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

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.

A retirement is a retirement, shouldn't matter the number of years served. Should there be a different certificate for someone that serves MORE than the "required" 20 years?

I think "most" should, people who have dedicated their life to the Army but are unable to continue should definately get the same recognition. Barring their injury they may have continued their military service. There are a few who abuse the system but we can't punish those that are really unable to continue for those that had a good plan to abuse the system. Besides the Certificate doesn't say anything other than they retired after serving faithfully and honorably

I understand what you are saying, you were not demeaning anyone, just showing a difference. Great thought. Thanks .

I don't think it's that easy to get medically retired...I've only known a handful of people to do so and they had pretty severe issues. Some of those issues may have been genetic but more likely then not it was because of their sacrifices in the service. Yes they deserve the same retirement recognition.

You don't get medically retired for a broken arm, there are medical and physical evaluation boards that determine whether one can return fit for duty, medical discharge with a severance pay or medically retired (which begins VA disability). I can say, for my PEB, it was approved by an Admiral somewhere and the board convened with a handful of medical officers that review the records, etc.

Most of the time it's a permanent injury or chronic problem that one is medically retired for.

Myself, I was medically retired for Epilepsy with 80% disability. I'm fortunate that I have all of my limbs entact and no physical ailments like many of my brothers who were in combat situations, however SFC you can suck it.

If i could, I would still be out in 7th fleet, on the ship, where I belong, working on CIWS.

I understand that someone who spent 20+ years might not want to be lumped in with someone who spent less than 20 years and was medically retired.

However, does it really matter? You get your benefits. They get theirs. It really isn't like these people who are getting medically retired are seeking this kind of separation on purpose.

None

No

Sergeant, my response is this question: Did they Honorably Serve and Retire? If Yes, then YES. If No, well.... maybe a discussion is needed.

The effective date of my stating medically retired put me at 19yrs, 7 Mons 29 days! They stated I wasn't world wide deplorable anymore. My Unit was next on list to deploy and have several, many, many times since. I joined at 18 yrs old with a plan to do my 20 at least & hopefully more. I don't believe just because you we're allowed to or able to finish your 20 yrs that you are better or your service is better than someone who was injured in combat, effected by chemical weapons, injured in training. They gave MORE than just those that got their 20. They will have life long problems. Some got thru during no time of war. Some weren't in comat positions. To think you're better than those because you got your 20 yr letter is just narcissistic. Allot of those Medically Retired can never work again. If you joined young like 18 yrs old, after 20 then you would 38 you can still work. Draw your retirement and a pay check. Those of us who are 100% DAV only have disability pay and what ever amount social security we have built up. What about the Gold Star Families? I'm sure they don't think just because you got your 20 in makes your better than the one they lost! Heck no! Everyone's service matters. If you think you're better due to a 20 year letter you need to fall off that pedestal you've put yourself on and learn some humility. To ALL that served thank you for your service, your commitment and your sacrifices. Don't let others on this site make you feel like less, you are not! God bless you all.