The requirements for the Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program are straightforward but ambiguous concerning the window of time out of service' (Not clear and open to debate). I have not yet hit my 6-year mark out of active duty, yet according to employees answering the phones I still don't meet the requirement of being within the "last five years." The wording of the requirement "the last 5 years" is ambiguous and I believe I am still eligible when those words are used. I have connected to employees who get the applications and they have to change the wording, the entire sentence, to explain what the requirement of time is talking about. I plead for some understanding on this. If a person reads a requirement or rule (That isn't clear and isn't specific) thus, ambiguous in its meaning, that person in concern is left to assume what is being said was set up for failure from the start.
I explained to the employees how 5.5 years is still included in the requirement wording "last 5 years." The employees explained to me the meaning of the requirement by rewording' the entire requirement. Never once did they use the exact sentence or words as used in the requirement (and what they were saying made complete sense using the words they used). What they were trying to get me to understand I understood fast because the words they used actually meant specifically what they were talking about and what the program was looking for.
I do believe that if this case were brought to a courthouse my argument would win quick and easy. Wording matters. The words used in the requirement of time separated' set me up for failure.