Vietnam Era? in VA Disability Claims (General) Forum

0 Points

Vietnam Era?

Author	Comment
TomBrett.brownwaternavya...	Vietnam Era?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 117 Oct 8 11 10:50 AM	Tags : None E Benefits ask questions from time to time regarding when you served, ie; World War II, Korean Conflict etc., they use the term Vietnam Era, I was under the impression that a Vietnam Era vet is one who served during the Vietnam war however was never in Vietnam, my brother in law served during Vietnam but was in Germany the whole time. I served IN Viet-Nam, which makes me a Viet-Nam Vet, not a Vietnam Era Vet. Any thoughts on this matter.
Interact My Recent Posts
2531	I guess Era is a blanket statement	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 28 Oct 8 11 11:42 AM	Possibly it makes no difference to them where you served, just the dates are what their looking at. However I have a problem when it's called a conflict. yea I know war wasn't declared but When I was there it looked, smelled and felt like a war to me. Off Topic 1/3 Marine R.V.N. 67/68
Interact My Recent Posts
gone03	only difference I have noticed	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 44 Oct 8 11 1:31 PM	I served in the Philippines 1967/68 so I can't john the VFW. I came out of the service with a 30% service connection. Far as I know I get treated like everyone else that served during the years of Vietnam. I have alway considered myself a Vietnam Era vet. 100% p/t, scedular
Interact My Recent Posts
BROVET		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3504 Oct 8 11 2:08 PM	"Vietnam Era" indicates that you served during the time of the Vietnam war (I should have looked up the dates before I posted). You could have served at any location during the dates and would still be a "Vietnam Era". "Vietnam Veteran" indicates that you served in the war zone (as I understand the terms). A Co. 2nd/2nd 1st Infantry 11/66-11/67
Interact My Recent Posts
mad815		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 193 Oct 8 11 2:54 PM	The label --Vietnam Era Veteran- Should be erased forever from being used-- To the average Joe on the street--- Vietnam Era Vets means the person was Boots on the Ground. --- 35 -40 years ago Vietnam Vets were looked down on by many--- Now that it is kool to be a Vietnam Vet --- they are coming out of the woodwork--- Guys wearing --Vietnam Veteran Hats--- never served in Vietnam but want to hop on the bandwagon. The Government Brass Plaques on headstones leads one to think the deceased served in Vietnam. I was at an American Legion Meeting years ago Honoring Vietnam Vets- When we all stood up to be recognized -- The Vietnam Era Vets outnumbered the boots on the ground. I am thankful for all who served and did their job during that time but the word Vietnam should not be used. -- My $.02---- Web---- PS I tried to help two Vets I know on putting in a claim for IHD. For years they wore the hats and talked the talk. I ended talking to their siblings and found out that they never stepped foot in Nam.
Interact My Recent Posts
cruiser		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17444 Oct 8 11 3:49 PM	mad815 wrote: The label --Vietnam Era Veteran- Should be erased forever from being used-- Entitlement to non-service connected disability pension is based, in part, on one having served during a designated period of war. There is no requirement that one actually serve in the theater of war. This isn't VA saying this; it is Congress who said it many years ago. For VA purposes veterans are identified by the period of time in which they served, not where they served. For example, there is no requirement that a World War II veteran actually serve in a combat zone. Anybody who was in service in 1944 and received a discharge under other than dishonorable conditions is a World War II veteran for VA purposes even if he/she never left the United States. It's been that way since World War II. Like I said, this identifier is based on when one served, not where. Cruiser
Interact My Recent Posts
mad815		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 193 Oct 8 11 4:37 PM	Entitlement to Non-Service connected disability has nothing to do what so ever with what I said. Maybe two labels--- " 1959 --1975 Veteran "and the second one " Vietnam Veteran" -- Now to go along with you mentioned Entitlement --- In the VA. system is there any difference between --Boots on the Ground-- VS--- Non Boots on the Ground ????? My point is that it's a label widely misused . Web
Interact My Recent Posts
al4theroad	boots on the ground	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 453 Oct 8 11 6:50 PM	I think we should have another group, Belly on the ground, You guys who fit in this catagory know what I mean. Thanks for all you belly on the ground vets
Interact My Recent Posts
russg		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 735 Oct 8 11 8:34 PM	al4theroad wrote: I think we should have another group, Belly on the ground, You guys who fit in this catagory know what I mean. Thanks for all you belly on the ground vets At times saying belly on the ground was putting it mildly
Interact My Recent Posts
