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.
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 678
If you served over 180 days in any branch of the military you are a veteran 1
(0)
(0)
Yes reservists and national guard are not considered veterans under federal law until they hit a certain amount of days or they deploy.
There is also the difference between combat veteran and veteran. One has to be deployed to a combat zone the other does enough time in service.
Personally if your a reservist that just does the bare minimum you shouldn't be considered a veteran because the bare minimum for a service member on active duty is still leaps and bounds above what a reservist does. So to get the legal status that is the same as someone that's been on active duty is a joke. You earn the title in boot camp to belong to a member of your service you signed on the dotted line and filled the ranks and that's honorable, but it doesn't make you a veteran.
There is also the difference between combat veteran and veteran. One has to be deployed to a combat zone the other does enough time in service.
Personally if your a reservist that just does the bare minimum you shouldn't be considered a veteran because the bare minimum for a service member on active duty is still leaps and bounds above what a reservist does. So to get the legal status that is the same as someone that's been on active duty is a joke. You earn the title in boot camp to belong to a member of your service you signed on the dotted line and filled the ranks and that's honorable, but it doesn't make you a veteran.
(0)
(0)
I say if he or she dedicated 10+ years of there life to the military no matter the branch or deployed or not is a vet and thats comming from a Afghanistan vet
(0)
(0)
I've got something that is similar, but different going on. There's this numb nut at my job who thinks because he was a Cav Scout for his MOS that makes him some kind of super badass, while he rags on me for having been a public affairs sergeant. Fun fact is this guy never deployed to a combat zone, while I served with the 1st Cav division in Mosul and actually went out with various units. Hell I've even got my flipping combat spurs, meanwhile numb nut just says I wasn't Cav. What a douche.
(0)
(0)
Sorry I was mistaken. For reserve and ng it is a single deployment gives you veteran status. Active duty requires 2 or more years and a honorable separation.
(0)
(0)
I don't think the legal definition requires deployment. I believe the legal definition is active duty for 2 or more years and does not have to be consecutive. Reservist and ng can get veteran status by being deployed making them active. That's where it was misinterpreted. If you get deployed enough times to get 2 years of active time under your belt as a reservist or ng then you receive veteran status.
(0)
(0)
A veteran is anyone who faithfully served their obligated time. To me, that includes ARNG, Reserves, Medical Discharge, etc.
Someone who deployed into a theater of war (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) would be a Veteran of Foreign Wars (elligible for joining the VFW).
A combat veteran would be anyone who received a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon).
Someone who deployed into a theater of war (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) would be a Veteran of Foreign Wars (elligible for joining the VFW).
A combat veteran would be anyone who received a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon).
(0)
(0)
I served 4years active duty in USMC deployed 4 times Iran was going on but no war I never claimed to be a veteran I did another 4years active Army went to first gulf war that was when I felt Iearned the title veteran
(0)
(0)
Read This Next