Should you be considered a veteran of a particular campaign, if you have never actually been on the ground there?

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 10:23:35 -0500

I have seen earlier discussion(s) about Vietnam Era Veterans vs. Vietnam Veterans. The later group being ones who actually served in the RVN combat theater of the operations (AOO), or (I assume) the area of responsibility (AOR). This includes ground forces in the AOO, and supporting forces in the (AOR).

The gray area, which always seems to be the area of confusion and often consternation, are those who support the AOO from outside of its boundaries and what type of support are they actually providing.

A few examples:

1. I served all over Iraq, and in Baghdad for 15 months during the Surge. As you know service members in Kuwait, Qatar and other places around the AOR, many of whom never entered Iraq, are (A) considered OIF campaign veterans, and (B) were entitled to the same pay benefits (CZTE - IDP) as we were. Serving in Baghdad, in places like Sadr City the like, I was as times frustrated that my peers on Qatar (who could even drink there) were getting the same benefits that we were. I think the only difference was they could not award combat awards and decorations.

* During a really bad time (week) during the surge, I got a photo from a buddy on email, who was on the 6 month CENTCOM rotation into Qatar, of him sitting in a Jacuzzi drinking a beer, in Qatar. I know they received CZTE, but not sure about IDP. But, they are OIF campaign veterans like me. That still bothers me. Yes, I know I need to let it go.

2. During Allied Force, USAF pilots were flying bombing missions from Aviano Italy into Kosovo and back in the same day. I don't think they qualified for any pay benefits aside from what they get normally, but there was a big "to do" when they tried to award combat medals to USAF personnel who never left Italy or EUCOM HQ (Stuttgart).

3. Today B2 Bombers fly from Missouri to current combat theaters and back in 24 hours... Are they OEF veterans? Should they be?

I am not saying only ground forces deserve credit, as I believe both those serving in the theater on ground, as well as those who provide direct support into or over the combat theater deserves the same campaign credit. Examples would be USN or USAF flying missions into the area, but returning to bases/carriers outside the AOO or even AOR. Blue water Navy providing support in the AOR etc. I suspect there are many I don't see or know about as a Soldier.

I am sure you have many examples, and I have my opinions, which are based on my experiences. I am interested in what you think, so I can broaden my perspective.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 1 at 2015 11:19 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:19:49 -0500

Those who have been under fire know what they accomplished in the AOs that they served, those that didn't, also know...since areas were designated as being a combat area, however fair or unfair it may seem, if someone served there they are "entlitled" to being a veteran as opposed to an "era veteran". My brother(Army) and brother-in-law(Navy) are DS/DS veterans due to their service in the AO, I am a DS/DS-era veteran since I was stuck and Ft Carson and did not deploy. I deployed for OIF twice, '03 & '05, and spent a year in Kuwait as part of ASG-Ku in support of OIF/OEF/OND and drew the pay and benefits of which you speak about. I do not view my service in '10-'11 any less than I did the first two trips over and hold no ill will towards anyone who was sent to those positions during time of conflict when Kuwait/Qatar or the other places were designated as hostile areas. but that is only my opinion and view of things.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 4:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:17:48 -0500

I think a lot of disgruntled former military members who never set foot outside CONUS now casually refer to themselves as "Vietnam Vets" where they should set the record straight as "Era" vets. If they deployed to a combat area, but not actually in Vietnam, in support of combat, then it gets tricky...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 5:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:09:40 -0500

No. A Veteran is a Veteran. The only place the "era" matters is at the VA Hospital.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 9:10 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:10:33 -0500

I'm from the "Cold War Era". No wars or deployments. To me Veteran is Veteran. I hold folks who have been "in country" to a higher regard.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 1 at 2015 10:05 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:05:48 -0500

Sir, I'm going to start with the Navy guys because this is the simplest one to answer.

On the Blue side (Shipboard), they don't have "ground" on which they can go, so we have to use the "surface" or surrounding waters as their equivalent. Starting with ships that have a direct fire mission (like a Battleship i.e. USS New Jersey), they are absolutely equal in every way to someone who was in country performing the same task, like an Artillery battery.

To expand on that, if a Carrier Group is launching their Air Wing from 20 miles off shore, is that any different than launching it from twenty miles in any other direction from the target, from an expeditionary air field from inside the country? What about any of the support ships, etc. I think they are all the same.

Now as for the Air Force, and farther reaching missions, I can definitely understand where you are coming from. However remember all it takes is "one bad day" and that routine mission turns into something else. I don't have nearly the time in that you do, Sir, but 99% boredom and paperwork for 1% of bat@$% craziness that you just can't plan.

