Who is a "veteran"?

[everforward]

FWIW, I have heard both of the terms 'veteran' and 'combat veteran' utilized among active-duty and retirees here in the US....i.e., those who served that are still with us.

 

Casualties, such as KIA or DOW during combat operations are often referred to as the 'fallen' or 'fallen comrades'

[triplecanopy]

"I'm trying to figure out the basic thing of how do you refer to an individual denoting that they served in the armed forces and did not live to see their discharge date"?

I don't think there is or could ever be a term that would cover all service deaths. There are combat and non-combat. There are accidents in training and not during training. There are suicides and drug overdoses. There are valorous and courageous deaths on the battlefield and those who were killed by an artillery or rocket attack back at base camp while standing in the chow line. How does one put all that into a one word noun that fits all situations? We as a nation honor all those who honorably served both living and dead. Those who did their time and were discharged are known as Veterans.

[stratasfan]

Just now, triplecanopy said:

"I'm trying to figure out the basic thing of how do you refer to an individual denoting that they served in the armed forces and did not live to see their discharge date"?

I don't think there is or could ever be a term that would cover all service deaths. There are combat and non-combat. There are accidents in training and not during training. There are suicides and drug overdoses. There are valorous and courageous deaths on the battlefield and those who were killed by an artillery or rocket attack back at base camp while standing in the chow line. How does one put all that into a one word noun that fits all situations? We as a nation honor all those who honorably served both living and dead. Those who did their time and were discharged are known as Veterans.

 

Again . . . I think you are reading too much in my question. I'm not talking about putting all types of death in service under one name. If "veteran" doesn't denote any person who served in the military (whether they lived to discharge or died in battle), then what does? If Veteran denotes service you survived, then that means there is something to denote service that you didn't survive. And I mean something more than "casualty", which isn't a term to replace veteran).

[Linedoggie]

Different types of veterans

 

Combat veterans who actually fought an armed enemy

 

War  or era veterans who served during wartime but didnt get sent overseas yet still may have faced risk to life and limbs. Difference between say Vietnam Era and Vietnam veterans. same can be said for a AAF instructor in WW2 who never got to an operational unit overseas. Their service is still honorable and should never be considered less because they never got into combat

 

Veterans who served Honorably during peacetime

[stratasfan]

Try looking up "Is a KIA soldier considered a veteran" . . . you won't find an answer either. They just rehash the same thing in Title 38. So, I think we can conclude that people who survive their service are veterans and that if you don't survive your service . . . no designation. Interesting thing. I could sure see this as something that needs work across the nation. Thanks for all the input, I think I'll call this search closed. Very underwhelming and rather . . . 

[M422A1]

Wow! Something that I never thought about sure can be confusing! I always considered anyone who served and was not dishonorably discharged a veteran, even those who gave all.

So according to the VA, since I served on active duty during my basic training and MOS school I am a veteran. But since I didn’t serve 180 days on active duty, I don’t qualify for Veterans Benefits. This pretty much matches what I was told when I got out.

[triplecanopy]

The word veteran actually has a meaning of experience such as: an old soldier of long service; a person of long experience in some occupation or skill; an old tree in a forest that has withstood many storms. All are veterans of some sort. None of these definitions mention death. I think I understand that you believe that veteran should include those who died while on active duty. That is just not the accepted definition of the word Veteran.

[stratasfan]

That's what I am . . .confused. I'm sitting here looking at my Webster's Dictionary and veteran is "A former member of the Armed Forces" . . . nothing about having to survive to discharge. The dictionary is a 1983 edition, so I guess the definition of "Veteran" changed since 1983. I'm going to see what other editions of the Dictionary we have and see what they say! Might have to start ordering each year's version in from the library and see if you could pin it down to when the idea and word changed! 

[stratasfan]

3 minutes ago, triplecanopy said:

That is just not the accepted definition of the word Veteran.

