Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

Being deployed is not a choice. The fact you chose to wear the uniform and make yourself eligible for deployment, along with a clean record makes you a veteran. Deployments are the choices of the brass. There were always times, like Beirut, that many people would have chosen to deploy, but alas it doesn't work like that and you have to wait for orders.

No offense but I rate that question right along with Bronze star right after I watched several E-7's endorse each others request for the Bronze Star and then receive them during Operation Enduring Freedom. A Soldier is a Soldier and when he supports those that fight that makes him a Veteran and those that have actually fought deserves a great deal of respect and they have mine.

If you stood there and took the oath, served your country honorably and faithfully. Then you are a veteran. I have deployed 9 times to various countries min various operations. I have met some that have never left this country, but to me they are and will always be a veteran with all the respect that they should receive. It doesn't matter what branch they served in or what capacity. They had the courage to stand up and serve their country.

I served years as a Surgical technician in the Air Force Reserve. I did my job well. Should my service be deemed UNWORTHY! . As long as one completes their enlistment HONORABLY then all should receive Veteran status. Not taking anything away from those who deployed but service is service.

It would appear that you as an ex-Army officer have not taken all services into account in your questioning. First, what do you mean by the term "deploying"? Do you mean faced enemy fire? Do you mean simply walking on foreign ground? Or do you mean being ordered to stay in a foreign land for service? If any of these were your view, just exactly how does a man ordered to administrative duties at a military post in Peru, differ from a marine ordered to the front in Afganistan, in your view and relating to your question? I served in the Navy for 20 years and for about 15 of those years I was on a submarine which spent a great deal of time at sea. While at sea, I have been to the Arctic Circle , through the Panama Canal, visited Japan, the Philapines, and China, and once to Austrailia. I have been in the Med. twice and visited most of those bordering countries. I spent two years in Spain, and only faced enemy guns once in my life. However, many of my naval comrades never had the opportunity to go abroad. In my service, the submarine was never threatened by the enemy, because the enemy did not have submarines, or the surface ships to fight them. So perhaps you should broaden your views a bit and take in consideration those "other" services besides the Army in your question!

Speaking with older veterans when I got back. I found this shit comes up during and after every war.
For most it is not an issue. For those who deployed and think less of those who did not.
Who do you think trained the replacements? Shipped the beans and bullets? Stood ready to defend the home land if you were out flanked? Every service member has a role to play. Not all are needed to put ordnance down range.

You're a Vet if you served. Not in combat, but if you signed that check that you were willing to...you're a Vet. Anyone that tells someone different, I'd have two words for them. The last word is "off." Anyone who says that is just lacking in self confidence, ignorant, or stupid.

If you wear the uniform, you could be called upon to serve anywhere, anytime. The fact that you didn't deploy is not your fault. You were there, and ready if the call came. I certainly think they should be legally called Veterans. I served 13 honorable years, deployed to Vietnam, I was a Boiler Technician 1st class, and am now fighting asbestosis.

If you wore the uniform, and were issued a DD214, I believe you should be considered a Veteran. If you want to split hairs - deployment vs mobilization; stateside vs overseas; combat zone, contingency operations, Combatant Command, and many other terms, who know who would be "legally" considered a Veteran. We should not differentiate from the Service Member who gets hurt during initial entry training and gets a medical separation, the Service Member who separates after their initial term, or elects to stay longer. They have all served and made sacrifices. Saying that, I will request that we all be politically conscious to ensure that our representatives do not try to limit what qualifies a Service Member to have Veteran status.

Not to dwell on it too much, but 6 combat deployments, numerous short term deployments, several overseas unaccompanied short tours, all in all I spent nearly half of my 26 Army/Air Force years deployed in some form or other. But does that make me anymore a veteran than my father who spent 22 years in the Navy, doing the duty he was assigned, and trained to do, but never was sent to a combat zone, no absolutely not. Anyone who raises their hand, takes the oath and signs on the dotted line are stepping up in a way that less than 2% of our country has or ever will do. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, active, reserve, guard, doesn't matter we all earned our status, and deservedly so, I say. Take pride in your service, and don't try to minimize what another person who has undertaken the same responsibilities as you, has done, based on matters that may be beyond their control. That being said, combat veterans will always share a bond based on their experiences, and that is not a bad thing.