Now personally, I fall under weirdness when it comes to the classifications. I "officially" became a "Combat Veteran" (VA Classification) when I stepped foot in Kuwait during the Cease Fire. It was a non-active zone. There were no active hostilities going on, but Saddam was still running around being a knucklehead and posturing, and we were still issuing the National Defense Medal from the first Gulf War (making me a Gulf War Era Veteran, VA Classification for that time frame before they changed it). The entire area (Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, etc) was "Imminent Danger" (not Hostile Fire) and Tax Free zone. Now with the way the dates have been shifted around, I was actually in the Gulf on my second deployment which had I not ever stepped foot on land would have given me the other VA classifications (Persian Gulf itself was designated a combat zone).

Now do I call my self a "Combat Veteran?" No. Am I a Gulf War or a Gulf War(s) Era Veteran? That's where things get really tricky. I wasn't there for Desert Storm. I don't ever claim to be. I was there during the ceasefire, and during actual operations tied to the war. I have a Campaign medal for being there.

Edit: for clarity

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 10:09 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:09:33 -0500

I think this is a good discussion. There are many opinions that I have seen on the subject. I believe like others have stated that a veteran is a veteran but I do not like hearing from others about how much it sucked doing six months at Al Udeid. I put them above someone that has never deployed but below others that have had worse. I think it all goes down to how they act about their service, yes you played a part, do not exaggerate it. This is the same way I feel when I see someone with a bronze star vs. a bronze star w/ valor. You can also notice others that have earned a Combat Action Badge or Combat Action Ribbon.

I do believe that USAF pilots and UAV operators are deserving of their medals because of the effects on the mission but not entitled to additional pay benefits of equal status for individuals in harms way. I will say I do not envy the UAV operators because their job is in high demand, high stressed and would in no way want to do it myself.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 10:31 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:31:19 -0500

Sir, it is a slippery slope to start defining veterans and combat veterans. Next it may be only soldiers awarded a CAB will be considered a campaign veteran.

My O/CT unit was mobilized for a year to support pre-deployment training during the surge. Granted, we were not in the danger zone, but the 24-7 op tempo and 16 hour days were just as demanding as many who were providing support in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Army recognized, to some degree, the added sacrifice of deployed vets through increased pay, and more awards and recognition.

Response by MSgt Jim Pollock made Mar 1 at 2015 11:11 PM

MSgt Jim Pollock — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 23:11:14 -0500

My thoughts on the topic:

1. Honorable service of any type makes you a veteran.

2. Award of the NDSM makes you a veteran of that era(s).

3. Your question specifically--if you earned a campaign medal, you may rightfully claim to be a veteran of that campaign.

It gets stickier from here. The next level would be "combat veteran." In some cases badges and awards make that status obvious, e.g. Purple Heart Medal, CIB, Combat Action Medal, valor awards, etc. In others not so much. Is a B-2 pilot putting bombs on target flying from Missouri engaging in combat? Debatable.

The thrust of the debate is not what appears on your DD-214. The criteria for those entries are made at leadership levels that far exceed the pay grades 99% of us will ever achieve. What constitutes the AOR or imminent danger zones are sometimes liberally defined. That isn't the fault of rank and file folks that earn special pay or campaign awards.

What really matters--and is in the control of every veteran---is being honest and ethical about how one describes their service. So, if you earned an Iraqi Campaign medal, feel free to say so. On the other hand, if you never left Qatar, say that as well.

We don't get to choose where (or if) we deploy, so there is no shame in admitting bullets weren't flying over your head everyday. That said, integrity is a big part of being a service member or veteran. Folks involved in the "shooting war" everyday deserve their special recognition. The onus is on us as veterans to ensure that honor remains intact and never allow a misunderstanding that might grant us honors we didn't earn.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 1 at 2015 11:44 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 23:44:03 -0500

Sir, there is a huge difference even in theater!

Many stay on the superfobs and never EVER leave the safety of the amenities that life on camp provides while very few are actually taking the fight to the enemy whether that is through the pursuit of the insurgency or the route clearance teams, the SFAATs, the logistics patrols and etc.

Example: I remember a mission during the OIF Surge going to Al Asad Air Base (we were fighting the insurgency in Hit, Iraq), we were nasty, sweaty, stinky and hungry....the looks other service members gave us was of disgust....they could not relate....one Gunnery Sgt asked one of my gun truck operators why he was driving around with a weapon in the turret.

