Do you view those without a combat patch differently?

I do know that lots of soldiers choose not to wear a combat patch for a reason or another. I like to wear mine because I am proud of the things I accomplished during my service. So maybe those that do not wear them are either individuals that didn't earn one because they dodged a bullet or maybe they don't want the attention from others asking them " hey where did you get this one?" or something in that nature.

As a junior enlisted, I had spent my days turning to NCOs with combat patches. Not that the "slick sleeve" NCOs were any less competent, but the previously deployed took more time, were more patient, and very focused on ensuring their soldiers were well trained for the tasks at hand. Because they knew what we may or may not be facing down the road.

Yes, I respect them for being available.

Few soldiers have a choice in combat participation. The rest served honorably and are due our respect.

Makes me wonder about the Drone Pilot stationed in Arizona, who has killed numerous high value targets. Is a combat patch only if you got sand in your teeth? Granted the guy in Arizona did not get shot at but neither did a great many people who wear the patch. Maybe we should change it to a "I killed the enemy" patch.

That Combat Patch tells me that he/she did their duty under fire. That may not be true but it is an assumption. Without a patch you are an unknown factor.

Depends on how old I think they are and what their rank is. The older and the higher with a slick sleeve, the less forgiving I am. I deployed twice, while others I know (one of which was a BG) actively avoided deployment yet think they deserve my personal respect.

The simple answer is yes. The reason is that they don't have a shared experience. Many try to tell you how something needs to be done in a combat zone but they don't have the patch to show they've been there. Some choose not to where one, and that's fine because it's optional, but their records reflect their deployment. People who deployed with other branches will typically have some type of ribbon or medal that shows a deployment but, obviously, it's only visible in the dress uniform.

Speaking from a perspective in the Army Intelligence community, those with no deployment patches were usually seen as the ones who hadn't done there actual job yet. Being a 35F (or former 96B like me) you don't really get to do your war time job until you deploy. All the exercises in the world will not prepare you fully for doing your job in the real world scenario where real lives on the battlefield depend on your intel. I have nothing against guys with no deployments, but it helps to know that someone beside you has experienced at least some of what I have.

I wanna have a deployment patch. the military is the mucho environment and what Have on your uniform...is what you are

Grate topic

LT,

Although I try to view 'slick sleeves' without bias it is very difficult for me when I spent most of my career in Fort Bragg where the norm in my unit was 12 months deployment/18 months dwell. There are many individuals out there who have valid reasons not to wear a deployment patch (ie. family crisises, medical issues, etc), but my experience is that these individuals were the minority and would end up on the next deployment or out of the military. Young soldiers may not have had the opportunity to deploy, and that is no fault of their own.

My issue, especially in Hawaii, is seeing E-7s, E-8s, E-9s, O-4s and O-5s walking around with no deployment patches when we have been at 'war' for over 12 years. How can leaders who have never been through a deployment truly understand their troops who have? And what have these leaders been doing that has kept them away from combat zones? Everytime I ask anyone in Hawaii if they have deployed, their answer is always I've been to Japan, Korea, Guam, etc. Yeah, I have too, but those aren't combat deployments and saying you've 'deployed' to a combat veteran takes away from the sacrifice's we have made, and the losses we have incurred.

I haven't been through nearly as much as many combat soldiers, but there are no words to describe having to deal with rockets raining down in the middle of the night, seeing blood and knowing it belongs to a friend, wondering who is going to be standing next to you and how many of them are still in one piece when you finally make it back home. Physical injuries are easier for others to understand then the psychological ones. It bothers me that some senior leaders have never deployed, and yet they claim to know how much we've sacrified and what we've been through. I look at these leaders with the burning question in my mind 'why haven't you deployed?' and 'what was so much more important in your life that younger soldiers had to make that sacrifice on your behalf?' Looking at how many young soldiers we have psychologically scarred from these experiences, it makes me angry that an older more experienced leader who should be able to handle these experiences didn't have to make that sacrifice.

I'll be honest, I do view people without a combat patch differently, but mainly when it comes to training. Having a slick sleeve commo guy teach a class on reacting to contact, and tell a group of previously deployed medic that this is what it'll be like if they go downrange is mildly humorous, and kind of annoying, especially when they teach the class wrong.

That said, on a day to day basis, I care far more about competency shown than whether or not they have a deployment patch, and would much rather have someone who hasn't deployed that knows their job rather than someone who has who can't even put on a tourniquet.

I personally try not to jump to conclusions, because as it has been said on here, everyone has a story. It is certainly somewhat jarring to see a senior officer, NCO, or Warrant officer without a combat patch and for many of the same reasons indicated on this thread. Mostly, I look at combat patches, the same way I look at someone's experiences, they are potential commonalities. The same as if I ran into someone who went to my school, is a QM branch, a loggie, or was at the same unit or station I was- similar experiences that allows for a relationship to be built.

When I first joined, after Viet Nam; I was l guy without a combat patch.

Yup

I do not view SMs differently who are without a combat patch. I don't like to judge.

It really only matters when they start talking shit. I had a general once who's one deployment was Kosovo who went on a rant to a room full of field grades who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are looking at each other like "who the hell is this guy to tell us what is what?". He had no credibility because he lost his temper and started lecturing on things he had no personal experience on to guys who did. If he had not lost his temper and gone on a rant, it probably would not have been an issue. But no combat patch? No slack given by those who had one.