Talk Elections

Sponsor: Clarence

24 hours to advocate for this Clarence.

Clarence, aren't basically all benefits lost by a BCD already? I think that all VA benefits except for disability compensation (only lost by DD) are already lost, but I'm not sure.

I strongly support this bill.

Is it possible for a service-person to get an OTH discharge for actions of theirs morally justifiable within the bounds of reason? My main concern with this legislation as it stands is it may steeply punish good deeds, encouraging unwavering discipline to regulations instead of heroic virtuosity in individual initiative. Though perhaps there may be a handful of reasons not to encourage that kind of behavior?

I'm still on the fence in regards to this bill but am leaning in the direction of opposition for suspicion that one size here doesn't fit all, so to speak.

Would you provide an example?  I don't think a service member would be discharged if their actions were morally sound.

Only a few examples came to mind, which is why I felt so inclined as to ask out of curiosity.


Via potentially unreliable sources I found instances of these reasons for OTH discharges:

- Expressing willingness to follow orders issued by POTUS only if they're lawful.
- Circumventing the DRMO with good intentions to avoid failing in their mission.
- Going AWOL to avoid being murdered by a fellow soldier after official channels failed.
- Asking for help to break a painkiller addiction formed after an injury suffered while serving.


On an aside note it would also seem bad to me to punish those with OTH discharges for:

- Being falsely accused of a crime (e.g. indecent assault, domestic abuse).
- Failing a UA due to having unknowingly ingested a controlled substance.
- Having sexual relations with another service-person, outside of ones crumbling marriage.
- Being outed as gay before it was acceptable (if this applies to those already discharged).


There may be other circumstances out there. The thought I appear to be skirting around with this all is the guidelines for what the service branches believe makes for an excellent solider may not be entirely the same as what we as political leaders believe makes for a citizen who is worthy of receiving benefits following their time served in the armed forces. What do you think?

Interesting points, Redalgo.

Clarence, would we presume that discharged soldiers will have the opportunity to appeal to a court so as to protect their benefits?  Ideally, the government should be able to review these things by a case-by-case scenario in case the ends justify the means or if someone is wrongly discharged for something.

Wait, is this bill getting tabled if Clarence is away for the next week?

Those slated to receive an OTH discharge are guaranteed (by the Uniform Code of Military Justice) the right to appeal to an administrative discharge board, which is similar to a court-martial but is not done publicly, if that takes care of it.

I think that ought to suffice.  What do you think, Redalgo?

I reckon at least a handful of people will still fall through the cracks, so to speak, and that justice as I happen to see it will not always be done if this bill is enacted. However, I'll make an effort to abstain from being entrenched in that perspective until I've heard from every Senator with an opinion to express on this legislation. In the meanwhile there is plenty to ruminate over. One way or another, I'll almost certainly have some reservations about how I choose to vote on this later on.

Only if the Senate votes to table it. It is a policy meant to discourage absenteism amongst sponsors. I made an exception once already for Clarence, as much as I like him though this time I feel obligated to move forward with motioning to table this bill. If we keep making exceptions the whole point of doing it will become meaningless.

Chances are I will vote against tabling it myself when it comes time to vote on it. I typically vote no on them in general.

I motion to table this bill.


Edit: I change my mind. Clarence did post he would be gone and I did give a blanket exception for LOA's with no stated limit on the number of times. But some kind of action has to be done to discourage absenteeism amongst sponsors. Think of the impact on amendment consideration if a sponsor of a bill on the floor is gone for such a long period of time. Every amendment offered here will have to go to a vote because their is now way to use the alternative process without the primary sponsor. Perhaps we could allow the PPT to push back legislation if a Senator knows in advance he will be gone for a long period. There is only limited discretion regarding some of the lower slots, but the top few (1-5) specifically require that the next piece of legislation be brought up as it comes open. Using the other slots, this can be manipulated, which is ironically how I brought this to the floor. I didn't realize Clarence was gone and for such a long time till afterwards. :P

This can be brought to a final vote as soon as someone calls for it.

I call for a final vote.

Senators, this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

If I understand correctly, no one wanted to address Senator Redalgo's expressed concerns? I am not likely to sign this bill if OTH discharge is for matters such as he listed.

Alas, it would've been extremely helpful to have Clarence here to discuss this at greater length.

Nay

Aye

Nay

Abstain.

