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
2
2
0
When the thinking goes down that path the next logical step is deployment is not enough, you have to be combat arms.
Then continuing down that path you come to you have to had gone on patrol or had your base attacked.
Then you get to you have to have earned a Purple Heart or award for valor.
Finally you get to the point where politicians decide we don't need Veteran Affairs and roll everyone into Medicare.
Be careful what you wish for.
Then continuing down that path you come to you have to had gone on patrol or had your base attacked.
Then you get to you have to have earned a Purple Heart or award for valor.
Finally you get to the point where politicians decide we don't need Veteran Affairs and roll everyone into Medicare.
Be careful what you wish for.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I served for 26.5 years and never deployed to a war zone. This was partly due to knowing too much Top Secret stuff which could aid our enemies. Should this keep me from veteran status? I say no.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have a neighbor who is a Viet Nam era Vet. He served in Texas, but in a critical and dangerous situation. I see no difference between his service and my combat service. Location does not make the Vet.
(1)
(0)
1
1
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.”
End of discussion!
End of discussion!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I served 21 years in USAF and never deployed. Never had an opportunity. I served mostly during the Cold War (which means No war). For those who remember SAC, the motto says it all: Peace is our profession. And we did it....until the Gulf War broke out. But we deterred the Russian aggression. That took a lot of effort. I served during wartimes and served in Germany and S.Korea. Im a retiree and im a Vet. No question. Today everyone wants a different label to distinguish from everyone else. Get over it! You serve, you're a Vet.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Whether deployed or not, if any conflict was going on during a person's time in service, they were either actively engaged in deployment or actively engaged in support on the home front. They were also prepared to deploy at any time. But in my humble opinion, deployment has nothing to do with the fact that anyone who served for any amount of time is a veteran, period.
1
1
0
I was and I am Doc. I never deployed in a combat zone but I served all the troops that came under my care. People seem to forget the "war machine" depends on thousands of troops to help complete the mission. My war time buddies were at the tip of the spear but everyone else made up the spear!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Are the people who ask these stupid ass questions actually vets themselves? Where do they come up with these asinine questions? Just trying to start trouble or a biden hiney licker??? I spent four years and three months in the Air Force and while I didn't deploy to a combat zone I did deploy to an area where I saw sixty degrees below zero...and yes, I'm well aware of the difference in life risk as I am now in my thirty first year being a fireman and every day can be life threatening. The difference is that the fire is not actively trying to kill you, it simply doesn't care...you're fuel. I'm NOT a VN vet...I could have been but the powers didn't need me there apparently.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Successful completion of one's statutory obligation qualifies for veteran status; regardless of component. Service overseas in support of/involved in any combat operation qualifies for overseas service or combat veteran status.
I see younger enlisted Soldiers feeling disenfranchised due to their not deploying- the fact that those Soldiers made it through MEPS, completed IET, and honorably completed their first contract is a statistical feat in and of itself.
Deployments don't make the Soldier- experience does. I've met plenty of Soldiers who deployed and don't know their craft; and I've also met Soldiers who haven't deployed and knew their MOS like the back of their hand. Do deployments change things? Absolutely. Does it make one not a veteran? No- just not a combat veteran.
I see younger enlisted Soldiers feeling disenfranchised due to their not deploying- the fact that those Soldiers made it through MEPS, completed IET, and honorably completed their first contract is a statistical feat in and of itself.
Deployments don't make the Soldier- experience does. I've met plenty of Soldiers who deployed and don't know their craft; and I've also met Soldiers who haven't deployed and knew their MOS like the back of their hand. Do deployments change things? Absolutely. Does it make one not a veteran? No- just not a combat veteran.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Soldier is a Veteran regardless if he/she/whatever was deployed. For they were ready to be deployed and a deterrent against hostile activities and such as the soldier can be called upon to fight. If called to fight you would be a Combat Veteran. There is no difference in title of Combat Veteran between the one on a ship, stays in the FOB, Kuwait or knocking down a door.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google