Posted on Feb 5, 2015
Should medically retired get the same certificate as those that did 20+?
77.5K
886
248
29
7
22
Should people who are medically retired from the service receive the same retirement certificate as those that did the required 20 years or more?
I felt compelled to edit my original post due to the inability of people to decipher its intended message. Nowhere in the original post was I recommending nor advocating diminishing the quality of anyone’s service, in fact I stated that those that served honorably deserve due recognition.
Unfortunately people were so passionate about the subject that they failed to realize that I was actually defending those that served honorably against those that are shirking the system in order to obtain medical retirement.
In short I was merely advocating a different retirement certificate for those that completed the requisite 20 years versus those that didn’t. This is no way makes the service any less valuable it merely allows people to differentiate. However the onslaught of down votes has only re-enforced the fact that voicing your opinion on social media is the fastest way to create a riot despite the failure of the intended targets ability to translate its content.
I felt compelled to edit my original post due to the inability of people to decipher its intended message. Nowhere in the original post was I recommending nor advocating diminishing the quality of anyone’s service, in fact I stated that those that served honorably deserve due recognition.
Unfortunately people were so passionate about the subject that they failed to realize that I was actually defending those that served honorably against those that are shirking the system in order to obtain medical retirement.
In short I was merely advocating a different retirement certificate for those that completed the requisite 20 years versus those that didn’t. This is no way makes the service any less valuable it merely allows people to differentiate. However the onslaught of down votes has only re-enforced the fact that voicing your opinion on social media is the fastest way to create a riot despite the failure of the intended targets ability to translate its content.
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Retirement
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 102
0
0
0
0
0
0
THIS IS ANOTHER FIGHT THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING ON..."MEDICALLY RETIRED" BEING TREATED AS 4TH CLASS CITIZENS...THOUGH IT WAS THEIR SERVICE THAT CAUSED THE MEDICAL RETIREMENT...UNABLE TO CONTINUE ON TO 20 YEARS OR MORE...WHERE THOSE WHO NEVER WERE "INJURED" OR "WOUNDED" IN PURSUIT OF A MISSION...ARE SOME HOW HERALDED AS "BETTER" BECAUSE THEY DID 20...
THIS CAN BE CHANGED BY THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED AND THOSE WHO MOVE/DO NOT MOVE THE "RIGHT" PEOPLE INTO MILITARY BILLETS SO THEY CAN BE USED AS PUPPETS~
THIS CAN BE CHANGED BY THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED AND THOSE WHO MOVE/DO NOT MOVE THE "RIGHT" PEOPLE INTO MILITARY BILLETS SO THEY CAN BE USED AS PUPPETS~
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Service is service. Retirement is retirement, regardless of how or why you retired. They should be worded different; you are retired. Many Soldiers are medically retired, because the Army broke them... Wounded or just worn out, or lucky, we are all retired. I spent 33 years in the Army, so is my retirement better? I believe, we all should have the same retirement certificate.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why you see the need for a different retirement certificate is beyond me. You are retired due to length of service or you are retired due to injuries or medical boards or whatever, you are still retired. Retired is retired. You did you time, no matter how log it is and some paid a higher price for that retirement.
For those of you who retired due to length of service, thank you.
For those of you who retired due to medical disability, double thank you!
For those of you who retired due to length of service, thank you.
For those of you who retired due to medical disability, double thank you!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I apologize in advance if this seems brash, but your post before your edit was quite and crystal clear. You firmly exuded that you did not believe a medical retirement under 20 years merited the same recognition as those who conpleted all 20.
You cannot honestly back pedal now and push the blame onto others for their "apparent" lack of understanding of your original intent. It is not their fault for the negative responses. That falls on you.
If you were truly trying to convey positive support for equal recognition for those who medically retire, the clear communication in your post was seriously lacking.
You cannot honestly back pedal now and push the blame onto others for their "apparent" lack of understanding of your original intent. It is not their fault for the negative responses. That falls on you.
If you were truly trying to convey positive support for equal recognition for those who medically retire, the clear communication in your post was seriously lacking.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, I do not backpedal that was called editing for clarification. You cannot deny that message intent is often lost in the typed word versus the spoken.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I immediately said to myself YES they should have a slightly different one. For the most part they are medically retired for an honorable reason beyond their control. Combat injuries and safety mishaps. Chemical contamination etc. Their certificate should have a small purple heart if earned for the injury requiring retirement. For other reasons maybe just have a red cross or a red heart somewhere on the form. I am sure it will take quit some time to have this issue run its course. Maybe the top line "certificate of retirement" can be in blue or some other appropriate color. Then again this should be asked to the honorable service members currently in this situation. Some may feel it is just another reminder of the actions that led to the retirement.
MY reasoning is that those who early retire for the above reasons have, I feel, made more of a sacrifice then I did making it to 22 years and no serious injuries. I look at it as an honor or a sacrifice beyond others. Like I said it needs to be asked to the ones who count.
MY reasoning is that those who early retire for the above reasons have, I feel, made more of a sacrifice then I did making it to 22 years and no serious injuries. I look at it as an honor or a sacrifice beyond others. Like I said it needs to be asked to the ones who count.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
After 24 years, 7 months and 12 days I was medically retired. Pushed too hard, too long and pushed through my disablities as long as I could. I was too stubborn to quit!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Short answer... absolutely. People who are medically retired had the same obligations, made the same sacrifices, they shouldn't be "different" because they were injured/ill. Trust me, I can guarantee that those who are medically retired would have much rather served the full 20 than live with the pain that they go through day to day...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