eagle		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 328 Oct 8 11 9:52 PM	The U. S. Government does not make a distinction between Vietnam Era and Vietnam Veterans; our government officially refers to all as Vietnam Era Veterans, who served during the Vietnam War time period, regardless of the location the veteran served, and is a non-exact period that applies to the 1961 to 1976 timeframe. The terms are also mostly used in phrases, discussions, and are more commonly used to draw a line of distinction between the two for various reasons and purposes, including those that may be beneficial to the veteran. Much of this item also applies to the type of award (campaign or expedtion) and veterans preference in hiring issues. For example, 5-point veterans preference in hiring in federal jobs applies to veterans who served (regardless of location) during this period; however, only those veterans who serviced in Vietnam are authorized to wear a Vietnam Service Medal (Boots on the Ground) for that period. A DD Form 214 for that time period is usually needed to claim 5-point preference for hiring and/or the medal. Vet Pref for this group/period ended in Oct 1976. Regarding service in Korea, there are veterans who probably have never been told that President Bush signed legislation back in 2002, that authorized the wear of a campaign medal (Korea Defense Service Medal) that authorizes 5-point veterans preference in federal hiring. The period of this medal is authorized starting July 1954 to a date still to be determined. So if you served in Korea since that time period, you are probably authorized the KDSM. It is not the same medal as the one authorized for veterans who served in the Korean War.
Interact My Recent Posts
nmfxstc		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25197 Oct 8 11 11:58 PM	There is indeed a difference...just look at Agent Orange presumptive issues and claims! Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts
Helter		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 124 Oct 9 11 12:07 AM	I can't speak for Vietnam veterans, but I can speak for the current conflicts. I served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, and if I heard someone talk of being an Iraq/Afghanistan Veteran simply because they served during the era, it would surely piss me off to put it kindly. I have seen guys driving on base that have Vietnam bumper stickers. I've talked to some of them, and some have said they didn't actually have boots on ground, but served during the conflict. I work with a Navy guy that said he served in the first Iraq War. When I started asking him about his experiences, I learned that he wasn't actually in Iraq or even Kuwait, but a couple hundred miles off the gulf on a ship. I then explained to him my view that I've briefly noted in this post and he offered no rebuttal. He doesn't say that anymore, or at least not in my presence. Don't include the country (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) in a veteran title if you didn't step foot on the soil. Even if you have a service award of some kind for the era, it's still disrespectful. It often leads people with no military experience in thinking you are an actual veteran of that war. That's my personal view. Everyone has different opinions. Edited 1 time by Helter Oct 9 11 12:09 AM.
Interact My Recent Posts
yellowdog	Combat	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 161 Oct 9 11 8:43 AM	Dont know what to think of all this sheeples going over the cliff. My combat was in a deep water pool in San Diego. Coronado they call it. Can't go back or I face death. Thats my theatre of combat and I dont care if someone tells me I cant say I was in combat in San Diego. or if valor was stolen- someone better give it back
Interact My Recent Posts
nmfxstc		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25197 Oct 9 11 9:01 AM	yellowdog wrote: Dont know what to think of all this sheeples going over the cliff. My combat was in a deep water pool in San Diego. Coronado they call it. Can't go back or I face death. Thats my theatre of combat and I dont care if someone tells me I cant say I was in combat in San Diego. or if valor was stolen- someone better give it back I believe that was combat training? Unless there was a war in San Diego we missed? Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts
eagle		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 328 Oct 9 11 9:01 AM	nmfxstc wrote: There is indeed a difference...just look at Agent Orange presumptive issues and claims! Bingo! These issues are some of the various reasons (line of distinction) that are applicable to and are beneficial to the veterans who actually served in Vietnam.
Interact My Recent Posts
yellowdog		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 161 Oct 9 11 9:25 AM	People died. It was combat. Combat training, combat, whatever. A sheeple by any other name is still a sheeple. But none of this matters. Thanks for letting me be. I just want to be. At least they pay the bills now so I can try to figure out what the fuck happened. Not nice to give doses and a 'double tap' so you forget till your 82 but the secret is out. And I will speak no more of it in this forum. I especially wont give you my kill switch. ^^%%$$#@@#%%
Interact My Recent Posts
