Talk:Military discharge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Removed irrelevant questions about discharges. --70.160.31.126 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Question[edit]

The article states that a Bad Conduct Discharge can only be given at court martial. I was wondering if someone could put in a reference to a MILPERS manual or UCMJ that states that? My CO just issued me a BCD, which I plan on appealing. He found me guilty of using drugs, after 2 toxicology screenings returned neg, based on hearsay (to the 6th degree) alone. I have been diagnosed with Bipolar I and possibly Scytsoeffective (SP?) dissorder recently (taking seroquel xr) and can not afford to loose my VA medical benifits. Thanks for the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.145.34 (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I'm a little leery of removing material from talk pages. Reviewing the prior revisions of the talk page can give a case for these type of questions not beloning in talk pages, but I'm still not sure of whether or not it was the right thing to do here. Especaially given the fact that the person who removed the material isn't a regular user, but is only reported by IP address. I was curious as to whether anyone here had a better idea of whether or not the material from prior revisions should stay or go. JesseG 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. Forgot to log in when I was making those changes, my bad. I dunno...as far as I know, the discussion page is for dicussion of the subject in context of the article, not just general discussion of the topic at hand. From the help page of Talk Pages: "In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." Just my opinion...thoughts? --Uhlek 03:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Question[edit]

I was looking at deleting a part of this article myself, specifically the part that talks about distinction between "less than honorable" and "under honorable conditions" and it's effects on military benefits. The information is incorrect..a 'General Under Honorable conditions' discharge is just that...under honorable conditions. As someone who received this type of discharge, I can assure you that I did not lose my G.I. bill benefits, and I still receive full veteran's preferences, even for government jobs. If anyone has some input into this, please post it on this page. Thanks! User:gqusaf76 14:36, 18 Mar 2006 (CAT)

I looked it up...MGIB eligiblity is based on the initial enlistment. So, if you re-enlisted, and later got a General discharge, you're still eligible. A General discharge is still "Less than Honorable," under any conditions. [[1]] --Uhlek 03:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RE-4 bars most government employment. It is most definitely not issued for medical conditions not constituting a disability, RE-3 is issued for those.

honorable discharge[edit]

I received an honorable discharge, and received GI Bill benefits even after i was discharged. And have a RE-3 reenlistment code, which i guess means i cannot reenlist unless my reenlistment is approved with a waiver. Either way i received GI Bill benefits for 3.5 years. and i was in service for 2.25 years.

Types Of Discharges[edit]

The 5 types of military discharges are -Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. I have edited this page to reflect that. If you research this fact you will see that I am correct. Any questions just let me know. Bunns USMC 18:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your first set of edits because they removed information, and because they replaced it with less information, which was in the style of an Army manual rather than an encyclopedia article. If you believe that all ofthe information you deleted was incorrect, please say so. I won't revert again until this discussion is finished. Also, feel free to cite your sources rather than suggest that I research them. Quendus 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so much incorrect, just not accurate. The info I posted comes from the Manual for Courts Martial. Which I have put into my own words. This article doesn't need all that other stuff because it does not pertain to the subject which is military discharges. Bunns USMC 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. It still needs to be edited for tone, though, ie. not in the second person. Quendus 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to go, I will work on that once I get some free time. Bunns USMC 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. :) Quendus 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't do the rewrite. Bunns USMC 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For discharges other than Honorable Discharge, do those people get to keep their earned medals? Or are the medals revoked and required to be returned? This is a point not covered in the article because the medal was awarded for proven actions, but if the medal is revoked, it is similar to the person not having performed that action at all.AnimeJanai (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Imperial and other standards of discharge/ worldwide view[edit]

Hi all:

Being a native of Norfolk, I am quite informed about the various types of military discharge in the United States. Does anyone know the Imperial/Commonwealth traditions about discharged soldiers? I think I can add a section on the French Foreign Legion discharges, but surely regular French, Russian, German, Swedish, etc soldiers have their own traditions and regulations about discharging soldiers. Cheers V. Joe 12:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple pictures[edit]

