Should medically retired get the same certificate as those that did 20+?

So you are pissed that your retirement certificate reads the same as the ones who lost more than you did and weren't able to complete 20 years? How effing selfish can you be? Do you think your better than those of us who served honorably but because of injury were not able to continue? I will make sure that when I tell people about my time in the service, I will be sure to add an asterisk.

I usually try to refrain from bashing service members over posts. But this has even got me spun up. I could see a junior service member asking this but not a senior NCO.

I'm in the same boat with SFC Mark Merino in hoping SFC Grudzinski just had a bad day or maybe someone rubbed him wrong.

Your suggestion that there needs to be a separate certificate for those medically retired raised hackles because it implicitly assumes a superiority of the 20 year "true" retirement over a possibly "suspicious" medical retirement. No matter what your intended message, there is a hostile subtext in how your suggestion reads. Retired is retired is retired, my friend. No need for a "separate but equal" system of certificates.

Yeah we should. I made my E-6 in 4 years and was on the fast track until sustaining several injuries in combat (Infantry). I was a career soldier who was specifically emailed by the board with barely over 7 years in stating I had been recommended for promotion but due to my Profile I was not going to see my E-7. As I fought to get off of it they kept finding more doing MRI's and Brain Scans. Why should I be treated As if I'm less of a Soldier because my injuries only allowed me to serve 10 years and not 20? How about all the 20 year guys who never deployed or don't have a CIB or CAB? Maybe they should get a different one too??

This thread seems to be in line with the one about those with permanent profiles being paid less or something.

My wife was medically retired for permanent injuries sustained down range and I will continue to serve until retirement comes calling.

The fact that a senior NCO is even thinking this way is quite disturbing and clearly does not get the big picture. If this is the way you really feel I hate to think about how you treat Soldiers going through the process of transitioning into civilian life let alone those you may be responsible for. All I can say is I hope you never have to be one of the injured that may need to be medically retired and that you open your eyes to recognize the sacrifices of those who had.

All you have given is time. I've given my health and my body.

Omg. I'm trying so hard to restrain myself. SFC Mark Merino tell me not to do it!

I don't see why not. The certificate says that you served honorably and were retired. Someone who is retired medically meets both of those under most circumstances I could think about.

Why is this even a question?

Every case is different. I believe that they should get a Retirement Certificate. SFC (Join to see)

The problem with the whole Military Medical system is that it is hard to tell sometimes who is riding the system and those who are truly in dire need. Those that are not clog the system for Soldiers who require attention.

There are also Doctors who make decisions based on personal beliefs instead of actual medical facts and findings. I had one try to prevent my deployment and as me why I wanted to go.

As SFC Mark Merino stated he was trying his best to get at least 20 years.
Unfortunately there are many more who could be just trying to get a paycheck and it is too hard to discern the difference.

We must respect the fact that we are all together in this and have earned what we get regardless of the circumstances.

Why not??? Using that mindset -----should Service members with 20 years get the same retirement certificate as one that provided 30 years?

Should a Soldier that performed 20 years of AFS be it in Regular or Reserve (AGR) ar Reserve Service (retirement at age 60) not get the same certificate. In the Army AGR Soldiers perform many of the "hard" jobs in the Army and recognition is recognition. Normally AGRs do all of the tough things that have to be done while the regulars do "their own" thing.

Please understand that the paper certificate signed by "whomever" will not make any difference in pay or benefits that the Service Member will receive.

V/r,
Charles T. Dalbec
LTC, AUS, Retired

HELL THE EFF YES...we all pay a price, some of us it is bad knees, or a bad back. Loss of hearing, PTSD, failed marriages, drugs, alcoholism, yet some of us triumph over all the evils of the world and go onto do great things.

We all pay, some pay all the way, some pay a little, some pay a lot.

If you earned your retirement doing your job, you deserve to be HELLA proud.

If you did 4 years and never left Alabama (there is surely a base there, right?) you should be proud just as well.

In the Army it called the DA 363A, Air Force DD 363AF, Navy 363N, in the Marines its DD 363M, and for Coast Guard it a DD 363CG, please correct me if I am wrong any of my CG/Navy/Marine brothers & sisters.

One of the unique thing about the forms its that nowhere on them does it distinguish between a 20yrs+ retirement or a medical retirement(either under TDRL or PDRL) or a retirement under TERA.

The AF AFI for example states: "PER AFI 36-3203, IC 10 AUG 09, MEMBERS PERMANENTLY RETIRING FOR DISABILITY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT CERTIFICATES/ CONGRATULATION LETTERS REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE." Airmen who are placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) are not issued the certificate unless their status changes to a permanent retirement, either for years of service or disability.

