Posted on Mar 17, 2021
Would I be considered a combat veteran just for being in the combat zones, without ever having to participate in combat?
23.3K
371
192
59
59
0
I served in desert shield/storm as an army cook for a tank battalion. I never had to participate in any combat myself but was in the combat zones. Would I be considered a combat veteran just for being in the combat zones?
Posted in these groups: 
Operation Desert Shield/Storm
Combat
Operation Desert Shield/Storm Combat
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 75
5
5
0
It really depends on why you are asking / for what you are trying to qualify.
As far as the VA or really any civilian agency, to include VFW, and other "combat" veteran's organizations are concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as describing your "status" or "service" for any job applications, friends and family, interviews, government forms, or government benefits questionnaires are concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as buying a round at the local bar, to include the VFW is concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as discussing actual combat, tactics, situations, and "no shit there I was" stories, NO you are not a combat vet, because you did not actually see combat.
As far as 90% of the military and veteran community is concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as 10% of the military and veteran community is concerned - almost everyone of them with a "gate keeper" mentality - NO you are not a combat vet, because you did not actually see combat.
At least for recent vets - older vets seem to be of the 10% opinion in higher percentages. But I would guess this is also because the older vets were in more conventional warfare - even the Vietnam vets - that had more clearly defined front lines and more clearly defined "enemy" forces, which greatly limited the "battlefield." In today's asymmetric warfare the battlefield extends to all corners and no MOS or location is safe. Desert Storm, I feel (and I was not there - before my time, I was still in HS) is more of the former, with more traditional war. I have a feeling your peers (Desert Storm vets) would have a slight higher tendency (15% or so) to say "not a combat vet."
BUT... all of that about what others think is REALLY irrelevant, except for three categories:
What does the government think (for giving benefits)? Yes
What does the VA think? Yes
What do YOU think? ___?____
As far as the VA or really any civilian agency, to include VFW, and other "combat" veteran's organizations are concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as describing your "status" or "service" for any job applications, friends and family, interviews, government forms, or government benefits questionnaires are concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as buying a round at the local bar, to include the VFW is concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as discussing actual combat, tactics, situations, and "no shit there I was" stories, NO you are not a combat vet, because you did not actually see combat.
As far as 90% of the military and veteran community is concerned, yes you are a combat vet. You deployed and performed you mission in the combat zone.
As far as 10% of the military and veteran community is concerned - almost everyone of them with a "gate keeper" mentality - NO you are not a combat vet, because you did not actually see combat.
At least for recent vets - older vets seem to be of the 10% opinion in higher percentages. But I would guess this is also because the older vets were in more conventional warfare - even the Vietnam vets - that had more clearly defined front lines and more clearly defined "enemy" forces, which greatly limited the "battlefield." In today's asymmetric warfare the battlefield extends to all corners and no MOS or location is safe. Desert Storm, I feel (and I was not there - before my time, I was still in HS) is more of the former, with more traditional war. I have a feeling your peers (Desert Storm vets) would have a slight higher tendency (15% or so) to say "not a combat vet."
BUT... all of that about what others think is REALLY irrelevant, except for three categories:
What does the government think (for giving benefits)? Yes
What does the VA think? Yes
What do YOU think? ___?____
(5)
(0)
SGT Frank-John Limiero
SGT David Priode - A CIB means if you are Army in an Infantry Unit for thirty days in a combat zone you are eligible. Where does it say you actually fought the enemy? Your opinion doesn't make you a Combat Vet unless you were a War Fighter.
(0)
(0)
SGT David Priode
SGT Frank-John Limiero - according to your analogy then a lrrp unit could go deep behind enemy lines multiple times do their missions without firing a shot and return to base and they would not be considered combat veterans? I understand your war fighter statement but in DS our trains was behind enemy lines following us as we broke through the Iraqi Divisions so at any time they was risking their lives. If he sat in Saudi Arabia then no so maybe I"m wrong in my thinking for him I'm an old man now .
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - False
Rules for CIB from HRC (https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/Combat%20Infantry%20Badge%20CIB):
(1) Be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties.
(2) Assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat.
(3) Actively participate in such ground combat. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB.
An 11B RTO in a BN TOC who is actively answering the Radio for a Company that is in contact has "actively participated" in the ground combat. And I have seen that EXACT rationale used to award a CIB to an 11B who literally never left the TOC, except to go on mid-rotation leave.
It is up to the approving authority to determine what "actively participate" means. It is also up to them to determine was "engaged" means. If a patrol kicks down a door of a known terrorist and rolls him up without a shot fired, was that actively engaged in ground combat? What if the terrorist has a knife, but doesn't use it? What if he uses it, but it bounces off armor? What if he cuts someone, but no major injuries? What if he kills someone with a knife, but still no shots fired?
What if he has a suicide vest but is shot before he can activate it? What if he has the vest, but is detained before he can activate it, with no shots fired?
Etc.
Again... the approving authority gets to decide what "engaged" means.
Your opinion on this is just that... your opinion. Different approving authorities have different opinions.