I have a picture I think that can be used for the article. I think its a good picture too. But I don't know how to add it to the article. It was my great uncle's honorable discharge

http://cyberreviews.skwc.com/bdmckay/marine_discharge.jpg

Another one was given to me by my freinds Grandma, who discovered my taste for history. These are her husbands papers. (Its a noterized[sp copy, so I didn't steal it from an old lady, she has the originals)However they are both my property as they was given to me. And under the copyright you can say permission was given by the owner

http://anderson.mine.nu/anderson_geneology/Anderson_geneology_images/Military/Robert_Rex_Anderson_Sr/robert_rex_anderson_sr_discharge_papers.JPGFinalWish 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Than Honorable[edit]

I've changed the section regarding Other Than Honor. It was titled Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. There is no military discharge with this name. It is simply Other Than Honorable.214.15.254.34 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please globalize[edit]

I know there's a tag here already, but I want to back that up. It's absurd that only US procedure is covered: isn't there anyone who could provide details on other countries' procedures? Also, if they were provided and were as detailed as the US section, then they probably ought all (the US one included) to be split out to separate articles. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Resignation?[edit]

What type of discharge is resignation? for example: a chairman of the joint chiefs resigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschager (talkcontribs) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

you cant resign from the army until your term is served. plain and simple. if you were to "resign" you would essentially be going AWOL which is really not good at all. you cant just say "ok im done" they dont take to kindly to that. that would be dishonorable. if something was happening in your life to where you would need to "resign" then it would have to fall into one of the 5 catagories of discharge. i hope i dont sound rude, does that make sense though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.121.245 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While this is rather late, the above information is incorrect in that resignation applies to officers who, rather than having a defined term, serve "at the pleasure of the President." Once an officer serves the initial required service (and any service obligated by later contracts in return for bonuses, etc.), they simply have to give notice a few months in advance and not be within a certain period of executing their last change of station orders in order to resign. As long as it's not a resignation in lieu of disciplinary actions, it will generally speaking be a Honorable Discharge. An exception is that when you hear that high ranking members resign, it typically actually means they retire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dishonorable Discharge[edit]

Under dishonorable discharge is written: "This type of discharge used to carry a heavy stigma as it made obtaining gainful post-service employment extremely difficult."

Isn't it still extremely difficult to obtain employment with a DD? I also think "stigma" is might be somewhat misused here. DD still carries a "heavy stigma"- (* Badge of shame, a mark of infamy or disgrace *Social stigma, a severe social disapproval of personal characteristics or beliefs that are against cultural norms.) The financial and social burdens of unemployment are in addition to "stigma." Perhaps this should be rephrased? Cuvtixo (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Since the article doesn't exactly give you the information, one of my friends is trying to get out of the military because they are going to send him to Iraq. Is there any way he could get out of it, without having to get himself dishonourably discharged?- NemFX (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to a new name?[edit]

This is not a generic article on Military Discharge, it only covers the US, as such it should be moved to "Discharge from the US Military". It's not looking like the article is going to be globalised any time soon, so at the moment it's a misnomer. --WebHamster 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since noone has objected in almost two years and there has been no attempt to globalise it past adding a prompt, I made the move, albiet with a slightly more concise new name. How exciting, first time I've done a move! Hopefully now people will start up similar pages for other countries GGdown (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I do object. It's not a misnomer, because though most of the content deals with the U.S., it is under an appropriate U.S. heading, so people can add further headings for other countries. You shouldn't just move the article away to "U.S. military discharge" without leaving a main article that deals with military discharges in general, especially as then the redirect from "military discharge" seems to imply that all military discharges are American and that the U.S. is the only country with military discharges, which is not so. —Lowellian (reply) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious assertions in regards to dishonorable discharge[edit]

I marked two statements as dubious. Firstly, in regards to the statement that "most states now require employers to conduct background checks" - in fact I am not aware of any such requirement in general private employment, beyond the standard immigration employment eligibility verification, which is not at all the same as a criminal records check.

Secondly, the assertion that a DD is "a permanent record that will follow the individual for the duration of their lives anywhere in the world" is too broad and ambiguous to be meaningful. What does it mean, "to follow", under what circumstances? A more concrete and factual way to phrase this could be, for example, that Canada may consider a dishonorably discharged individual inadmissible. This is by no means true everywhere in the world or under all circumstances, in fact it is more likely an exception because of uniquely extensive sharing of records between Canada and the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.72.202 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like both issues are resolved. --S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarisation[edit]

It seems to me this article is almost entirely, if not completely, plagiarised from reference #4. There is no proper citation indicating this is the original source of the information.