On 7/28/2021 1:47 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/28/2021 1:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even
>>>>>>> if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be
>>>>>>> he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if
>>>>>>> he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>>> spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>>
>>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you
>>> were booted out.
>>>
>>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under honorable
>> conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits.
>
> It does not.
>
>    General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions
>
>    General discharge means that you met the requirements of service, likely with
>    some minor disciplinary actions, or failure to meet certain standards.
>    However, overall, your military performance was considered satisfactory.
>    Veterans who receive general discharges under honorable conditions are
>    entitled to all VA benefits, with the exception of GI Bill education benefits.
>
>
> https://cck-law.com/blog/military-discharge-status-and-what-it-means-for-your-entitlement-to-va-benefits/
>

There is also this at that site:

Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge

An OTH discharge is typically an undesirable discharge. It means you had
some serious departures from the conduct, protocol, and performance expected
of a service member. Examples of situations that might result in an OTH
discharge include security violations, serious misconduct that endangers
other members of the military, or use of deliberate force to seriously hurt
another person.

In these cases, VA will conduct a character of service determination to
assess eligibility for benefits. Therefore, an OTH discharge does not mean
you are definitely barred from getting VA benefits. Instead, VA has to
determine based on the facts of your case whether you are allowed to receive
benefits based on the statutes and regulations. OTH discharge
characterizations are made administratively rather than through court-martial
proceedings. Veterans have long reported misuse of OTH characterizations in
cases where the soldier’s misconduct was related to post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST)
or, before 2011, sexual orientation.

So the fact that you get VA health care benefits does *not* prove you didn't get
an other than honorable discharge. You may well have received an OTH discharge
and still been granted health care benefits.

Why are you so ashamed or scared, or both, to tell us both the reason for your
less than honorable discharge and the actual character of it? What did you do
that got you booted out?

>
> So, we know you didn't get GI Bill benefits.  Is that why you've been unable to
> complete your degree?  I didn't get GI Bill benefits, and I was able to complete
> my degree.
>
>
>>
>>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>>
>> You are going to believe what you wish.
>
> I believe the facts.  The fact is you probably got either the general discharge
> or an other-than-honorable discharge.
>
>
>> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the characterization of my
>> service?
>
> It's not the characterization — it's what you *did* that got you booted out. The
> *reason* for your less-than-honorable  discharge, if known, would completely
> demolish your moral and intellectual standing — not that you ever had much — to
> be taking the positions you take here.  It would establish your massive and
> appalling hypocrisy once and for all.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:49:17 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/21 1:55 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>> spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>> convenient forget it.
>>
>> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
>> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>>
>> He KNOWS he's lying.
>
>Yeah he does,

And the clinically insane dwarf keeps saying he provides proof, like
every can't see how he runs away from providing it.

EVERY time.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:47:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/28/2021 1:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.
>>>>>>> He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even if he was,
>>>>>>> we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he received
>>>>>>> an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was
>>>>>>> several decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really can't
>>>>> help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>>
>>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you were
>>> booted out.
>>>
>>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under honorable
>> conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits.
>
>It does not.
>
> General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions
>
> General discharge means that you met the requirements of service, likely with

Rudy can find copypasta all day, but can't find the link to my DD-214
that's in plain sight on the internet.

What an ignorant, fat, short, lazy SOB he is!

On 7/28/21 3:47 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/28/2021 1:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:

>> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the
>> characterization of my service?
>
> It's not the characterization — it's what you *did* that got you booted
> out. The *reason* for your less-than-honorable  discharge, if known,
> would completely demolish your moral and intellectual standing — not
> that you ever had much — to be taking the positions you take here.  It
> would establish your massive and appalling hypocrisy once and for all.

Really?

Your error on this matter and your insistence on what you "know"
happened, tells me just how wrong you likely are on many other things,
including your own honesty (or lack of same).

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:WagMI.23507$uj5.937@fx03.iad...
> On 7/28/2021 9:35 AM, Scout wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 11:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>>>
>>>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot
>>>> of people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>>>> Now, I agree that in the normal course of events there should not be
>>>> conscription, but we're talking emergency conditions.
>>>
>>> If the unlikely even an emergency occurred, Congress could enact
>>> a new conscription law. The remote prospect of such an emergency
>>> does not require the current selective service registration requirement.
>>
>> And if it's such a remote prospect then having such legislation wouldn't
>> matter and so no reason not to have it on hand and current.
>
> It's an unnecessary exercise in raw government power. For people who
> put value personal liberty, that's reason enough not to require it.