Rules for CIB from HRC (https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/Combat%20Infantry%20Badge%20CIB):
(1) Be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties.
(2) Assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat.
(3) Actively participate in such ground combat. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB.
An 11B RTO in a BN TOC who is actively answering the Radio for a Company that is in contact has "actively participated" in the ground combat. And I have seen that EXACT rationale used to award a CIB to an 11B who literally never left the TOC, except to go on mid-rotation leave.
It is up to the approving authority to determine what "actively participate" means. It is also up to them to determine was "engaged" means. If a patrol kicks down a door of a known terrorist and rolls him up without a shot fired, was that actively engaged in ground combat? What if the terrorist has a knife, but doesn't use it? What if he uses it, but it bounces off armor? What if he cuts someone, but no major injuries? What if he kills someone with a knife, but still no shots fired?
What if he has a suicide vest but is shot before he can activate it? What if he has the vest, but is detained before he can activate it, with no shots fired?
Etc.
Again... the approving authority gets to decide what "engaged" means.
Your opinion on this is just that... your opinion. Different approving authorities have different opinions.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - "For direct attacks such as gun fire, you must return fire unless you were injured."
But by your own admission, a direct attack with a knife would qualify, even if no shots fired and no injury, if you subdue and detain the individual.
I was pointing out that you laid out very SPECIFIC guidelines while the actually requirements are very VAGUE. I have personally seen Commanders use the vagueness to allow BROAD latitude in the awarding of the CIB. I have also personally seen a Commander try to use a similar line of thought when trying to deny a CAB for one of our intel Soldiers who was shot in the head (luckily, the ACH actually worked!) because she didn't fire back.
You were imposing YOUR interpretation. Which is fine - you are allowed to have an opinion, and I am sure you offered your insight to Commanders as is right and proper. But you MUST be aware that this is YOUR opinion, your INTERPRETATION, and ensure that you do not present it as FACT.
But by your own admission, a direct attack with a knife would qualify, even if no shots fired and no injury, if you subdue and detain the individual.
I was pointing out that you laid out very SPECIFIC guidelines while the actually requirements are very VAGUE. I have personally seen Commanders use the vagueness to allow BROAD latitude in the awarding of the CIB. I have also personally seen a Commander try to use a similar line of thought when trying to deny a CAB for one of our intel Soldiers who was shot in the head (luckily, the ACH actually worked!) because she didn't fire back.
You were imposing YOUR interpretation. Which is fine - you are allowed to have an opinion, and I am sure you offered your insight to Commanders as is right and proper. But you MUST be aware that this is YOUR opinion, your INTERPRETATION, and ensure that you do not present it as FACT.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
"What is combat" is becoming ridiculous. Soon you won't be considered a vet if you weren't close enough to throw a grenade and hit the enemy.
You served. Thank you.
You served. Thank you.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
3
3
0
This link has information on what the VA considers to be a combat veteran: https://fight4vets.com/how-can-i-tell-if-im-a-combat-veteran/ . Some states have more or less restrictive defintions. The gist of it is that is that the main 3 ways to determine combat veteran status are:
*If you received a combat service medal
*If you received hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, or tax benefits
*If you received military service documentation that documents combat theater
*If you received a combat service medal
*If you received hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, or tax benefits
*If you received military service documentation that documents combat theater
How Can I Tell if I'm a Combat Veteran? | Eligibility Explained
To learn whether you may be eligible for combat veterans' disability benefits, get in touch with our firm today.
(3)
(0)
CPO Ed Hoover
Even though I served on two aircraft carriers, in '67 &'68, in the Tonkin Gulf, I never considered myself a combat veteran. We did receive special pay, some called combat pay. Could have been classed as hazardous duty pay, or immenent danger pay, whatever. So I guess according to what was mentioned above, I'm a combat veteran!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Here is the long and short of it. Did you have orders that placed you with the unit that was in the combat zone? If so and you served with that unit, whether you saw combat or not, you are a combat veteran. Anyone that says different needs to back their BS up with a regulation that is current.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
There should be Army Ribbons for soldiers that designate combat
"in country" and combat engagement.
"in country" and combat engagement.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SFC James Corona
That's my NCO opinion.
Now a point of clarification. Since sokdiers may be OVERUN by the enemy as in WW II where cooks and typists beca.e "infantrymen" then that's an exception for COMBAT ENGAGEMENT RIBBON CLASSIFICATION.
Now a point of clarification. Since sokdiers may be OVERUN by the enemy as in WW II where cooks and typists beca.e "infantrymen" then that's an exception for COMBAT ENGAGEMENT RIBBON CLASSIFICATION.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Did the Army give you a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon)?
If one of those iraqi missiles flew over head it sounds like they should have.
If one of those iraqi missiles flew over head it sounds like they should have.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1SG Joseph Yorski, MHS
MAJ Ron Peery Correct, but CAB’s didn’t exist in 1991 and aren’t retroactive.
(0)
(0)
SGT Frank-John Limiero
If that's the Marine equivalent for an Army CIB, I'd agree. However, there's a big difference between an Iraqi missile and an AK 47 bullet over you head.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google