TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:

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?

I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?

Taypo wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

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?

I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?

I guess that tells the story.

Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?

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.
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.

Taypo wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

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?

I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?

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.

When he asked about the discount, I told him I got the discount and was pretty sure my discharge was "general under honorable conditions". When he asked me to look, I checked, and turned out it wasn't. But, I still agreed with his interpretation.

I agree though, it's a dead horse. Apparently the DPS has looked at the issue and accepts "under honorable conditions" as a qualifier for "discharged honorably" (just like they do for the Veterans plates). I guess those that are offended should now do what the OP did, and take it up with someone who can do something about it.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?

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.
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.

You appear to have taken over the role as spokesperson for the OP for reasons only known to you.

Right2Carry wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Right2Carry wrote: Why are you his mouthpiece?

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.
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.

You appear to have taken over the role as spokesperson for the OP for reasons only known to you.

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".

It seems several on here have made assumptions as to what he has done, and his motivations. I don't speak to either, and try to make no assumptions. Some of those folks then started making similar assumptions about me, and how I would behave in other situations.

C'mon guys, you can do better than the name calling. State your position, leave the personalities, assumptions, and name-calling out of it.

Right2Carry wrote:
I'm guessing that he's taking up the torch since the OP got booted?

Interesting. I'm new here and missing something... How did the OP get booted?

[quote="dale blanker" Interesting. I'm new here and missing something... How did the OP get booted?[/quote]

He was booted for "other than honorable blogging activities". Generally. But I hear he may resist...

rbwhatever1 wrote:[quote="dale blanker" Interesting. I'm new here and missing something... How did the OP get booted?

He was booted for "other than honorable blogging activities". Generally. But I hear he may resist...[/quote]

We have a winner! (Can we lock this thread now?)

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.

Military Discharges

Applicants with military service must submit a certified copy of their most current military history form (DD-214 Member-4 Copy, or NGB-22) with the required forms and documents once they have been approved through the pre-screen process.

Military service will be reviewed using the following guidelines:
A.Applicants who possess an honorable discharge will be eligible for further consideration.
B.Applicants who possess a general discharge under honorable conditions should be considered; however, all disciplinary action must be thoroughly investigated and an evaluation of military performance must be made in order to determine if the applicant is eligible for further consideration.
C.Any applicant who possesses a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct discharge shall be rejected and the applicant process will be discontinued.
D.Applicants whose discharge from military service was for ineptitude, unsuitability, undesirability, or like causes will be rejected.

http://dps.texas.gov/trainingacademy/re ... charge.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

The OP has no "spokesperson" that I'm aware of, and your continued claim that I am such speaks to your level of "honor".

My views have been my own. I understand you disagree with them, but I'm going to ask you one last time to quite attributing falsehoods to me. If you persist, then I will begin complaining.

I will repeat, it is my view that the term "discharged honorably" is ambiguous within the DPS, and they are not consistent in the way they use it. It's an opinion I developed completely on my own. Your false information about me speaks volumes about you, and nothing about me.

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 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)

This makes you his spokesman.

OK guys, you were warned. This is going nowhere and you keep arguing. Topic is locked.