Fine, then talk to them about getting it repealed... until then it should be
kept current and relevant.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:j3a3ggt59llf956hukbjrb92lklfjjagjf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:11:22 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/28/2021 8:40 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:loYLI.34582$rr3.7653@fx34.iad...
>>>> On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since 1973
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>>>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>>>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>>>>> military that the nation needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine, then eliminate the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
>>>> have not for several decades.
>>>
>>> However the process to do so exists.
>>>
>>> After all, I've not had my home burn down in decades, but I still carry
>>> fire
>>> insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.
>>>>
>>>> The current selective service registration has a lot of
>>>> inequities. If it's necessary for the federal government
>>>> to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
>>>> be for all. That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
>>>> not just women.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but this is a step in that direction. Personally I would like a
>>> provision that if a draft occurs then all the members of Congress, the
>>> President
>>> and the VP are replaced and then immediately inducted into the military
>>> for
>>> service on the front lines.
>>
>>scooter shows just how long divorced from reality he is. That's what
>>weekend
>>after weekend of getting shit-faced drunk while camping in the woods with
>>his
>>fellow Virginia Campers will do to a person.
>
> And Rudy-- once again-- concedes defeat at Scout's able hands.
>
> LOL

Gotta love it when Rudy utterly loses it and has only incoherent babbling to
respond with.

I mean I agree with him, and he starts telling me I'm divorced from reality.

What should that tell us about where he's coming from?

Besides, my suggestion was merely an extension of his since it seems only
fair that those who created the mess be among those being forced to clean it
up....

Seems he's in favor of sending the children of such scions into battle, but
not the scions themselves.

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2budndv1rvBHEpz8nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>> stationed
>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>> aboard
>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>
>>> So nothing this century?
>>>
>>
>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.

Sorry, but I posted a link to a scan of that many years ago while many other
regulars were doing the same.

>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;

Listed right on the DD-214.

Honorable.

>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>> Hartung.

Could have been but since I posted it, there is no question.

>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>
> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.

Yep. Several of us posted our DD-214s online for a period of time because of
such allegations that we've never proved we served.

Even Rudy was around during that time, so can only figure his mental
incapacity is to blame, or maybe it's just his dishonesty.

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n5OdnSVQeZVdOZz8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly,
>>>> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
>>>> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
>>>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>
>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>
>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>> spasm.
>>
>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>
> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable Conditions"
> (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my health care
> for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to convenient
> forget it.

Speaking of the VA... you are aware that you can now get a Veteran ID card
from them to aid in getting military discounts.

https://www.va.gov/records/get-veteran-id-cards/vic/

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:h1a3gg5clvtlfue23vsq095d6m0sll4njb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:05:30 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:16:27 -0400, M I Wakefield <none@present.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>stationed
>>>>aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>aboard
>>>>while we were deployed.
>>>
>>>So nothing this century?
>>
>>So when did you do your military time, scruffy?
>
> Perhaps if we were at war, and getting soundly beaten, and the
> military was desperate for men and supplies, Rudy *MIGHT* qualify as a
> sandbag.

Front line shock troop, that way he can absorb enemy ordinance directed
towards the real soldiers.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:7u93gghc74lbaq7sof5jq6pouqohclf0bg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>
>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>> spasm.
>>>
>>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>
>>You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>convenient forget it.
>
> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>
> He KNOWS he's lying.

Particularly given I've already presented my DD-214 to the group.

"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:%ijMI.719600$HdJ9.359251@fx09.ams1...
> On 7/28/2021 12:49 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 1:55 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his
>>>>>>> discharge;
>>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>>>>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might
>>>> want
>>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>>> convenient forget it.
>>>
>>> Rudy
>
> Provides proof.

Fine... LET'S SEE YOUR PROOF!

"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:gMhMI.668099$J67.126647@fx05.ams1...
> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly,
>>>>> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
>>>>> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
>>>>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>
>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>> spasm.
>>>
>>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>
>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>
> You've already done that for us. *Any* involuntary separation from the
> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you
> were booted out.

And Rudy demonstrates he knows NOTHING about the military.