So even though folks are in the "war zone", the level of exposure to risk varies tremendously....and most will never have the opportunity to have another human being in their sights or have to pull the trigger

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 2:02 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 02:02:27 -0500

FML....gonna try this again. I'm trying to respond without turning this into a biography.

Essentially, I wouldn't worry about the "OEF vet" part. OEF covered my two times mobilizing here in the US. For me, I just tell people I "mobbed in 09-10 to Fort McCoy, 12-13 to Camp Shelby. Volunteered, but never deployed." I feel the need to say "volunteered", otherwise there are people that either think you volunteered for the CONUS missions because you're a coward and didn't want to go, or because you're just in it for the bennies and never wanted to deal with the shit that comes with the threat of being shot at. Most civilians assume the former, and the initial response from some veterans is the latter....when in reality, neither is true.

Generally, before people go into bragging rights, the question is always "really, where were you?" Anyone who says "Qatar" is automatically out of the running for worst deployment ever....unless of course you are talking to someone like me that never deployed. Additionally, the non-combat times receive decreased post-tour benefits when compared to combat veterans. If I recall, the "generalized" time in the VA is 2 years for non-combat vets (probably CONUS/Germany only, but uncertain about Qatar) and 5 years for those qualifying for combat tours. There are a few other perks that are not available to non-combat theater vets too.

To address the rest of your question, I wouldn't object to a pilot receiving some sort of combat pay for providing sorties in. Although this theater didn't have much air-opposition or AA/SA, there were I think 25 aircraft shot down during the Gulf War and there have been pilots killed as a result of ground fire in both campaigns.

I could possibly expand more on other points, but ultimately I wanted to answer the question without delving into some of the associated issues that don't pertain to the original question.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 7:02 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:02:42 -0500

This is some of great contention. I will say No. I have ran into a Navy veteran in person that told me he served in Iraq. I informed him that I did too. So I asked what city he said the (Arabia) Gulf. I pretty much walked away. I didn't want to wear some lame ass excuse about how the water next to the country was the same thing.

If you fly in and out, I will give you that. If you drive in and out, I will give you that. But if you never even been to the country you are not a veteran of that country. If you went to support OIF and never left Kuwait you may be an OIF veteran, still I think this is a stretch. If you never went into Iraq you are not an Iraqi Veteran.

If you were to say that you were a Iraqi Veteran and never went into Iraq I would say that is an exaggeration and borderline stolen valor. If you were in a nearby warzone that is something different but I can't say that Kuwait has been a war zone, except for Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 2 at 2015 7:11 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:11:31 -0500

I will stand by a veteran is a veteran is a veteran.

Now that I got that out of the way I do not agree with people claiming they have been to the AOR/AOO when they never left their office in the States or Europe. Yes supporting the mission from afar is what everyone does in the military does.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 3:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:19:21 -0500

COL Charles Williams The farther I am away from it, the more I do not find utility in the discussion (I like that we discuss this here, I am referring to the utility of separating our service based on "what I did" versus "what you did").

Short of any information that your buddy in Qatar manipulated the system to get the hot tub job over a more dangerous assignment, my larger, more holistic view is that a veteran served where they were assigned and what happened, happened. One of the most infamous units of the initial invasion was (in terms of the overall plan) a unspectacular support unit, one who made the wrong turn and became the face of the dangers of combat to the public up until Jessica Lynch was rescued and her fellow soldiers' bodies were recovered.

As SSG Private RallyPoint Member said, "A veteran is a veteran." I support them all and I appreciate them all. Deep down, I am thankful for the sacrifices made by those that had more difficult times by me; I equally internalize the appreciation I have for those who had an easier time of it, believing that if they were asked to support me in some of the "not so nice" places I served, they would not have hesitated a minute.

Good topic. My two cents...

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 2 at 2015 8:45 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:45:09 -0500

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Think about the Navy/CG/USMC. Many of our ships are involved in the campaigns. Yet most of the ship's company never leave the ship. Should they be excluded?

What about ships in a support role? I was on USS SHENANDOAH (AD44) for Provide Comfort. We were providing maintenance and logistics to the operational units. We got the SWASM, KLMK and MUC for that tour...

Response by SFC Eric Hendrickson made Mar 2 at 2015 10:32 PM

SFC Eric Hendrickson — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:32:18 -0500

This is not against you Sir

A lot of it boils down to pride and ego. Some, not all, feel if you didn't have it harder than them or equal to them, you are not worthy. It is hard to decide what exactly "directly supported" could mean.

