Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If she lied and then kept any of the money that poured in, I hope her ass goes to jail for fraud.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?

There has been zero proof that she had a DHD, and according to a lawyer friend that specialized in these things it is impossible for her to have one based on the statements that were made by the military spokesperson.

I guess I missed the part where someone refuted KM's news article on the bottom of the last page. :-\

According to my lawyer friend:

The military spokesperson mentioned an administrative discharge, which could only be used for the following kinds of discharges:

Entry level, Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable and Clemency.

To get a Bad Conduct or DHD you would have to go through a punitive discharge instead of an administrative discharge.

That doesn't mean she was a good person or a good soldier, just that her discharge was not "felon-level".

Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?

Well, that probably depends on the definition of veteran used.

If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans.
If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge.
If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy.

Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.

Is there a military definition v civilian definition?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Is there a military definition v civilian definition?

Yes, just like "assault weapons"...

Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed.

By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge.
Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge.
Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, just like "assault weapons"...

Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed.

By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge.
Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge.
Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.

I'm not certain what the snark is for. What I asked was whether there was a military definition (likely in a military code or UCMJ), and a civilian definition. That was it. You didn't give any indication whether you were using the military's definition, or a civilian's definition. I was curious as to what distinction there was between them, if any.

But thank you for the clarification.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, just like "assault weapons"...

Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed.

By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge.
Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge.
Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.

I'm not certain what the snark is for. What I asked was whether there was a military definition (likely in a military code or UCMJ), and a civilian definition. That was it. You didn't give any indication whether you were using the military's definition, or a civilian's definition. I was curious as to what distinction there was between them, if any.

 d-usa wrote:

If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans.
If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge.
If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy.

Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

But thank you for the clarification.

Glad it only took two posts saying the same thing to get there.

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?

Well, that probably depends on the definition of veteran used.

If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans.
If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge.
If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy.

Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.

That clears it up, I guess I was basing it off of the second definition you have there, but I felt like if she was discharged for any sort of disciplinary action she'd lose the right to call herself a veteran, which just muddies the waters.

Thanks d

 d-usa wrote:
Glad it only took two posts saying the same thing to get there.

Well when one post doesn't say what you're basing your definitions off, and you're asked if you were working off the military definition or a civilian definition, that is me looking for clarification.

Again, no need for the snarky attitude.

Guys


guys

you're probably not going to believe this, but.... you know how she said she was going to donate that money to Wounded Warrior?

Yeah, that, uh, doesn't seem to have shown up yet.

 kronk wrote:
If she lied and then kept any of the money that poured in, I hope her ass goes to jail for fraud.

Then I stick with the above and hope the family slaps her ass with a slander and libel suit.

 Ouze wrote:
Guys


guys

you're probably not going to believe this, but.... you know how she said she was going to donate that money to Wounded Warrior?

Yeah, that, uh, doesn't seem to have shown up yet.

Well, maybe if she didn't send it as a cashier's check this wouldn't have happened!

As always I agree with Kronk. I support people's rights to lie as much as they want to - as a matter of fact I fought for that right when I was a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core - but once you start to gain something of value from your lies, we have crossed the threshold into fraud.

 Ouze wrote:
As always I agree with Kronk. I support people's rights to lie as much as they want to - as a matter of fact I fought for that right when I was a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core - but once you start to gain something of value from your lies, we have crossed the threshold into fraud.

I didn't do twenty six tours in Iraq so this fraud could steal money from honest folks.

Guys, I'm not a hero, I'm just a regular person like each and everyone one of you.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?

According to this.

http://military-law.lawyers.com/veterans-benefits/Discharges-and-Their-Effect-on-Veteran-Benefits.html

All Veteran benefits are lost when you get a DHD. Semantically, you might still be able to be called a "veteran", but you technically aren't in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Morales getting a DHD... while I jumped on that right away, from what I recall it's illegal to disclose such information, so I'm not sure if it is accurate. Now, I would not be surprised if she got forcibly discharged, but a DHD requires a full blown court martial, and not showing up for drills, alone, just doesn't ping my radar as something that they'd do that for.

 djones520 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?