"Involuntary Separations
Involuntary separation from the Army normally means the soldier or officer
doesn't really want to leave. The Army can discharge troops due to failure
to achieve promotion, because of family or health issues, or for
disciplinary reasons. In most instances of involuntary separation, the
service member is honorably separated with a form of severance pay.
Involuntary separation due to discipline or military justice issues, though,
may be characterized as less-than-honorable, bad conduct or even
dishonorable."

https://work.chron.com/difference-between-voluntary-involuntary-separation-army-21057.html

Now, since Rudy claims to ALWAYS produce PROOF.....

Message-ID: <%ijMI.719600$HdJ9.359251@fx09.ams1>

Let's see his proof that an involuntary separation ALWAYS results in a
non-honorable discharge.

Rudy, you can insert your proof here -------->

"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:gMhMI.668099$J67.126647@fx05.ams1...
> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly,
>>>>> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
>>>>> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
>>>>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>
>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>> spasm.
>>>
>>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>
>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>
> You've already done that for us. *Any* involuntary separation from the
> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you
> were booted out.
>
>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged
>> under "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>
> No, that's false. As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>
>
> 1 – Honorable discharge. This is the highest discharge a military
> member can
> receive. It indicates the service member performed duties well,
> faithfully
> executed the mission, and was an asset to the branch of the military
> where
> the member served.
>
> 2 – General discharge under honorable conditions. This type of military
> administrative discharge is motivated by different things depending on
> the
> branch of service. The overall conduct of the military member may have
> been
> exemplary in some areas, but other areas of misconduct or failure to
> adapt to
> the military environment may have resulted in such a discharge.
>
> The separation paperwork for these military discharges may be quite
> specific
> about the reasons for the discharge, so while it’s not stigmatized the
> same
> as a dishonorable discharge, the general discharge under honorable
> conditions
> may still hurt the veteran in some ways where a DD Form 214 Report of
> Discharge is required for employment or other reasons.
>
> Depending on the severity of the problems mentioned in the DD Form 214,
> the
> veteran may receive a reenlistment code that determines the service
> member’s
> eligibility for any future military service.
>
> 3 – Other than honorable (OTH) discharge. This is the most severe of
> the
> administrative discharges (which do not require a court-martial).
> Reasons for
> the OTH discharge may depend on the severity of the offenses, how a
> particular branch of the military has traditionally handled such
> issues, and
> other variables.
>
> Security violations, trouble with civilian authorities, assault, drug
> possession or various degrees of drug violations or other problems
> could all
> potentially motivate an other than honorable discharge. The OTH
> discharge
> should be considered to be a barrier to future military service.
>
> 4 – Bad conduct discharges. a bad conduct discharge comes as the result
> of a
> court-martial and may be followed by prison time depending on the
> nature and
> severity of the conduct. This type of military discharge is not
> considered an
> administrative one and is a barrier to future military service.
>
> 5 – Dishonorable discharge. This is the most punitive of all military
> discharges and is given as the result of a court-martial. Desertion,
> murder,
> fraud, and other crimes performed in uniform can result in
> court-martial
> proceedings that lead to a dishonorable discharge. No military benefits
> or
> future military service is possible with a military discharge
> characterized
> as dishonorable.
>
> https://www.delgazette.com/opinion/88217/types-of-military-discharges-explained

Not seeing where any of those allow you VA benefits.

> You did not have an honorable discharge. We know this.

present your proof ----->

Or that will be TWO lies you can be proven to have made recently.

Message-ID: <%ijMI.719600$HdJ9.359251@fx09.ams1>

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WLSdncpoHpUgJZz8nZ2dnUU7-aHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly,
>>>>>> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
>>>>>> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
>>>>>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really
>>>> can't help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind
>>>> of spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>
>> You've already done that for us. *Any* involuntary separation from the
>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you
>> were booted out.
>>
>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged
>>> under "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>
> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under
> honorable conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits. A general
> discharge under other than honorable conditions usually means no benefits.
>
>> No, that's false. As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>
> You are going to believe what you wish.
>
> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the characterization
> of my service?

Lies are all he has left?

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:h1a3gg5clvtlfue23vsq095d6m0sll4njb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:05:30 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:16:27 -0400, M I Wakefield <none@present.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>stationed
>>>>aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>aboard
>>>>while we were deployed.
>>>
>>>So nothing this century?
>>
>>So when did you do your military time, scruffy?
>
> Perhaps if we were at war, and getting soundly beaten, and the
> military was desperate for men and supplies, Rudy *MIGHT* qualify as a
> sandbag.