If that 42A on rear detachment processes your paperwork and awards, etc... Did they not directly support the operation? If you dismiss that idea and say they never entered the actual country, well neither did that bomber at 52K feet who dropped all his payload and flew home.

But he/she crew are now and will always be "combat veterans". Like it or not it isn't your place to say they are not. Some people today seem to have so little pride in what they have accomplished they must belittle and degrade the contributions of others to feel superior.

Certain groups feel they are the only one who deserve recognition, such as when the CAB came out. So it seems being attacked on convoys or other missions is different from being attacked in certain other MOS's, what do I know right?

But yet when that medavac bird flies in and picks up your comrades and my Apaches fly security and kill everything around you. Get shot and come home to me to be repaired. Or those other MOS's keep you supplied etc...This somehow makes them "less" of a vet than you?

Too many people can only look at life through their filter and it leaves them lacking.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 10:36 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:36:19 -0500

Sir,

I think this is absolutely a valid question. As has already been mentioned it is also an emotionally charged discussion. I deployed in 2011 with Operation Enduring Freedom orders to Kuwait and ran convoy escort missions throughout Iraq. In total I ran 18 missions and made it as far north as Joint Base Balad. I've had fellow service members based in Iraq argue that I'm not an "Iraq war veteran" because I was based in Kuwait. In most cases I had spent more time "outside the wire" than they had. While I feel I earned my ICM, I will admit I found staff weenies who never set foot in Iraq being awarded the ICM irritating.

In my opinion our pilots should qualify, especially those in a ground support role. The fact that they're in the air v. on the ground shouldn't matter. They're still operating in a combat zone. The loggies and maintainers either on a ship or airfield miles away I think fall into a separate category. While they're supporting the effort, they are not sharing the same risks nor are they entering any portion of the combat zone. For our naval brethren in the gulf I believe the GWOT-E medal would be more appropriate. They're deployed, but not into a designated combat zone. Likewise I believe the GWOT-E would be a more appropriate award for those stationed in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The drone operators ar the most difficult to define. While they're operating their equipment in a combat zone, there is inherently zero risk involved with their job. One could also argue that if they're OIF/OEF veterans that Cyber Warfare troops could also qualify. I'll have to think more on that specific point.

I've never understood the rationale behind Veterans claiming "Cold War Era" or "Viet Nam Era" status. I have a coworker who wears one of the two ball caps to work every day. It's certainly hard to imagine someone claiming "GWOT ERA" Veteran status 20 years from now. I have met a number of Cold War era and post Desert Storm era vets who say they feel overshadowed by the recent influx of Combat Veterans, so perhaps that's part of it. In my opinion they should just be proud to be "Veterans."

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 11:08 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:08:18 -0500

Number two seems like it would make sense for those pilots to receive combat awards even if their base is elsewhere. They were flying combat missions are they not?

As for your over all piece... I dunno sir, I think it's a bit of a mess the way the VA handles it. Different eras seem to be targeted for different programs and entitlements, so having us categorized helps the VA sort us, but there's something to be said for actually being boots on the ground in country. Toughie. I'll have to roll this around in my brain housing unit.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 3 at 2015 11:41 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:41:07 -0500

Thanks for all your comments and insights

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Nov 17 at 2015 4:24 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:24:43 -0500

I struggle with the question myself. I don't think I deserve the same benefits as a combat wounded Veteran.

Response by PO1 Bill Adams made Nov 17 at 2015 4:33 PM

PO1 Bill Adams — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:33:19 -0500

If not then 99% of the US Navy aren't Veterans. We don't do "ground", it's really hard on the ship's screws. (Propeller to you non-nautical types.)

Response by SGT Jay Ehrenfeld made Nov 19 at 2015 8:25 PM

SGT Jay Ehrenfeld — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:25:35 -0500

Col Williams,
You are in the Combat Zone until the end of the war. When Congress authorized the war and end the war between those times consider war you are authorized to wear that combat medal. only people can wear the support medal when they are not actual on the ground in Iraq.

Response by SSG Rob Kumpf made Nov 19 at 2015 9:15 PM

SSG Rob Kumpf — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:15:14 -0500

If you weren't there, you weren't there... it's as simple as that. If you served during OIF/OEF but never left the US, you're a veteran, but you're not an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran.... same goes for all wars... and not everyone who served in theater is a "combat veteran" either. The only place any of this matters in at the bar or the VA.

Response by PO1 Bill Adams made Nov 20 at 2015 9:15 AM

PO1 Bill Adams — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:15:49 -0500

The powers that be have already made the clarification. If you got the campaign medal, you are a Whatever Vet. If you didn't get the campaign medal, you are a Whatever Era Vet.
Things like combat action medals designate whether you were in combat or not.