The other service branches may have something similar. I have seen someone on the Army side on TDRL who later went to PDRL and gotten the certificate of retirement.

Not all who retire at 20+ are healthy & ready to take on another career for another retirement in the civilian sector. In my case, I did make it past 20+ and paid for it dearly. I was on the cusp of a possible medical retirement but I pushed through it knowing that I will suffer for it later. I'm not able to enjoy a 2nd career and live it up, do what I please. Well, I do what I please within my physical constraints.

SFC (Join to see), why does it bother you so much that a certificate or recognition be different for someone medically retired for their injuries sustained in combat and those medically retired due to a"football injury" and never deployed. What about those who did deploy and upon their return found out they have a terminal illness and nowhere near their 20 yrs. It happened to a dear friend of mine. Should I call his wife and tell her that certificate that hangs on her wall doesn't mean crap to my cert because I got my 20?? I ran into a buddy of mine at the VA last month, big scar on the right side of his head courtesy of an IED, not only fractured his skull but some of it had to be replaced by cadaver bone. I'll be sure to tell him his retirement cert doesn't mean squat either.

Bronze Stars, yes SFC (Join to see), some got them because their ass never left the FOB compared to those who left the wire each and everyday. Thing is IDGAF why or why not they got them. If they got it because they sat on their behind, it's on their conscience not mine. If those that went out the wire didn't get theirs, then it's their piss poor leadership who failed to fight for them. What does irk me is the BS rules leadership comes up with "only E7 and O-3 and above get BS everyone below gets ARCOMs/AAMs" just an example. Guess no one read the reg, because nowhere in the reg states this BS made-up criteria.

You know most people here will see the one deployment I have listed. I won't list the other one, it's one that I have tried to bury so far deep for the last 11 years that no matter what I do I have constant reminders of that time frame and the BS that went on afterwards. I have enough time on my 20+ yrs I can deduct that time frame out of my life. But at no time will ever tell anyone their time didn't count or less meaningful than mine.

It's 1700 somewhere in the world, I'm done with this, I got nothing else to say.

Only thing I have to say is...

Hmmmmm, I once knew an E-2 who was medically retired after stopping at the club during a parts run, getting filthy drunk and then crashing the government vehicle on the way back to the station becoming permanently injured in the fiasco. In that case I would say HELL NO!

In the case of someone who was injured in the line of duty due to no fault of their own and especially in combat I would say HELL YES!

I'm not sure why the Army certificate attached does not have years of service but mine reads that I served for over 34 years (kinda wish it said 11 years of active duty but that's no biggie). If all services noted years served that might placate those that believe only the lucky ones who make it past 20 deserve one.

See attached.

Absolutely. If their time is service is cut short due to medical related problems they received while service, then they should receive the same recognition as those who retire at 20 or more years. If you look at the line under their name "Having served faithfully and honorably", that says it all.

Now, I know there are SM that will skate the system and use every medical reason they can to their benefit, but I think it would be hard to distinguish between them and I don't think we should take away from those legitimately with medical problems.

Just my two cents!

I say yes! Some of us could not control the reasons why we did not complete our obligations/career like we would of like to.

SFC (Join to see) SFC, I understand what your saying but when it comes to social media there is no inflection, only words. You have to type what you mean to say if you want anyone to understand what your trying to convey. The original question its self "Should people who are medically retired from the service receive the same retirement certificate as those that did the required 20 years or more?" It does sound derogatory, like Medical Retirement is less honorable.
You could have typed more like, Should the Military distinguish between a Medical Retirement Certificate and a 20+ year Retirement Certificate? Same Question just less fuel for the fire.

I have read a lot of responses that SFC Grudzinski has received. I will say this.... everyone is entitled to their opinion in person or on social media. The other thing I think needs to be said is that people don't really want "you" to have an opinion they simply want you to agree with theirs! With all of that being said, a retirement certificate that says you served 1 yr or 20+ years is still a retirement certificate in my opinion and should be respected. My wife is retired and i just asked her thoughts and she said the E4 who was blown up during the war did more in 4 years than she did in 20.5 years. I don't think the wording on the certificate should be different but if the DOD decided to change it I don't think those who have been medically retired should feel disrespected in any way.

i'm gonna bet with all those down votes, it wasn't them not reading it right, it was you not writing it right. This top in itself has a definite troll quality to it, I just don't understand why you would want to alienate that large a population of posters.