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

[sharkow53]

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!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't matter what any of us say: they will both continue to argue.

 

[whitehall]

If a person served in the Military during a time of war no matter where he served he is a Veteran of that conflict. The National Defense medal awarded to people who served during certain conflicts is proof that the government acknowledges the fact that every person who served in the Military is a veteran of that conflict. Your father and your husband are both heroes even though it seems that your husband might be a bit of a jerk.

 

[regent]

If a person served in the Military during a time of war no matter where he served he is a Veteran of that conflict. The National Defense medal awarded to people who served during certain conflicts is proof that the government acknowledges the fact that every person who served in the Military is a veteran of that conflict. Your father and your husband are both heroes even though it seems that your husband might be a bit of a jerk.

During WWII I was a rifleman on Bataan, but I always qualify that by adding "the recapture not the loss." I still feel uncomfortable, however, because I think I am adding myself to the original Bataan veterans the ones that were captured, and were subjected to the death march and so on. Maybe just adding a few additional words can keep the record clear and less misleading.

 

[Votto]

Doesn't matter what any of us say: they will both continue to argue.

That does not stop you from posting does it?

 

[Kondor3]

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.

 

[rdean]

Out of respect to those who were in combat, I would never pretend to be one of them. They are at a "higher level" and deserve to be placed on a pedestal. They deserve whatever the country can do for them. Including health care and help getting an education and a job.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...million-veterans-say-happy-veteran-s-day.html

 

[DGS49]

I agree with your husband; Kondor3 has it right. I served in Vietnam as a REMF, but I never refer to myself as a "war veteran," reserving that title to those who actually dodged bullets.

There is nothing wrong with being a Korean War Era Veteran, but it is a step below an actual war veteran.

My father was married with 3 kids by the time he was drafted for WWII, and he served his short hitch in Baltimore. He NEVER referred to himself as a WWII Vet.

 

[usmcstinger]

There is quite a difference between an ERA Veteran and those that served "In Country" during any War.
Those who served in country in actual combat are a very different breed of Veterans.

 

[Kondor3]

There is quite a difference between an ERA Veteran and those that served 'In Country' during any War. Those who served in country in actual combat are a very different breed of Veterans.

Agreed.

Sometimes, they're a helluva lot braver.

Sometimes, they're just the ones who got picked to go in harms' way.

Sometimes, they're (understandably, oftentimes) a lot crazier than the rest.

Sometimes, they just happened to be in-theatre, and never fired a shot, or even saw one fired, but are still entitled to the campaign ribbon.

Sometimes, they were just careerists looking for a CIB to tuck in their 201 file.

Sometimes, they were just plain guys, doing an ugly and damned dangerous job that they were trained to do.

Sometimes - oftentimes - they're our brightest and finest and most fiercely loyal - and our best warriors from amongst all there was to choose from at the time.

As a group, our combat-veterans - and those in-theater ribbon-holders - are all of these things.

But they were there, as boots on the ground, risking more (and sometimes losing far more) than others did.

That, itself, is enough to set them apart and to accord them a special place of honor in the thoughts of their countrymen.

I'm Army. Regular. E4. 11B20, cross-trained and worked as a 64B20, 64C30 [OJT internship] and 71H20 over the course of my single tour (signed-up for 3, out voluntarily in 2 as part of a R[eduction] I[n] F[orces]).

I enlisted and served during wartime but was lucky enough to be sent to West Germany to help stare-down the Rooskies across the wire. Our job was to hold Western Europe long enough for NATO to muster reinforcements to relieve us. In truth, we expected that our asses would be in the English Channel 4-6 weeks after the shooting started - assuming that the rumble remained 'conventional' - but, fortunately, it never came to that.

Although I'm proud to have signed-up to help during wartime - and although I first successfully trained as a ground-pounder - my orders took me into the domain of REMF - outside the war-ops theater no less - which is a lesser status, but I am comforted by the idea that at least I showed-up for the party when my country needed help; however, I always take great care to call myself an '-ERA' (non-combat) veteran to avoid the stigma (amongst my brother and sister veterans) of intentionally claiming to be something that I'm not.

