Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

if you serve on active duty you are a vet.

Hello,
I am one of those guys that is technically a Peacetime veteran, but I am also considered a Combat veteran because of what I did. Obviously it is a confusing mix, but here is how the Federal Government sees it. "under Federal Law a VETERAN is any person, who served honorably on active duty in the armed forces of the United States. ", I believe that your boot camp and training qualifies for this.

The VA has stricter guidelines. I don't agree with it, but the Veterans Administration is kind of tightwad on this, and they say that ADT, and the initial training duty time is not used in calculating active time. So, it seems, reservists that have never deployed are not considered eligible for veteran benefits, in their eyes.

But, as I see it, you took an oath, you signed a dotted line and you were willing to put your ass on the line. If you didn't deploy, that means you helped those of us that did, from home. So as I see things, the Non combat veteran deserves as much recognition as the combat vet. Without the guys back home, we couldn't do our jobs.

Hell No. Not everyone or MOS gets deployed

One more thing - the original poster stated that they knew they wouldn't have much chance of deploying in the National Guard. I don't know the stats on it, but anecdotally, after 9/11, we were sending lots and lots of guardsmen to active duty while the regular Army unit I had left was sitting there, and sitting there, and sitting there and I don't remember for certain, but I think that if I had been assigned there on 9/11 that I could have made it 3 years to PCS without that unit having gone anywhere. So, the RC definitely deploys.

I have great respect for veterans who have deployed to areas of armed conflict, additional respect beyond that for those who have come under fire, and still more for those that have paid the price through wounds or death. But the word veteran denotes someone who has served on active duty in our military, whether they deployed or not.

Less than 10% of our adult population are veterans by definition in my first paragraph. With over 90% of our adults not having served on active duty in our military (and the overwhelming majority of those never having served in any capacity whatsoever) then my support for the current definition of veteran is reinforced.

I disagree with any suggestion to further limit the scope of the definition of veteran. One does not deploy one's self. I spent 6 years and 10 months on active duty in the regular Army and I spent 6 years in the ARNG. The regular Army part not only involved the "blank check" volunteer element, but also it involved some really, really hard work. Furthermore, if I had gone into my present line of work in my 20s rather than my 40s, I'd have a LOT more money now (not that I have anything to complain about). However, I would consider supporting expanding the definition to include guard and reserves since they are subject to being deployed. I would also support establishing higher levels of veteran status to provide additional recognition to veterans who have directly experienced combat.

Our society puts a lot of value on symbolism. People dump ice-water on the heads and post a picture of it, thinking that they have somehow cured a disease. Virtue-signalling is all the rage. But military service is not symbolism - it's substance. So, it is worthy of a separate status.

$(*% no.

1LT(P) (Join to see) Doesnt even deserve a response. Pitiful.

If you're deployed you should be on Federal orders just like any Active Duty unit. Especially if you're in another country. Benefits should but equal etc.

I served in the Texas nationals guard for 12.5byrs and I don't understand why I'm not considered a veteran. I even got called up but the Governor of Texas during hurricane Alicia. I signed up in 79 but they changed my sign in date when I moved from Louisiana to Texas.. I thought Donald Trump change it to help us..

The way I see it if you make it through basic training and AIT and hit your 1st duty station you are considered a vet now I know some will say that as if you sign the dotted line then you're a vet but I don't consider somebody who couldn't even make it through basic training for whatever reason a full vet. To me that's like saying somebody who took 2 or 3 classes in college and then dropped out as a college graduate. I knew a kid in basic training who is on permanent profile and whenever the rest of the Bluetooth was getting smoked all he had to do a salute the flag and this little peal West won't even do that is he considered a vet not in my opinion he wasn't even considered half a human

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.”

Not just no, but hell no.

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...

No that's what combat veteran status is for, or a campaign medal

No.

What about someone who was seperated durring A school? Is it enough to sign the line, or do you actually have to accomplish somthing?

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

Yes of course, revolutionary war, war of 1812, Cival war, deploy to where? Not to hard to figure out.

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.

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.