Does it matter if I don't have a combat patch?

No there no shame in not having a chance to earn a combat patch. As some one that served in Desert Storm, you have my respect in willing to go and maybe make the ultimate sacrifice. There are few soldiers that I personally know that wear a patch they never earned. I can remember my first night in country and bunch of us soldiers we talking about how this would be a test if we were as good as we thought. A senior NCO who I cam to respect told us, that has nothing to do with it, they only way we will make it home if there is not a bullet in this country with name on it. When you hear that reality smacks you in the face, as far being deployed making a good leader that is a bunch of B.S. ..... Just my thoughts

In my humble opinion the combat patch for promotion thing should be more MOS based and not just if you have one. For instance you take two 11B Senior NCOs. One has multiple combat tours while the other has none. Everything else being equal, the one with the combat tours has the advantage on paper due to the fact that he has had to perform under combat situations and the other has just training experience. The other may have assisted with disaster relief and what not, but it is still not the same as the one who was getting shot at or doing the shooting. Just my two cents.

Check out the discussion linked here. The article it links to does a good job describing the combat patch mentality. The author states "At a fundamental level, comments like my Facebook posting about Soldiers without combat patches are corrosive and counterproductive, especially when they come from senior officers...The fact they have not deployed does not mean that they are not contributing to the mission; we should not devalue their service for this reason alone." The fact that you don't have a combat patch does not make you a bad leader and having one doesn't automatically make you a good one either. The author's points on moral courage I find valuable too. Check out the article found in the discussion I linked for a good read on this subject.

Not having a deployment patch should not hinder with your career progression or being a leader. Some Soldiers are just put in assignments that just do not deploy or miss it due to other reasons. I have seen some leaders and Soldiers look down on NCO's because they did not have a deployment patch. This is wrong and I made sure it was addressed to corrected. The truth is pretty soon we as a Army will see less and less of our future leaders with deployment patches. Does that mean we need to look down on them because they join after the deployments ended or because they were too young to join?

I've been in two different branches of the military.  I was deployed with the USAF, and they don't have combat patches.  I can't even wear the deployment ribbon I got because it isn't in accordance with AR 670-1.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain that to people when I tell them about my time downrange.  So I feel your pain as one of the only officers on my staff that doesn't have a FWTS patch.  That being said, I think if two people are equally qualified for a job and the tie breaker is a downrange deployment then the FWTS soldier gets it.

When I joined in 2001 only the old dogs who were in during the Gulf War had them. Basically, there were very few patches out there. With the multiple deployments of the past decade + however, almost everyone has them. Give it five/ten years and again almost no one will have them. I have already seen a marked decrease in the number of Soldiers that have combat patches in the Army.

That is the nature of the beast. The Army leans towards soldiers who have been to combat. This is evident by promotion points given to soldiers who have been to combat. Being in the National Guard you are facing another dynamic. I have been deployed twice, once with the Guard, soon to be a third. I wear my Guard unit patch as a combat patch. They want to see that you have been there for the state or unit. Working at the PEC they want you to represent the Guard. This would explain the pressure to get a patch. It comes down to a "we all have one" situation.

(On a side note, if you have any openings for a 2LT Infantry officer let me know.)

I agree that MOS makes a difference, but I also feel like a desire to deploy is encompassed by sense of duty. If someone has made every attempt to deploy in a worthwhile capacity and it just hasn't happened then there is nothing you can do. However, I understand why Soldiers are looked at favorably or unfavorably based on experience, and like it or not combat is a serious consideration. Training is important, but at the end of the day, we are here to fight our nation's wars and stand for her defense. So if I were between selecting one of two eligible Soldiers for promotion and only one had performed his/her duties in a combat environment, I would absolutely choose the one with more experience in critical warfighting skills. Especially after more than 13 years in conflict wherein the majority of leaders have executed their battle tasks where it counts. In the case of the biochemists and other MOS that the combat application of skills is indifferent, little influence should be gained. But especially if you are Combat Arms or direct support, why would you not favor the Soldier who has proven his ability to do what we are here for? What would have more weight to you: A Platoon Sergeant who in garrison trained all of his Soldiers in Combat Lifesaver and Army Combatives; or one who did that before deployment and then successfully executed several real-world MEDEVAC and led his Platoon through multiple direct fire engagements with the enemy? How about the logistics guy who led his Platoon to supply an Infantry Battalion in the field with hot chow and serviceable vehicles, compared to the one who did that AND; successfully led dozens of Ground Assault Convoys across enemy backyard to resupply outlying COP and FOB with bullets, fuel, food, etc., also encountering enemy fire and IED's. Realistically, who would you promote to lead new Soldiers who don't have that experience?

Deployment experiences do tend to differ greatly depending. Anything from pencil pushing to real combat. I've experienced both. So it's not the end all be all of leadership. But I do find it strange that someone who has at least 8 years active service has zero deployments. That is probably a red flag in many cases.