Uniform Statutory Declaration Form For The: Fill & Download for Free

I think from previous posts you have got idea about uniform civil code, here i am to tell you why we need this.Looking at the current political and social scenario that seems to be developing in our country, some of the more progressive and liberal sections have started raising a forceful demand for a unified civil code. This demand is also in line with what teh Constitution envisages as a necessary goal needed to be achieved in order to truely secure all citizens justice and equality. This paper attempts to weigh in all the pros and the cons of the issue, thereby helping the reader make an informed choice in the debate.‘I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction, so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field.’-Dr. B R Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly DebatesINTRODUCTIONIn India, we have a criminal code that is equally applicable to all, irrespective of religion, caste, gender and domicile. However, a similar code does not exist especially with respect to divorce and succession and we are still governed by the personal laws. These personal laws are varied in their sources, philosophy and application. Thus, a major constraint arises while bringing people governed by different religions under one roof.Article 44 of the Constitution of India declares that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”A uniform civil code administers the same set of secular civil laws to govern all people irrespective of their religion, caste and tribe. This supersedes the right of citizens to be governed under different personal laws based on their religion or caste or tribe. Such codes are in place in most modern nations.Though Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was an extensive supporter of the Uniform Civil Code, he couldn’t get it through more than a status of Directive Principle due to opposition from the members. This directive principle is aimed to achieve, gradually, rather than at once, more far-reaching equality for all citizens. The state has been entrusted with this voluminous task. However, no significant steps have been taken by any government till now.HISTORYCodification of laws dates back to the Colonial Period. The Colonial Masters played an instrumental role in shaping the legislative literature of our country. The Lex Loci Report of October, 1840 emphasized on the necessity for codification of Indian law relating to crimes, evidences, contract etc., but it recommended that personal law of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification. A formal declaration of the policy was made by Warren Hastings in the Administration of Justice Regulation, 1780, where it was pronounced that while dealing with disputes of marriage, divorce or inheritance, people would be governed by their personal laws.The British codified the law of crimes and made a secular law to deal with the crimes. In the realm of personal laws very few attempts were made. The attempt for a Codified Hindu law has also failed.Post-colonial period, the framers of the Indian constitution and Mr. Nehru, were convinced that a certain amount of modernisation is required before a uniform civil code is imposed on citizens belonging to different religions including Muslims. The issue was sensitive and a uniform civil code could be seen by the citizens as an invasion on their culture and religion. The framers felt that certain time should elapse before such a proposal can be undertaken. In backdrop of partition, where chaos and bloodshed became the order of the day, again brining an issue regarding religious laws would not have been a wise decision. However, over 60 years later as well, the dream of a Uniform Civil Code remains unrealised.NEED FOR UNIFORM CIVIL CODEIndia is a land of diversities with several religions. The oldest part of Indian legal system is the personal laws governing the Hindus and the Muslims.The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is the marriage law legislation applicable to the majority population, constituted of Hindus, which is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus. Ceremonial marriage is essential under this Act and registration is optional. This act takes care of divorce and maintenance as well. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs succession among Hindus. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are the laws dealing with succession, adoption and maintenance.The Indian Parliament also enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as an Act to provide a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorces under this Act. This enactment of solemnizing marriage by registration is resorted to by Hindus, non-Hindus and foreigners marrying in India who opt out of the ceremonial marriage under their respective personal laws. Registration is compulsory under this enactment. Divorce can also be obtained by non-Hindus under this Act.The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 as amended in 1988, is an Act to amend the law relating to marriage and divorce among the Parsis in India. The Christian Marriage Act, 1872, was enacted as an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the solemnization of the marriages of Christians in India and the Divorce Act, 1869 as amended in 2001, is an Act to amend the law relating to divorce and matrimonial causes relating to Christians in India. