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
This is a controversial topic among certain mentalities as this gives the impression of superiority for only the combat arms. This also makes certain civilian types think that all military members are the sociopathic killers deserving only incarceration: break glass in case of the requirement for violence. The point is that you served. There are numerous jobs in the military that serve honorably but can potentially see more violence or horrors than even deployed veterans. I do not disparage any combat veteran as they did a great service to the nation, however most people, even in the military, seem to forget the jobs like Firefighters, Cops, Nurses, EMT's, and other high stress positions. Service in the military is about brotherhood as well. Regardless of the deployment history of a person, that person still had to do the same basic sh*t we all did in basic. As noted by others: just because you weren't called doesn't mean you should be found at fault.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I proudly served in the Army Reserve for 19 years. I served twice on active duty when I got called up for desert shield/desert storm and in 2003/04/05 for operation Iraqi Freedom. I was in Saudi Arabia for ds/ds and I was in kirkuk Iraq for oif 2.
First ask yourself a question. What constitutes a veteran? The answer is one who has served AND has been granted benefits and entitlements AFTER their period of service.
So, with that being said, If you examine your dd214, and it says that you are entitled to post war benefits and entitlements, then you are a veteran. If it doesn't, then you are a serviceman or woman. Nothing more.
First ask yourself a question. What constitutes a veteran? The answer is one who has served AND has been granted benefits and entitlements AFTER their period of service.
So, with that being said, If you examine your dd214, and it says that you are entitled to post war benefits and entitlements, then you are a veteran. If it doesn't, then you are a serviceman or woman. Nothing more.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Personally I can consider in sort of way that they are "veterans". However we always called National Guard as No Go'see even if they have a function. If your intentions are so strong on deployments, why did you not go R.A. all the way. Most individuals do like claiming veteran status but if they get orders for deployment they start whining saying that's for the "real army".I don't say this of all but those that go around bragging about this and that for some reason turns out to be N.God. even if they are considered a veteran. Look down at the name tape and tell me what it says. Very good, it says U.
S. Army. Actually it's an acronym meaning "Uncle Sam Ain't Released Me Yet! Deal with it. uhhrahh! This whole thing is b.s. anyway. You're in, you serve, still has a right to be called a vet.
S. Army. Actually it's an acronym meaning "Uncle Sam Ain't Released Me Yet! Deal with it. uhhrahh! This whole thing is b.s. anyway. You're in, you serve, still has a right to be called a vet.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Some gave all, all gave some. If you were military, then by God yes you are a Veteran. If you got deployed, you are a Veteran. If you got shot at, killed, or had to kill, you are a COMBAT VETERAN! Is this hard to understand?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I hate when people call me a veteran because I was never deployed. I don't think I deserve that title. I always correct people when they call me that: I served, but I'm not a veteran. The only time I ever have to call myself that is on paperwork, I wish they were more precise with their definitions.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Long before I ever joined the service I felt that it was an important distinction to have actually deployed to a combat zone in order to receive the status of veteran. After 12 years in the Army, I STILL feel it should be reserved for those who have spent time in hostile conditions overseas. It isn't a slight on those who haven't, it's rather a distinction reserved for those who have. Everyone in the service, AND their families, sacrifice as members of the service, but deployed servicemen have gone a little further and gave up a little more and deserve to be recognized for such sacrifices.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I havent read every post on here and this may have been discussed. But this questioned brings up another. I know Soldier who have served 15 years plus did multiple tours and kicked out becuase of QMP, QSP and a host of other issues should they still be considered vets and put on the same pedalstal as people who served, never deployed and discharged under what is considered honorable. I believe all service is a sacrafice, and important to the mission, but all service is not equal and reguardless of what is said everyone did not pick their jobs and many did not have the option to get a safe mos. So yes I believe there should be a distinction.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A vet is a vet. Otherwise, you would be granting higher status to a clerk who may have deployed, while minimizing a Ranger who happened to not fall into a combat classification exercise.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but for those of you who saw combat, you are COMBAT Veterans. By definition, "any, any, any:" any branch at any time for any length, even if you didn't make it through Basic, as long as you had a satisfactory discharge.
For benefits, an injury is required and usually at least 180 days, but there are exceptions and this is reflected in National Guard Service. That is the truth.
Next issue...
For benefits, an injury is required and usually at least 180 days, but there are exceptions and this is reflected in National Guard Service. That is the truth.
Next issue...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you served over 180 days in any branch of the military you are a veteran 1
(0)
(0)
0
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)
0
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)
0
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)
0
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)
0
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)
0
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)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
-
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 
