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

Whe never you join the military and you meet the minimum requirements you are a veteran. As an infantryman grunt I understand how many support personnel are required for me to do my job alone. And how many others are required to support those that support me. We were practicing a landing when two steam lines broke away from the ship and pinned two sailors in place and scaled them to death. Did they serve he'll ya. And fortunately for us we had those who processed our paid. And thanks to the corpsman who took care of our teeth nothing like a bad tooth when you have to leave you buddies. Get the picture. And let's not forget we all had to eat.

I have been both. Some I talk about and some I don't. I am never as proud as I am when I stand next to my brother and sisters who kept ships operational, aircraft in the air, provided for morale and welfare, or recon and lived "outside the wire". One team and one mission... ensure the complete capitulation of the enemy and strive for stability. I think sometimes we good naturedly rib each other about each other's "Level of engagement". The uniform or job may be different but the commitment remains the same.

I understand where your coming from and how you feel. I served from 87-92 in the USAF. I was in the during the tail end of the "Cold War" years. In 91 when Desert Storm kicked off and people were deploying I was finishing up my short tour in S. Korea and getting ready to PCS back stateside. I was headed to Griffiss AFB, Rome NY. When I arrived some guys had deployed the majority of us had not. So the few "combat vets" who did return were kind of viewed as these super airmen. Even though we have no control over who is deployed it does leave a fellow feeling a little short when you check yourself against your peers. At the end of the day we are all veterans. I don't think "combat vets" feel the same way as "regular vets" of feeling they missed a call to action. I certainly don't think they hold it against other vets, because again we have no control over how that process is conducted. For whatever reason I tend to hold combat vets, for lack of a better explanation, in a higher regard. I don't do anything different really, it's just a personal feeling. Don't misunderstand me I respect and love all my Brothers in Arms. However, my brothers that saw combat really rose to the occasion. I've often thought combat veterans should have their own category. I feel this way because a combat tour has high probability that you may pay the ultimate price. So for those who did pay that price they should be recognized, as well as those who were fortunate to live through it. So to answer your question YES we should all be recognized as vets provided we meet the guidelines, and "combat vets" should be identified as such. Most of the combat vets I've talked to about this disagree. They say "We're all Vets." I think for me it comes more from a place of respect to want to identify them as "combat vets".

As established by at least 90 days Active duty, I think you are considered a vet, not everyone can serve in combat, all logistics are needed, stateside and in combat

Supporting troops is not always about going to combat. Supporting troops at home is vital as well.

yes they should be allowed to call themselves veterans. I don't see how this is an issue since they are veterans. If the person has seen combat I have now problem with them calling themselves combat veterans. Interesting question but kind of clear legally what the term means. IMHO

People in the service, no matter which branch, have very little choice as to whether or not they serve in a combat zone. You if a person has served with honor , no matter where they were stationed, he or she is a veteran. Now those that have served in a combat zone are combat veterans. In today's military, when a person signs on the dotted line, they go where they are sent. I spent a tour in Vietnam(69-70) and one in Iraq(03). I didn't see the action in Iraq that I did in Vietnam, but make no mistake, it was a combat tour. It take everyone, not only those in theater, but those also out of theater to complete a combat mission. My hat is off to anyone that enlists in the US Military, active or reserves.

Little known tidbit of information and one that you will not be able to track down but those of us on recruiting duty during Desert Storm saw it.

Normally you wouldn't think of Military Recruiters being in harms way in their cushy little offices in downtown America but... During Desert Storm I, between all the military services, we had more military recruiters get killed or murdered as a result of being a recruiter than the number of military that we lost in in the Desert. This is not stated to demean or lessen those who fought or were lost in the desert but to bring out the idea that even though an individual may not be in a combat zone doesn't mean that they are necessarily in a position that is safe from repercussions from that conflict. To this day you still hear an occasional news tidbit about a recruiting station getting hit or targeted and they don't get the berms, guards or even the opportunity to be armed. Here is a recent example
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/four-us-marines-killed-in-attacks-on-military-recruitment-offices/398786/

yes anyone who served their country honorably is a veteran. Thats why there are veterans and combat veterans. To show the distinction between who saw combat and who didnt. But I will say anyone who has served whether they saw combat or not deserves respect from civilians who wouldnt even think about stepping in a pair of combat boots or even on a battlefield for that matter.

According to;
38 U.S.C 4215(a) a veteran is one who had completed 180 or more days outside of training in any branch of the military.