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
0
0
0
Veteran Status is for anyone who has served more than 180 consecutive days of Active Duty, period. That is the way it should remain.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
From a CRS document.
For a former servicemember to receive certain VA benefits, the person must have active U.S. military service for a minimum period of time, generally the lesser of the full period ordered to active duty or 24 months, and be discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable.” Some members of the National Guard and reserve components have difficulty meeting the active duty and length of service requirements. However, a member of the National Guard or reserve components who is activated for federal military service and meets the length of service requirement is considered a veteran for purposes of VA benefits.
For a former servicemember to receive certain VA benefits, the person must have active U.S. military service for a minimum period of time, generally the lesser of the full period ordered to active duty or 24 months, and be discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable.” Some members of the National Guard and reserve components have difficulty meeting the active duty and length of service requirements. However, a member of the National Guard or reserve components who is activated for federal military service and meets the length of service requirement is considered a veteran for purposes of VA benefits.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Craig Averill
Correct! and the length of service requirement for a Reserve or Guard individual is 180 Consecutive days of Active Duty.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Tell them your a vet...civilians always ask if you were deployed and saw combat. You don't need to do it for them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No because some Beterans served during Cold War and never saw Combat
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I feel that a Veteran is a member of any of the branches of Armed Forces that has completed one term of service under good standing. Can hold the title until they disgrace our honor we've earned with our blood and sweat of veterans past and present and those who are to earn the title in future.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are lots of service members who never leave the states but do tons of work to cleare the way for boots on the ground! No one member could do their job without the other!! Besides there are members deployed in a combat zone but never see combat!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deployment is a lottery, service to your country is a volunteer choice. That being said when you swear in as your oath states you will defend your country, in that moment you earn the title of being a future Veteran.
Everyone who knows or is worth their uniform the coveted title of "combat Veteran" is the most sacred. To earn the CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) we all know as Veterans is the pinnacle of service. However, earning the EIB (Expert Infantry Badge), can be earned in peacetime or war time. The bottom line is this whether you ever deploy or not you earn the title of Veteran provided you garner honorable service.
But just because you serve during war time, you never call yourself a combat Veteran unless you been there done that.
We shouldn't make those who served honorably any less of Veteran than those who went to combat, because at the end of the day you are a solider first and that's what we all sign up to do. It's not a point of choice of when and if that happens.
Drive on Ranger
Everyone who knows or is worth their uniform the coveted title of "combat Veteran" is the most sacred. To earn the CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) we all know as Veterans is the pinnacle of service. However, earning the EIB (Expert Infantry Badge), can be earned in peacetime or war time. The bottom line is this whether you ever deploy or not you earn the title of Veteran provided you garner honorable service.
But just because you serve during war time, you never call yourself a combat Veteran unless you been there done that.
We shouldn't make those who served honorably any less of Veteran than those who went to combat, because at the end of the day you are a solider first and that's what we all sign up to do. It's not a point of choice of when and if that happens.
Drive on Ranger
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
A veteran is anyone who has honorably served their country in the military!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you took the oath and sign d a "blank check" and served honorably...then yes your a vet. I deployed 3 times by if your a vet your a vet period!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
20% of our forces do the heavy lifting but 100% get the same label. It's different, it just is. The PC thing to say is we're all the same, but we are not. Some chose to support the warfighters and thats great and way better than folks that just support us with words. But there is more that combat vets have experienced than most others. MOS, or title is irrelevant. Were you out the wire patrolling or on mission or did you just stay within the wire? I and grateful for the support of all supporting arms but ultimately there is a distinction that should be respected or at least acknowledged.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I love the responses from everyone. I've deployed several times and not once did i consider those still on the beach less of a sailor than because they are still critical to the success of those who deploy. Shipping parts ammo food and anything else. Making sure our reliefs are ready to go. Those individuals are veterans just the same.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you call yourself a vet you better have some good stories or no one will take you seriously
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What is a Veteran? Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a veteran as “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.” This definition explains that any individual that completed a service for any branch of armed forces classifies as a veteran as long as they were not dishonorably discharged. However, with regard to applicable benefits, other considerations are important and will be covered in later sections.
References: For more information on:
the definition of the term Veteran for purposes of compensation, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and death pension, see
38 CFR 3.1(d), and Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 466, 470 (1995), and
groups approved for Veteran status under Public Law (PL) 95-202 and 106-259, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.K.3.
References: For more information on:
the definition of the term Veteran for purposes of compensation, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and death pension, see
38 CFR 3.1(d), and Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 466, 470 (1995), and
groups approved for Veteran status under Public Law (PL) 95-202 and 106-259, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iii, 2.K.3.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Regardless of weather we deployed or not I believe that if you did one long term contact or reenlisted off a short term than we have the right and are entitled i wave my DD214 in everyone's face any chance I get because I had the balls to join and you did not I won't back up I won't back down from this and let me find someone who is man enough to stop me no one has any balls anymore at least I still have a set
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The idea that my entire command wouldn't have been considered veterans, simply because we were on a submarine is bogus. Not only that but being a Nuke MM, you can't EVER even volunteer for an IA billet due to your training being too valuable in the fleet and maintenance activities. I'm sorry but this question is just inflammatory bullshit. Combat veterans already get special treatment through the American Legion and VFW, why do you need to add another level of branch shaming to this?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In agreement with the vast majority that have commented, if you served your country, honorably, then you are in fact, a veteran. However, I also believe there should be a distingushment for those who deployed to an active war zone. The term "Combat Veteran," should be applied to these individuals.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think the honorably discharged should be the only ones who can claim veteran stays. As it is now, you can only claim certain benefits if you honorably discharged only, like a veteran status on your drivers license. Most benefits like the VA home loan require timeframes and discharge requirements. Anyone with a bad conduct or other than honorable discharge, should not be able to claim veteran for benefits...in my opinion. It should not have anything to do with where they served, but how they served.
(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