Talk:DD Form 214

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

2008 Private Companies[edit]

Private companies should not solicit business to obtain a veterans DD214 by placing links to their commericial [sic] sites within wikipedia. Steve

But information only sites, with information provided that may threaten a commercial interest, are perfectly acceptable. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • Which yours is not. So please stop inserting commercial links or you will be blocked. I've already identified three IP addresses associated with you that persist on doing this. Please don't persist in doing this or the article will end up semi-protected against anonymous editors. We've been over this already - Alison 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the statement of only Army personell receiving their DD214 before terminal leave--this is false. I was in the Navy and received mine as I was going on terminal leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNordo (talkcontribs) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Available Versions[edit]

Omits "a great deal" of information? When did this happen? I was released from active duty in 1989 and the difference between "long" and "short" form at that time was 4 fields of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to order my dd214 Lilliewilliams201 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Lilliewilliams201 (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok Lilliewilliams201 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Private Researchers[edit]

I added a 'cite needed' to the statement that private researchers can "expedite" getting a DD214.

When I worked in a County Veterans Service Office, we were explicitly told that this was false. The only way they could "expedite" this was by delivering the SF-180 in person at the St. Louis office, thus saving a day or two in mailing time. But since you can fax in the SF-180 yourself, the in-person delivery hardly seems like something worth paying this much for. The Records Center does not give any special treatment to requests from these 'private researchers', they just go into the inbox along with all the others. We felt that most of these companies were just parasites, preying on Veterans or their relatives. T-bonham (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an enlisted, U.S. Army war veteran possessing a DD Form 214 of my own. If the Wiki (Wikipedia) article is going to discuss the name, then it should state the actual title of the DD Form 214. It never does! Nowhere in the article is the title of the DD Form 214 stated! The title of the DD Form 214 is this: "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty." While the "DD" in "DD Form 214" does indeed stand for Department of Defense, the article falsely presumes that the form is called "Department of Defense Form 214." It is not! The name must be the title. But, if the title is too long to speak easily, then the form number becomes the name: either "DD Form 214" or shortened further to "DD 214." Since the general idea is to shorten the name, a reasonable mind should deduce that the name cannot be (and I've never heard it called) "Department of Defense Form 214," because it is too long to speak with ease. If a person wanted to call it something long, the person would call it by its title, "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty." Furthermore, where "Discharge Papers" could be used as a name, it doesn't make sense since people are talking about a document that is only one sheet of paper--"Discharge Paper". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talkcontribs) 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsafe link[edit]

There is an unsafe link in the external links section:
Firefox reports this as untrusted source and potentially a security risk. I've removed the link for such security problems, but left it here for further review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem particuarly troublesome to me - the warning you are getting is about a certificate signed by an unrecognised authority. Generally I would ignore that here - a .mil domain should be safe enough. However it seems to redirect away from the PDF indicated, and I don't see any real value in the page you finally end up at, so it is probably a good thing it is taken out. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


The data from DD Form 215 is located in this article under Corrections. ELs from 215 were added here as well. As 215 is less than a stub, merging it here is more useful to the reader. All that needs to be done is set up the redirect. --S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. 5 April. --S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent IP Additions about obtaining 214s[edit]

The recent ip additions about "ways to obtain a 214" seem to be a pretty blatant attempt to insert the link to a "paid-for-service" research company which will obtain 214s from NPRC in return to a fee. Also, the manner in which the IP is stating this in the article is extremely misleading - I work at MPRC and am very familiar with these "research companies". I have very little respect for most of them and this recent attempt to change the article looks like an attempt to generate business. I would recommend immediate reverts as vandalism and attempts to insert a commercial link as spam. -OberRanks (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Separation Codes and Reentry Codes[edit]

Should these 2 items be listed on this article, or should there be a separate list on Wikipedia? --TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 04:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)