Please someone, end this debate--war veteran or not.

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn’t know where else to turn for this menial yet so annoying argument that comes up between my husband and father every Veteran’s Day. My father served in the Air Force from 1951-55 during the Korean war. Although he never went to Korea and saw action, he served in England and Africa. My husband served in the Army in 1966-67 and did see action in Vietnam.

My father wears a hat that says Korean War Veteran and my husband says he can’t call himself that because he never was in that country nor saw any action; making my father simply a ‘veteran’—not a Korean War one. My husband says since he Was in Vietnam and fought that he can call himself a Vietnam Veteran.

Please, please, PLEASE, help me with this!!
Thank you!

I believe that your husband's 'take' is the correct one.

If your father holds (or is eligible for) the Korean Service Medal...

...meeting the criteria of the US Dept of Defense as summarized in...

Korean Service Medal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...then he may rightfully call himself a Korean War Veteran.

Otherwise, he must settle for Korean War -ERA Veteran...

To distinguish himself from those who meet the criteria for the Korean Service Medal.

I am fairly certain that this is the legal definition as set down by the US Dept of Defense.

I am entirely certain that this is the ethical thing to do, according to commonly-accepted principles for such categorization, amongst Veterans themselves.

I looked that the VFW website to see how they define it.

If you have received a campaign medal for overseas service; have served 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days in Korea; or have ever received hostile fire or imminent danger pay, then you're eligible to join our ranks.

VFW Member Eligibility

 

[lakeview]

I didn’t know where else to turn for this menial yet so annoying argument that comes up between my husband and father every Veteran’s Day. My father served in the Air Force from 1951-55 during the Korean war. Although he never went to Korea and saw action, he served in England and Africa. My husband served in the Army in 1966-67 and did see action in Vietnam.

My father wears a hat that says Korean War Veteran and my husband says he can’t call himself that because he never was in that country nor saw any action; making my father simply a ‘veteran’—not a Korean War one. My husband says since he Was in Vietnam and fought that he can call himself a Vietnam Veteran.

Please, please, PLEASE, help me with this!!
Thank you!

If things really are as you say then your husband is correct and your father is showing extreme disrespect to your husband, and he knows he's doing it. All of the posters who have said that there is no difference and that a vet is a vet and it's the fact that they could have been called upon to put their lives on the line that really matters...don't listen to them, they're wrong. The VFW doesn't admit members based upon woulda coulda shoulda.

Your father spent 4 years in the service and when he hopped his flight, went home, and took off his uniform the worst memories he had was of warm beer and maybe the occasional stinky British crotch. Perhaps a training accident.

Your husband literally gave his life. I'm willing to bet that a good night's sleep was pretty rare for your husband the 10 years after he separated from the service. Your husband has memories he can never get rid of and cannot ever go back to being even close to the man he was before he saw combat.

There is no comparison between your husband and your father and your father needs to stop being a disrespectful dick, which is exactly what he's being, and stop claiming service that isn't his to claim.

 

[strollingbones]

if you served during a conflict.....but did not see 'battle' ...you are still a vet of that conflict...both are considered veterans...my father's tombstone lists korea.....i swear i never heard him mention a word about being there...there is nothing in all his paperwork etc that shows korea....vietnam ....yes.....but nothing on korea...i have often wondered if someone just slapped korea on cause the service dates?

i just find it hard to believe that he has souvenirs from all these other places but not korea

not everyone serves in battle...but they still serve

 

[strollingbones]

Veteran Benefits

 

[editec]

Pretty simple really.

If you enlisted during the VN conflict you got your National Defence medal, meaning you are a VN era vet.

If you were in country you are a VN vet.

Two different medals, two different distinctions.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I didn’t know where else to turn for this menial yet so annoying argument that comes up between my husband and father every Veteran’s Day. My father served in the Air Force from 1951-55 during the Korean war. Although he never went to Korea and saw action, he served in England and Africa. My husband served in the Army in 1966-67 and did see action in Vietnam.

My father wears a hat that says Korean War Veteran and my husband says he can’t call himself that because he never was in that country nor saw any action; making my father simply a ‘veteran’—not a Korean War one. My husband says since he Was in Vietnam and fought that he can call himself a Vietnam Veteran.

Please, please, PLEASE, help me with this!!
Thank you!

the old man needs to back off a bit

 

[Sunni Man]

I used to work with a guy who always wore a hat that said, Vietnam Veteran U.S. Navy.

Upon questioning, I found out he was just on a ship off the coast of Vietnam and had never set foot in Vietnam.

It really bugged me every time I saw him wearing that hat and wanted to knock it off his head. .

 

[jon_berzerk]

I used to work with a guy who always wore a hat that said, Vietnam Veteran U.S. Navy.

Upon questioning, I found out he was just on a ship off the coast of Vietnam and had never set foot in Vietnam.

It really bugged me every time I saw him wearing that hat and wanted to knock it off his head. .

are they folks who fly drones over Afghanistan out of Arizona war vets

 

[Kondor3]

"...the old man needs to back off a bit"

The only 'saving grace' here is that the Korean War ended 60 years ago - anybody old enough to have fought in it has got to be 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 or beyond, by now. They are old.

Old people CAN be as 'with it' and cognizant and aware and mentally-quick as the rest of us, but, let's face it, a decrease in mental function oftentimes accompanies old age, in whole or in part, materializing slowly over the years or in a relatively speedy onset.

Heck, we've got older colleagues right here amongst us, who are getting up there in years, and can still hold their own with the best of 'em, and that's great, however...

We should probably factor Old Age into the equation, in assessing this old-timer and his views on veteran status.

