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
1
1
0
Absolutely not. If you served honorably, did whatever Uncle Sam asked you to do, then you earned the privilege to be a Veteran in every sense of the word.
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Major: ABSOLUTE agreement! I take it farther ... a Reservist who did not hit the 180 day mark, is not considered a Veteran; but to me, they CERTAINLY ARE. If you took the Oath, and received an Honorable Discharge, then indeed ... you ARE a VETERAN, regardless of duty station, regular or reservist (or NG)!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Deployed? I never heard that term back in 65-68. You went "overseas" or you went to "Nam". Or, Heaven forbid, you were stuck in sucky state side duty.........ughhh
Maybe I slept thru my deployment. :-)
Any other old farts care to chime in? I have been wrong already once this year hehe
Maybe I slept thru my deployment. :-)
Any other old farts care to chime in? I have been wrong already once this year hehe
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Old farts? LOL I was wrong twice this year, UNLESS you ask my wife. Anyhow, I agree with you - if a person took the Oath, and was honorably discharged, they ARE a VETERAN; including Reserves, and NG. Once we sign on the dotted line, ANYTHING can happen and we could have ended up ANYWHERE.
(1)
(0)
SGT John Lawrence
You know I thought I was wrong once but found out that I was only mistaken. If you signed on the dotted line and completed your term of service then the only answer is: YOU ARE A VETERAN.....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As an instructor stateside, I feel good that the guys who went through schools had the knowledge to make sure that equipment was fixed/operational during your deployment and helped get you there and back safely. Now, since part of my ‘brain’ went with some of you, doesn’t that have some value?? You don’t get out to combat without the knowledge and skills of those people stateside in training positions who never deployed. I feel that a part of me went with every Marine I taught a skill. Therefore, I’ve been most everywhere in the world and in combat as well. Semper Fi from one proud Woman Marine Veteran!!
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Semper Fi from a former Navy Corpsman, and Army MP. In my mind, ANYONE who took the Oath, and served honorably, no matter where or in what MOS, is ABSOLUTELY a Veteran! Combat or not, one would be a Veteran!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There is a difference between a veteran and a combat veteran. A combat veteran is still a veteran, but a veteran is not always a combat veteran. Being a veteran just means you took an oath and served the country (or state for Guard) for a period of time that is specific to the individual. Being a combat veteran means you took an oath, served the country, and were sent to a combat location. This has no reliance on branch or component. Everyone who takes the oath has the potential to be sent to combat, otherwise there would be little need for a boot camp, and non-combat MOS's would just go to AIT (for Army at least). That is what makes someone a veteran or not. Were they someone who signed the dotted line, raised their right hand, and took an oath to Uncle Sam; all the while knowing it may be the death of them? If so, they are classified as a veteran.
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
On a Facebook group, there was recently a discussion about whether or not a non-deployed service member could claim Vietnam Vet status even though they never saw Nam from ANY capacity (land, sea or air). If not, they are a Vietnam ERA Veteran. I'm glad that with the recent wars in the Middle East, there doesn't seem to be a distinction; unless one is asked. Both my sons served in Iraq; the youngest also did two more tours in Afghanistan. Both are Combat Veterans, but I never here the terms, "Iraq Vet," or "Afghan Vet."
As for the Vietnam period, one is either a "Vietnam Vet," or "Vietnam ERA Vet." There is NO shame in being an "ERA" Vet ... as you say, they took the Oath and could have ended up anywhere!
As for the Vietnam period, one is either a "Vietnam Vet," or "Vietnam ERA Vet." There is NO shame in being an "ERA" Vet ... as you say, they took the Oath and could have ended up anywhere!
(0)
(0)
SGT John Lawrence
Here is a interesting question: When you are serving at a duty station and you are serving as a occupying army that was a combat zone but combat operations had stop (I am not sure of the date, 1946?), what is your status during this operation. I have a friend that served in Germany in 1954-1955 and I asked him how it is that he is a member of the VFW and he stated that he had served in the Army '54-'55 in Germany as a occupying Army that he said ended in 1955. Well I served in West Germany from 1971-1975. 1972 was a very ruff year there due to the terrorist organization Bidder Meinhoff terrorist group that was causing a lot of trouble during that year and earlier as I don't recall when they started to be a problem in Europe, and then my unit was tasked with security for the Munich Games in August of 1972, that did not turn out to good but it was a tough time for most of us there. About 2 or 3 years ago I was on the Web as a member of "Together We Served" and I noticed a medal was added to my page that I did not know what it was so I went looking to see what it was and it turned out that it was for the "Occupying of Germany". I did not know that the occupation of West Germany did not end until 1991, So what is the status of everyone that served in West Germany from the war's end of combat operations(1945 or 1946) to 1991 when the occupation ended? Can they belong to the VFW and other organizations that only combat veterans can join? Just a interesting question, I would like some thoughts on that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In the fall of 2018 the American Legion went before Congress and Congress approved with the President signing legislation the the War on Terror was on Sept 11, 2001 to present day but legislation move the War on Terror to December 7, 1941 there by granting access to the American Legion for all that served from 12/07/1941 on to present.