I served during Vietnam, but not IN Vietnam. Didn't get the campaign medal, so I'm a Vietnam Era Vet.
I served off the coast of Beirut in 83. I got the Campaign medal. So I'm a Beirut War Vet. According to Congress and the VFW, if you have that campaign medal you are a combat vet. I participated in NGFS shoots on enemy targets. That in my eye is what makes me a combat vet.

I served in the Persain Gulf before the Iraq War. I felt a lot more in danger there than I did off Beirut. Still wondering why no medal or anything else was issued for that. We were in a war zone, it just wasn't (at that time) our war, even though American sailors died in a missile attack, and another American ship damned near sank after hitting an Iranian mine. Sometime the powers that be do things we don't understand.

Don't get me started on Hondurus.

So far as Air Crew that flew missions over the fighting. Absolutely are combat vets.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 20 at 2015 2:14 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:14:21 -0500

If you are in CENTCOM and never stepped in Iraq or Afghanistan, then one should be credited with participating in a CENTCOM campaign.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Nov 22 at 2015 6:21 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:21:20 -0500

Great issue! I came on active in Dec 71. Vietnam was on. You could not volunteer or be assigned out of tech school, so I was sent to MacDill. Me being at MacDill freed up a body to go TDY to Vietnam for 179 days. Those guys got TDY pay and per diem for hitting any one of those bases. It was a great deal -- so are they combat vets? I directly supported them, so am I? I don't know so I just consider myself a Vietnam Era vet, but that's me. I was clearly a Cold War Vet from USAFE service in the 80s, but I don't know if that counts -- it wasn't "peace" just nobody shooting yet. Of course there was no "rear area" like WW II or something. Which asks is there a rule or guideline? "How close do you have to be to actual physical dangers?" Is there a proximity rule? I was in Baghdad in July 2006 when the building I was in was hit by sustained mortar fire and I got some detritus blown in my face when a round landed in the court yard and blew in the window. Does that count as combat? I'm not shooting, I wasn't even carrying a sidearm. I was a civilian contractor, but retired? So am I a combat vet? I have no idea. I only know I served. I'm glad I didn't piss myself.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Nov 23 at 2015 12:26 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:26:50 -0500

I worked at the US embassy in Kuwait from 2000-2003 and my ancillary duties included (but not limited to) diplomatic clearances and protocol. I noticed that General Officers (especially Nat'l Guard) would come to "visit the troops" and made arrangements to arrive on the 30th of a month and depart on the 1st or 2nd. We all KNEW this was so they could collect 2 months of tax free "combat zone" pay. This happened in Afghanistan (we gave those clearances as well). While perfectly legal, do we consider these guys (and their very large staffs) combat vets? Also, and this really annoys me: What about political aspirants who become "guard bums" who cherry pick active duty tours to combat that will require never leaving the FOB and then they go out after an action and take "there I was photos." I can understand the first thing, but I really hate those "posers." Your thoughts Sir?

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Nov 24 at 2015 11:31 AM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:31:09 -0500

I served two months in West Berlin before the wall fell. I received an Army of Occupation Medal w/orders. I am considered by the US Gov. and considered myself a WWII Vet. Of which I am very proud to have served in the same war 3 of my grandparents were in the services. :)

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Nov 25 at 2015 1:51 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 13:51:29 -0500

It's a tricky question. For instance in Vietnam there were:
31 B-52's lost, 17 in combat.
2 SR-71's
859 or so Aircraft carrier based aircraft.

Now I'm not sure about the B-52's but conceivably the other two might have never set foot on the soil of Vietnam.

So, how do you quantify them as "Combat Veterans"? Did the supply Sergeant based in Thailand, Japan, or CONUS who made sure the guys on the ground had "boots, beans, and bullets" contribute less to the operations?

I struggle with this personally, I was a REMF in the 101st during Desert Storm, I fixed CH-47 engines. I didn't volunteer boldly to put myself in harms way, I was just in the right (or wrong) place at the right time. When I got orders for Ft Campbell they originally had me going to the 160th and I would have missed Desert Storm altogether.

I hung out with the Infantry and 5th group, I tried to learn as much from them as I could in case I ever found myself in a firefight. I found myself in situations where I feared for my life. Do I deserve to wear the combat patch? I'm proud to. Do I feel like I deserve special benefits from the VA, free healthcare, maybe a pension or disability check? Not really. If I found myself homeless, it would be my own doing and not because of something that happened to me while I was in the Army.

