Posted on May 6, 2014
Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?
222K
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.
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 678
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."
Anyone who wishes to claim that only those deployed can claim the title of Veteran can come see me. If you put your name on the dotted line and you served and were discharged HONORABLY you are a Veteran. There are literally 10's of thousands of Veterans who never deployed anywhere and until the GWOT I was in that category. If your peers or your soldiers say that you are not a Veteran because you did not deploy they need some help and I'm not talking about the kind where you go see a Psychologist/Psychiatrist.
Anyone who wishes to claim that only those deployed can claim the title of Veteran can come see me. If you put your name on the dotted line and you served and were discharged HONORABLY you are a Veteran. There are literally 10's of thousands of Veterans who never deployed anywhere and until the GWOT I was in that category. If your peers or your soldiers say that you are not a Veteran because you did not deploy they need some help and I'm not talking about the kind where you go see a Psychologist/Psychiatrist.
(3)
(0)
Once you raise your hand your a veteran of that passage. Taking the oath and doing what's asked of you is what's important. It takes at a minimum 3 supporting soldiers for every one combat arms troop. It take everyone to win the battle.
(3)
(0)
Let's see, soldier was in a training jump accident and medically retired, or jumped into country and sent home for same activity and never fired their rifle or fired upon. Tell me the difference please... Enough said!
(3)
(0)
I did 32 years, active and reserve. I have heard some say that because I was Air Force I should not claim veteran status.
This is horse pucky. I heard the rockets and mortars falling around my head. I saw the ripped and torn bodies of my comrades. Any one who thinks I am not a veteran is a fool.
This is horse pucky. I heard the rockets and mortars falling around my head. I saw the ripped and torn bodies of my comrades. Any one who thinks I am not a veteran is a fool.
(3)
(0)
Imho, anyone who served honorably and retired, was discharged or resigned a commission is a vet. VFW and Foreign Legion are honors reserved for Combat Vets.
(3)
(0)
SPC Robert Coventry
American Legion is if you served during war time I am in the American Legion because I was in Basic training during Grenada. I did 2 years in Panama, deployed to Honduras and 2 years at Fort Campbell. Zero combat, not because I didn't want to.
(0)
(0)
I think it's silly. You go where you're needed. Whether it's abroad or overseas, it's irrelevant. You signed, you served, you're a veteran.
(3)
(0)
I say yes that regardless of if you have fought in a war or not, if you have served your country with the full knowledge that you could be called to war at any time , and are willing to answer it, you deserve the title. Case in point, my father was in when the M249, M9 and HMMWV's were tested and fielded. His BN was one of the first to be issued these new 'toys' and he helped to develop the TTP's for implementing them in simulated combat scenarios in various locations(some suggestions fell on dead ears because 2/3 were recommended for the dumpster). Then when the call came for Desert Shield everyone was all packed and ready to go, but Desert Storm kicked off and shortly thereafter his BN was disbanded and he got out of the military. He had always held a bit of animosity towards the situation to the point where he didnt stand up when all Veterans were called upon to stand up during BCT graduation, and he stay seated, because he didnt feel like he had actually been able to do his part to earn the right to be called a Veteran until one of my friends that was in OIF1 told him that you don't get to choose your war. After I got back from AFG I gave him a cold war veteran shirt and he wears it consistently enough for it to show up on FB regularly.
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Veteran-shirt-X-Large/dp/B00F1IDSTQ
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Veteran-shirt-X-Large/dp/B00F1IDSTQ

Amazon.com: Cold War Veteran T shirt (Medium): Automotive
Amazon.com: Cold War Veteran T shirt (Medium): Automotive
(3)
(0)
The answers to this question seem mostly emotional, on both sides. My question would be: "Veteran of what?" Historically the term Veteran indicated warriors who had seen combat as opposed to those who had not. Hence "Veteran Troops" and other similar phrases. There could be 'active duty' Roman Legionaires who had been recruited and passed through more intense training than most of us ever have who were still 'green' until they were 'blooded' by combat. Then they became "Veterans." Although there could still be relative judgements as to which units were 'More Veteran" than others, and thus which were more dependable and reliable.
R. A. Heinlein has some interesting things to say in his book Starship Troopers, about earning the right to vote through having placed one's life in jeopardy -at the disposal of society (much in the way some here have argued) whether or not in combat.
P.S. If anyone references the movie...just....stop it.
http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Troopers-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/ [login to see]
R. A. Heinlein has some interesting things to say in his book Starship Troopers, about earning the right to vote through having placed one's life in jeopardy -at the disposal of society (much in the way some here have argued) whether or not in combat.
P.S. If anyone references the movie...just....stop it.
http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Troopers-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/ [login to see]

Amazon.com: Starship Troopers (9780441783588): Robert A. Heinlein: Books
Amazon.com: Starship Troopers (9780441783588): Robert A. Heinlein: Books
(3)
(0)
CW4 Chris White
The answer should be a veteran of the most capable military the world has ever seen. If you spent a career training for and waiting for a call that never came how does that make you more green that that private with one combat patrol. I am a combat veteran. But the combat part was a minuscule part of the 25 years service. But the time spent getting ready for that minuscule part was what made me ready.
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
1LT(P) (Join to see)
Legally speaking, no - but in the eyes of a VA, claiming veteran's status is more about eligibility for benefits than being considered a veteran like I think the rest of us would consider it to be. In my case, if I were to ETS next February when I am eligible, I will have had 6 years in the reserves but not enough time on non-ADT active orders to claim veterans status with the VA. However, I will still consider myself a veteran of the armed services, as I think most anyone would.
(1)
(0)
SP5 David Cox
I certainly consider myself a veteran, although my only "deployment" came after my ETS. When I entered service, I was young and had no real idea where I would end up. In its infinite wisdom, after BCT and AIT the Army sent me to a place I had never heard of - Ft. Huachuca, AZ. Because of my MOS, I had a 4 year AD obligation, and I spent the rest of my Army career in Arizona. I didn't go looking for a PCS (loved Huachuca and had no intention of staying in, so that would have been undesirable), but I didn't do anything to avoid one either. My period of service (78-82) was a quiet time with no major operations, so there weren't many opportunities other than routine posting to Korea or Germany. None of that makes me any less of a "real" veteran though. Anyone who has served honorably is a vet in my eyes, no matter what some regulation somewhere may say. As for my "deployment" mentioned above, as a civilian, I spent 3 years, under orders, as a member of the Berlin Brigade. It's admittedly a gray area, but under the agreements in place at that time, we all were considered part of the occupying forces in Berlin up until the fall of the Wall and reunification. Technically, WW2 was still continuing up until that time, and we were part of the occupation forces. Certainly every soldier stationed there qualified for the Army Occupation Medal (and also VFW membership).
(2)
(0)
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
"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
(2)
(0)
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!
(2)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
If they served in any Armed Forces for any length of time, they are Veterans !!
(2)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
Veteran if you signed the commitment papers; combat veteran if you deployed. Easy enough!
(2)
(0)
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Ernie Johnson
I greatly agree with your point, seems to be more of people wanting to throw their rock in the pool and see how big the ripples are instead of helping one another out.
(1)
(0)
There is already segmented benefits and honors for "levels" of Veteran. All who serve are Veterans.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next