U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2017, 02:35 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
3,154 posts, read 1,443,694 times
Reputation: 5500

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
The problem I see with the VA are veterans with no military related issues wanting service. I say the VA is for retired military and those with a service related injury.

I have a brother-in-law who was in the army for 2 years driving a truck in Germany. 50 years later he is looking for VA care. This is disgraceful.

PS
I spent 6 years in the US Navy and I have never been near the VA.
The VA is not for retired military if you do not have a disability. I'm retired with zero disability. If I want retiree health care, it's either Tricare or going to a military base. Or civilian insurance, if you have it. The VA is an option for those who are lower income, but I don't meet the threshold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2017, 02:38 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
3,154 posts, read 1,443,694 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk View Post
Well, I've always felt a little like some of the non-combat vets, that I didn't do much to earn VA benefits. I did, however, use my school bennies, since I donated 4 years of my life to the cause instead of running off to college. I'm a Vietnam era vet, but I spent my "overseas" duty in beautiful Anchorage, AK, sitting at a desk writing histories and puff pieces or at a table playing cards.

I could have volunteered for a tour in Nam, but I didn't. Those who went there, especially those who actually fought there, deserve whatever the the VA can do for them. I know. I served. I gave a few years. But I had a pretty soft job, too.
The GI Bill is not based on wartime service. It's for everyone that served. I used mine to get my Bachelor's degree, even though I came in too late for Vietnam. Unlike using a VA facility, no combat veteran was displaced because I used the GI Bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 02:48 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
3,154 posts, read 1,443,694 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A Stone View Post
Two fine veterans organizations do draw a distinction between " vet" and " combat vet"


American Legion and VFW
The American Legion only requires you to have served during a time of war. The guy who spent three years in Hawaii during whatever war or action is just as qualified to join the Legion as the guy who went in country. The VFW is a little harder to get in, but do a tour in South Korea drinking beer and eating kimchee and you're in. I was in Afghanistan and even the people who never went outside the wire got the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, which gets you into the VFW. There is the Combat Veterans of America and that is a much more exclusive group. That's where you separate the ones that saw battle from the ones that didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 09:22 AM
 
4,227 posts, read 1,297,362 times
Reputation: 7244
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaErik View Post
The GI Bill is not based on wartime service. It's for everyone that served. I used mine to get my Bachelor's degree, even though I came in too late for Vietnam. Unlike using a VA facility, no combat veteran was displaced because I used the GI Bill.


(last sentence)


No combat veteran was displaced because I got my 2 hip replacements and surgery thru the VA Choice program.


If combat vets weren't taking advantage of it.........( numerous articles of money left over and it not being utilized fully ) it is not my fault.


I even was told by the Orthopedic consultant that many vets who needed hip replacement, were eligible for the Choice program, were reluctant to give the OK and decided not to.


Not my fault .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Henderson, NV
476 posts, read 255,681 times
Reputation: 1330
I wouldn't get hung up on the difference (combat or not), but it will always be different on some level.

Our military functions at so many levels and in depths that simply do not allow a single definition of combat to stand unchallenged by any number of people. Frankly, it is so diluted, you are better off relating to what you did as opposed of what someone else did.

I am a veteran who appreciates everyone who honorably serves or served, so please gracefully accept your own honorable service as worthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 11:36 AM
 
1,451 posts, read 447,904 times
Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBTRS View Post
What is your definition of "combat veteran"? I served on a ship in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm and we fought the enemy. I didn't have bullets flying over my head but we were fighting an enemy and they wanted to kill us. Is that "combat"? Many of my shipmates were injured and two of them killed during our preparation to fight the enemy. Many others were injured while conducting combat operations even though the injuries were not directly caused by the enemy.

Or do you feel that ground combat is what constitutes "combat veterans"?

The military is a combat occupation regardless of what you do in the military. You can be ordered at any moment to combat and most in the military serve in dangerous positions regardless of what your job is.
No, that's not a combat veteran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 11:50 AM
 
14,438 posts, read 7,021,071 times
Reputation: 13249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster View Post
No, that's not a combat veteran.
Real question: What does it officially take in the Navy to be a "combat veteran?"


There are darned few sailors in the modern Navy who will actually fall under the sights of an enemy weapon...but still a heck of a lot of opportunities to get killed while supporting combat operations in some ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 12:12 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
22,559 posts, read 33,767,605 times
Reputation: 26086
Combat Veteran Eligibility

Quote:
On January 28, 2008, “Public Law 110-181” titled the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2008”
was signed into law. Section 1707 amended Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1710(e)
(3), extending the period of eligibility for health care for Veterans who served in a theater of combat
operations after November 11, 1998,
Quote:
Veterans, including activated Reservists and members of the National Guard, are eligible if they
served on active duty in a theater of combat operations after November 11, 1998, and have been
discharged under other than dishonorable conditions.
https://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/as...ligibility.pdf

There are probably earlier laws which are applicable for earlier dates.
__________________




Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
3,633 posts, read 3,347,836 times
Reputation: 4027
So basically a navy veteran can be a combat veteran if he or she served in the theater of operations during declared combat operations. That should include many sailors over the recent years. It doesn't matter if you fired a bullet in the operation or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
1,609 posts, read 2,627,754 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
<>Because what we do during peacetime is still dangerous. The USS Fitzgerald could have been struck by a freighter in 2000 instead of 2017 for example. I know that my old company suffered from a training death at the National Training Center and a traumatic amputation at Fort Riley in the years leading up to the Gulf War but suffered zero casualties in Iraq and Kuwait.
Statistically this in not to be overlooked. At one time I read that during the original Gulf War the injury/death rate was lower for the troops stationed in the war zone that it would have been for the same period training back in the States.
"Less drinking, less driving"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top