefit with a lower discharge (general), then it's easy to see the distinction. A discharge is either: Honorable, General, Bad Conduct, or Dishonorable and every other "code" describes the condition of the discharge. If there was a bad conduct discharge under honorable conditions, I am sure you would argue in their favor as well, correct?

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

Your argument is that since most of the statute is "vague" when talking about discharges and that DPS needed to clarify it. For the only part that is very specific, you argue that "honorable discharge" is undefined. No matter how you try to twist this, (e)(2) was very clear he needed an "honorable discharge" to receive the Veteran designation. Since he does not and the language is very specific, then that is just gaming the system

But before you misquote me...

You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself. That way you're bound to win.

Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself. That way you're bound to win.

Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

I doubt seriously that DPS put the designation on there without his request. Why are you the mouthpiece for the OP? All of this is hearsay and there is no proof what you are reporting actually happened.

Yes I am one of those honorable discharged veterans who takes offense. For the record he didn't change any minds at DPS, he found a Senator( who may be ill informed himself) to do his dirty work for him. I guess you be be happy if a student was doing C class work but receiving the grade and benefits of an A student?

Right2Carry wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself. That way you're bound to win.

Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

I doubt seriously that DPS put the designation on there without his request. Why are you the mouthpiece for the OP? All of this is hearsay and there is no proof what you are reporting actually happened.

Yes I am one of those honorable discharged veterans who takes offense. For the record he didn't change any minds at DPS, he found a Senator( who may be ill informed himself) to do his dirty work for him. I guess you be be happy if a student was doing C class work but receiving the grade and benefits of an A student?

I'm not going to engage folks over their suppositions of what I believe. If you want to know what I believe about something, simply ask.

As far as the "ill informed" senator, he deliberately chose the chair of the Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs & Military Installations. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

To answer your first reply (now deleted), a statute, not "statue", is just a law. A law as in the government code 411, which I referenced a bunch throughout this thread. They can also be found online here: www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself.

I've quoted everything in direct response to you. When I ask you a question, you can either 1) answer it or 2) deflect and say I am "pretending you said something you didn't", which is what you've done this entire time. Would you still support OP if he received a Bad Conduct Discharge under honorable conditions (if it existed)? I mean, this entire thread is focused on the conditions attributed to the discharge RATHER than the TYPE of discharge when concerning benefits.

ScooterSissy wrote:That way you're bound to win.

Why do I need to "win"? OP is claiming a victory in receiving a benefit that is for those "honorably discharge." Since OP received a General Discharge, it's easy to see why this thread was controversial, especially since OP DD214 separation reason was "UNSATSIFACTORY PERFORMANCE" which would not be considered "honorably discharged." Now, prove my derived claim wrong and I will agree he was honorably discharged.

ScooterSissy wrote:BTW, he never requested the Veteran designation, that was done without his knowledge, his complaint was concerning the discount.

The statute actually states you have to request it:
Sec. 411.179. FORM OF LICENSE.
(e)(1) requests the designation; and
(2) provides proof sufficient to the department of the veteran's military service and honorable discharge.

And not only did OP state a general discharge could get the discount, he proposed that those who didn't should get reimbursed. Talk about adding insult to injury.

ScooterSissy wrote:Do not attribute any claim to me that I did not make, and with that, I really am done. If you don't like the decision of the DPS, then I suggest you take it up with them; which is exactly what the OP did.

If I see someone in uniform that clearly isn't a service member, I am going to confront them. If I see someone trying to game the system by defining honorable discharge to equate their general discharge for benefits, they will be confronted just the same.

casp625 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:You know, if you want to pretend I said something I didn't, then I suggest you continue the argument with yourself.

I've quoted everything in direct response to you.

Actually false - I refer you to this:

casp625 wrote:... If there was a bad conduct discharge under honorable conditions, I am sure you would argue in their favor as well, correct?

The section you quoted refers to the veteran designation, not the discount.

The discount requirement does not state one needs proof of an "honorable discharge", but that one must show proof they were "honorably discharged".
See 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.

Show me a DD214 that says "honorably discharged", and I'll agree with you. Until then, I'll disagree,

Without any of the silliness.

Now, as I mentioned before, go play the game with yourself. You don't speak for me, now matter how "sure" you are of your position.

1) I ask you a question, and you deflect. I ask the same question again, you yet again deflect. I'll assume the answer to my question is in the affirmative since you are so defensive about it.

2) I bring up one point regarding the veteran designation, that has no room for interpretation, and you counter it with the discount has room for interpretation.

3) OP has yet to show proof of being honorably discharge. He received a General discharge, probably due to misconduct. And instead of getting his discharge upgraded, he got the rules reinterpreted for his favor to receive a benefit for those who actually were honorably discharged. Pretty low

Alright folks, this thread has ran its course. Stop the bickering and arguing or it will be locked.

casp625 wrote:1) I ask you a question, and you deflect. I ask the same question again, you yet again deflect. I'll assume the answer to my question is in the affirmative since you are so defensive about it.

2) I bring up one point regarding the veteran designation, that has no room for interpretation, and you counter it with the discount has room for interpretation.

3) OP has yet to show proof of being honorably discharge. He received a General discharge, probably due to misconduct. And instead of getting his discharge upgraded, he got the rules reinterpreted for his favor to receive a benefit for those who actually were honorably discharged. Pretty low

I agree and if I had to hazard a guess my money would be on that the OP tried and failed to get his discharge upgraded hence the approach he took.

casp625 wrote:1) I ask you a question, and you deflect. I ask the same question again, you yet again deflect. I'll assume the answer to my question is in the affirmative since you are so defensive about it.

