Va Defination Of Combat Vet?

[stillhere]

This is mainly just a curiosity of mine. As many of my fellow Vietnam vets knows, when we landed in the land of the devil back in the 60's quite a few of us served in support units. I served in Red Beach and as luck had it did not even make it to my duty station for over 4 weeks serving in Long Bein 99th Replacement doing guard duty,KP and the like. Anyhow once I did get sent up to my unit I did not work in my MOS due to there were already 3 position filled and one did not open for 4 months. During those 4 months I just sat around going to the PX, Beach and the USO. Yeah right! Actually I pulled perimeter patrol duty (so I could drink during the day) and when I wasn't doing that I pulled tower guard duty. Even after I did finally get to work in my MOS on the flight line I was always armed with a 45 side arm.

Does that mean I should be looked at as a combat vet? or is it just for the 11B infantry badge guys.

Take care one and all and have a Great Thanksgiving!

Stillhere

[Chuck75]

This is still problematic. Some would say that this means for example hand to hand combat only. Others would say that at the very least, hostile fire must have been present.

"Hostile Fire" Pay-- Others think that this is sufficient.

My opinion is that there are other things that should be considered. --

For instance, those firing ordanance at the enemy (Direct or indirect) should also be covered, as this is a very hazardous operation, and can get you killed, even if accurate return fire is not encountered. Also, "Friendly Fire" may be from your own side, but can get you just as dead as that from the enemy.

"The phrase 'engaged in combat with the enemy' requires

that the veteran have personally participated in events

constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe

or hostile unit or instrumentality." VAOPGCPREC 12-99 (Oct.

18, 1999) (cited at 65 Fed. Reg. 6256 (Feb. 8, 2000)

Edited November 22, 2007 by Chuck75

[Ron II]

ref: "d. Whether a particular statement in service-department records indicating that the veteran participated in a particular "operation" or "campaign" is sufficient to establish that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy depends upon the language and context of the records in each case. As a general matter, evidence of participation in an "operation" or "campaign" often would not, in itself, establish that a veteran engaged in combat, because those terms ordinarily may encompass both combat and non-combat activities. However, there may be circumstances in which the context of a particular service-department record indicates that reference to a particular operation or campaign reflects engagement in combat. Further, evidence of participation in a particular "operation" or "campaign" must be considered by VA in relation to other evidence of record, even if it does not, in itself, conclusively establish engagement in combat with the enemy." G.C. Prec 12-99 page 8-9, ¶ d."

I misread this the first time; I thought it was giving combat credit to persons like myself who did not engage in combat, but were involved in combat service support operations. Although I have the Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Vietnam Cross of Galantry w/Palm (unit), I was never in combat operations.

It appears that those decorations would enhance other documentation that proves "combat engagement."

Cheers!

[Stretch]

Instrumentality is a word that needs to be looked up. The court argument was that the VA has to consider "operation", "combat", "combat deployment". Consider is the word here.

----------------------

Further, evidence of participation in a particular "operation" or "campaign" must be considered by VA in relation to other evidence of record, even if it does not, in itself, conclusively establish engagement in combat with the enemy." G.C. Prec 12-99 page 8-9, ¶ d."

----------------------

The VA must present evidence that you were not in combat. Recent Generals decision that "VN Boots on the ground BS" just doesn't cut it, because this is legislative law. The combat law has been changed for newer Vets. The benefit of the doubt goes to the Veteran. You can look up the court argument. I have read this court argument many times. It is the wording of certain awards and commendations that give meaning to this feature of 1154.

However, there may be circumstances in which the context of a particular service-department record indicates that reference to a particular operation or campaign reflects engagement in combat.

NPRC, will give you your medals and corrected DD-215 upgrade, but it will not send you the Commendation, Campaign or operations write-up that came with the medal. You must approach someone, from your unit that got the write-up, that you did not get after you were separated.

I will keep looking for the court argument and commentary from the Judge.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Stretch

[Stretch]

I found the VA Memorandum. This is similar, but with more discussion. Take it or leave it.

Combat_VA_prc12_99.doc

[Berta]

Good points Nam vet-

also there is a discussion at the Blue Water Navy Vet forum on this same topic-

Oddly enough my husband (100% PTSD) was combat vet but only 2 incidents he wrote of in his stressor letter were due to direct combat- the rest of his stressors were not exactly combat related-

Also President Unit Citations- what he thought his unit's PUC was for-was actually for something else-and I found the write up for it on the internet-

This is one more good reason why the men and women fighting now should stay in touch with their buddies and units when they return-

to make sure their DD 214 reflects all unit awards as well as personal awards.

[stillhere]

Very interesting discussion and thanks to all for the responses. I will get back to this later now I am going to eat some turkey!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! TO ALL, Stillhere