Letters

It was disheartening to read about VVA’s plans to rebrand itself and, apparently, remove the words “Vietnam Veterans” from its name. Face it, the demographics of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam that once supported so many veterans organizations, and their thousands of posts and chapters, are fast disappearing. So what is the point of adding yet another organization to an already overcrowded field that lacks for members and money?

Then there are the various outreach initiatives VVA has begun promoting, soliciting input and advice from post-Vietnam veterans on remaking the organization. What about us? Why weren’t individual members polled for their views prior to approving and undertaking such a drastic overhaul?

Erasing our identity from VVA strikes at the very heart of why many of us joined in the first place. Good luck retaining those members who feel as betrayed as I do.

Tim S. Smith
Mansfield, Ohio

I am fascinated by the wild plan to extend and change the name of the organization. I can assure you that it will not work. That war was over in 1975 and our vets are dying off. I am an 89-year-old, 34-year active-duty Navy, with three combat tours (Korea 1952-54 and Vietnam 1968-69). I am a member of the VFW, American Legion, DAV, and five Navy associations, and I have attended about thirty reunions since I retired in 1985. I served from E-1 to E-9 and O-1 to O-5, so I’ve seen it all and been there.

VVA has no physical posts for our vets to assemble, and no matter what you do, it will not happen. As an example here in Wilmington, N.C., I am a member of Chapter 85, with a small office and meeting room and little else. I am also a member of American Legion Post 10, which celebrated our 100th anniversary in September with the facilities to do it right. Our canteen has a capacity of about 125. Our Hall has a capacity for 150 with a full-service kitchen.

Membership is declining in all of these organizations. Most veterans will not join until years after service and are older and looking for other vets to socialize with. An aircraft carrier I served in has had more than 70,000 sailors serving (not counting Air Wings), yet the Association is lucky if we can entice 100 to attend a reunion.

My solution: Integrate VVA into the American Legion, which has the facilities for Vietnam vets to meet and socialize with other vets. A vet is a vet is a vet. The post in Wilmington has about 700 members and another 200 in the Sons of Legion. We have vets from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and every conflict since. We have the facilities they enjoy; VVA 885 does not, nor will they ever.

I hold little hope of it happening. People of high positions do not like to give up important positions, sort of like politicians.

William D. Paschall
Wilmington, North Carolina

I agree 100 percent with Ray Sestak’s letter, “To Be Or Not To Be,” in the last issue concerning the future of our great organization. I’d like to take it one step further.

The direction in which VVA will proceed in the next few years is—I believe we all agree—the biggest and most important decision in our forty-plus years’ history. For this reason I feel every member should have a vote on our future, not just 600 or so delegates at the next Convention.

I am working on a proposed Constitutional Amendment to change the voting procedures, which I will present at the next Convention. Other organizations hold mail-in votes. Why can’t we? We spend plenty on solicitation requests in a year’s time. Let’s spend some on this important subject.

If all this delays the final vote on our direction another two years, so be it. We are still gonna be around for a few more years. If other members feel as I do, drop me a line at: Chapter 1027, P.O. Box 4, South Bend, IN 46624.

Ray Sestak wrote: “In my mind, the polling of the grassroots membership of the VVA organization through all chapter delegates is the only way to determine the true wishes of the majority on such a critical issue.” I say, change the word “delegates” to read “members.”

C. David Guzicki
South Bend, Indiana

As far as my chapter is concerned, the VVA National President and the Board of Directors are treating us like we were treated when we came home from Vietnam: with no respect.

The nerve of the National Officers to even conceive the idea of changing our name in order to accept other war veterans into our association instead of joining the VFW or American Legion. Also, as we understand it, AVVA is intended to carry this plan forward. We question the success of this strategy. The real question to ask here is: Who is truly benefiting from this change?

There is absolutely no reason for these resolutions to pass if our voices are heard. That is why I am writing this letter, so Chapter 936’s voice can be heard loud and clear, along with sending a message for other chapters to stand up and express their concerns.

Ronnie Zerkel, President
VVA Chapter 936 Mount Jackson, Virginia

I am a longtime life member of VVA who lives in a rural area in western Nebraska, so I have no local chapter. I am very disappointed to hear that the organization will be expanding its membership eligibility. We are the Vietnam Veterans of America and should be nothing else. While I have all the respect in the world for recent veterans of the Gulf, Afghanistan, and other antiterrorist operations, they did not serve in Vietnam.

Like the Grand Army of the Republic after the Civil War, the Doolittle Raiders, and other specific veterans organizations, I always assumed that VVA would be a last-man-standing group. That last veteran would drink a toast to all those who preceded him out of this life and with whom he will join when called.

