Posted on Feb 3, 2017
I have a co-worker who says they are a veteran but only served 5 months (didn't finish AIT). Would you consider that a veteran?
296K
8.41K
2.84K
2K
2K
0
Posted in these groups: DD214 My Veteran Community
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1499
Posted >1 y ago
Getting out after 5 months because you sprained your ankle and got depressed doesn't make you a veteran. Further, it's a slap in the face to people who have done amazing things to earn that title. So no, your coworker is not a Veteran. She's a quitter.
(841)
Comment
(12)
SGT Jim Humphrey
1 mo
Who cares what sex, this is immaterial. 5 months dose not make a veteran. Leaving after 5 months for any reason other than a medical retirement is just a write off. If you want the title "Veteran" go back and earn it. Be a reserve or NG. This is not something to be given. We give away too much in this country, not this...
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Dan Danser
1 mo
SFC (Join to see) - They paid their money and took their chances, Not their fault they weren't in direct combat!
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Mario Rodriquez
1 mo
I think you should check your facts. Depending on the context of the service you may or may not be considered a Veteran. In federal workforce development programs there are two definitions of Veteran. I believe calling someone a quitter without understanding the facts is not productive. Check the facts!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
I served five years in recruiting and I remember in our recruiting manual stating that you must have completed 180 days of consecutive service to be considered a veteran.
(707)
Comment
(1)
SrA Bruce Banner
2 mo
I was told by my JAG officers at my first base it’s 180 days cumulative otherwise that means Reservists and Guardsmen can never be veterans.
(1)
Reply
(0)
(3)
Reply
(0)
SFC Kevin Childers
3 d
SrA Bruce Banner - hence the contract stating that IADT IS FOR 6 MONTHS. you're right though some reserve or national guard personnel would never be considered veterans. Some unique and/or obscure MOS's or units rarely get called up, short of a major conflict/emergency.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
I would have to say that the person in question cannot be considered a veteran. 1. Did not finish training (AIT), 2. did not get assigned to a unit that was not a training unit . 3. Was not in a combat zone, 4. More than likely did not receive the National Defense Ribbon, 5. Did not receive a ribbon for the Cold War, 6. Their DD214 should be able to answer some interesting questions-like why did they not stay in.
I would have to say that nope. Sparky does not get to be called a veteran.
I would have to say that nope. Sparky does not get to be called a veteran.
(489)
Comment
(4)
SPC John Murray
2 mo
SGT Ron Egan It's pretty aggressive I mean I believe everybody is a veteran the problem is VFW is it's better in to foreign war so you had to serve in combat to be in the vFW you can be in the American Legion .
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Stephen Tuckier
1 mo
Maybe I am over-simplifying this, but when in Basic Training you are a recruit, and when in AIT you are recruit. Upon completion of of BT & AIT you are no longer a recruit, but an Active, Reserve, or NG servicemember/soldier. If you never completed training, you were never a soldier, and therefore, not a veteran. This is not meant to be hard on anyone, it just seems logical to me.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SPC Peter Suedfeld
4 d
SFC Sease: Having enlisted in the Regular Army, I spent three years on active duty, 1955-58, including an overseas assignment for about 1-1/2 years. Service during that period did not qualify me for the National Defense Ribbon; and I've never heard of a Cold War ribbon, although I did get a letter from the DoD thanking me for my Cold War service. I got the Good Conduct Medal and eventually was commissioined in the Air Force Reserve. I assume you would agree that I am a veteran; whether somebody has those ribbons is not a valid criterion
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
2 h
good morning I was in the Army Reserves for a total of 18 yeary 16 of active reserve and 2 in the IRR. Honorably Discharged in Jan.7,2000
(0)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next