Front line shock troop, that way he can absorb enemy ordinance directed
towards the real soldiers.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:29:49 -0400, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2budndv1rvBHEpz8nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>> stationed
>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>> aboard
>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>
>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>
>Sorry, but I posted a link to a scan of that many years ago while many other
>regulars were doing the same.
>
>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>
>Listed right on the DD-214.
>
>Honorable.

Yes, I posted it a few years ago as public link.

>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>> Hartung.
>
>Could have been but since I posted it, there is no question.

>>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>
>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>
>Yep. Several of us posted our DD-214s online for a period of time because of
>such allegations that we've never proved we served.
>
>Even Rudy was around during that time, so can only figure his mental
>incapacity is to blame, or maybe it's just his dishonesty.

Rudy can't find mine so he says I never posted it. Or sometimes he
says, "it's not worth looking for". He always has a large supply of
sour grapes.

On 7/29/2021 6:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2budndv1rvBHEpz8nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>
>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.
>>> He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>
> Sorry, but I posted a link to a scan of that many years ago

Bullshit.

On 7/29/2021 6:33 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:7u93gghc74lbaq7sof5jq6pouqohclf0bg@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>> spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>> convenient forget it.
>>
>> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
>> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>>
>> He KNOWS he's lying.
>
> Particularly given I've already presented my DD-214 to the group.

No, you haven't, scooter.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/29/2021 6:33 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:7u93gghc74lbaq7sof5jq6pouqohclf0bg@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>>> spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>>> convenient forget it.
>>>
>>> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
>>> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>>>
>>> He KNOWS he's lying.
>>
>> Particularly given I've already presented my DD-214 to the group.
>
>No, you haven't, scooter.

Yes, he has, dwarf. This is settled.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:12:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/29/2021 6:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2budndv1rvBHEpz8nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.
>>>> He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>
>> Sorry, but I posted a link to a scan of that many years ago
>
>Bullshit.

Here, dwarf, try this:

"That's nothing but a pile of smelly horseshit! As is the rest of your
nonsense."
-Baxter putting forth his best argument

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:21:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
>wrote:
>
>>On 7/29/2021 6:33 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:7u93gghc74lbaq7sof5jq6pouqohclf0bg@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>>>> spasm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>>>> convenient forget it.
>>>>
>>>> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
>>>> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>>>>
>>>> He KNOWS he's lying.
>>>
>>> Particularly given I've already presented my DD-214 to the group.
>>
>>No, you haven't, scooter.
>
>Yes, he has, dwarf. This is settled.

He did.

It is beyond reasonable debate.

On 7/29/2021 6:43 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WLSdncpoHpUgJZz8nZ2dnUU7-aHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even
>>>>>>> if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be
>>>>>>> he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if
>>>>>>> he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>>> spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>>
>>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you
>>> were booted out.
>>>
>>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under honorable
>> conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits. A general discharge under
>> other than honorable conditions usually means no benefits.
>>
>>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>>
>> You are going to believe what you wish.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the characterization of my
>> service?
>
> Lies are all he has left?
>

scooter is only sucking off Hartung with that substance-free blurt.

On 7/29/2021 6:42 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:gMhMI.668099$J67.126647@fx05.ams1...
>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even
>>>>>> if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he
>>>>>> received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he
>>>>>> was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really can't
>>>> help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>
>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you were
>> booted out.
>>
>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>>
>>
>>    1 – Honorable discharge. This is the highest discharge a military member can
>>    receive. It indicates the service member performed duties well, faithfully
>>    executed the mission, and was an asset to the branch of the military where
>>    the member served.
>>
>>    2 – General discharge under honorable conditions. This type of military
>>    administrative discharge is motivated by different things depending on the
>>    branch of service. The overall conduct of the military member may have been
>>    exemplary in some areas, but other areas of misconduct or failure to adapt to
>>    the military environment may have resulted in such a discharge.
>>
>>    The separation paperwork for these military discharges may be quite specific
>>    about the reasons for the discharge, so while it’s not stigmatized the same
>>    as a dishonorable discharge, the general discharge under honorable conditions
>>    may still hurt the veteran in some ways where a DD Form 214 Report of
>>    Discharge is required for employment or other reasons.
>>
>>    Depending on the severity of the problems mentioned in the DD Form 214, the
>>    veteran may receive a reenlistment code that determines the service member’s
>>    eligibility for any future military service.
>>
>>    3 – Other than honorable (OTH) discharge. This is the most severe of the
>>    administrative discharges (which do not require a court-martial). Reasons for
>>    the OTH discharge may depend on the severity of the offenses, how a
>>    particular branch of the military has traditionally handled such issues, and
>>    other variables.
>>
>>    Security violations, trouble with civilian authorities, assault, drug
>>    possession or various degrees of drug violations or other problems could all
>>    potentially motivate an other than honorable discharge. The OTH discharge
>>    should be considered to be a barrier to future military service.
>>
>>    4 – Bad conduct discharges. a bad conduct discharge comes as the result of a
>>    court-martial and may be followed by prison time depending on the nature and
>>    severity of the conduct. This type of military discharge is not considered an
>>    administrative one and is a barrier to future military service.
>>
>>    5 – Dishonorable discharge. This is the most punitive of all military
>>    discharges and is given as the result of a court-martial. Desertion, murder,
>>    fraud, and other crimes performed in uniform can result in court-martial
>>    proceedings that lead to a dishonorable discharge. No military benefits or
>>    future military service is possible with a military discharge characterized
>>    as dishonorable.
>>
>> https://www.delgazette.com/opinion/88217/types-of-military-discharges-explained
>
> Not seeing where any of those allow you VA benefits.