This change is wrong. I really don’t care what the VVA Constitution states. A decision to completely change the organization’s name and mission should only have been made by a direct vote of all the members. Why couldn’t this be done?

What is the reason for this change other than the perpetuity of the organization? For what purpose? The VFW and the American Legion do a good job representing less-specific veterans. We do not need to duplicate that. I will always consider myself a member of Vietnam Veterans of America while I continue to breathe. I would hope this decision will be given to the entire membership to consider.

Lawrence Gibbs
Gering, Nebraska

Editor’s Note: VVA’s future is in flux; nothing is settled—as is evident in the wording of Resolution GA-21, which only empowers the officers and BOD to look into the matter:

“Resolved, That: Require VVA’s Officers and Board of Directors to investigate the requirements to change the name of Vietnam Veterans of America to a name that would entice Post-Vietnam era veterans to join the renamed organization and then open up membership to these newer veterans.

The proposed changes would be presented to the delegates at the 2021 Convention for ratification.”

It was with profound sadness that I read the letter from Mary Ann Campbell in the November/December issue. Her service is honored, along with that of her brother, and the issues are real and do need the attention of VVA and other veterans organizations.

However, up to this point The VVA Veteran and its policy positions have been apolitical. Campbell’s letter appears better suited to social media than the Veteran. Not all veterans are like minded and some feel that significant changes benefiting veterans have occurred over the past several years. 

While I would protect Campbell’s right to say what she feels is appropriate, I would also respectfully request that she not do it in The VVA Veteran. Let’s keep it apolitical—we need all the help we can muster. 

Marc King
Maryland At-Large

VVA has never been partisan, but has always been political, working with both sides to improve the lives of veterans. —Editor

I am a life member of VVA and a combat veteran of three tours in Vietnam. I need to tell you and all Vietnam vets that Mary Ann Campbell’s letter was very on target. Please fact check what you hear and make an informed vote.

Robert Roche
St. Marys, Georgia

As I read through the latest issue of The Veteran, I was excited to see the short article about The Wall That Heals and its visit to Delaware. I am a life member of VVA Chapter 421 and also a life member of the sponsoring VFW chapter. I am a part-time resident of Ocean View, Delaware, and was only able to attend one day. But to see The Wall set up in such a beautiful location was very moving.

It was quite evident that the work put into this exhibit by the volunteers was truly a labor of love. I would like to thank them all and also thank all the residents and visitors who paid their respects to our fallen brothers and sisters.

Tim Dillon
Staten Island, New York
Ocean View, Delaware

I thought Jeff Harbin’s letter, “Righting an Injustice,” was very interesting. Eligibility to join VVA “is open to U.S. military veterans who served on active duty in Vietnam between February 28, 1961, and May 7, 1975.” So I was very surprised that those who served in Vietnam after March 28, 1973, did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal.

Combat operations ended in March 1973, but veterans left in-country remained in harm’s way. In fact, sixty-seven troops died between April 1973 and May 1975 (not counting the four who died on April 29-30, 1973). So I think Harbin has a point and we should rectify this injustice.

Gary D. Dietrich
By Email

In his letter, “Righting an Injustice,” Jeff Harbin makes a point I have thought about for a long time. I am a Navy vet, ’71-’74, who served on the U.S.S. Agerholm (DD826). My first WestPAC arrived on Yankee Station a couple weeks after Congress determined there was no war and discontinued the service ribbon, so now I am an Era vet. The issue is, we were doing the same job the crew on the previous cruise did who got the ribbon. We provided the same plane guard duties for the carrier (flying in-country operations), the same submarine surveillance, and prepared for the same offshore support if required.

As pointed out by Mr. Harbin, the ribbon was awarded for the week of the evacuation in April ’75. It seems to me that all those “Era” vets who served during that gap performing the duties required of them the same as those during the “official” war should get the same recognition. Because Congress decided there was no war does not mean that everything just stopped and those serving were there on holiday. Those veterans were doing their jobs, deserve the recognition, and should not be relegated to an asterisk-notated subcategory of “they also served.”

Steven Zimmer
VVA Chapter 55

The Combat Action Badge was instituted in 2005 and made retroactive to 2001. It is awarded to Army soldiers who were in direct contact with the enemy and who are not eligible for the CIB. There is merit to the Pentagon’s adoption of this medal as many of us without an infantry MOS were sure as shootin’ engaged in direct combat with the enemy—including tankers, artillerymen, MPs, and any others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It appears the Army is pretending there was no combat prior to 2001. I have written the Army twice about this apparent shortsightedness and have received only patronizing answers. So, my brothers and sisters, is it time we mount a petition to see this wrong reversed and the badge awarded to all of us who had up-front and personal dealings with the VC and NVA?

Bob Forman
Anacortes, Washington