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

The combat patch, the CAB, the CIB, the TAB doesn't make you a leader. You are who you are. If you are a good leader, then those things are just a magnifying glass and makes you more of what you already are. If you are a jack-wagon, then it makes you worse because it gives you something to lord over other people about. All that being said, for career progression, it would be wise to deploy. It is a factor when people look at your ERB and compare it to others. There are always people that are just as good as you are. Especially at the top ranks. Every CSM could be replaced with one just as good. So the little things matter. If everything else was equal...if you had two people who were EXACTLY the same...and one had combat experience and one did not, the Army would be foolish to take the guy without that experience. It isn't the defining characteristic of a person, but it is something on top of that.

I requested so many times in the past to go on every area that was considered a combat zone, and each time was denied and sent somewhere else either to train soldiers or being in the Europe Theater for support. I was an Instructor and the Army felt I was needed more training and qualifying soldiers to be Transporters, I'm still a little disappointed but honored to support in every capacity.

It doesn't matter if you have a combat patch or not, as long as you are upholding your Army Values and striving to be the best soldier/leader you can. Having a SSI-FWT just shows that you as a soldiers had been assigned to a unit serving in a declared hostile environment and who had actively participated or supported ground combat operations against hostile forces. I don't think it makes you any better than any other soldier, but identifies you as a combat veteran.

I believe the combat patch is not the end all be all. There is so much diversity in jobs in the Army and on deployment. In my situation, I have been the Battalion Medical Operations Officer for a hard charging/Ranger All The Way infantry battalion for about a year and a half. We were suppose to deploy, however, it was canceled. 

I don't think that it is the FWTS Patch that hurts you, but the lack of experience in doing your job in a deployed or combat environment. It is different to do your job when it really matters. In Garrison you can make mistakes and forget to things, but the consequences are minor. After 13 years of conflict the majority of the military has deployed in some capacity. Do I think it should affect your career? No, because we can only deploy when ordered to do so and volunteer assignments are hard to secure. But there is something to be said for combat deployment experience. It does help you to appreciate the value to realistic training and to prioritize truly important things instead of getting caught up in the trivial tasks that sometimes garrison life can direct. Let me ask you this, is it fair to say that someone who has not deployed get the same consideration as someone who has deployed two maybe three times?   

I have read countless AARs from the promotion boards and sat on countless NCODPs about board proceedings and promotions. All I can tell you is that is MOS driven. There are certain MOS that will never have a chance to deploy case and point my friends spouse is a farmacy tech she has never gotten deployed not to fault of her own. I believe that you ought to do your job to the best of your abilities and always take care of your Soldiers. If you ever got deployed or not it's no body's problem but yours. As far as the promotion boards go you cannot control what those CSMs are looking for; will they value deployment time? Probably yes. However will they take in consideration what have you done in the states? Absolutely it's about what are you doing for your Soldiers the Army and how you stand out from your peers. Imagine me and you are the same MOS with the same time in service I have 2 deployments and that's about it, but you have none but have a degree, Drill Sergeant or any other broadening assigment and inducted into the Sergeant Audy Murphy Club. Who do you think has the upper hand? Bottom line most of us don't care if you have deployed or not at least not me. I could make an argument since I am a former Drill Sergeant that NCOs that are not Drill Sergeant qualify are not as good as I am, this not only would be unfair but it will be counter productive for the NCOs on my team. Bottom line do what you can to be the best at what you do and don't worry about what other say as they won't sit on that promotion board.

Deployment should not be a showstopper. It is about the "total Soldier concept". 5-7 years ago deployments played a major factor; however, with OEF dwindling down...what next? Promotions should be based on how effectively you can do your job. How you train and lead Soldiers and how you separate yourself from the rest.

A "combat patch" is just an indicator that you deployed whether you spent all your time outside the wire or inside the chow hall. Duty performance in a deployed theater of operations will count for something but it's not the only thing. Being a top performer in your assigned duty positions is what will determine your future in the Army, not a patch.

I know many piss poor leaders that have deployment patches, they are not an indication of leadership ability nor dedication to the service.
In saying that you have to understand that it may be looked upon negatively since the war went on for roughly 12 years. I know a former MSG that was upset because he was not selected for SGM and passed up by peers and subordinates but he had never deployed in a leadership position and that's what they were looking for.

The following is an Analysis of the FY14 Gen Engineer SFC board

The following is an attribute breakdown of those selected for SFC:
1. 100% of selectees had Section Sergeant time
averaging 30.4 months
2. 46% of selectees had Platoon Sergeant time
averaging 14.8 months
3. 98% population had completed some college
the overall average numbers of college credits earned was 68.9
23% had earned an Associate’s Degree
11% had earned a Bachelor Degree
0% had earned a Master Degree
10. The average selectee had 26.4 months of deployed (combat operations) time
100% had combat service
as little as 9 months in a combat theater
as many as 55 months in a combat theater

The fact is for the Engineer Regiment as it stands now a combat tour is mandatory for promotion. There maybe that special snowflake scenario where you can get promoted as an Engineer without combat time but I wouldn't tell my guys to count on it.

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.