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
Veterans are veterans if they successfully graduate from basic and advanced training. it's not their fault if there are no wars when they served or that they couldn't get deployed like in Desert Storm, Granada, or Panama where not everyone who wanted to go got an opportunity. You can add a category of "combat" veteran for those that served in a combat zone and were awarded a patch or ribbon representing that.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm a reservist who up until recently had never been called to active duty. I was at an event once and the MC asked all the veterans to rise and be recognized. You should've seen the looks from the people who know me when I didn't stand. I had to explain that not every military reservist is a veteran. I'm sure the MC meant anyone who's served in the armed forces, but that's not what he said and I don't like misrepresenting myself or disrespecting what it means to be a veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That brings up a question I've had. I never served but most of my family either has or still is. The thing that annoys me most is someone like my coworker. He was medically discharged part way through basic yet has no problem telling people he served in the army and is a vet. I personally say he isn't as once the medical reason was cleared he never attempted to reenlist. Who would be right in a situation like this? Would he be considered a veteran?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is really discussed amongst your peer group? I think TTP'S should be discussed. But, signed the line, did your time, vet to me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is what is is I served and sacrificed with my military family. Desert Shield Desert Storm, Kuwait, Iraqi Freedom.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
All that have served and honorably discharged are Veterans! Granted Combat Veterans have more benefits then non-combat. However just because the Government calls it peace time! Does not mean it was peaceful! I call it a great honor and privilege to have served my country.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Let's take a look at things here.
1) We all signed the same blank check payable to the U.S.
2) We all went through the same training
3) We all know the risks involved by signing
4) We all wear the same uniform.
Do I really need to keep going? Could add 20+ more to the list but the message is there. You're a vet if you meet the established parameters for that title.
1) We all signed the same blank check payable to the U.S.
2) We all went through the same training
3) We all know the risks involved by signing
4) We all wear the same uniform.
Do I really need to keep going? Could add 20+ more to the list but the message is there. You're a vet if you meet the established parameters for that title.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Everyone plays a part. If you signed on the dotted line and were ready, willing and able to go but never got deployed I still will call you a Veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If one signed up and served his or her term of service honorably, then he or she is a veteran; period. They are military veterans. Being sent into combat earns them a distinction of being "combat veterans". Speaking just for me, knowing what I know today and having experienced combat first hand, I'd be satisfied with just being a plain old Army vet again...
Just my opinion...
Just my opinion...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I respect all who served. Nor do I judge, but I have just kinda accepted the VAs take on veteran status. This is mostly based on my own niavity as I spent my entire career in a highly deployed job, so it makes me pretty unaware of the struggle of others.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
