Not all verterans and retirees are the same, and they should not be treated the same. I have seen some that did every thing possible to avoid serving in combat zones and to avoid work when possible. On the other hand, most do a great job and are willing to serve in risky areas. Their benefits should be tied to their performance, with the highest going to those who received special awards in combat zones and those with with top performance reports. A sliding scale should be set up for those who did not do so well. With computers, keeping score should be a snap.

I am US Army retired.
Unlike your thoughts on "Not all Veterans and Retirees are the same" I will NEVER distinguish myself as being more deserving, better or anything else. Perhaps some veterans OR retirees for that matter dodged combat zones, dodged duty, dodged whatever they could. THAT is for their own conscience to sort out. TO ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME A U.S ARMY RETIRED and a VETERAN..is simply ..I SERVED LONGER THAN THEM. They have suffered no less than me, and perhaps more than I. Many, many veterans have no doubt outperformed me in combat. I would not know, for I do not have the time, the will. nor the negative few to differentiate between retirees and veterans. WE ARE ALL BROTHERS IN ARMS. Period.
A Veteran first, retiree second.
Freddy
P/S Challenge me by all means for I have the greatest respect for my fellow veteran brothers, and I will stand side by side with them against anyone who dare question their honor and service to God and Country.

Freddy I share your view. I served 2 years and was discharged on SC disability. I was Navy. At the time more Navy personnel will killed or disabled in 'industrial accidents' than combat. We did dangerous work that violates many of the OSHA rules that guide the rest of the work community in this country.

We have several categories of vets. My way of seeing in no particular order:

1. Those who served less than 2 years and get little or no benefits because they could not cut the service or had enlistment problems - failed to disclose.
2. Those who where discharged less than honorable.
3. Those who where discharge dishonorable
4. Those who received an honorable discharge to meet their obligation to service.
5. Those who received a medical discharge for SC conditions and do not receive retirement.
6. Those who retired for medical SC - 30% or more.
7. Combat vets who are disabled from their combat and are retired or discharged for their injuries. I separate them because they often have special needs fore rehab and medical care.
8. Retired for time of service with or without disability.

With the exception of numbers 7 or 8, there is no difference. We all served, and many planned to retire when they joined. Some may technically meet two groups.

The idea of "classificatio0n by experience" is preposterous and simply pedantic.

We all signed up, we all took the oath and crossed the line.

Where we went from there is secondary, no matter what.

My problem is with those who failed to serve.

It's a free country, thanks significantly to veterans.

I would not classify or restrict non vets, but I aint got much use for one.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave_M:
Freddy I share your view. I served 2 years and was discharged on SC disability. I was Navy. At the time more Navy personnel will killed or disabled in 'industrial accidents' than combat. We did dangerous work that violates many of the OSHA rules that guide the rest of the work community in this country.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that you would have been a great leader as you are now nudging, paving and leading the way to countless veterans in their quest to meander their way through the maze towards just compensation for their disability issues and awards.
I salute you for your great service and never ending personal sacrafice keeping vets informed and guidance.
Freddy

this is a can of worms better left un opened.

who would judge?

nah let this one die

Ira I will close this topic on that note.