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
As a Vietnam Vet, when we got to Okinawa, we were encouraged to join the VFW Post that was there. Most of us did. On returning to the States, "most" of us probably went to the VFW once or twice and may have even joined a local VFW ... until we realized they didn't consider that we served well - "Didn't WIN," our war!
Almost 20 years ago, I joined the American Legion where it didn't matter WHAT your combat, or non-combat status was/is. THAT's the way it should be! I used to be an "American Legion Rider," but can't ride anymore so I'm not really active, and as a non-drinker, seldom go to the Legion I belong to; but WHEN I DO ... I FEEL AT HOME!
When I checked the local VFW and learned they have "Social Members," I never went. They slighted Nam Vets, but take CIVILIANS for the added dues no doubt.
Almost 20 years ago, I joined the American Legion where it didn't matter WHAT your combat, or non-combat status was/is. THAT's the way it should be! I used to be an "American Legion Rider," but can't ride anymore so I'm not really active, and as a non-drinker, seldom go to the Legion I belong to; but WHEN I DO ... I FEEL AT HOME!
When I checked the local VFW and learned they have "Social Members," I never went. They slighted Nam Vets, but take CIVILIANS for the added dues no doubt.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No, they should not. Which is very discouraging that the VA does. According to their rules, ARNG soldiers are not eligible for treatment unless you were deployed for reasons other than training. If you volunteered and served your time, you are a veteran whether deployed or not.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
In response to the six year old question, NO.
For those who keep track of such things; I served out all my contracts and took the same oath each time I signed. I served in country during Vietnam. I was shot at. I shot people who prefered to kill me when we were feet apart on the ground. I think that satisfies everyone's picky qualification for whatever you want to call me.
As for me, when I sit at the bar in an airport and the stranger on the next stool tells me he or she served their tour in any of our armed forces, I'm always proud to share a few moments with another Vet and will probably buy him another drink if the conversation is pleasant.
Quite frankly, and I can say this because I'm old and have already been subjected to most of the verbal and physical abuse that exists, if it's a female veteran who has a pleasant laugh, I'll probably buy her two drinks.
For those who keep track of such things; I served out all my contracts and took the same oath each time I signed. I served in country during Vietnam. I was shot at. I shot people who prefered to kill me when we were feet apart on the ground. I think that satisfies everyone's picky qualification for whatever you want to call me.
As for me, when I sit at the bar in an airport and the stranger on the next stool tells me he or she served their tour in any of our armed forces, I'm always proud to share a few moments with another Vet and will probably buy him another drink if the conversation is pleasant.
Quite frankly, and I can say this because I'm old and have already been subjected to most of the verbal and physical abuse that exists, if it's a female veteran who has a pleasant laugh, I'll probably buy her two drinks.
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Colonel - a humorous post, but totally on spot! When I see people in uniform at a restaurant, I sometimes spring for their meal (anonymously) whether they are regular Army or National Guard, OR Reservists if their patch so identifies them. I don't care if they have a combat patch, or not. They ALL too the same Oath, and ALL are serving.
I was a Navy Corpsman in Nam and I have NO differing opinion of whether a man/woman served in Combat or not. They are ALL VETERANS!
I was a Navy Corpsman in Nam and I have NO differing opinion of whether a man/woman served in Combat or not. They are ALL VETERANS!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
There was a time, I used to jest about those in the Air Force & Navy comparative to Marines & Army serving in Vietnam. Ended when I met a few Vietnam Veterans...of Both. Para Rescue and 'Brown Shoe' Navy Vets that served where were needed, at the time. (Recommend See 'Beyond Full Measure'.)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
In my humble opinion, the definition of veteran status by legal entities is somewhat erroneous, but then it is hard to put a finger on a definitive definition of veteran. There are those who serve in noncombat roles who directly support the deployed soldier but by regulations or unit policy are not allowed to deploy. They are no less veterans than the individual who deployed in a combat, a CS or CSS role. Just in a different role. Perhaps the definitions should be veteran or combat veteran? Any decision on the matter is many paygrades above what even our military leaders hold.
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
WELL STATED 1SG!
The only difference in status, that I know of, concerns the Vietnam Era. You are either a Vietnam Vet (land, sea, air), or a Vietnam ERA Vet. In the end though, you're ALL "VETERANS." That goes for non-deployed Reservists or NG in my humble opinion. Take the Oath ... serve honorable, you're a VETERAN.
The only difference in status, that I know of, concerns the Vietnam Era. You are either a Vietnam Vet (land, sea, air), or a Vietnam ERA Vet. In the end though, you're ALL "VETERANS." That goes for non-deployed Reservists or NG in my humble opinion. Take the Oath ... serve honorable, you're a VETERAN.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Veteran status was once thought to be reserved for those who deployed to a conflict or combat zone. The VFW changed there admissions as their ranks were thinking. Having said that the VA recognizes many who have not deployed as mentioned before. For me, everyone who enlisted did so knowing that they may lay down their life for their country. The fact that they did not deploy and squeeze a trigger made them no less a Service Member. Everyone who serves deserves Veteran status. One mans thoughts.
(1)
(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 