 

It was back in 1950-66, at least. Now I'm trying to find when it changed. Whether I think the word should include people who served in the military and died or not is only a part of it, and not really the main question right now. 

 

Taking the first example . . . how do you denote in a single term known to the majority of the population that he was a "veteran" or WWII? Do you say "Oh, I'm making a display to commemorate a casualty of the Air Force, Sgt. Ben Colecchi? How about, "I take care of the graves of three casualties of military service"? That doesn't ring right to me. If Veteran is officialy the word to denote service that is survived . . . my simple question is what is the word to denote service that is not survived? (I'm not sure how I can re-word the question any simpler another time)

 

Anyway . . . off to dig out the two massive unabridged dictionaries we have upstairs! 

[everforward]

44 minutes ago, stratasfan said:

 

How about, "I take care of the graves of three casualties of military service"? That doesn't ring right to me.

 

Perhaps, "I take care of the graves of three fallen soldiers/servicemen......."

[stratasfan]

9 minutes ago, everforward said:

 

Perhaps, "I take care of the graves of three fallen soldiers/servicemen......."

 

I can't even begin to respond to this. 

 

What a sad, sad day for our Nation. 

[everforward]

13 minutes ago, stratasfan said:

 

I can't even begin to respond to this. 

 

What a sad, sad day for our Nation. 

 

Hmmm.... I hope you're not taking offense at my suggestion, for it certainly isn't the direction I took when I made it.

 

I have heard these terms used by those who do this kind of thing for a living. As a further suggestion, you may wish to make contact with the American Battle Monuments Commission for further opinion....they are in this environment every day.

 

 

[stratasfan]

6 minutes ago, everforward said:

 

Hmmm.... I hope you're not taking offense at my suggestion, for it certainly isn't the direction I took when I made it.

 

I have heard these terms used by those who do this kind of thing for a living. As a further suggestion, you may wish to make contact with the American Battle Monuments Commission for further opinion....they are in this environment every day.

 

 

 

No offense to you. Offense at the whole idea here. I am very saddened. I am so sad that this whole idea has permeated enough generations to sound reasonable. My Aunt has a friend who is like an adopted son, and he is in the Army right now. He came to visit her for Veteran's day and was in his uniform because it was a short visit, and he was constantly stopped and thanked. Why? He isn't a veteran. He's just someone serving at the moment. If he happens to get deployed and killed, he'll never be a veteran. He'd go down forever as a "casualty" only. Tragic. And only since 1983 or later. My Grampa served over 20 years and had a really cool career. And he never considered his service comparable to those were were lost in service. And he called them all Veterans. But then, he was already retired by post-1983 when the word changed.

[DiGilio]

The government defines terms to suit their organizational needs and specific purposes (indicating certain official statuses, etc.), not to create a definitive public dictionary. And like any large organization or bureaucracy, it can be somewhat of a mess with things varying between departments. It is not hard to see how separating service deaths out from the status of "veteran" would make organizational sense, given the different needs of the two groups. But this also doesnt mean that the common dictionary definition or understanding of the word "veteran" (i.e. an experienced person) is suddenly invalidated.

 

This isnt a totalitarian country where every word needs government approval and an official fixed definition. People are free to call things whatever they think is best. 

 

However, I think with the prominence of stolen valor issues and blatant abuse of certain words, people have developed a certain sensitivity to these things. And as a result there is a tendency to fall back on strict interpretations of government definitions. 

 

[triplecanopy]

Elizabeth,

Please explain what happened in 1983 or other dates you have mentioned that have to do with veteran status? I am trying to understand your position.

Thanks

[Tolzer]

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a veteran is a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

 

To be considered a veteran, you must have served in one of the following branches of the U.S. military:

• Army
• Navy
• Marine Corps
• Air Force
• Coast Guard

You must also have been discharged or released from the military under conditions other than dishonorable. This means that you were not discharged for a serious offense, such as desertion or treason.

