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
Veteran status is based on having served Federal active duty time. Initial Entry Training and any active duty performed on Title 32 orders, such as annual training and ADOS, does not count towards veteran status.
This is why not all veterans with membership in the American Legion are eligible to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
This is why not all veterans with membership in the American Legion are eligible to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A VET is any person who did their time and did their job. Being deployed is part of the job. So in my opinion if you served you are a vet
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, you have veteran and combat veteran.... Easy enough to decide on that...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Military service was a rare privilege and this question is an insult to those that have given a portion of their life for their country. I collected $272 per month, where current military members are paid more than the average American.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
How about a Coast Guardee getting on his motorcycle drunk and now screaming disabled vet?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
NO, a veteran is any person who served period! I think if they were willing to put it all on the line for this nation, spent at least 120 day active duty and was Honorable Discharged deserves the title of Veteran.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would like to add that when in the military you can choose to put your self in a specific mos, with that being said I do believe that not all vets put there life on the line. I'm sure there are a few stories that disprove my point but they are far and few. So being a "vet" does not mean puting your life on the line , I believe it just means military.... there are lines drawn in the military for those directly in harms way and those who are not . I'm not detracting from the word vet I just hear a lot of discussion about "no action " seeing military considered non vet , make no mistake they are , but for those of us who have been in combat I do understand some frustration , becasue the word vet is easily translated in the civilian mind as combat action ... no ones fault just how it is ....
(0)
(0)
0
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