Response by TSgt Christopher K. Hartley made Nov 25 at 2015 2:25 PM

TSgt Christopher K. Hartley — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:25:01 -0500

I can't speak for all the branches but I can tell you that it took all of our era personnel to help us accomplish our mission in country. This is a significant issue with those of us who were USAF. let me try to explain it by giving an example of something that confronted us all the time. We would continuously hear something like this from the Army and Marines: "What would you guys know about combat, you're just Air Force. Supprising though that we didn't hear it from Special Forces guys...why? Because they knew what we went through to support them and in many cases the price we paid to do it.

Just my opinion, but it takes all of us doing our jobs to complete the mission. We tell a story on our website about how the First Air Cav recognized the work we did to help them complete their mission. I BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE PROPER ATTITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR ALL, WE ARE HEADED NOWHERE.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Dec 2 at 2015 12:35 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:35:19 -0500

You go where you are ordered. Everyone is a REMF to the guy walking point. No use getting mad at the people who have it easier than you and get the same campaign ribbons.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Dec 2 at 2015 10:07 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:07:12 -0500

You know, whatever the criteria are and having the orders for it. You got the "medal".

It may sound offensive , but I consider the whole GWOT as kind of joke, especially if talking of being "over there" . For the most part there is/was a greater chance of getting killed in the USA than actually being over there , by the numbers. It was certainly that way during the first "Gulf War" But I digress. Bill Maudlin made a fine comment about "who is in the rear?" and such.

As to Vietnam. I would think people who were over there have the right to call themselves Vietnam Vets. People who did not go to Vietnam should say I was in during Vietnam War or a Vietnam ERA Vet.

Back to your other stuff. I have an Army of Occupation Medal for service in Berlin for 57 days in 1987. That was considered a "war zone" of WWII up until 90. Guess what that makes me as far as the US gov is concerned.
Do I call myself a WWII vet? Yes I do, but I explain why, and also that I am honoured to be connected with my 3 WWII Vet grandparents now long deceased.

You know the army is a crapshoot, some people get medals for nothing and others who did extraordinary things recieved nothing. The thing is getting the paper for it. Some people get easy street and right next door hell to pay. Don't begrudge others or yourself. You know the truth.

Response by LTC Thomas Helsel made Nov 22 at 2016 12:24 PM

LTC Thomas Helsel — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:24:27 -0500

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2017 11:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 11:46:50 -0500

Saying someone isn't a true combat vet because they stayed in the FOB for entire deployment is petty. Extremely petty. Everyone has a role to play. Yes, people like cooks will most likely never seen hands on combat, however, if EOD team, and my security members were out past chowhall hours, they would save us some hot food. In my eyes that means a lot, cause now we get some hot chow and not eating an MRE.

Response by LCpl Jaime N. made Jan 8 at 2017 12:25 PM

LCpl Jaime N. — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 12:25:12 -0500

They get the same because there is still a chance that they can be involved. Look at Ballad in 2004, They may have never left base but the threat was still there. Even in Qatar, they are surrounded by possible enemies. Yes, Qatar isn't going to be the ones attacking, but groups like Al Qaeda or Isis can be anywhere. It's not if the check was cashed, it was the fact that they were willing. Yes, USAF is always going to have it easier, it's what they do, but they are still there and willing and deserve to be counted.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jan 8 at 2017 1:31 PM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 13:31:36 -0500

If your at a FOB and your getting mortared and rocketed 3-4 times a week I think you'd qualify as a combat vet.

Response by CSM William Payne made Jan 8 at 2017 4:12 PM

CSM William Payne — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 16:12:58 -0500

Soldiers don't decide the area considered the combat zone, the pentagon does. One can argue what is a combat veteran but not a campaign veteran, that's way above our pay grade. This being said, the Green Zone was rocketed 444 times in the year I was in Iraq also during the surge, 2006 - 2007. Three were killed at the Palace when a round exploded in the trees. The unit that replaced mine lost two when round hit the gym at Phoenix Base. There is a reason Soldiers are collecting hazardous duty pay. Not all risk is created equal, all give some and some give all. Tell the families of those above that were killed that they were not in the combat zone. Some of the units that took the highest casualties earlier in the war were transportation units moving supplies up from their base camps in Kuwait to FOBS in Iraq.

Response by CSM William Payne made Jan 8 at 2017 4:14 PM

CSM William Payne — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 16:14:14 -0500

Soldiers don't decide the area considered to be the combat zone, the pentagon does based on several criteria.

