Posted on May 6, 2014
Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?
221K
3.94K
1K
430
429
1
This one has come up a lot in conversations with my peers and Soldiers: Should you be allowed to claim veterans status if you have never deployed?
Personally, I'm an ROTC graduate who chose to go straight into the ARNG in 2011, knowing full well that my chances to deploy would be next to none with the changing op tempo. Realistically, had I been actively searching out a deployment the whole time, I still may not have gotten one. I'm sure there are Soldiers out there who served honorably in a reserve component without deploying, despite their best efforts. So, for example, should a Soldier who completed basic training, had a clean service record, excelled in their peer group, but ultimately served 10 years as a reservist with no deployment and less than 180 days on non-ADT active service be prevented from calling themselves a veteran?
I have my own thoughts, but I'm more interesting in hearing your opinions. For clarification, I'm speaking more towards the legal definition of veterans status - even if the laws were changed here, there would still be an immense difference between a legal veteran and a legal veteran with several deployments, combat experience, decades on active duty, or a combination of all three.
Personally, I'm an ROTC graduate who chose to go straight into the ARNG in 2011, knowing full well that my chances to deploy would be next to none with the changing op tempo. Realistically, had I been actively searching out a deployment the whole time, I still may not have gotten one. I'm sure there are Soldiers out there who served honorably in a reserve component without deploying, despite their best efforts. So, for example, should a Soldier who completed basic training, had a clean service record, excelled in their peer group, but ultimately served 10 years as a reservist with no deployment and less than 180 days on non-ADT active service be prevented from calling themselves a veteran?
I have my own thoughts, but I'm more interesting in hearing your opinions. For clarification, I'm speaking more towards the legal definition of veterans status - even if the laws were changed here, there would still be an immense difference between a legal veteran and a legal veteran with several deployments, combat experience, decades on active duty, or a combination of all three.
Reserves
Army National Guard
Deployment
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 678
1
1
0
It doesn't matter whether a person thinks or another thinks they shouldn't claim Veterans status. What matters is what the current regulation regarding veteran status is at the time of question. Last time I checked, time in service is the primary denominator.
(1)
(0)
1LT(P) (Join to see)
That's the point of this discussion; there is the VA definition of veterans status for purposes of benefits, and then there is the wider definition that is most broadly excepted. Time in service is technically the second denominator behind type of service.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1LT(P) (Join to see) I volunteered for 5 separate deployments and NEVER went anywhere. That does NOT make me any less a veteran than anyone else. I think a better way to look at it is for critical missions, who has combat experience under their belt.
After my last volunteer effort fell through, I just didn't see any point in continuing to volunteer and got out. I wanted the experience and never got it. I don't regret not going, I just look at it as it wasn't in God's plan for me.
After my last volunteer effort fell through, I just didn't see any point in continuing to volunteer and got out. I wanted the experience and never got it. I don't regret not going, I just look at it as it wasn't in God's plan for me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If you took the oath, served your time, and were discharged honorably then you are a veteran. I would just suggest that you don't claim to be a combat veteran, there are enough people out there doing that already right up until they are asked to show their DD214 which they can never seem to find.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If you joined as a volunteer into the military - you are a veteran. Now other like minded veterans can heckle and jeer you, all in good taste I will add, but at the end of the day that was a fellow brother or sister who would stand beside you regardless of the circumstances.
(1)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
TODAY THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. But when I joined I was not considered a veteran for over a year after ETS, because Vietnam hadn't OFFICIALLY started. One of my cousins was DRAFTED, he did not join, he was sent to Vietnam and was KIA, is he not a veteran because he didn't JOIN???
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
A Vet is a Vet; I retired from the Navy as an Aviator: Cold War deployments, NAS, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq. The most dangerous tour I had was in the Training Command; we had more fatalities in the TRACOM than the fleet first week of the 91 war.
Who is going to tell those young men's (or women's) parents that they were not real Vets because when they paid the ultimate price they were in the wrong time zone?
And define Deployment; in the Navy back in my day almost everyone "deployed"; a deployment didn't mean combat. On my first cruise (deployment) we lost four squadron mates. Does that count? The air wing lost seven. And a good friend of mine was killed in Cubi Point; shore based. Do they all count as Vets? None were considered combat deployments at the time.
I have two sons who served; one was with the 10th Mountain in the Sunni Triangle: CIB/Purple Heart. My second son was with MOANG as a Crew Chief on B-2. I'm proud of both of my Veteran Sons.
Who is going to tell those young men's (or women's) parents that they were not real Vets because when they paid the ultimate price they were in the wrong time zone?
And define Deployment; in the Navy back in my day almost everyone "deployed"; a deployment didn't mean combat. On my first cruise (deployment) we lost four squadron mates. Does that count? The air wing lost seven. And a good friend of mine was killed in Cubi Point; shore based. Do they all count as Vets? None were considered combat deployments at the time.
I have two sons who served; one was with the 10th Mountain in the Sunni Triangle: CIB/Purple Heart. My second son was with MOANG as a Crew Chief on B-2. I'm proud of both of my Veteran Sons.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
A military veteran is Any person who served for Any length of time in Any military service branch. (Which is really unfortunate.... because even under honorable discharges could legally call themselves veterans)
However, combat veteran as defined is anyone in a military component who experiences any level of hostility for any duration resulting from offensive, defensive or friendly fire military action involving a real or perceived enemy in any foreign theater.
We could go as far as to debate what we believe should be considered veteran status: Such as Time in Service, Rank, Units served in, and Deployments completed. Simple fact is, even a 2 year SPC4 can get out and call themselves a vet.
A whole different debate would be do we consider medical discharges as retirees or in terms of being a medically retired service-member. My personal opinion is if you really appreciate the military then those who get medically separated (honorably) should not consider themselves retirees. That is traditionally for those who have served over 20 years.
However, combat veteran as defined is anyone in a military component who experiences any level of hostility for any duration resulting from offensive, defensive or friendly fire military action involving a real or perceived enemy in any foreign theater.
We could go as far as to debate what we believe should be considered veteran status: Such as Time in Service, Rank, Units served in, and Deployments completed. Simple fact is, even a 2 year SPC4 can get out and call themselves a vet.
A whole different debate would be do we consider medical discharges as retirees or in terms of being a medically retired service-member. My personal opinion is if you really appreciate the military then those who get medically separated (honorably) should not consider themselves retirees. That is traditionally for those who have served over 20 years.
(1)
(0)
SGT Craig Northacker
Why is this an issue? Veterans who served are veterans. Combat vets are combat vets. What about soldiers injured while serving, but not in a combat mode? What about veterans who served during non-combat times, but were essential in continuing the training, skills and traditions that became the basis of current combat troops? How about Cold War service, which anyone who served then knew how hot that time really was? Or other deployments which were not combat-but served a purpose diplomatically?
To shrink the definition is a slap in the face to all of the rest of the veterans who served, whether by draft or by volunteer.
To shrink the definition is a slap in the face to all of the rest of the veterans who served, whether by draft or by volunteer.
(5)
(0)
1
1
0
No; all that serve and meet the current definition should be called Vetrians. They have earned that. If the discussion shifts a bit to say; should Combat Vets be given extra perks over those given to all Vetrians, I would reply yes. They have given a bit more and acknowledging that outside / after leaving the military is token of appreciation,
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I struggle to see the benefit of limiting the criteria of the term "veteran" further than it is.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
A Veteran is any man or woman that has signed the dotted line, volunteering their life, if necessary, to defend the US, and our interests. Serving the requesite time (honorably) until discharge makes one a VETERAN, regardless of deployment history.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google