It could very well be that the OP's father either (1) was never properly exposed to that commonly-accepted protocol or (2) is claiming such status now as a byproduct of old-age - rather than trying to puff himself up into something he is not. Could be a perfectly innocent mistake, or a case of old-age and great distance (in time) modestly impairing judgment in the matter. Or, he could be acting like a butthead. At first glance, my money is on a more innocent (albeit mistaken or wrong-headed [in this particular matter]) explanation.

OP... it's my hope that some of this, so far, has been of some help to you, and, of course, your father has our thanks for his service.

 

[koshergrl]

The OP's husband is an asshat, and they are both war veterans.

They served during a war. Whether or not they both saw action, both were enlisted during times of conflict.

 

[koshergrl]

"A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

"in order to be considered a "veteran" for hiring purposes, the individual's service must meet certain conditions:

Preference is given to those honorable separated veterans (this means an honorable or general discharge) who served on active duty (not active duty for training) in the Armed Forces:

• during any war (this means a war declared by Congress, the last of which was World War II).
• For more than 180 consecutive days, any part of which occurred after 1/31/55 and before 10/15/76.
• during the period April 28, 1952, through July 1, 1955 (Korean War).
• in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign medal has been authorized, such as El Salvador, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, Southwest Asia, Somalia, and Haiti.
• those honorably separated veterans who 1) qualify as disabled veterans because they have served on active duty in the Armed Forces at any time and have a present service-connected disability or are receiving compensation, disability retirement benefits, or pension from the military or the Department of Veterans Affairs; or 2) are Purple Heart recipients. "

Veteran Benefits

Tell your asshat husband that by this definition, he isn't a war veteran.

 

[Kondor3]

The OP's husband is an asshat...

I'll let the OP speak to this.

"...and they are both war veterans..."

I believe you to be wrong on two levels, in connection with the father:

1. the more subjective level on which veterans categorize and interact with each other.

2. the more objective level on which the US Dept of Veterans Affairs provides healthcare.

Re: (2) above...

I invite you to examine the VA's own list of Priority Groups for providing healthcare, and to discern the Combat Vet (or Combat-Theater Vet) from the rest, as may be seen on the following VA website page...

Health Benefits :: Priority Groups Table

With special attention to Priority Group 6.

Given (a) commonly-accepted protocols amongst veterans in support of (1) and (b) empirical evidence from an authoritative source (the VA) in support of (2), a solid case can be made for distinguishing between various categorizations of veterans (combat, non-combat [and out-of-theater).

This is a Priority List approved-by and funded-by Congress.

"...They served during a war. Whether or not they both saw action, both were enlisted during times of conflict."

Which is why provision is made for according non-combat/non-combat-theater wartime veterans the special status of -ERA veterans, to set them apart from those who served during a purely peacetime timeframe, yet not on a par with actual combat and combat-theater veterans. An appropriate and righteous distinction.

I have a dog in this fight myself.

I am an -ERA veteran who, as he gets older, finds the idea of calling myself a WAR veteran becoming more attractive and requiring less accountability that it would have in earlier times.

But I keep an honorable faith with both my Younger Self and my brothers and sisters who did either (1) actually fight or (2) serve in a combat zone (war-ops theater), by calling myself what I am... a war -ERA veteran... deserving of any honors or prerogatives applying to such, but acknowledging another and higher class of honors beyond what I earned.

That, too, is an honorable and accurate and correct and righteous stance.

 

[Dante]

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!

Your husband is clueless. He may be a "combat" veteran, but I suspect any ptsd is noncombat related and nonservice related

 

[Dante]

The OP's husband is an asshat...

I'll let the OP speak to this.

"...and they are both war veterans..."

I believe you to be wrong on two levels, in connection with the father:

1. the more subjective level on which veterans categorize and interact with each other.

2. the more objective level on which the US Dept of Veterans Affairs provides healthcare.

Re: (2) above...

I invite you to examine the VA's own list of Priority Groups for providing healthcare, and to discern the Combat Vet (or Combat-Theater Vet) from the rest, as may be seen on the following VA website page...

Health Benefits :: Priority Groups Table

With special attention to Priority Group 6.

Given (a) commonly-accepted protocols amongst veterans in support of (1) and (b) empirical evidence from an authoritative source (the VA) in support of (2), a solid case can be made for distinguishing between various categorizations of veterans (combat, non-combat [and out-of-theater).

This is a Priory List approved-by and funded-by Congress.