cruiser		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17444 Oct 9 11 9:35 AM	I think that you guys are talking about two different things and running them together. What veterans call themselves and how they categorize their service is up to the individual. If someone is calling himself/herself a World War II, Korean, or Vietnam veteran and they didn't actually serve in combat zone then I suppose folks who did might have an issue with that; however, to my knowledge there is nothing that prohibits them from doing so. What VA does is to categorize veterans based on when they served for statistical purposes. There are two broad categories, peacetime veterans and wartime veterans. One of the reasons that they do this is because at various times certain benefit programs, primarily non-service connected disability pension, were only available to veterans who served during a time of war; and service during one of those periods is all that is required. Also at one time there were two separate Disability Compensation payment scales, one for wartime and one for peacetime veterans. This isn't something that VA decided; it's the law that was passed by Congress. Congress also defines those periods of war, although they can also be defined by Presidential Proclamation. Also keep in mind that this law defining wartime periods was enacted by Congress long before the war in Vietnam. Like I said, there are two basic categories of veterans for VA purposes, peacetime and wartime. If you are a wartime veteran VA identifies you by the particular war for statistical purposes. For example, if you served during more than one period of war, something that was quite common not that long ago, each service connected condition was coded on the basis of the wartime period during which the disability was incurred, or peacetime if applicable. If you look at one of these Rating Decision code sheets you might see one service connected condition coded as "WWII INC" meaning World War II incurred, and another as "VE INC" meaning Vietnam incurred. Disabilities incurred during peacetime are coded as "PTE INC". These only identify periods of time, not location of service. With regard to Agent Orange presumptions, that is a different matter. This is not a benefit program upon which basic eligibility is contingent upon specific service. It is merely a concession, or presumption, that is made regarding entitlement to service connection for something. There are many presumptions made within the Disability Compensation program, not just the Agent Orange ones. And even with Agent Orange, the exact same presumptions apply for those who served in specific units during specific times in Korea. In other words, entitlement to the Agent Orange presumptions isn't based solely on service in Vietnam. That is simply a concession of exposure so VA won't have to individually develop each of those cases. Heck, there have been Agent Orange claims granted to folks who never left the United States. Again, all VA is doing is classifying veterans according to when they served for statistical purposes as mandated by Congress. What veterans do or call themselves out in the world is out of VA's hands. Cruiser
Interact My Recent Posts
2531		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 28 Oct 9 11 9:57 AM	Helter wrote: I can't speak for Vietnam veterans, but I can speak for the current conflicts. I served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, and if I heard someone talk of being an Iraq/Afghanistan Veteran simply because they served during the era, it would surely piss me off to put it kindly. I have seen guys driving on base that have Vietnam bumper stickers. I've talked to some of them, and some have said they didn't actually have boots on ground, but served during the conflict. With all due respect I really hate it when our war was called a CONFLICT! 1/3 Marine 67/68
Interact My Recent Posts
al4theroad		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 453 Oct 9 11 4:55 PM	I recently read that the Department of Defense has cut the number of listed Qualified Veteran contractors in half after finding they had no service. It also said 13 million people said that they were Vietnam Veterans and were not, Quite a change from when I came home and the girls In Oakland and San Francisco wouldn't speak to me and I had to push my way thru protesters who were calling me a baby killer. . I knocked 3 into the street with my Duffel bag and Suitcase whoops, and kept walking. Glad the vets today get the welcome they deserve. Thanks to all for your service where ever it was.
Interact My Recent Posts
phantomfixer1		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1094 Oct 9 11 5:13 PM	i was being spit on too. i was a flying crew chief and was stationed in thailand twice. once as a crew on recon, once as a ram team fixing broke and mangled f-4's....i am what i want to be and nobody can tell me different. i have my issues ,they are mine and i will not tell another vet he isn't part of the big picture. it took the entire military, stateside and in country to fight these wars. i don't believe in splitting hairs.
Interact My Recent Posts
LiaKhe 65	Vietnam Era	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 87 Oct 9 11 5:17 PM	A best friend from high school was drafter a couple on months ahead of myself. After AIT, he spent 18 months at a 8 man outpost in Orleans, France. Real tough duty, but someone had to do it! I had 13 weeks of AIT at Ft Sill, then 11 months and 24 days with the First Infantry Division, then 5 months at Ft Hood playing Army. It's true he is a Vietnam Era veteran, but there is a world of difference. Just my opinion!
Interact My Recent Posts

Yuku free message boards

Link to VBN User Agreement. By Using VBN, You agree to ALL TERMS.

Vietnam Era?

Vietnam Era?

VBN User Agreement

About VBN