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,1939, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and The Muslim Women ( Protection of Rights on Divorce) Rules, 1986, apply to Muslims living in India.When it comes to the Hindu Law, the problem arising is with the registration of marriages and thus, the inability to nullify child marriages. Child marriages in practically all religious communities in India are accepted practices and so they cannot be registered due to non-fulfillment of minimum age of marriage. The Supreme Court of India in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, has directed all states in India to enact rules for compulsory registration of marriages irrespective of religion, in a time bound period. This reform has struck a progressive blow to check child marriages, prevent marriages without consent of parties, check bigamy/polygamy, enable women’s rights of maintenance, inheritance and residence, deter men from deserting women, and for checking the selling of young girls under the guise of marriage. The consequences of non registration of marriages has created a large number of abandoned spouses in India deserted by non-resident Indians who habitually reside abroad. However, implementation of the same is still undermined.When it comes to the Muslim Law, it is the additional courts that create the problem. The Supreme Court of India on Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India and others, issued notices to the central government, State governments, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Darul Uloom, an Islamic seminary, in the matter of the existence of parallel Islamic and Shariat Courts in the country, which are posing a challenge to the Indian judicial system. A direction from the court was also sought to restrain these organizations from interfering with the marital status of Indian Muslim citizens or passing any judgments, remarks, fatwas or deciding matrimonial disputes amongst Muslims. Till recently, the matter was still pending final adjudication in the Supreme Court of India and no conclusive final decision stands reported on the said issue by the Supreme Court.Similar problem exists under the Hindu Religion as well with the caste panchayats. They have played a powerful role at the village level in several states of the country traditionally. However, khap panchayats (caste based village councils) are not elected bodies.Muslim Law provides for Mehr, an amount to be fixed at the time of marriage itself, as a consideration for the performance of marriage. This is because the marriage under Muslim Law is a contract and the condition for registration is fulfilled in the Nikah- Nama itself. However, the law doesn’t provide for maintenance for the wife. The Mehr amount itself is supposed to take care of this aspect. Men cannot waive or reduce the Mehr. Only, the wife is allowed. This way the women’s interest in the Mehr is protected. But, other provisions of the Muslim Law discriminate against women. Polygamy is allowed but not polyandry. Muta marriages can be undertaken by the husband. The triple pronouncement of the word “talaq” is enough for a man to give divorce. The woman has to undergo an arduous procedure for the same. This is not the case under Hindu Law. Hindu Law under the Hindu Marriage Act itself provides for maintenance for the wife. Also, the grounds and procedure for divorce are the same for both husband and wife.Personal Laws pose a contradiction. On the one hand, the constitution recognizes the continued existence of Personal Law, which is why Article 44 expects that India at some later date will have a uniform civil code. On the other hand, there exist several articles, such as Article 14-19 which guarantee equal rights. Since personal laws for various groups are inherently unequal, a divorcee in Muslim law is entitled to different things than in Hindu law, therefore .Article 15 would seem to make personal law unconstitutional. Furthermore, Article 15 also requires non-discrimination based on “sex”, whereas Muslim Personal Law favours the man in many cases, especially in the issue of divorce and in the issue of polygamy. These issues remained unresolved in the constitution. Personal laws are inconsistent with morality and human rights as well.JUDGEMENTSThe Supreme Court has directed the Parliament to frame a Uniform Civil Code in the year 1985 in the case of Md. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, popularly known as the Shah Bano case. In this case, a Muslim women claimed for maintenance form her husband under S.125 of Cr.P.C. after she was given triple talaq pronouncements by her husband. The Supreme Court held that Muslim Women have a right to get maintenance from her husband under s.125 and commented that Art.44(3) of the Constitution of India has remained in the dead light. However, the then Rajiv Gandhi led government has overturned the Shah Bano case decision by Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act, 1890 which curtailed the right to maintenance of a Muslim Woman.The Second instance was in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, where the question of whether a Hindu husband by embracing Islam can solemnise a second marriage. The court held that this would amount to nothing but merely abusing the personal laws. It was held that a Hindu marriage can be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only and by converting into Islam and marrying again does not dissolve the marriage under Hindu Marriage Law and thus, it would be an offence under S.494(5) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judge in this case opined that it is high time that a uniform civil code be introduced and that Art.44 be taken out of cold-storage.He commented that, “Where more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law, there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of the ‘uniform civil code’ for all the citizens in the territory of India.”Another landmark judgement called for the implementation of Uniform Civil Code. In this case, a priest