That would be here, scooter, you drunken queer:

General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions

General discharge means that you met the requirements of service, likely
with some minor disciplinary actions, or failure to meet certain standards.
However, overall, your military performance was considered satisfactory.
Veterans who receive general discharges under honorable conditions are
entitled to all VA benefits, with the exception of GI Bill education benefits.

https://cck-law.com/blog/military-discharge-status-and-what-it-means-for-your-entitlement-to-va-benefits/

So a general discharge entitles a veteran to all VA benefits except GI Bill.
This is settled, scooter, and you lose again.

And at the same source, scooter, we find this:

Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge

An OTH discharge is typically an undesirable discharge. It means you had
some serious departures from the conduct, protocol, and performance expected
of a service member. Examples of situations that might result in an OTH
discharge include security violations, serious misconduct that endangers
other members of the military, or use of deliberate force to seriously hurt
another person.

In these cases, VA will conduct a character of service determination to
assess eligibility for benefits. Therefore, an OTH discharge does not mean
you are definitely barred from getting VA benefits. Instead, VA has to
determine based on the facts of your case whether you are allowed to receive
benefits based on the statutes and regulations. OTH discharge
characterizations are made administratively rather than through court-martial
proceedings. Veterans have long reported misuse of OTH characterizations in
cases where the soldier’s misconduct was related to post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST)
or, before 2011, sexual orientation.

So Hartung may well have had an OTH discharge, scooter, yet still been awarded
VA health care benefits.

Both these sources, scooter, are law firms whose primary focus is to assist
veterans in obtaining VA benefits. They know what they're talking about,
scooter, and you, a drunken queer camper who never posted your DD-214, do not
know what you're bullshitting about.

>
>> You did not have an honorable discharge.  We know this.
>
> present your proof ----->

Hartung has admitted here numerous times that he was *expelled* from the air
force — an involuntary separation. That means, by definition, that he did not
receive an honorable discharge. In prior go-rounds on this topic, scooter,
Hartung has also *admitted* that he did not receive an honorable
discharge...which, of course, was already established when he *admitted* he was
booted out.