One can argue what is a combat veteran but not a campaign veteran, that's way above our pay grade.

This being said, the Green Zone was rocketed 444 times in the year I was in Iraq also during the surge, 2006 - 2007. Three were killed at the Palace when a round exploded in the trees.

The unit that replaced mine lost two when round hit the gym at Phoenix Base. There is a reason Soldiers are collecting hazardous duty pay. Tell the families of those above that were killed that they were not in the combat zone.

I had convoy teams that went outside the wire several times a week that were fortunate enough to have just a few minor injuries but the unit they replaced lost a hummer to an IED with a Soldier lost. The DEFAC at MNSTC-I was named after him.

Some of the units that took the highest casualties earlier in the war were transportation units moving supplies up from their base camps in Kuwait to FOBS in Iraq.

Not all risk is created equal; all give some and some give all.

Response by SCPO John Wood made Jan 8 at 2017 9:47 PM

SCPO John Wood — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 21:47:58 -0500

Great...now we have identity politics in the military....

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Jan 9 at 2017 12:58 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:58:37 -0500

Interesting how some still think in linear, or two dimensions, when modern warfare is asymmetric. A civilian enjoying a latte in Paris, as events have demonstrated, has been selected as a legitimate target by our adversaries. Here's a little perspective; During WWII, the Germans launched V-1 and V-2 missiles killing about 7,900 people and injuring thousands more. During the 1991 Gulf War, an Al Hussein missile hit the barracks of the 14th Quartermaster Detachment, a U.S. Army water purification unit, killing 13 and wounding 43. Both were "in the rear with the gear." One of these two groups were classified as non-combatant, that didn't stop them from being targeted.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2017 8:30 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:30:34 -0500

If the guys on the ground want to define who is a veteran, that is fine. It does not bother me. Is the debate productive? No. It's like the running back dismissing the kicker's role. Does the kicker take the beating? No. Is the kicker important? Definitely. We all have our job in the military. So long as we do it well, we will continue to be the best.

Response by PO1 Francis Coarr made Jan 9 at 2017 9:50 AM

PO1 Francis Coarr — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:50:00 -0500

Yes, participation in actively supporting the efforts while in the Combat AOR makes you a Veteran of that Campaign, Period. Actually facing Direct Fire from the Enemy would define a Combat Veteran. The Military recognizes Valor and Achievement by awarding Medals and Badges, Unit Participation with Ribbons, and Civilian Participation with Pay. Where the geographic line is drawn that defines the AOR is where those that are in command determine there is direct involvement with the campaign and are under the operational command of the campaign commander.

Being an Infantryman, Aircrew, or Special Operator is choosing to be the Tip of the Spear. There is only the highest respect for your service from your fellow veterans. Nobody should diminish the efforts of all those support forces that made it possible the campaign could be victorious, even if they were able to enjoy a beer in a hot tub after work.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2017 9:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:43:50 -0500

I think whatever someone did in their service and what they say they did doesn't affect me and doesnt change my service one iota.

Remember that poster in some gyms or locker rooms, someone, somewhere is trainng while you're resting? Well someone somewhere has a story or experience harsher than yours. This fact doesnt change anything, cause its all relative.

Just realized how snarky this sounds, sorry about that, but still true.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2019 9:22 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:22:46 -0400

A Veteran is a Veteran of a campaign for which they received credit. They served where they were assigned. None is more than another, except in their own mind.
With regard to those who exaggerate, or outright lie, about their experiences, it doesn't bother me because it is their shortcoming. It is nothing new, and isn't limited to military service.
For your entertainment, the VA considers combat duty anywhere since 1990, as the Gulf War period, not as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. For the VA, Vietnam Era period is February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975. So, that's one of the sources of the Vietnam Era Veteran who never served in combat. It's based on law.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2019 10:00 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:00:21 -0400

Bottom Line is if you served Boots on ground with in the boarder of Iraq and Afghanistan they receive that award and also those that served in territorial waters, that is the instruction anyone who served in support in those areas, like Kuwait received the GWOT-E Global War On Terrorism - Expeditionary Medal, This is why GWOT-E was created.

