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
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a veteran as “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.”
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sir.
Since we have had men and women wounded in the LINE OF DUTY here in this nation, would you omit them? And if not, them how about the Drill Instructors Injured during training would you omit them? How about those Serving in the Coast Guard and engaging enemies (bot foreign and domestic) are they not Worthy of recognition as Veterans? I guess maybe there is not enough information for me to formulate an answer...
Since we have had men and women wounded in the LINE OF DUTY here in this nation, would you omit them? And if not, them how about the Drill Instructors Injured during training would you omit them? How about those Serving in the Coast Guard and engaging enemies (bot foreign and domestic) are they not Worthy of recognition as Veterans? I guess maybe there is not enough information for me to formulate an answer...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
What about someone who was seperated durring A school? Is it enough to sign the line, or do you actually have to accomplish somthing?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes they should be allowed. Anyone that took the oath to server and protect this great nation, but never deployed is still a veteran. Semper Fi
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes of course, revolutionary war, war of 1812, Cival war, deploy to where? Not to hard to figure out.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I personally believe that everyone that walks across the Parade Deck of their respective service's "Boot Camp" graduation service is entitled to the endearing term of Veteran as at that time you have earned it. Later on you may end up either being an "Honorable" or "Dishonorable" discharged Veteran and that's entirely dependant upon the Veteran. The only distinction that anyone should ever worry about is whether you are a "Combat" Veteran or not. Being a "Combat" Veteran myself, that's one distinction I could have done without. Although it gave me a few extra "pretty" little ribbons and awards, the associated problems that I have suffered in the years since are no-where near worth the title or awards. Believe me folks, you that haven't seen "Combat" are a lot better off far having done so.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, it should not. Great example of non deployments: Anyone who served on the 1K Zone, DMZ, Checkpoint Charlie, took a sub into communist waters, Berlin Airlift, guarded nukes in Europe, how about all those who sat in NIKE Herc Sites all over the free world? How about National Guard members called up for domestic situations, riots, deliver mail, hurricanes, snow storms, wildfires. No they have all served, and they are veterans IMHO.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir let me start by saying that anyone who has ever put on a uniform and served their whole term honorably is a veteran. Deployments and combat don't define a soldier. Character of service does. This is just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
They deserve and should hold Veteran status. They signed on the bottom line and offered everything, uo to and including their lives in defense of our nation.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bottom line: The Army tells you where to go. If an insurgent is going to shoot at you, they aren't going to pause and ask what your MOS is first.
You can volunteer to deploy, but there is no guarantee it is going to happen.
You can volunteer to deploy, but there is no guarantee it is going to happen.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Even the term "combat veteran" is not as simple as many would think. I served with a man who was a Marine infantryman who served in Vietnam. His ARNG unit deployed for Desert Storm. During his outprocessing physical he was informed that he should never have been allowed to deploy due to lingering issues from his memories of Vietnam.
I would never consider my service equal to his experience in his first war. Yes, we were in danger at times, but were never under direct fire.
My combat patch does not carry the weight of his first one. Yes, by regulation it does, but realistically he faced much greater dangers in the jungle.
Veteran = someone who served honorably in the military. Period.
I would never consider my service equal to his experience in his first war. Yes, we were in danger at times, but were never under direct fire.
My combat patch does not carry the weight of his first one. Yes, by regulation it does, but realistically he faced much greater dangers in the jungle.
Veteran = someone who served honorably in the military. Period.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think as long as someone has an Honorable discharge and completed basic they should be able to claim veteran status. People enlisted and were willing to make the sacrifice... if their destiny didn't lead them overseas i dont think that should effect anything.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When you signed the contract and donned your uniform you are a veteran!! Doesn't matter whether you deploy or not!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Hopefully for the last time yes everyone that was in, deployed or not is a veteran. Just the ones that deploy is not the only ones that fight a war. Each branch of service is there to support any deployment that is made. So like it or not everyone is a veteran. You can't pick weather or not you support actions. Your jobs does it for all. Hat is why we have so many people. Called support the effort.
(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 