 

There are several ways to determine if you are a veteran. One way is to check your military discharge paperwork. If your discharge was honorable, general, or under honorable conditions, you are considered a veteran.

 

You can also check your military service record to see if you meet the requirements for veteran status. Your service record will show the dates of your service, the branches of the military you served in, and your discharge status.

[stratasfan]

39 minutes ago, triplecanopy said:

Elizabeth,

Please explain what happened in 1983 or other dates you have mentioned that have to do with veteran status? I am trying to understand your position.

Thanks

 

If you look in (I think) my first reply, you'll see that people who died in service during WWII were called "veterans" by the government. In 1983, the dictionary defines "veteran" as someone who served in the armed forces" - nothing about surviving. My position . . . when and why did "veteran" become for the surviving only and not mean someone who served in the military period? It wasn't in the 20th Century. 

 

42 minutes ago, DiGilio said:

The government defines terms to suit their organizational needs and specific purposes (indicating certain official statuses, etc.), not to create a definitive public dictionary. And like any large organization or bureaucracy, it can be somewhat of a mess with things varying between departments. It is not hard to see how separating service deaths out from the status of "veteran" would make organizational sense, given the different needs of the two groups. But this also doesnt mean that the common dictionary definition or understanding of the word "veteran" (i.e. an experienced person) is suddenly invalidated.

 

This isnt a totalitarian country where every word needs government approval and an official fixed definition. People are free to call things whatever they think is best. 

 

However, I think with the prominence of stolen valor issues and blatant abuse of certain words, people have developed a certain sensitivity to these things. And as a result there is a tendency to fall back on strict interpretations of government definitions. 

 

 

I agree . . . the government shouldn't have to be the one who is the end say on words. That said . . . this thread proves that people are going by the government and not the actual word, isn't it? Nothing to do with Stolen Valour. Putting those who died for their country as simply "casualties" is worse than Stolen Valour, in my mind. Sorry if I come along strong, but I'm very sad about this. 

[Nack]

There is a significant difference between a technical definition in a complicated statutory regime and the varying definition(s) of a concept in a society.  There is little relevance between the two.

[stratasfan]

17 minutes ago, Nack said:

There is a significant difference between a technical definition in a complicated statutory regime and the varying definition(s) of a concept in a society.  There is little relevance between the two.

 

Yep . . .and what society is saying is what is sad . . . let alone what the statutory regime is stating.

[Blacksmith]

Hmmmm…. 
 

While there may be formal definitions, I don’t know that we always speak in formalities.

 

No idea what title 38 is.  However, let me try this - and I am trying to be helpful, and not provoke a lot of semantics.  This is colloquial and conversational, and (I think) hinges around whether a service-member is alive or passed.

 

Any honorably-serving service Army member who has not / was not discharged is a soldier - alive or not.  So, still active, or killed = soldier.  
 

If they were honorably discharged, they are a veteran - alive or not.  
 

In the context of a grave, if a service-member was honorably discharged, you are tending a veteran’s grave.

 

If they were killed while enlisted, it’s a soldier’s grave; or Sailor, Marine, Airman, etc.

[Nack]

1 hour ago, stratasfan said:

 

Yep . . .and what society is saying is what is sad . . . let alone what the statutory regime is stating.

What is society saying and who is saying it?  

[Jim McCauley]

It occurred to me that the definition we are laboring with is the VA’s definition to receive VA benefits. Really nothing to do with the, common use, definition of the word “veteran”.  

[SA1911A1]

On 6/13/2023 at 12:19 PM, USMCR79 said:

Does it matter - Hero’s come in all forms - No need to over think this label 

 

Bill

Yes, I really think that it does matter.

[BryanJ]

My definition of a veteran is a service member who completed their term of service.  How you ended your service would be described afterward:  Veteran honorably discharged, Veteran retired from active service, Veteran killed in the the line of duty, Veteran killed in action, Veteran discharged under dishonorable circumstances.  All veterans, recognized individually based upon their service.