from Kerala, challenged the Constitutional validity of S.118 of the Indian Succession Act, which is applicable for non-Hindus on India. Mr. John Vallamatton, contended that S.118 of the said act was discriminatory against the Christians as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on their donation of property for religious.THE GOAN MODELGoa is the only state in India which has enforced Uniform Civil Code for all citizens. The Portuguese Civil Code that remains in force even today which was introduced in the 19th century in Goa and wasn’t replaced after liberation.The Uniform civil code in Goa is a progressive law that allows equal division of income and property regardless of gender between husband and wife and also between children. Every birth, death and marriage has to be compulsorily registered. For divorce there are severe provisions. Muslims that have their marriages registered in Goa cannot take more than one wife or divorce by pronouncing “talak” thrice. During the course of marriage all the property and wealth owned or acquired by each spouse is commonly held by the couple. Each spouse in case of divorce is entitled to a half share of the property and if one dies the ownership over half of the property is retained by the other.According to the Uniform Civil Code even if the children (both male and female) have got married and left the house, the other half has to be divided equally among them. Thus the parents cannot disinherit the children totally as they can dispose only half of the property in a will and the rest has to be compulsorily and equally shared amongst the children. Taking cognizance of this, we must enact a uniform code for the entire India as well.SUGGESTIONSIn order to promote the spirit of uniformity of laws and accomplish the objectives enshrined in Art.44 of the Constitution, the following suggestions need immediate consideration.A progressive and broadminded outlook is needed among the people to understand the spirit of such code. For this, education, awareness and sensitisation programmes must be taken up.The Uniform Civil Code should act in the best interest of all the religions.A committee of eminent jurists should be considered to maintain uniformity and care must be taken not to hurt the sentiments of any particular communityCONCLUSIONSArticle 44 of the Constitution of India requires the state to secure for the citizens of India a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. As has been noticed above, India is a unique blend and merger of codified personal laws of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis. However, there exists no uniform family related law in a single statutory book for all Indians which is acceptable to all religious communities who co-exist in India. The question is not of minority protection, or even of national unity, it is simply one of treating each human person with the dignity that he deserves; something which personal laws have so far failed to do.The principle is to treat each person equally and everyone be protected by just, fair and predictable laws.Times have changed, societies have changed and it is high time that laws change. Education, economic prosperity, agricultural improvements, cross border migration and western influence has spread its hand over every nook and corner of Urban India. On the flip side, rural settlements are still struggling with adherence to customary and superstitious beliefs in family matters. A uniform civil code will not only change the entire perception of how families are governed but also change the lives of millions by filling the lacunas in various religious laws. As Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, rightly remarked, a common civil code will also help in strengthening the cause of national integration by removing conflicting interests.

In an authoritarian regime - intelligence has nothing to do with controlling the media narrative. As of now - and for the foreseeable future (and especially as POTUS) - Trump OWNS the narrative because he won the presidency. And he won it without (and in some cases because of) our traditional media narrative (research, facts, truth, etc…).Welcome to our new age of “journalism” as an extension of an authoritarian ruler.Think I’m being too harsh? I watched the press conference in it entirety - and then I read an interesting comparison - as written by a Russian journalist who’s been covering Putin for years. The similarities are very stark - and clear. Here’s just one example:Facts don’t matter. You can’t hurt this man with facts or reason. He’ll always outmaneuver you. He’ll always wriggle out of whatever carefully crafted verbal trap you lay for him. Whatever he says, you won’t be able to challenge him. He always comes with a bag of meaningless factoids (Putin likes to drown questions he doesn’t like in dull, unverifiable stats, figures and percentages), platitudes, examples of false moral equivalence, and straight, undiluted bullshit. He knows it’s a one-way communication, not an interview. You can’t follow up on your questions or challenge him. So he can throw whatever he wants at you in response, and you’ll just have to swallow it. Some journalists will try to preempt this by asking two questions at once, against the protests of their colleagues also vying for attention, but that also won’t work: he’ll answer the one he thinks is easier, and ignore the other. [1]This is compounded, of course, by all the failing media models around the world. The “media” is no longer a handful of large, well established entities, but now a kind of horde of rival individuals (representing widely variant media outlets).These people [journalists] are not your partners or brothers in arms. They are your rivals in a fiercely competitive, crashing