Should soldiers that didn't finish their term of service, other than ETS, be allowed the title Veteran?

SSG Purham...we used to define a "Veteran" as a combat veteran from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. "Veterans" groups per se first formed after the Civil War; prior to that they were "societies". WWI and WWII adjusted that definition. During and after WWII, a "Veteran" was usually considered one who held an honorable discharge, particularly for disability or for fulfilling all terms of enlistment during a time of war or conflict. Under that definition someone who does not yet have an honorable discharge is not yet a "veteran", but a "service member".

Consider also that the term "veteran" can be traced back to the Roman Legions. A "veteran" was called an Evocati (who reenlisted after 10 years, usually by an officer's request) or Triaii; generally one who performed 20 years of service and was semi-retired subject to recall, for which he (rarely a she) was granted citizenship, if applicable. Veterans also served in the third level or Auxiliary (Auxillia). In combat formations, the Evocati were usually placed in the third rank behind younger, less seasoned soldiers to direct them and to stop them from retreating.


http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-army/roman-army-ranks.htm

You make some good points and perhaps some of this stems from overkill that is exactly opposite of the past where Honorably serving Veterans were denied benefits they earned.

This is an issue for "quality control" at MEPS and the Recruiter.
My opinion is, if they stepped off the cattle truck and survived the first night, they've done more than 95% of Americans. Many of the benefits most of us receive are not available to them because of many of the reasons you already cited (OTH and Bad Conduct, Chapters occurring under 6 months service, etc.), cut them some slack for at least trying. Or failing that, put the blame where it belongs, weak screening in order to make numbers...

I think once you've served 2 years you're officially considered a veteran, but if someone signed and later made a mistake and were booted, I don't think that erases their veteran status.
Veterans cemeteries are full of people who hadn't even served 6 months, let alone a whole tour. I'm not going to begrudge someone a free meal because they only did one tour or made a mistake.

Any and all veterans should earn that title. It should not just be given.

SSG Purham, I served during Viet Nam era (1971 to 1975) and some post Viet Nam (1975 to 1977) served just 6 1/2 years was released from active duty about 2 - 3 years early Honorably instead of being medically retired because the Marine Corps did not want to give me medical retirement (non-combat MOS). So I collect 40% service connected VA disability, started at 60% but due to Ronald Regan during the mid 1980's suddenly medical condition improved to 30% took another 20 years to get at least 10% of my reduction restored. So by your definition am I a "veteran"?

Prior to 1981 any time in service denoted someone a veteran and they were entitled to the benefits as such. After 1981 a service member was required to complete 2 years on active duty or have deployed to a combat zone to be considered a veteran. This even applies to the Reserves/National Guard. They can serve a 4 year contract but if they never deploy or get otherwise activated to bring their total active service time to 2 years then they do not receive Veterans benefits.

Someone who washes out during basic training would not be a veteran. I've seen some pretty weak arguments by a couple of people that has happened to and they tried to say they were vets...not gonna happen. Following that line of thought, I bought a lottery ticket with the intention of winning millions but it didn't happen, can I consider myself a millionaire?

Someone who has completed their BCT and AIT and moved to their permanent duty station, in my opinion could be considered a veteran. A wet behind the ears vet but still a vet.

Should there be a distinction between a veteran and a combat veteran? I think so but mostly for prestige, not any more entitlements or benefits though. My brother served 5 years in the Marine Corps., he is a veteran but he served during peace time. I served mostly during peace but my last year was spent in combat. Both of us are veterans but we served during different times. My son who is now stationed at Ft Hood has completed all his training is a veteran in my eyes even though I've got a pair of boots with more time in service than he has.

As far as an ID card? Thats ridiculous. I have my VA card and it says service connected, why should I be required to prove anything beyond that for a free meal at Golden Corral or a 10% discount at Home Depot?

Stolen valor won't be stopped as a whole. Individuals can be called out on it but there will always be people seeking attention for acts they never did. There are many cases of stolen valor involving people who served honorably and even decorated yet they still felt compelled to claim something they didn't earn.

I do understand what you are getting at. You think and honorably discharged veteran or soldier should have an identification card stating that he or she is honorably discharged. That way someone can ask you to see your car when you talk about your service and accomplishments. I understand because a lot of people are trying to get attention by lying about their service. Not a bad idea sir.

If the service is HONORABLE (not general or uncharacterized)