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
When I hear some elitist bullshit like this it smacks of trying to make yourself out to be something and seperate yourself from an already small group of people who have served honorably whether in combat or in support groups. Anyone who says differently needs to look at themselves and see if the only thing that defines them is there deployment then perhaps they need to try harder.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, all who serve are veterans. Those who deploy are considered combat veterans. There is a distinction, and some more perks to being a combat veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a Guardsman or Reservist, There are some that spend more time than an active duty Soldier being they lead two lives. Veteran status should be given to any one who served Thier time Honorably. Where it is Reserve status or active.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Those who elevate them self, I experienced this first hand from a sailor, I retired army, he tried this bull with me and I asked him that according to Veterans Administration I was a veteran just like him, but without the PTSD that unfortunately he was suffering. We can't label are selves combat veterans, ptsd veterans, etc. So get off that trip and get help!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's funny that you ask this question. Currently anyone who serves in the national guard not unless deployed for more tha 180 days of active duty once they leave the NG they are not considered a veteran. They are proposing to change that not unless it has already changed. I was informed of this about five months ago if I remember correctly. I think thats a bunch of horse shit, if you put on the uniform and then decided to go back being a full time civilian ur a veteran. U earned that right cause u served and suffered for this country and nobody can take that away from you. Hope all u are well.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Veteran means just that. You are not a rookie. If there was no war would a former soldier be called a veteran if he served over 4 years in, say from 1978-1982? You dang gone right he is! War nor combat makes you a veteran. Proud Army Veteran 1982-1996.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm a combat veteran with numerous deployments as an infantryman. If you served honorably, you're a veteran. My wife is considering service, and my recommendation to her is this- don't join to deploy. Join to be useful, to the military and yourself afterwards. Do that honorably, and nobody may degrade your service.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm tired of groups separating themselves into small groups. As far as I'm concerned if you took the oath, and have an honorable discharge you are a veteran. We all could've been deployed at any moment.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Every DOD contractor I have ever worked for had me fill out my Veteran status. Never once did I find a box I could check that said I was a Veteran worth recognizing. The only boxes I had to choose from were Korean War, Vietnam War, several peace keeping actions, Gulf war I, Gulf war II, etc. Part of the reason I've never tried to get VA medical.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you serve your term of service, you are a veteran. End of conversation.
(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