The VA’s definition of ‘veteran’ is out of step with modern military service

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Rachel Hoopsick is an assistant professor of Epidemiology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. Jeni Hunniecutt is the founder and CEO of VetREC (Veteran Research and Education Curation LLC) and is the author of “Rethinking Reintegration and Veteran Identity: A New Consciousness.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs recently released its latest National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report, showing that 6,398 veterans died by suicide in 2023 — the most recent year of available data — equivalent to more than 17 deaths per day.

Notably, six in 10 of these veterans who died by suicide were not receiving VA health care in the year before their death, which points to a persistent and deeply concerning gap: Many veterans at highest risk for suicide are not connected to the system most equipped to provide military-informed care.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Who is able to access VA care?

Under federal law, a veteran is defined as someone who served in the active military, naval, air or space service and was discharged under conditions other than dishonorable. For National Guard and Reserve members, eligibility often depends on whether service included qualifying periods of federal active duty.

Routine drill and training obligations, while central to military service for Guard and Reserve members, do not count as qualifying active service for VA health care eligibility. In practice, this means many individuals who served honorably may not meet the legal definition required to enroll in VA health care.

At the same time, eligibility across the VA system is far from uniform. Different programs administered by the Veterans Health Administration and the Veterans Benefits Administration rely on different eligibility rules. As a result, some former service members may qualify for certain benefits while remaining ineligible for others.

For example, some National Guard or Reserve members who never served on federal active duty may not qualify to enroll in VA health care without a service-connected disability. Yet those same individuals may still be eligible for other federal benefits, such as VA home loans or education assistance. More recently, the COMPACT Act (Comprehensive Prevention, Access to Care, and Treatment Act), enacted in 2023, expanded access to emergency mental health and suicide prevention services for many former service members who served more than 100 days and were not dishonorably discharged.

In practice, this creates a confusing landscape in which military service sometimes “counts” and sometimes does not, depending on the benefit in question.

The federal government simultaneously extends certain forms of support while maintaining a legal definition of veteran that excludes many who served.

That contradiction matters for more than administrative reasons. Federal definitions shape the broader cultural narrative about who is considered a legitimate veteran. When the government’s definition excludes certain service pathways, it reinforces the perception — within veteran communities and the public alike — that those individuals are somehow less legitimate.

Many Guard and Reserve members describe feeling caught in this ambiguity: their service qualifies them for some benefits, yet they are told they are not veterans in the eyes of federal law.

Research increasingly suggests that administrative markers such as deployment status or qualifying active duty do not always align with risk or need.

In our research with more than 170 never-deployed National Guard and Reserve service members, many described what we call non-deployment emotions — experiences often compared to survivor’s guilt. Participants reported feeling less valuable to their units, less connected to fellow service members, and less entitled to the identity associated with military service. These experiences are meaningfully associated with mental health symptoms including anxiety, depression, anger and post-traumatic stress, and have also been linked to higher rates of alcohol and other substance use.

In other words, never deploying, or never serving on federal active duty, does not mean never being affected by military service.

The period surrounding military separation is already a vulnerable one for many service members. Service shapes identity, relationships and expectations, and leaving that structure often requires renegotiating one’s sense of purpose and belonging. When institutional definitions narrowly define which service pathways constitute a veteran, they also shape who may feel entitled to seek care.

For Guard and Reserve members in particular, service often occupies an in-between space: sustained obligation without full immersion, responsibility without deployment and transitions that do not always fit neatly within the categories used to define veteran status.

When individuals repeatedly encounter messaging, both formally and informally, that their service does not “count,” they may be less likely to pursue the benefits or services that are available to them.

In a system where most veterans who die by suicide were not connected to VA care in the year before their death, even subtle barriers to help-seeking deserve careful attention.

Definitions alone cannot solve the problem of veteran suicide. But they help shape the pathways through which people recognize their service, their identity and their eligibility for support.

As military service has evolved, the frameworks used to define and recognize that service should evolve with it — because those definitions do more than determine eligibility. They shape who is seen, who is recognized and who ultimately receives care.