Response by SP5 Grover Crail made Mar 12 at 2019 8:27 AM

SP5 Grover Crail — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:27:28 -0400

So, a question. More from a Vietnam day than now but trust me some things never change. The military had (has) units operating in several locations within Thailand and according to government lore at the Thai's invitation. Regardless if you look at a map of the region you will clearly see some of those locations were air bases for 52's and some for other fighters. THEN there were the places where American soldiers spent 24/7365 listening to not only Charlie but his Asian cousins. With this info air and ground troops were supplied with locations of "shall we say bad guys that might need to meet their maker" Frequently if you ask the right person for an after action report you could obtain the estimate of given KIA on info you had helped provide. Does that make that person any less a true vet? Did they pound the ground? No. Do they have nightmares? Oh hell yes. As for me and my hypothetical situation I promise those "kids" flying drones and blowing up things they can't always clearly see will someday ask the same questions.:/ I am Damn proud of the 4 years and 9 months I voluntarily served my country and to me it is all a moot question. I AM A DAMN VET. Regrets-yep. Would have been nice if just anybody but my family would have said welcome home but even that I mostly understand, at least now.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Mar 12 at 2019 11:11 AM

SSgt Terry P. — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:11:42 -0400

COL Charles Williams This is an old post. In Vietnam,those involved in an Operation were not necessarily the only ones there fighting.Being in country and combat did not include you in a specific Operation.There were Operations carried out by different units in different areas of the country.Even when you were in that area and came under fire,you were still not classified as being involved in that particular Operation. I know this doesn't clarify,but that is the way it worked.

Response by LCpl Russell Wallace made Jul 16 at 2019 3:12 PM

LCpl Russell Wallace — Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:12:59 -0400

No. Why is this a question?

Response by SFC Michael Arabian made Sep 28 at 2019 9:10 PM

SFC Michael Arabian — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 21:10:24 -0400

Sir, with all due respect, I gave 26 years active duty and 2 in the reserves. During this time i deployed during Desert Storm, during the push forward my vehicle broke down and my TC and I were left behind and later pick up by another unit, while with that unit we came under fire where a round landed less than 50 feet from our vehicle, we later found out it was friendly fire, we didn’t get a CAB, we didn’t have them at that time. Later in my career I deployed to Iraq and assigned to do FOB security never leaving the FOB to go kick in doors so to speak, but ensuring that everyone on the FOB was as safe can be. I was later deployed to Afghanistan were I was to help establish the AAFES exchange on the FOB I was assigned too, as well as serving as the BDE Food Service NCO, only leaving the FOB to do re supply run or to check on the Soldiers on the other FOB, so in your opinion I may not be a “Combat Veteran” because I didn’t get to go kick in doors but I did the jobs that were assigned to me while deployed like them or not

Response by SSG David Stafne made Sep 29 at 2019 2:27 AM

SSG David Stafne — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 02:27:24 -0400

Being in Theater doesn’t equate to being in Combat. If your canteen water doesn’t taste like the dust you’re walking in and you don’t have Rounds pinging off your gear, you’re not a Combat Vet!

Response by SPC Craig Miller made Sep 30 at 2019 11:45 AM

SPC Craig Miller — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:45:15 -0400

Let it go. Your Rambo time would have been a lot worse without the support of those you consider unworthy.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2019 7:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 19:36:24 -0400

Sure you are still a veteran. In the end 99% of that chest candy is worthless. If you don’t have a bronze star with V or higher it’s really just a participation trophy anyway. No need to hate on your fellow service members for something weak like that. I would much rather have hung out going to green beans daily.

Response by SFC Pat Mattson made Oct 1 at 2019 12:18 AM

SFC Pat Mattson — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:18:05 -0400

My thought on this is logistics, it takes multiple soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to support those who have to outside the wire. Some of those who support would rather be outside, however are required for their own missions that make it possible for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to make it out to and back from their successful missions.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Oct 1 at 2019 12:32 AM

SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:32:33 -0400

Some of those people could be mortared. We were behind the Im Jin in Korea and I don’t consider myself a combat vet. Still there were infiltrators. Hair splitting.

Response by Cpl Ed Hines made Oct 1 at 2019 3:08 PM

Cpl Ed Hines — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:08:25 -0400

Oh man. The Asspain this will generate is going to require popcorn...

Response by CPL Jerry E. Bustin made Oct 1 at 2019 7:03 PM

CPL Jerry E. Bustin — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 19:03:28 -0400

I agree with COL. Charles Williams statement above, but add this; I am Jerry E. Bustin, a COMBAT VET!!! What I mean by that, I fire and received returned fire from the enemy. I feel that anyone who gives up civilian life to have spent time in the arm forces is a VET and should receive all benefits accordingly; They earned it just by serving. However, there should be a COMBAT BADGE along with a COMBAT MEDAL for anyone who goes out to battle on a mission or been SHELLED at, period. Then one can tell if you're a regular soldier or one who has BEEN IN COMBAT!!!

If you agree SAY SO with reason...