Eric Shuck: No vet should be shaming the service of a fellow vet

About the writer: Eric Schuck holds a captaincy in the U.S. Navy Reserve as well as a professorship in economics at Linfield University. But he speaks for himself here, within the limits of his legal and professional obligations.

I learned long ago my words and actions are never truly my own. Intentionally or not, anything I say or do publicly may reflect upon the Navy and Navy Reserve (or Linfield University, for that matter, although the shield of academic freedom makes it a very different conversation).

Protecting the integrity of the Navy as an institution requires caveating and provisioning each statement and pronunciation appropriately, ensuring the lines between my personal and professional opinions are drawn in as sharp a relief as possible. Constantly declaring these limits reinforces the apolitical nature of the armed forces, ensuring all Americans trust those in uniform to defend the Constitution regardless of political beliefs.

With this in mind, and for the record, nothing that follows regarding opposing vice-presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance, both U.S. military veterans, should be construed as representing the views of the U.S. Navy, Linfield University, or most certainly South Colby Elementary School. It is simply my opinion, no more and no less.

Guarding my voice is not always easy. In and out of uniform, I’ve served under six different presidents, and it would be naïve to assume I agreed with all of them.

However, I’m a third-generation naval officer. I love the nation and the Navy enough that protecting the military’s reputation as an apolitical force reflects an obligation of basic professionalism.

I act this way without being told, but others may not share this understanding. Human frailty being what it is, policies are necessary to ensure people on Uncle Sam’s payroll speak and act responsibly.

For the Civil Service, there is the Hatch Act, while uniformed members must comply with Department of Defense Directive 1344.10. Both impose clear limits on when and how federal employees and service members engage in the political sphere, and each is enforceable by either federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Among these limits, the provisions of paragraph 4.2 of DOD Directive 1344.10 recently came to mind and, more specifically, sub-paragraph 4.2.2. That element limits members of the Reserve Component, including the National Guard, from running for or serving in “a civil office in the U.S. Government” if activated for 270 days or more — at least absent service secretary permission.

The implication? A mobilized member of the Reserves or National Guard typically can neither run for nor serve in Congress.

When not mobilized, the rules differ slightly. Under paragraph 4.3, non-mobilized members of the Reserves and Guard may, within additional limits, run for elective federal office. But they would generally have to drop out upon receipt of activation orders.

Paragraph 4.6, however, provides an escape valve. A service member subject to these prohibitions can, yet again within limits, request retirement, discharge or release from the service to become a nominee or candidate for civil office.

This may all seem confusing and bureaucratic, but it holds relevance in the current election.

Much has been made of Gov. Walz’s decision to retire from the Minnesota National Guard in preparation for a congressional run, filing his retirement paperwork in 2004 and officially leaving the service in the spring of 2005, prior to his unit receiving notice of a pending deployment. Hopefully, though, the degree to which this action could run afoul of Department of Defense policy on service members’ political activities is now clear — it’s to no degree at all.

While current policies differ modestly from those in place in 2004, from my perspective, the most appropriate, ethical and honorable way for a member of the Reserves or Guard to run for federal office is to leave the service first. And that’s what then-Sgt. Maj. Walz did, exercising his right to retire in accordance with established policy.

This point is too little appreciated, although that should perhaps be anticipated. Most veterans and current service members rarely encounter these policies, and expecting them to display intimate familiarity with a directive unlikely to ever apply to them asks a great deal.

But ignorance of policy is no justification for “vet shaming” — that is, claiming one type of military service more valued and valid than another.

This election features two veterans, each of whom served our country honorably.

Seeking to advance one by diminishing the other’s service — the very definition of “vet shaming” — disrespects both. That’s especially true when part of the argument reflects unfamiliarity with the rules governing political activity within the Guard and Reserves.

Then again, that’s just this sailor’s opinion.