Posted on May 6, 2014
Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?
220K
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
0
0
0
Who comes up with stuff. In my book, if you raised your hands and sweared alligence to the flag and met the 180 days required to be eligible for benefits than you are a veteran.
Give me a break. What about someone like
who never fought with a unit but have 5 campaign medals for some untold wars. Their military records that show they never serve preclude them from being classified as a veteran. Please, if someone raised that right hand, in my book they were ready to deploy and that my friends is a VET.
Give me a break. What about someone like
who never fought with a unit but have 5 campaign medals for some untold wars. Their military records that show they never serve preclude them from being classified as a veteran. Please, if someone raised that right hand, in my book they were ready to deploy and that my friends is a VET.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Absolutely!! They signed the same blank check owing up to and including their life for their country! A person stateside not deployed whether they are in National Guard, reserve or active duty are working to learn the skills, to train, and be prepared for anything! No matter what the job is. No individual in the military is more important than any other, for every one soldier that goes forward in deployment there are 90 behind them who are supplying them, paying them, cooking for them and everything else. Everyone who serves! And by the way yes I deployed and I do not look down on anyone who did not because of their MOS, type of unit, or anything else.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
With regards to joining the VFW there is an exception to there policy and that is if you served in Korea during piece time you can still join as a full member because both Koreas are still at war with each other and they only have a cease fire not a piece treaty. I don't know if this is true for the Legionnaires.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No. You go where you're ordered. It's not a personal choice. You're a veteran because you served; not because of where you served.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You stood up to be counted. That is what should count. If you didn't get sent, that isn't your fault (assuming you weren't trying to not get sent).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This word deployed seem to have gained or lost part of its defination in the modern times. some now think deployed means sent to a hostile fire zone. This is incorrect. Deployed is being sent outside the bounries of the USA anywhere.Now there are fun/nice deployments and ones where you might get shot at. I spent about 4 years deployed in the late 60-early 70's. It was all consecutive included 32 months in RVN and the rest Germany and transite leave.Then a couple years split apart in CONUS Ft Hood.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What’s next if you’re not a grunt you’re not a vet? I take it back there is such a thing as a stupid question.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I chose to defend my country against any foreign or domestic threat. Just because the threat was on American soil doesn't negate the impact to the freedoms I chose to defend. I'm a veteran of serving my country from all who would take those freedoms from the people I defend. I never stepped down from my oath even when my time in uniform ended. I suppose you could stop being a veteran when you become the threat. Since I continue to serve my country as a veteran, I'll continue to honor the oath I took.
(0)
(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 
