Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

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.

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

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.)

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.

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.

It does not matter if deployed or not deployed. No one forced you to put your right hand up and practically give your life for your country if need be. You earned the status of veteran. Reserve, guard, active. All one family. Be proud my brothers and sisters.

So tired of this "distinction" bullshit ref whose a veteran vs combat veteran vs in-country vs out of country and on and on and on. We already have ways of distinguishing who has seen the elephant like those who earned the CIB, CMB, etc. But if it weren't for the multitude of MOS/AFSC's all doing their jobs in other capacities, the guys on the line wouldn't be there. If it wasn't for your DI/TI you wouldn't be trained. If it weren't for the guys in supply you would be facing the enemy in your civilian clothes and throwing rocks at them. If it weren't for medical personnel in the rear you would bleed out in the field when wounded. If it weren't for the the countless aircraft mechanics sitting on aircraft carriers, AF bases in places like Diego Garcia, etc there would be no planes ready and thus no CAS when needed. I can go on, and on, and on. The bottom line is everyone has their job, they all contribute to the mission, and they all defend the United States in some manner or form.That has existed in every conflict we have ever been in and only since Nam have we been playing this ridiculous game. Stop the division!

What is a Veteran? 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.” This definition explains that any individual that completed a service for any branch of armed forces classifies as a veteran as long as they were not dishonorably discharged.

Almost all the jobs in the military have direct civilian counterparts. All jobs offer leadership skills needed every day in the civilian world. About 80 percent of the jobs in the military are non-combat occupations.

Obviously, not everyone in the military can serve in combat. Of those who are in a combat zone, only about 1-2% actually fire a weapon at an enemy. In the US today, of the 21 million qualified veterans, probably only about 2 million are combat veterans.

Not every one of us who serve can serve in combat…that makes us no less a Veteran.

Look, it's not the fault of the Soldier for not deploying in most cases. What matters is the quality of work performed while serving. I have not deployed but I am not going to walk around feeling like I am incomplete because of it. Hats off to those who did deploy though. If ever given the opportunity, I'll honorably execute and deploy as well!

You aren't Airborne if you didn't jump, You aren't a Combat Vet unless you were in combat. So if you want to be a killer, go kill something

Nope...serving is serving....deployed or in the rear. You served and gave up your rights as a civilian.

As a retired navy veteran PO1 Nagel is VERY correct! Once you signed your contract you were subject to "deployment" anywhere anytime. Lets take the current situation with Hurricane Harvey. Would this not constitute a "deployment" to help our fellow citizens. It is not in a "war zone"; however, for those who have never functioned in disaster like I have such scenarios are a "type of war zone". Every deployment combat or humanitarian has hazards and military people are trained to be prepared to deliver the statement mission - what ever it is!

Those who are attempting to 'split hairs' are looking to create problems where NONE exist!

Attempting to cause division within military ranks with such a discussion is disloyal at best and dishonorable at worst!!! Are people saying that because someone was not deployed that are not a veteran?

So, are people also saying saying that medics and corpsman who did not deploy, but who were stateside taking career of the wounds warriors of their fellow warriors who did "deploy" are unworthy of the title - veteran!!! Are you kidding? Medics and corpsman helping to treat the obvious and hidden wounds of war are heroic as well. How dare people disrespect people whose job it is to heal in or outside a combat zone. Those who use the word deployed in one sense need to understand what the word "deployment" means in each of the services. As long as your military service was HONORABLE, I consider you a veteran, regardless if you were deployed or not!

FYI, as of the 2015 US Census data those who are considered Between Major War Periods number ~ 3,124,834. Are these brave men and women unworthy of the title - veteran. They are VERY entitled!!!

Usually I would stay away from a question like this but I just couldn't resist. Once you join, go through basic, AIT, and are deploy-able, you are still giving up your civilian freedom to protect freedom. My service connected injuries were sustained outside of combat. During my time being assigned to Berlin before the wall came down, we were in danger of being targets by the RAF and the Skinheads just for being American soldiers. many of my comrades were stabbed or blown up there from these groups of anti-western culture persons. I can not speak for all armed forces, but I know that an army artillery unit stationed in Germany trains hard, and when you run on cobble-stone streets with jump boots and 80 pound rucks four days a week, it can take a heavy toll on your body. In my opinion, anybody that successfully completes their initial training, and is trained to be combat ready, has earned the status of veteran and all the honors that that implies.

A Veteran is supposed to be anyone who served Honorably and to me that means they deserve recognition and the benefits of the VA, there are already different types of Veterans, service connected disabled, combat veterans, or veterans from this war or some other one. The division is not intended to help but to play one type service against another to avoid paying back for the selfless job of service. They already cheat people out of combat status, I feel if you're put in life endangering areas where you are a wartime target, in a declared war or not, you are still in combat. Military and Congressional head games like divide and conquer, they use it against everyone friend or foe.

Sure, call yourself a veteran, but there needs to be a stark distinction between what it means to be a veteran and what it means to be a combat veteran.