I support the bill's intentions, but as Redalgo said, Clarence's input would have been helpful.  Perhaps this can be reintroduced.

Can we halt the vote?

Indeed it can be, but I would like to know for sure whether something will come up if at is will take several days to engage in this process, amend the bill, and then restart the vote.

Is an amendment to be forthcoming? I would suggest the sponsor communicate with the Senator who has raised some issues here. 

I appreciate Redalgo's concerns... as far as I am aware to still be the case- those discharged under OTH conditions have an appeal along the lines of a court martial and this is after extensive coordination high up the chain of command

As for the procedure- I appreciate you continuing this bill on the floor in my absence NC Yankee and would like to see if my statement above addressed Redalgo's concerns. If so- perhaps we can continue with the vote ongoing


Also- AYE

One of my reservations is that, if OTH appeals go to a court-martial like setting and revolve around whether or not an individual adhered to the regs laid out by the armed forces, the military's codified interpretation of what is right and wrong (which I fear may be somewhat inflexible, severe, and non-permissive of victimless acts relative to mine) will determine whether one gets important benefits - some of which I consider rights rather than privileges - as a civilian once the person in question is expelled from the armed forces. At this time what I would like to know is why I should trust the current appeals process not to occasionally make victims of some service-people who did in fact serve honorably but nonetheless, due to one technicality or another, failed to measure up to the military's scrupulous standards? What can we do to reduce that risk?

With respect, my vote will remain "nay" on this bill unless the problem is further addressed and remedied.

I understand your point Redalgo but can't help but think we are coming here from different planets... you use the words "failed to measure up to the military's scrupulous standards" as though the military ought to lower its standards or make them more flexible. The reality is- the military has rules and procedures that must be followed to the letter or the military does not function. Do I agree with every OTH discharge- hell no!!! Take the Tea Party Marine who made a FaceBook page criticizing Obama. He got himself an OTH discharge and my bill would preclude him from VA benefits. I agree with him politically and believe the standard was harsh- but he broke the Uniform Code of Military Justice and went thru the tried system of military justice

I'd be more then willing to discuss legislation to amend the UCMJ...there are certain behaviors I agree do not warrant severe punitive action. Butas it stands- the law governing the military is clear and I believe benefits should be limited to those who serve without crossing well-identified lines. I believe in allowing certain leeway which is why those who received general discharges are still permitted to receive benefits

Aye

The vote has several days left and I will refrain from closing it until it expires or a desire to amend this bill has surfaced, at which point I will halt the vote.



Aye for now.

Aye

Changing my vote to Aye.

Changing mine to abstain for procedural matters.


Like Reid's Nay vote on the Disclose Act. :P

Two days until I close the vote.

Nay

Why can gays be allowed to do their gay pride parade stuff in uniform when Tea Party folk and anti-war vets like Adam Kokesh are getting the book thrown at them? If the gay community can have such rights the Tea Party and anti-war vets should too. The law is good but the enforcement seem to be more understanding of leftist causes over conservative and libertarian ones.

Nay

Vote on Final Passage of The Less than HONORable Service Peclusion of Benefits Act:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, Scott, TJ in Cleve
Nay (3): Redalgo, sbane, Seatown
Abstain (1): NC Yankee

Didn't Vote (1): Wormyguy
Attempted to Vote Twice (1): Seatown

With five votes in the affirmative, three in the negative and time having expired, the bill is passed and presented to the President for executive action.

I have vetoed this bill.

Here is my redrafted version:

I am disappointed with the Presiden'ts veto, but I believe his amended version is still an improvement over current policy- therefore I accept it as friendly

oh F[inks] I thought we were voting again.

I thought we were as well, but I have been here long enough to know that you never go into an extra-ordinary procedure unless you know it is worth while. Hence why I conditioned my halting of the vote on the presence of a real desire to change the text. No amendments materialized so it didn't happen.

So I guess Clarence's acceptance of the changes as "friendly" constitutes the equivalent of "filling a motion to approve the redraft".

Senators, a vote is now open on the President's Redraft, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Abstain

Abstain

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Vote on the President's Redraft:

Aye (6): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, Scott and TJ in Cleve
Nay (1): Redalgo
Abstain (2): sbane and Seatown

Didn't Vote (1): Wormyguy

With six ayes, the President's Redraft has been passed and sent back to the President for executive action.