If, by chance, he is still entirely 'with it', and/or has been making such claims throughout his entire adult life, then, well... he doesn't get any slack, for trying to pad his resume.

The guy may also have other issues which are unknown to us.

And, finally, those who served during WWII were all classified as WWII vets and were all awarded a WWII Victory Medal.

Those who served in Korea were the first generation or batch of veterans who were subdivided into those who GOT a War Ribbon and those who did NOT get a War Ribbon.

He was born-into and raised in an era when - if you served during wartime - you were a war vet - and, I'm guessing, many of those first generation Differentiated Veterans continue to think in the older way about such things, as such things existed while they were growing up.

Vietnam vets - further distinguished with the -Era vs. -War Veteran appellation, had the first-gen Differentiated Vets of Korea between them and the WWII era, so, that the Vietnam Vet generation wasn't expecting that same broad inclusiveness; a narrowing of distinctions that has continued in subsequent wars into our present times.

Not making excuses for the old guy, and I'll be right alongside others in condemning his perspective if he's not suffering from the symptoms of old age, but I feel like I don't have enough insight into the guy's background, to simply condemn outright, and I'm wondering whether this First-Gen Differentiated Veteran business should be factored into the mix, as well. I'm not trying to muddy the waters... just to make sure that we've covered the bases before we allow ourselves to reach a harsher judgment.

Perhaps a gentle slap on the wrist from somebody who loves him will clear that right up.

 

[Kondor3]

I used to work with a guy who always wore a hat that said, Vietnam Veteran U.S. Navy.

Upon questioning, I found out he was just on a ship off the coast of Vietnam and had never set foot in Vietnam.

It really bugged me every time I saw him wearing that hat and wanted to knock it off his head. .

are they folks who fly drones over Afghanistan out of Arizona war vets

You know... I remember something from the past year or two... some modest controversy over the granting of Campaign Ribbons to those REMF's... but I didn't follow the story all the way to the end.

The last I heard, the DoD WAS going to grant them Campaign Ribbons, which seems in direct contradiction to the government's own -Era vs. -War Veteran sub-classification history in recent decades.

Do you remember how the controversy resolved?

 

[koshergrl]

I used to work with a guy who always wore a hat that said, Vietnam Veteran U.S. Navy.

Upon questioning, I found out he was just on a ship off the coast of Vietnam and had never set foot in Vietnam.

It really bugged me every time I saw him wearing that hat and wanted to knock it off his head. .

But that has nothing to do with whether or not he is a veteran.

He served during conflict. That makes him a veteran. It's really not that complicated. What YOU attach to the term is irrelevant to the meaning.

 

[Kondor3]

I used to work with a guy who always wore a hat that said, Vietnam Veteran U.S. Navy.

Upon questioning, I found out he was just on a ship off the coast of Vietnam and had never set foot in Vietnam.

It really bugged me every time I saw him wearing that hat and wanted to knock it off his head. .

But that has nothing to do with whether or not he is a veteran.

He served during conflict. That makes him a veteran. It's really not that complicated. What YOU attach to the term is irrelevant to the meaning.

The bone of contention here, of course, is not whether is he is a veteran or not.

The bone of contention here is the appellations 'War Veteran' vs. 'War-Era Veteran'.

And the extent to which these appellations dominate the thinking of the general public, and define interactions between different categories of veterans, and the way in which a variety of fraternal and government organizations view them, not to mention a shift in recent-decades common parlance and usage.

And, it would appear, there are two strong schools of thought on the subject.

Words and phrases do, indeed, have meaning.

And the meaning of words and phrases changes sometimes, during the course of time and the evolution of language and its usages.

Ultimately, what people UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT a word or phrase to mean, is what it ends-up meaning in the long run, hyper-literalism and intransigence notwithstanding.

We saw the beginnings of such a differentiation in this context with the folks who served in Korea, with some 'era' vets getting a War Ribbon, and others not being entitled to one; rather than everyone getting a Victory medal, the way they did in WWI and WWII.

We saw that differentiation continue and to become more clearly defined in the wake of the Vietnam war, and we saw the differentiation gain an even broader acceptance amongst combat veterans and their fraternal organizations and government agencies that care for them, than we did after Korea.

The 'differentiating concept' was already there after and in connection with Korea - it's just that we didn't have the requisite and popularly-accepted 'labels' for those differences just yet - they were the first generation of veterans to be differentiated in such a way, methinks, and we simply lagged behind a bit in inventing verbiage to describe that new differentiation.

Our collective and broadly-accepted use of the phrases 'War Veteran' and 'War-Era Veteran' reflect that differentiation, which was carried forward into the era of the Gulf War and the Iraq War and the Afghan War, et al.

This is merely Evolution of Usage, and, if it is sufficiently broad and accepted, it becomes part of the lexicon, Websters-be damned.

As very much seems to be the case here.

The OP's husband understands this, being part of that first generation of veterans to deal with both the Differentiation AND the Convenient Handy-Dandy New Labels.

The OP's father either does not understand this Differentiation or new-fangled Truth-in-Advertising Labeling for his own first-gen Differentiation, or seeks to circumvent it.

 

[lakeview]

You know... I remember something from the past year or two... some modest controversy over the granting of Campaign Ribbons to those REMF's... but I didn't follow the story all the way to the end.

The last I heard, the DoD WAS going to grant them Campaign Ribbons, which seems in direct contradiction to the government's own -Era vs. -War Veteran sub-classification history in recent decades.

Do you remember how the controversy resolved?

I don't remember anything about the drone pilots receiving campaign medals but they were going to be receiving something called a Distinguished Warfare Medal. That's been scrapped after veterans groups complained so they will not be receiving those medals.