market and right now the only currency in this market is whatever that man on the stage says. Whoever is lucky to ask a question and be the first to transmit the answer to the outside world wins. Don’t expect any solidarity or support from them. If your question is stonewalled/mocked down/ignored, don’t expect a rival publication to pick up the banner and follow-up on your behalf. It’s in this man’s best interests to pit you against each other, fighting over artificial scarcities like room space, mic time or, of course, his attention. It’s getting especially absurd because some — increasingly many — reporters will now come with large, bright placards aimed at attracting the president’s attention to names of their regions or specific issues. This is what it looks like:Of course we’re not there - yet - but the trajectory is easy to see from the theatrics at Trump Tower earlier this week.The good news is that our democracy does have *some* safeguards - and they were actually on full display - and referenced - at the presser. Here’s the image:Now see all those (mostly wafer thin) folders? No one was allowed to review their contents, of course, but Trump did make a point of referencing them. The context of their reference helps - so I refer to the transcript as recorded (and published) by The New York Times. [2]QUESTION: (inaudible) do you believe the hacking was justified? And will you release your tax returns to prove what you’re saying about no deals in Russia?TRUMP: I’m not releasing the tax returns because as you know, they’re under audit.(CROSSTALK)QUESTION: ... since the ’70’s has had a required audit from the IRS, the last place to release them, but as president sir...TRUMP: You know, the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters, OK? They’re the only who ask.QUESTION: You don’t think the American public is concerned about it?TRUMP: No I don’t think so. I won, when I became president. No, I don’t think they care at all. I don’t think they care at all.(APPLAUSE)TRUMP: I think you care — I think you care. First of all, you learn very little to a tax return. What you should go down to federal elections and take a look at the numbers. And actually, people have learned a lot about my company and now they realize, my company is much bigger, much more powerful than they ever thought. We’re in many, many countries, and I’m very proud of it.And what I’m going to be doing is my two sons, who are right here, Don and Eric, are going to be running the company. They are going to be running it in a very professional manner. They’re not going to discuss it with me. Again, I don’t have to do this. They’re not going to discuss it with me. And with that, I’m going to bring up Sheri Dillon, and she’s going to go — these papers are just some of the many documents that I’ve signed turning over complete and total control to my sons.The problem, of course, is that this is totally unacceptable to the Office of Government Ethics. Contrary to the misinformation campaign, Trump is NOT exempt from HUGE conflict of interests - and the director for that relatively small department (about 80 employees) weighed in later that same day. Here’s his summary:I need to talk about ethics today because the plan the President-elect has announced doesn’t meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every President in the past four decades has met.The idea of limiting direct communication about the business is wholly inadequate. That’s not how a blind trust works. There’s not supposed to be any information at all.I was especially troubled by the statement that the incoming administration is going to demand that OGE approve a diversified portfolio of assets. No one has ever talked to us about that idea, and there’s no legal mechanism to do that. Instead, Congress set up OGE’s blind trust program under the Ethics in Government Act. Under that law anyone who wants a blind trust has to work with OGE from the start, but OGE has been left out of this process. We would have told them that this arrangement fails to meet the statutory requirements.Over the years, I’ve worked closely with countless officials in administrations of both major parties. Ethics has no party. The job hasn’t always been easy, though, especially when I’ve had to ask nominees and appointees to take painful steps to avoid conflicts of interest. I can’t count the number of times I’ve delivered the bad news that they needed to divest assets, break open trusts, and dissolve businesses. Most of these individuals have worked with us in good faith. Their basic patriotism usually prevails, as they agree to set aside their personal interests to serve their country’s interests. Sometimes these individuals have required more persuasion, but every OGE Director has been buoyed by the unwavering example of Presidents who resolved their own conflicts of interest. As I said, every President in modern times has taken the strong medicine of divestiture. This means OGE Directors could always point to the President as a model. They could also rely on the President’s implicit assurance of support if anyone balked at doing what OGE asked them to do. Officials in any administration need their President to show ethics matters, not only through words but also through deeds. This is vitally important if we’re going to have any kind of ethics program.I appreciate that divestiture can be costly. But the President-elect would not be alone in making that sacrifice. I’ve been involved in just about every Presidential nomination in the past 10 years. I also have been involved in the ethics review of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and most top White House officials. I’ve seen the sacrifices that these individuals have had to make. It’s important to