SENATE BILL: The Less Than HONORable Service Preclu...Benefits Act (Law'd)

[Redalgo]

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.

[Redalgo]

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?

[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.

[Redalgo]

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

Nay

[Redalgo]

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.

[Redalgo]

Nay