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

I think you have to do the 20 years like I did to deserve it, point blanck.

I believe it would all depend on what they were medically retired for? I am a medically retired sgt. but I was med. ret. from an ied blast in Iraq 08. I wanted to do all 20 maybe more but it was dictated otherwise for me.....now if you got someone on a med. chap like 13....or turf toe or just riding profiles often that's malingering....things like that yea a serious discussion should be had...my opinion

SFC Steven Grudzinski I somewhat understand what you are trying to say. Yes there are a few soldiers who exaggerate their injuries, or try to, just to see if they can get medically retired. BUT, that's why we have doctors, to see if the soldiers claims are true or not and if the soldier is fit for duty or not. If they get medically retired, it's because a professional deemed it necessary.

I came back from Afghanistan broken. With injuries on right shoulder, lower back, PTSD and LOTS of headaches which doctors are still trying to figure out. I have to take 6 pills a day, every day, and I'm still in constant pain daily. Mostly with my back, and I'm only 29 damn years old. I didn't take the MEB that was offered because I want to stay in. I was told that eventually, my injuries will end my career. I've only been in 4 years, I doubt I'll make it to 20 like I had planned from the beginning but I damn sure will try. Now I have to live with a permanent profile, having people think that I'm a dirtbag milking the system because I can't run 2 miles like I used to due to my injuries. If I do get medically retired in the future, I guess I won't deserve that "Retired" title too?

Dude you just need to get a life!

I neither agree nor disagree. Unfortunately, I have seen both sides of the Medical retirement status beneficiaries. In my opinion the Army is structured in some characteristics like the US Welfare System. Whether you work hard or not at the end a monetary contribution will come to you regardless. It is frustrating to witnesses those that talk big about playing the system.

Funny you should ask. Here's why. I did 20+ years in the Army. Active, Reserve and Guard combined. I have one "combat zone" tour (profile pic). Yet I feel like I hadn't done shit compared to those who were in for whatever amount of time that were severely wounded. I'm not saying that the only way to fulfill your duty is to get wounded. What I'm saying is that the job they were doing when they were wounded was more inline with the mindset of "serving" your country. I said I have one "combat zone" tour". It was in Africa. Where the enemy were nonexistent and the beers were plenty. When anyone asks me if I had been to a combat zone I tell them yes, then I add the lengthy caveat of Africa. The rest of my career was spent shinning shiny things and straightening things that were already straight. So how can my 20+ year certificate even compare to a medically discharged combat wounded soldier certificate. It doesn't, I know it doesn't, I know it never will. And I'm fine with that.

Some of us who were medically retired didn't have the option to finish 20+ years. If it's members that used the system for a sprained big toe, then you my friend have a point.

I say no to a retirement certificate. You did not retire you where medical discharge from service. In the AF I was taught Go, no Go type of thinking and that is why no further explanation on my part.

SFC (Join to see)

As you can see the short answer is yes.

Longer answer is Department of Defense INSTRUCTION NUMBER 1348.34 provides for it...

1. PURPOSE. This Instruction reissues Reference (a) consistent with the authority in Reference (b) to establish policy, assign responsibilities, and provide procedures for conveying the appreciation of the President to Military Service members upon their retirement, in accordance with Reference (c).

3. POLICY. It is DoD policy that:
a. A DD Form 2542, “Certificate of Appreciation for Service in the Armed Forces of the United States:”
(1) Shall be presented to each member retiring from the Military Services after serving 20 or more years and attaining eligibility to receive retired pay.
(2) May be presented to other members retiring from the Military Services, as determined by the Secretary concerned.

I confess that while I'm rather schooled in various topics this was near and dear to my heart because I had an NCO that they were trying to medically separate in 2004 with 11 years of service... when I talked to a high speed G1 NCO... he told me this wasn't correct and would look into it and then educated me.

Steve... I read both the original post and your edited one. Simply... you struck a cord with a few of our brothers and sisters because you did not send the message you had intended. Lesson learned and next time you ask a question... ask a couple of trusted agents to review before posting. But please don't be mad at the receivers... for misunderstanding what you wrote/posed. That's just counterproductive as it is your job as the sender... to send a clear message. Just like grid coordinates. If you send the wrong grid... don't be mad at Joe when he doesn't go to the right place.

Lastly... different retirement certificates doesn't really make sense. It's a certificate of appreciation for service... that's it.

my 2 cents

Cam

My 2 cents

Yes!

how about a purple heart heading

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~

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.

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!

yes

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.

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.

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!

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...

nope...I'm both...over 20 and medically retired....only if u do 20