On 7/29/2021 6:42 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:gMhMI.668099$J67.126647@fx05.ams1...
>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even
>>>>>> if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he
>>>>>> received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he
>>>>>> was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really can't
>>>> help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>
>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you were
>> booted out.
>>
>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>>
>>
>>    1 – Honorable discharge. This is the highest discharge a military member can
>>    receive. It indicates the service member performed duties well, faithfully
>>    executed the mission, and was an asset to the branch of the military where
>>    the member served.
>>
>>    2 – General discharge under honorable conditions. This type of military
>>    administrative discharge is motivated by different things depending on the
>>    branch of service. The overall conduct of the military member may have been
>>    exemplary in some areas, but other areas of misconduct or failure to adapt to
>>    the military environment may have resulted in such a discharge.
>>
>>    The separation paperwork for these military discharges may be quite specific
>>    about the reasons for the discharge, so while it’s not stigmatized the same
>>    as a dishonorable discharge, the general discharge under honorable conditions
>>    may still hurt the veteran in some ways where a DD Form 214 Report of
>>    Discharge is required for employment or other reasons.
>>
>>    Depending on the severity of the problems mentioned in the DD Form 214, the
>>    veteran may receive a reenlistment code that determines the service member’s
>>    eligibility for any future military service.
>>
>>    3 – Other than honorable (OTH) discharge. This is the most severe of the
>>    administrative discharges (which do not require a court-martial). Reasons for
>>    the OTH discharge may depend on the severity of the offenses, how a
>>    particular branch of the military has traditionally handled such issues, and
>>    other variables.
>>
>>    Security violations, trouble with civilian authorities, assault, drug
>>    possession or various degrees of drug violations or other problems could all
>>    potentially motivate an other than honorable discharge. The OTH discharge
>>    should be considered to be a barrier to future military service.
>>
>>    4 – Bad conduct discharges. a bad conduct discharge comes as the result of a
>>    court-martial and may be followed by prison time depending on the nature and
>>    severity of the conduct. This type of military discharge is not considered an
>>    administrative one and is a barrier to future military service.
>>
>>    5 – Dishonorable discharge. This is the most punitive of all military
>>    discharges and is given as the result of a court-martial. Desertion, murder,
>>    fraud, and other crimes performed in uniform can result in court-martial
>>    proceedings that lead to a dishonorable discharge. No military benefits or
>>    future military service is possible with a military discharge characterized
>>    as dishonorable.
>>
>> https://www.delgazette.com/opinion/88217/types-of-military-discharges-explained
>
> Not seeing where any of those allow you VA benefits.

That would be here, scooter, you drunken queer:

General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions

General discharge means that you met the requirements of service, likely
with some minor disciplinary actions, or failure to meet certain standards.
However, overall, your military performance was considered satisfactory.
Veterans who receive general discharges under honorable conditions are
entitled to all VA benefits, with the exception of GI Bill education benefits.

https://cck-law.com/blog/military-discharge-status-and-what-it-means-for-your-entitlement-to-va-benefits/

So a general discharge entitles a veteran to all VA benefits except GI Bill.
This is settled, scooter, and you lose again.

And at the same source, scooter, we find this:

Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge

An OTH discharge is typically an undesirable discharge. It means you had
some serious departures from the conduct, protocol, and performance expected
of a service member. Examples of situations that might result in an OTH
discharge include security violations, serious misconduct that endangers
other members of the military, or use of deliberate force to seriously hurt
another person.

In these cases, VA will conduct a character of service determination to
assess eligibility for benefits. Therefore, an OTH discharge does not mean
you are definitely barred from getting VA benefits. Instead, VA has to
determine based on the facts of your case whether you are allowed to receive
benefits based on the statutes and regulations. OTH discharge
characterizations are made administratively rather than through court-martial
proceedings. Veterans have long reported misuse of OTH characterizations in
cases where the soldier’s misconduct was related to post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST)
or, before 2011, sexual orientation.

An OTH discharge doesn't not necessarily preclude *all* VA benefits, scooter, so
Hartung may well have had an OTH discharge, scooter, yet still been awarded VA
health care benefits.

Both these sources, scooter, are law firms whose primary focus is to assist
veterans in obtaining VA benefits. They know what they're talking about,
scooter, and you, a drunken queer camper who never posted your DD-214, do not
know what you're bullshitting about.

>
>> You did not have an honorable discharge.  We know this.
>
> present your proof ----->

Hartung has admitted here numerous times that he was *expelled* from the air
force — an involuntary separation. That means, by definition, that he did not
receive an honorable discharge. In prior go-rounds on this topic, scooter,
Hartung has also *admitted* that he did not receive an honorable
discharge...which, of course, was already established when he *admitted* he was
booted out.

On 7/29/21 8:43 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WLSdncpoHpUgJZz8nZ2dnUU7-aHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to
>>>>>>>>> be stationed
>>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other
>>>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his
>>>>>>> discharge; it could well be he received an other than honorable
>>>>>>> discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was several
>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You
>>>>> really can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in
>>>>> you, a kind of spasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>>
>>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from
>>> the military is automatically other than honorable, and you have
>>> admitted you were booted out.
>>>
>>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged
>>>> under "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>>
>> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under
>> honorable conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits. A general
>> discharge under other than honorable conditions usually means no
>> benefits.
>>
>>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases,
>>> the number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that
>>> when the degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>>
>> You are going to believe what you wish.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the
>> characterization of my service?
>
> Lies are all he has left?

One wonders how Rudy avoided service.