understand that the President is now entering the world of public service. He’s going to be asking his own appointees to make sacrifices. He’s going to be asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives in conflicts around the world. So, no, I don’t think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the President of the United States of America. As we all know, one of the things that make America truly great is its system for preventing public corruption. For a long time now, OGE has helped developing countries set up their own systems for detecting and preventing conflicts of interest. Our executive branch ethics program is considered the gold standard internationally and has served as a model for the world. But that program starts with the Office of the President. The President-elect must show those in government—and those coming into government after his inauguration—that ethics matters.Back when he was working for the Justice Department, the late Antonin Scalia also wrote an opinion declaring that a President should avoid engaging in conduct prohibited by the government’s ethics regulations, even if they don’t apply. Justice Scalia warned us that there would be consequences if a President ever failed to adhere to the same standards that apply to lower level officials. The sheer obviousness of Justice Scalia’s words becomes apparent if you just ask yourself one question: Should a President hold himself to a lower standard than his own appointees? [3]That’s the real question ahead for the country. Are we prepared to live with a President that holds himself to a lower ethical standard than his own appointees?The ONLY option for Trump is to divest/sell his operating businesses - or move investments into a totally blind trust. There are no 3rd options (despite the attempt by his paid legal counsel to fabricate one).Now, the bad news after this strange (and underreported) sequence of events is that the very office that helps the country bridge these critical ethical requirements (for the highest office in the land) is now under full-throated attack by - of course - the GOP.Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who happens to head the House Oversight Committee, jumped to the defense of Donald Trump’s complete lack of ethics in order to instead attack the ethics watchdog, Director of Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub. [4]The good news is that our answer to this significant constitutional threat by Trump will come shortly - in the form of:Legal action by the Department of Justice (Division of Public Integrity) against Donald Trump - sometime during the first few days/weeks/months of his presidency.No legal action against Donald Trump.It’s now abundantly clear that Trump fully intends to violate the ethical standards that have been adhered to - by Presidents of both political parties - for the last 40 years. It’s equally clear that there are those in the GOP that are perfectly willing to defend these ethical violations.History will determine our ultimate response, of course, but if we do nothing - if we allow these huge conflicts of interests to exist for the highest office in our form of government, we have effectively become the world's largest banana republic.[1] A warning to the American media from a Russian journalist who covers Putin[2] New York Times - Trump Press Conference Transcript[3] Office of Government Ethics Director - Comments at Brookings Institute[4] Chuck Schumer Condemns Chaffetz Attempt to Bully Ethics Office For Criticizing Trump

If a person in the US was never appointed or enlisted into the federal uniformed services, but was merely on a draft list, they are not a federal statutory veteran, as defined in US law.REGULAR COMPONENT MEMBERSIn the US, if you are a Regular component member and:have entered active duty and been appointed or enlisted into the permanent Regular military establishment, andhave served one day of active service, andhave a discharge from that period of active service that is “other than dishonorable,”then the servicemember is considered a statutory veteran under 38 US Code 101, and various VA Regulations under 38 Code of Federal Regulations 3.1, et al.[1] [2]Note 1: such a statutory definition of “veteran” does not in and of itself provide eligibility for any veterans benefits, each benefit of which has its own set of prerequisites, whether one day of active service, or 30 days, or 90 days, or 180 days, or 1 year or 2 years or 6 years, plus various other requirements in many cases. A person can be a statutory veteran under the laws of the US, but not be eligible for any veterans benefits whatsoever, and in some cases (like using the GI Bill while still in the Service), a person may not have qualified as a statutory veteran but still be eligible to use a veterans benefit. So it depends greatly on the situation…Note 2: the VA uses different wording than the DoD regarding “characterization of discharges”: “Other Than Dishonorable,” and “Dishonorable.”