According to this.

http://military-law.lawyers.com/veterans-benefits/Discharges-and-Their-Effect-on-Veteran-Benefits.html

All Veteran benefits are lost when you get a DHD. Semantically, you might still be able to be called a "veteran", but you technically aren't in any way.

It's sounding like she didn't get a dishonorable, if they are saying it was administrative rather than punitive. I'd assume an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which a less well versed in military protocol or an overzealous individual could easily confuse with a dishonorable. Either way she sounds like a liar and a pretty awful person.
(And personally I only consider you a "real" vet if you were at least deployed to a combat zone for a reasonable facsimile of a full tour or spent at least 8 years in the military in some sort of circumstances that didn't allow for you to be deployed.)

Im trying to fallow this stuff about the DHD but it makes my head hurt. Cant we just call her a jerk and be done with it?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im trying to fallow this stuff about the DHD but it makes my head hurt. Cant we just call her a jerk and be done with it?

It's actually not that hard, there are basically two types of discharges from the military. There are the "You are not a criminal" discharges, and the "You are a criminal" discharges.
With that there are different rankings
"You are not a criminal" (or administrative) consists of

-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.

-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.

-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.


"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)

Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.

 Bromsy wrote:


-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.

-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.

-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.


"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)

Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.

I'm saving this for the next time I have to explain the rules to a new enlistee. Thanks for the laugh

Instant Classic, Take an exalt Bromsy.

And the sociopath joins the frey!
1. How the feth would the couple know she was gay, I have a friend/ more of an aquaintance who is named Daniella she likes the nick-name dan.
2. I fething HATE people who use things like this to their advantage (gay, woman, black, brown, polkadots) i mean, when it comes down to it, were all mutations of the same microbe, yes?
Also, thanks for the luls^

 Ouze wrote:
Guys


guys

you're probably not going to believe this, but.... you know how she said she was going to donate that money to Wounded Warrior?

Yeah, that, uh, doesn't seem to have shown up yet.

Lets have a show of hands for all those surprised.....
I did manage to chuckle at this line in the article though "after claiming she was stiffed on a tip for being gay"

TheEyeOfNight wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
*snip of awesome text

I'm saving this for the next time I have to explain the rules to a new enlistee. Thanks for the laugh

I would hope you'd use the "High five, bro" as well when explaining it.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
And the sociopath joins the frey!
1. How the feth would the couple know she was gay, I have a friend/ more of an aquaintance who is named Daniella she likes the nick-name dan.
2. I fething HATE people who use things like this to their advantage (gay, woman, black, brown, polkadots) i mean, when it comes down to it, were all mutations of the same microbe, yes?
Also, thanks for the luls^

I realize it's completely prejudicial and probably shameful for me to say this....but if you take a look at her you can probably make a reasonable hypothesis that she's not interested in dudes....

 Bromsy wrote:
It's actually not that hard, there are basically two types of discharges from the military. There are the "You are not a criminal" discharges, and the "You are a criminal" discharges.
With that there are different rankings
"You are not a criminal" (or administrative) consists of

-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.

-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.

-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.


"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)

Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.

Fantastic summary for us non-military types, thank you

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Is there a military definition v civilian definition?

Well, there's a Military definition, a civilian definiton, and actually a VA definition, lol....

The military: been to a warzone
Civilian: worn the uniform
VA: in order to receive benefits must meet a list of requirements... If not all of them are met, may still qualify, just for less or lower levels of benefits.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, there's a Military definition, a civilian definiton, and actually a VA definition, lol....

The military: been to a warzone
Civilian: worn the uniform
VA: in order to receive benefits must meet a list of requirements... If not all of them are met, may still qualify, just for less or lower levels of benefits.

Thank you. The reason I asked was that my mother-in-law was surprised to find that when her husband died a few years ago that the government classified him as a veteran. He enlisted during Vietnam before he was drafted, and was a medic with the Air Force, but he was only ever stationed in Northern Michigan. He never spoke of himself as a Vietnam Veteran.

If she stopped showing up for drills, it's likely she either got a BCD or got a month of brig (jail) time followed by an OTH.