2) I bring up one point regarding the veteran designation, that has no room for interpretation, and you counter it with the discount has room for interpretation.

3) OP has yet to show proof of being honorably discharge. He received a General discharge, probably due to misconduct. And instead of getting his discharge upgraded, he got the rules reinterpreted for his favor to receive a benefit for those who actually were honorably discharged. Pretty low

And I will repeat, as long as you try to speak for me, I will refuse to engage you in any further discussion. You claimed to be "sure" of what I would do. Your assumption was false, no matter how sure you are.

Right2Carry wrote:...
I agree and if I had to hazard a guess my money would be on that the OP tried and failed to get his discharge upgraded hence the approach he took.

That's not what he related to me in the email he sent. He may have been lying, I have no way of knowing; but know of no reason he would do so, and can't think of a reason to do so.

His contention, as he stated in his original post, is that the CHL discount (this never had anything to do with the Veteran designation on the CHL) applied to those "honorably discharged", and that he believed a discharge under "honorable conditions" qualified. He asked opinions on here, and was pretty much rebuked - but one thing he apparently took to heart - he did something about besides whining on here.

He approached the office the Senator that serves as the Chair of the Texas Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs. According to him, an aide from the Senator's office got back and with and confirmed his (the OPs) interpretation.

Some here don't agree with that aide's decision (which is likely the Senator's as well). That's fine, we're all supposedly grown ups here. We don't have to agree on everything.

But, I will not sit idly by and have people who have no knowledge of me personally presume to speak for me as to what I would do in a particular situation. Especially when it comes to respect for the military.

The section that speaks of the discount does not define "honorably discharged"
The section that speaks of the Veteran under the age of 21 qualifying for a CHL speaks specifically of a general under honorable conditions (as qualifying).
The section that speaks of the Veteran designation on a CHL speaks specifically of an Honorable Discharge

These are all from code concerning CHLs, and there does appear to be some inconsistency.

In addition, the DPS has, on their web page, information concerning the Veteran's designation on a person's driver's license (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... rvices.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
On that web page, the use the term same term - "honorably discharged"

Eligibility
To be eligible for the veteran designation, an individual must be a veteran who was honorably discharged.

They then specifically state (my emphasis added):

Veterans must visit a driver license office and present their DD-214, DD-215, NGB-22, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disability letter, or U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Proof of Service/Verification of Honorable Service Card. The document can be a copy or an original, but it must show that the veteran received an honorable discharge or a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

One can disagree with the DPS's interpretation, or even the Senator's interpretation (or her aide's); but there is little doubt that the DPS, in at least some cases, consider a general under honorable to be "honorably discharged". Since they used "honorably discharged" with no further definition in the section concerning the discount, I still agree with the OP, that it's open to interpretation.

He sought out interpretation. Good for him.

As I said, anyone feel free to disagree, and even discuss to your heart's content. Once someone starts making false allegations about me personally though, I will stop the discussion with that person.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:...
I agree and if I had to hazard a guess my money would be on that the OP tried and failed to get his discharge upgraded hence the approach he took.

That's not what he related to me in the email he sent. He may have been lying, I have no way of knowing; but know of no reason he would do so, and can't think of a reason to do so.

His contention, as he stated in his original post, is that the CHL discount (this never had anything to do with the Veteran designation on the CHL) applied to those "honorably discharged", and that he believed a discharge under "honorable conditions" qualified. He asked opinions on here, and was pretty much rebuked - but one thing he apparently took to heart - he did something about besides whining on here.

He approached the office the Senator that serves as the Chair of the Texas Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs. According to him, an aide from the Senator's office got back and with and confirmed his (the OPs) interpretation.

Some here don't agree with that aide's decision (which is likely the Senator's as well). That's fine, we're all supposedly grown ups here. We don't have to agree on everything.

But, I will not sit idly by and have people who have no knowledge of me personally presume to speak for me as to what I would do in a particular situation. Especially when it comes to respect for the military.

The section that speaks of the discount does not define "honorably discharged"
The section that speaks of the Veteran under the age of 21 qualifying for a CHL speaks specifically of a general under honorable conditions (as qualifying).
The section that speaks of the Veteran designation on a CHL speaks specifically of an Honorable Discharge

These are all from code concerning CHLs, and there does appear to be some inconsistency.

In addition, the DPS has, on their web page, information concerning the Veteran's designation on a person's driver's license (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... rvices.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
On that web page, the use the term same term - "honorably discharged"

Eligibility
To be eligible for the veteran designation, an individual must be a veteran who was honorably discharged.

They then specifically state (my emphasis added):

Veterans must visit a driver license office and present their DD-214, DD-215, NGB-22, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disability letter, or U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Proof of Service/Verification of Honorable Service Card. The document can be a copy or an original, but it must show that the veteran received an honorable discharge or a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

One can disagree with the DPS's interpretation, or even the Senator's interpretation (or her aide's); but there is little doubt that the DPS, in at least some cases, consider a general under honorable to be "honorably discharged". Since they used "honorably discharged" with no further definition in the section concerning the discount, I still agree with the OP, that it's open to interpretation.

He sought out interpretation. Good for him.

As I said, anyone feel free to disagree, and even discuss to your heart's content. Once someone starts making false allegations about me personally though, I will stop the discussion with that person.

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.

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?

Good Lord, this argument started back up again...

If you quit feeding the trolls, they go back under the bridge.

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.

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 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?

Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.

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.

ScooterSissy wrote:

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.

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 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?

Depends on what the requirements were for National Honor Society.

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.

Why are you his mouthpiece?