U.S. Code: Title 38 needs to be updated to reflect that fact.
Posted on 11/14/2015 7:07:58 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
I always look at it like this.
If you went and completed basic training, served your term (no matter how long/short it was) and were honorably discharged...
You are a veteran.
Now - I know of know term SHORTER than 24 months...
I am a USAF veteran, and I worked in AF Intelligence (in the days it was known as USAFSS). We were the electronic spies. For instance, we identified targets in Linebacker II, better known as the Christmas Bombings of North Vietnam in December, 1972. I was stationed in Asia, but was not “in country” in Vietnam itself. I had an argument with a Navy vet who was on a ship that spent time off South Vietnam (he never left the ship, mind you) because he said I can’t be considered a Vietnam Vet because I was not in country or in the waters off its coast. I told him he could kiss my ass.
Yes you are and thank God for you.
U.S. Code: Title 38 needs to be updated to reflect that fact.
I beleive that 1 year of active duty (title 10) qualifies an individual to all legal veteran benefits including GI bill and VA home loan.
Unless it changed, I think it is 2 years. But the wisifying of the military it could be one day for all I know. In all honesty, I think anyone who signed the papers and served any time in the military should be able to be called a veteran........as long as it is honorable. I know of someone who was discharged after 10 months because of a bad case of cancer.....of course he still had the medical benefits until the cancer was cured. He was not retired or given any exit money.....not enough time, however in this case being called a veteran would be appropriate at least in my opinion.
I am sure he earned them. He was a lowly Captain when he served. How could he get them? I don’t like the guy but I hate how he was crucified for his military service........Now his antics after is a whole other story.
I agree, I spent 10 years in the Army National Guard. Went through basic training and trained for 10 years to be ready if I was called to serve the regular Army. I am not looking for VA benefits but as far as I am concerned I served.
No, it is not the same. Especially, living under UCMJ at all times and basically being a piece of equipment in inventory for .gov.
I only remember someone embellishing his credentials and lying about his service for political purposes when it suited him. I will always consider him a “Frank Burns” from MASH who in the show got a purple heart for a shell fragment in his eye which turned out to be an egg shell and not related to any combat action. Also, I think he was a Navy Lieutenant vice a Captain.
I politely but firmly disagree. Not all who wore a uniform should be considered the same as those who served on AD and in harms way.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect all who served in all capacities- the spear has a long many faceted handle and a wide point that requires many to make it work.
Stratification based on status IS a reasonable method of providing recognition and benefits. Many who spent years or even decades in the reserve components got paid ofr their service via base pay, education, etc whether or not they were deployed in harm’s way. Those who spent even just a few years on AD, again in harms way or not, had a different quality of sacrifice.
, and along with that a different method of recogniction/remuneration for that risk.
As a guy that spent 23 + years on AD, seven combat deployments and untold dozens of other type depolyments, I think I have the crendentials to make a statement.
Sure, I served with RC folks who came and went in some of the same “exercises, all on ADT, not AD. They may or may not have served for the requisite time to be granted full “veteran” status, but that was and is up to them in some degree. Having served in RC units ( as and AD officer) I can attest that RC folks are some of the best we have in uniform- and I vigorously encouraged those that stood out to me to cosdier AD-some did, some did not, some came from AD and had no desire to return due to other pursuits, family, career etc- good on them.
On the other hand, I saw many who were happy to transfer to other units of lessor priority when things heated up, one major in particular stood out- he swapped to a non FSP unit when 9/11 occurred- he vociferously advised his cronies to do the same -to avoid having to “do it for real”. I really wanted to kick the crap out of him, but being the professional I was, I simply let him take those who would not be of real value to other units, the unit I was in deployed to IRQ in 2005 and did well-w/o those malingering turds that liked the extra man-days and UTAs that a FSP1A unit was programmed for.
Like everything else in life, there is stratification and that is good. This flood gate change is not a good thing for our veterans.
Best’
Hope you enjoy this tongue in cheek article on this subject:
What about Hillary Clinton? Does she qualify as a veteran for attempting to join the Marine Corps?
Here’s the actual section: Looks like it’s specific to those entering service after September 7, 1980. Note (b)(1)(B) as what appears to be a loophole to the 24 months.(Course, reading further made my head explode)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/5303A
The American Legion considers me a "Korean era veteran" because I was in service in the US during the Korean war. The VFW considers me a "Vietnam Veteran" because I was in theater for nearly 18 months. I can't count my Korean era service for VFW membership because it wasn't foreign service. The distinction is a useful one.
I’m sure Hillary would qualify. Maybe she could become service connected for chronic liaritis.
My father was able to join the VFW because he spent 30 days in Germany during the Korean War. He spent most of his enlistment as a clerk in NYC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.