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
Nope, if you took the oath, wore the uniform or are still wearing the uniform you are a veteran. You followed orders. Some of us had orders to deploy while others did not at the convenience of the government not our choice.
Active duty USN 83-94
Active duty USN 83-94
(0)
(0)
When you sign up for any service it includes perks that are offered you whether you get shot at or not. As I've read many times you sign up and sign with your life when you join and if you come back that's good and if you never have to go that's even better. In any case if you went in ,you come out as a vet. I also might add that when you get out nobody ever says that your not a soldier any more. You are always a soldier and always sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend your country. That enlistment ends only when they put you in the ground. At least that's the way I feel about it.
(0)
(0)
I have deployed and there is a difference. I support both being called veterans. I Dr prefer being called a combat veterNt though.
(0)
(0)
Being a combat soldier is great but there wouldn't be any combat missions if there wasn't support personal either, I have been retired from the Army for a while and I can't remember if it takes 3 soldiers or 10 soldiers to support 1combat soldier but my point is there wouldn't be any successful combat mission if there wasn't any hard working support soldiers backing them up. I was a driver trained as a machine gunner who wound up working as a logistician in the rear. Do I consider myself a veteran? yes I do. When u sign up as a soldier there is no guarantee that your going to be in a combat situation, some soldiers have never served in a combat situation and retired. Were all veterans and should be treated as so.
(0)
(0)
There are many who served in war time who didn't deploy. How do you think those who deployed received the supplies they needed? Who do you think kept the families of those deployed with the things they needed? Who do you think keeps things running at the Post or Base your assigned to?
Weather you were deployed or were supporting those who were deployed, you served. You don't let ANYONE try to take the title Veteran away from you.
Weather you were deployed or were supporting those who were deployed, you served. You don't let ANYONE try to take the title Veteran away from you.
(0)
(0)
Nothing short of an Honorable Discharge. I know a family that had 3 boys enter the Service, 2 Army and 1AF. All 3 of them "chaptered out" under less than Honorable circumstances. On Veterans Day you'd think the 3 boys were Patton, Audie Murphy and Chuck Yeager, by their Facebook posts and shit talk. SMH
(0)
(0)
I have had a few say I'm not a real veteran cuz my discharge was general under honorable conditions. But that's just ignorance. My discharge is good paper and in good standing with the military. Fuck the haters
(0)
(0)
If you served you are a veteran period. Only people who can't and shouldn't claim to be a veteran are those who washed out in basic and AIT. Regardless of deployment, you are a veteran.
(0)
(0)
You sign on the dotted line, you raised your hand and you served honorably, then you are a Veteran. Period.
(0)
(0)
From Day 1 of my service time I was told you are a Veteran once you complete 6 months of service (the time it takes to complete basic training and AIR, as some training is longer than others) and start your 1st duty assignment. I am a Army Veteran with 5 1/2 years of service, I served in the mid 80s before the world went crazy with multiple duty assignments including CONUS,Korea and Germany.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next