"...They served during a war. Whether or not they both saw action, both were enlisted during times of conflict."

Which is why provision is made for according non-combat/non-combat-theater wartime veterans the special status of -ERA veterans, to set them apart from those who served during a purely peacetime timeframe, yet not on a par with actual combat and combat-theater veterans. An appropriate and righteous distinction.

I have a dog in this fight myself.

I am an -ERA veteran who, as he gets older, finds the idea of calling myself a WAR veteran becoming more attractive and requiring less accountability that it would have in earlier times.

But I keep an honorable faith with both my Younger Self and my brothers and sisters who did either (1) actually fight or (2) serve in a combat zone (war-ops theater), by calling myself what I am... a war -ERA veteran... deserving of any honors or prerogatives applying to such, but acknowledging another and higher class of honors beyond what I earned.

That, too, is an honorable and accurate and correct and righteous stance.

Vietnam Era veteran shit popped up as an ideological and political move.

There were Vietnam Vets before the new label Vietnam Era Vets was created.

Whether one saw combat or not, in country or not .. there is a distinction between hostilities and .....ugh, why bother? The draft versus volunteer ... criminals who joined per court order versus true patriotic volunteerism during draft ... could go on... faux service related disability claims ...

 

[Kondor3]

"...Vietnam Era veteran shit popped up as an ideological and political move..."

I've already contributed my bit and don't really have anything to add. The argument(s) will have to stand or fall on their own merits. Looks like you come down in the 'disagree' column. That's fine.

 

[Mojo2]

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 first enlisted in July 1972.

The Viet Nam war 'officially' ended with the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.

I never served in Viet Nam but the government and the VA consider me a Viet Nam war era veteran.

I never claim to be a Viet Nam War veteran.

If it were a situation I was asked to help resolve, I would ask your husband to just humor your Dad. He hasn't many years left and it wouldn't benefit anyone to challenge your Dad with a charge of what amounts to "stolen valor."

 

[regent]

I came home from New Guinea on the navy ship Bountiful. I was a GI now with a bunch of marines from Okinawa and Iwo, all still recuperating. The marines told me they had a simple method for classifying army, as one said, "We only talk to army with the blue thing."
That blue thing being the CIB. I told the marines that was fair, I only talked with marines without the blue thing, they approved. We had some great discussions on the different tactics of the army infantry and the marine corps.

 

[koshergrl]

The OP's husband is an asshat...

I'll let the OP speak to this.

"...and they are both war veterans..."

I believe you to be wrong on two levels, in connection with the father:

1. the more subjective level on which veterans categorize and interact with each other.

2. the more objective level on which the US Dept of Veterans Affairs provides healthcare.

Re: (2) above...

I invite you to examine the VA's own list of Priority Groups for providing healthcare, and to discern the Combat Vet (or Combat-Theater Vet) from the rest, as may be seen on the following VA website page...

Health Benefits :: Priority Groups Table

With special attention to Priority Group 6.

Given (a) commonly-accepted protocols amongst veterans in support of (1) and (b) empirical evidence from an authoritative source (the VA) in support of (2), a solid case can be made for distinguishing between various categorizations of veterans (combat, non-combat [and out-of-theater).

This is a Priory List approved-by and funded-by Congress.

"...They served during a war. Whether or not they both saw action, both were enlisted during times of conflict."

Which is why provision is made for according non-combat/non-combat-theater wartime veterans the special status of -ERA veterans, to set them apart from those who served during a purely peacetime timeframe, yet not on a par with actual combat and combat-theater veterans. An appropriate and righteous distinction.

I have a dog in this fight myself.

I am an -ERA veteran who, as he gets older, finds the idea of calling myself a WAR veteran becoming more attractive and requiring less accountability that it would have in earlier times.

But I keep an honorable faith with both my Younger Self and my brothers and sisters who did either (1) actually fight or (2) serve in a combat zone (war-ops theater), by calling myself what I am... a war -ERA veteran... deserving of any honors or prerogatives applying to such, but acknowledging another and higher class of honors beyond what I earned.

That, too, is an honorable and accurate and correct and righteous stance.

Okey dokie then.

As I said, the dad is a vet.

I, myself, do not let entitlement programs dictate the language to me.

 

[Mojo2]

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.

That's the way I see it, too!