Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

I agree with all of you so far - broadly speaking, a veteran is a veteran, regardless of whether they deploy or not. Unfortunately the government does not see it that way.

According to Title 38 § 101 of the U.S. Code, "The term 'veteran' means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable." If you read into the other definitions, this excludes Guard or Reserve members who have not met a minimum amount of time on Title 10 or Title 32 orders (active duty for training doesn't count). I know there are veterans advocacy groups trying to get this changed but it hasn't so far.

Not only this, but similar requirements apply to the GWOT Service Medal - if a reservist has less than 30 consecutive days of not ADT activation or 60 non-consecutive days of non-ADT activation, they are not eligible to be awarded it.

So, until the laws are changed, some of us will be considered veterans by everybody but the government.

This Post Came Over 10 Years Ago, But My Response Remains The Same;
"Uh NO" ~~ We're Still VETS, But What We Are NOT Is A "VIETNAM VET",
Nor Any Other VET Where A Combat Situation Took Place
We Either ARE, Or We're NOT. There's No In Between And The Title Belongs
Only To Those Whom WERE Deployed In Those Places. I Served During Part Of
The Vietnam ERA, Which Does NOT Make Me A "Vietnam VET".
Thank You,
the management

While you guys were deployed, I stayed behind working to provide more soldiers to deploy. I was in Recruiting Command for eleven years and it cost me my health. Don't you even try to tell me I'm not a veteran, Lieutenant!

The lack of a deployment does not make one any less of a Veteran. The person who got deployed signed on the dotted line, took an oath, and made themselves available worldwide for whatever was needed. Newsflash, so did the guy / gal who sits at a desk all day, or slaves in the hot kitchen, or under dirty filthy vehicles, or the medic in their clean environments. It seems to me since I have been on here that there sometimes seems to be an underlying tone to make non deployed members somehow feel less than those who were deployed, by sheer luck of the draw I might add. If this is the case then those who think this way are not contributing to the cohesive unit idea. WE are all here for the same thing, if you feel somehow superior to someone else who was not deployed then it is a problem you should deal with. We are the largest fraternity / sorority so to speak in the world, we are a team all with one goal in mind. The only difference a deployment would make is that one could then be considered a combat veteran, apples to oranges people. When it comes to a legal definition, all that means is someone in the vast government bowels of hell is someone who is going to make this determination, someone who has never served a day, has no idea of what the life is really about, and is nothing more than a basic tool. Sorry about the harshness of this, what turned into a rant but this question pisses me off big time.

If they served in any Armed Forces for any length of time, they are Veterans !!

I did deploy when I was active duty as a Light Infantry soldier, 2/27 Wolfhounds with 7th ID at Fort Ord. That being said, I do not believe that a person who signed up for the military, went through basic and AIT should be punished for non-deployment by not allowing them they same benefits as those who deploy. None of us signed up being guaranteed a deployment (with maybe the exception of the worst parts of the middle east). Don't penalize a person for signing up for the same possibilities as those who actually deployed. It could have been them going just as easily as it was us. Besides, those who deploy are already identified through Campaign ribbons/medals or badges and attachments like mine (CIB w/bronze arrowhead attachment for amphibious assault on the city of Colon, Panama). Let us inspire unity of soldierhood...not brotherhood or sisterhood as those can be construed as exclusionary...and not impose more divisiveness than already exists these days. Just my opinion.

Veteran if you signed the commitment papers; combat veteran if you deployed. Easy enough!

Officially, yes. But...
For those of us (including me) who have served in a Reserve capacity and have never been called to deploy into combat, I recommend being discreet about it and not go around flaunting "I served so I need special treatment." I don't mean don't be moto. I'm a Marine, and you can see it a mile away on my truck. I'm talking about how we carry ourselves and refer to our service time. Our brothers and sisters who have gone down range generally don't flaunt that either, but they've seen stuff and experienced stuff a lot of us haven't and bring back insights of which many of us only have a theoretical understanding.
Bottom line, everyone just needs to do their part, focus on learning and performing their jobs and roles to the best of their ability, training their subordinates to give them the tools and mindset that will keep them alive and accomplish the mission should they deploy. At the end of the day, it's not about us as individuals. It's about making sure our Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen are effectively trained and equipped to take the fight to the enemies of our nation.

I have said it before and i'll say it again; this forum is a great tool to share knowledge and experience. It's a great place for young military members to ask questions and experienced service members can provide answers and share knowledge and experiences to answer those questions.

However; many times when I receive a notification in my inbox about a new subject from Rally Point, it's a question or statement that can be easily answered by researching regulations or simply asking your Chain of Command or your NCO Support Channel. In the amount of time it takes to type out your question, publish it, and wait for responses, you could have received the answer, performed physical training, PMCSed your equipment, deployed and redeployed.

Many of the questions presented on Rally Point seem to have ulterior motives. Are the question writers asking a valid question or trying to stir the pot and create unneeded drama within the ranks?

This question, for example; appears to have the potential of dividing those that have served in a combat zone and those who have not served in a combat zone. The question seems to degrade those military members that have not served in a combat zone.

This is just an example of the questions I have seen on Rally Point where service members want to appear better than others. Lately, I've noticed this trend in all military branches. There is an internal struggle between military members to one up your brothers and sisters in arms.

Instead of wanting to shine the spotlight on ourselves and appear better than others, we should all be striving for team excellence, not individual excellence. Of course we want to improve ourselves, but we cannot destroy others in the process of making ourselves look good.

The requirements to be a veteran have already been outlined by the appropriate authorities; personal opinions cannot change those requirements.

The writer of this article already knew the answer to their question just like many others on Rally Point. I would like to see Rally Point used as a tool for which it was designed; not a place to stir up shit within the ranks and seek personal gratification.

I was always told there's no such thing as a stupid question; however, I can honestly disagree. There are plenty of stupid ass questions on this forum.

There is already segmented benefits and honors for "levels" of Veteran. All who serve are Veterans.