Do you think someone who has never been in a combat has the right to call themselves a veteran?

Personally, I feel there should be 2 classifications of Veteran. I think everyone that has been called up to duty during wartime can claim to be a Veteran. There should also be a status of Combat Veteran that only those that have been in combat can claim. I am one of those that has been in supportive roles, but never had to fight, therefore, I don't feel I can claim to be a Combat Veteran, but can call myself a Veteran.

By completing Boot Camp, you are a Veteran. Whether or not your chain of command sends you wherever for whatever is beyond your control. The "control" you utilized happened when you signed up in the first place. Allowing yourself to be potentially subjected to any higher levels of personal risk than remaining a civilian was in your control. Hopefully and ideally, you did it because you cared and believed in something far greater than yourself. Of course these days there will always be that bottom % who are only in it for healthcare or college money and couldn't care less about our Flag. That usually shows up in their performance (or lack of).

There are even some folks who now have Veteran Benefits without finishing any training, as is the case with some who are injured during Boot Camp and are then sent home. Hey at least they tried, and were probably training hard enough to even have a chance to injure themselves.

The only "argument" about this which "could" be seen as a little different between branches, is You Are Not A Marine until you complete Boot Camp. I'm sure there are a few out there who gained Veteran Status without ever becoming Marines, including the injured I mentioned above. But again...hey at least they got off their couches.

Semper Fi.

Insulting that someone would think you have to serve in combat to considered a veteran.

I come from a military background on both sides of my family and thinking about it only two served in combat - a brother in law and my grandfather on my dad's side of the family. My father joined when Vietnam was going on but never served overseas. It was what it was. Now, I only ever saw my grandfather when I was a year old and he passed away shortly later but I know he was proud of my father going in the military, and he'd be proud of me being in the military.

My wife's late uncle was a holocaust survivor who later moved to the US, joined the US Army, served in Vietnam (no idea of combat or not) and retired after 20+ years. I never got to meet him and he passed away shortly after we started dating and I know he'd be proud of me, and would have thanked me for my service none the less and I'd extend the same courtesy.

Everyone who joins the military signs a blank check that says I am willing to lay down my life for his/her country. Now some of us never had to deploy or served during peacetime and some paid the ultimate sacrifice. So you turned a wrench and fixed helicopters but you kept the birds flying that got soldiers into the fight and got them out when they needed to get out. Just because someone isn't a door kicker doesn't mean they are no less worthy of being called a veteran you should be proud of your service. I never had a combat deployment but I am proud of the fact that I put on the uniform when most kids my age didn't go a put on a uniform.

Having been an actual combat veteran, been shot at blown up engaged by the the enemy in every way except for direct hand to hand combat, it is my belief that all, SM'S play their role. HAD you not wrenched on that helicopter those pilots would not have been able to fly those support missions for he grunts on the ground you earned it you did you're part. Be proud of that

Anyone who has taken the oath and worn this country's uniform faced the possibility of being sent into a combat zone. Whether they went or not was not a choice. There presence was required elsewhere. Sometimes "elsewhere" was to provide support to those sent to a combat zone. You, Specialist, have disrespected those who came before you and after you that were NOT sent to a combat zone.

I'm going to start off by saying, and I'm sure I'm just beating a dead horse by now, that a veteran is someone who served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, regardless of branch. Whether they saw combat or not, does not diminish the fact that they served when the majority of the population of our country will not even consider this occupation as an option. I have 4 combat tours and I have friends that never saw combat, though not by choice. Circumstance is all that separates a Combat Veteran and a Armed Forces Veteran. At the end of the day, a Veteran is a Veteran, regardless of which way you want to look at it. Neither one is better than the other, and at the end of the day, we're both veterans. All that matters is that you serve honorably and set the right example for those in and out of the military.

Ok since I haven't read through all the other posts I'm sure other have said the same thing. Yes they are veterans. It's pretty clear that they still had to go through Basic training and do PT and all the other things that service members have to do. However they are not Combat Veterans, this is a title that is reserved for those that did serve in a combat environment. If you would prefer that only those who have served in a combat zone maybe you could ask the person hosting the event to specify what kind of Veteran should stand.

This is by far the most stupid thing I have ever seen on Rallypoint you have got to be fucking kidding me, the fact that a "veteran" would even think like this is disgraceful.

If I'd had been issued orders I'd be a combat vet... So the fact you are in and willing unlike those people who refuse to serve gives you the right to be a vet
Now being the son of a combat vet, remember when talking to another vet you don't say you're a combat vet if you're not.... That is what is insulting to a combat veteran according to all Vietnam vets I've met.... I've seen them want to kill someone wearing a combat badge who never left the states