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
Suspended Profile
If you change the definition to "only those who deployed" where does it end? If you never left the base on your deployment does that count? What if you were only deployed to Kuwait or Qatar (both considered combat zones when I was in)? You are a veteran of the armed forces. Deployments shouldn't matter in this case.
0
0
0
All who served are veterans. An overseas deployment only means the service member was away for a period of time. Engaging in combat is far from being Within or near the theater of operations. Most combat stories come from those who have never experienced it and are the same ones protecting a status they never earned.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I served in the ARNG, volunteered for deployment several times and was not sent. I never served over the 180 days but I do have an honorable discharge. I get no benefits at all, no flag when I die, no headstone, etc. The 180 day rule is not realistic. I know of people who were kept on active duty over 180 days because they were liked by their commander then were medically discharged having never qualified in a MOS. They get all the death benefits and can claim veterans points for government jobs as well as home loans. I think the definition of who is a veteran is someone who has served in the armed forces of the US honorable. That would cover those in the service and those who have left under honorable conditions. They you are either a veteran or a combat veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"Throughout our history, the Reserve and National Guard components of the U.S. military have made essential contributions to the nation’s defense. The Reserve and Guard make up roughly 38 percent of total U.S. uniformed manpower, and their organizations provide critical combat power and support. Though traditionally supporting combat operations in a strategic reserve capacity, more recently, they have supported undersized Active component forces in long-term engagements such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Dunn III, R.J. (2016). America's reserve and national guard components: Key contributions
to u.s. military strength. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/ims-2016/PDF/2016_Index_of_US_Military_Strength_ESSAYS_DUNN.pdf
Dunn III, R.J. (2016). America's reserve and national guard components: Key contributions
to u.s. military strength. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/ims-2016/PDF/2016_Index_of_US_Military_Strength_ESSAYS_DUNN.pdf
2016_Index_of_US_Military_Strength_ESSAYS_DUNN.pdf
AÀ d0BAÀ d0BAÀ 2f(ÈP¡ C!Ù3C=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø=ù=ø_ÂWé«ðUú*|_ÕùþAÓWá«ôUø*}§ûªôÕÉ)rÓùî#7ï=rÓùÎ#7ï:rÌ- ·@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ@þ þ^¶Z¿vÔàüµR¡Ô2:¡|*kjcó,Nxª§.~TëþÒOñW ç:Rg endstream endobj 685 0 obj stream H\ÕÍn0à=Oáe» ûÚ.RIÅüh2ó 8 A.òöããv"Æoov/»¡Uþcºû0«S?tS^Þ6cxíÔªëÛyi¿íù0fyì¿]çpÞ §K¶Zügx§z»Ë1
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Pretty simple. Anyone who has served is a military Veteran. Those that were in combat are combat Veterans.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sure they are...I've know a few guard/reserve and even active guys have the same situation....but how about the ones that join a component with a job less likely to deploy just for the school bennies on a one and done contract....then throw around they are in the military and once out claim the veteran status that they shouldn't get to own....to me that's just as bad as the welfare abusers and it's a spit in most veterans faces....just my opinion though
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are two types of veterans. The veteran who has served without combat experience and of course, the combat veteran, who has endured the most horrific conditions humanity can inflict upon humanity. Wounded, physically and tormented psychologically the combat veteran qualifies more readily for trauma incurred in combat, vs, noncombatant. All who have served are due the honor and respect due them after all, we are and always will be brothers at arms.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I spent 20 years in the U. S. Army working as a radar and launching system mechanic in the HAWK Missile System. I never served in a war zone even though I served during Vietnam and I was in Germany during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I know it takes more than boots on the ground to conduct combat operations. It takes personnel working in the background supplying food, ammo, replacement parts for trucks, tank, etc. But I still have never considered myself a veteran even though I am told otherwise. I never served in combat and for that I feel like I was slighted.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Perhaps there should be some additional type of status for combat vets. I think there is already a distinction for disability compensation...but a vet is a vet...don't take that away.
(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 