[3] The DoD categorizes discharges as:[4]Honorable,General (Under Honorable Conditions),Other Than Honorable (several decades ago this was titled an “Undesirable Discharge,” and even farther back — before 1947 — was often called a “Blue Discharge” due to the standard color of the form used to issue a version of an undesirable discharge…),[5]Bad Conduct Discharge (issued only to enlisted members by a Special or General Court-Martial as a punitive discharge, typically for lesser offenses considered as misdemeanors),Dishonorable Discharge (issued only by a General Court-Martial as a punitive discharge for a serious offense, i.e., a felony),Dismissal (issued only to commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen convicted of any offense at a General Court-Martial and sentenced to a punitive discharge, and treated for most purposes similarly to a Dishonorable Discharge for an uncommissioned warrant officer, i.e., W-1, or an enlisted member),Dropped from the Rolls (usually uncharacterized discharge for a servicemember who has been absent from required service for a stated number of days, or other reasons; not commonly issued in recent decades),Entry Level Separation (usually uncharacterized discharge for a member within their first 6 months of service, but also includes release from a Service’s Delayed Entry Program or certain officer accession programs).Note 3: there are certain statutory and regulatory bars to eligibility for statutory veteran status that the VA will use to adjudicate certain questionable cases involving crimes of moral turpitude, crimes of violence, fraudulent enlistments, spying, desertion, and other unusual situations. In these cases, even if the DoD issued a characterization of discharge higher than a Dishonorable Discharge/Dismissal, the VA may still deny that statutory veteran status exists and/or eligibility to any veterans benefits, depending on the situation.[6]RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERSIn the case of Reserve component members who:have entered active service, as defined by 38 USC 101 and 38 CFR 3.1, et al., andhave served at least one day of such active service, andhave a discharge from that period of active service that is “other than dishonorable,” orhave served 20 federally creditable, qualifying reserve years toward a non-Regular retirement, and that service was (if already retired or discharged) or would be (if not yet retired or discharged) characterized as “other than dishonorable,”then the servicemember is considered a statutory veteran under 38 US Code 101, and various VA Regulations under 38 Code of Federal Regulations 3.1, et al.What is the difference in the statutory definition of “veteran” as applied to a Regular vs. a Reserve member?A Regular on active duty always, every single 24 hour calendar day, performs “active service” as defined in the law. This means that the very first day that a new recruit begins travel to basic training is counted as “active service.” And every day for the rest of the Regular’s career will be counted as “active service.” So says Congress and the laws of the United States, and the regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even when a Regular is a recruit at basic training, even when undergoing any training course, even when on leave or liberty, every day counts for them as “active service.”But — for a Reserve member, it is much harder to qualify for statutory veteran status. Here is why: Congress has decreed, in law, and the VA has implemented those laws in VA regulations, that “active service” only includes some of the 29 different types of authorized duty that a reserve member can perform:“active duty,” as defined by paragraph 38 USC 101(21):(21) The term “active duty” means—(A) full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training;(B) full-time duty (other than for training purposes) as a commissioned officer of the Regular or Reserve Corps [1] of the Public Health Service (i) on or after July 29, 1945, or (ii) before that date under circumstances affording entitlement to “full military benefits” or (iii) at any time, for the purposes of chapter 13 of this title;(C) full-time duty as a commissioned officer in the commissioned officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its predecessor organization the Coast and Geodetic Survey (i) on or after July 29, 1945, or (ii) before that date (I) while on transfer to one of the Armed Forces, or (II) while, in time of war or national emergency declared by the President, assigned to duty on a project for one of the Armed Forces in an area determined by the Secretary of Defense to be of immediate military hazard, or (III) in the Philippine Islands on December 7, 1941, and continuously in such islands thereafter, or (iii) at any time, for the purposes of chapter 13 of this title;(D) service as a cadet at the United States Military, Air Force, or Coast Guard Academy, or as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy; and(E) authorized travel to or from such duty or service.and certain periods of “active duty for training” and “inactive duty for training,” as defined by law and regulation:(24) The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes—(A) active duty;(B) any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; and(C) any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died—(i) from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; or(ii) from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training.What does this all mean?A Regular member serves one day, and receives a discharge “other than dishonorable,” they probably qualify as a statutory veteran under law. They probably don’t qualify for any veterans benefits unless they were injured in the line of duty, in which case, they may be eligible for a wide range of benefits. Or not. It depends.Enlistees awaiting shipping to basic training and entry to active duty as a Regular under their Service’s Delayed Entry Program are actually enlisted members of the Individual Ready Reserve sub-category of the Ready Reserve of their Service’s Reserve Component, and are tracked by DoD in a special “untrained” reserve manpower training category. They are members of the Reserve Component while awaiting Initial Entry Training; on the day they swear the Oath of Enlistment for the second time at MEPS, and ship to basic training, they enter the Regular component, and that first day counts as the required day as a Regular to qualify as a statutory veteran.If a Reserve member is not called to active service under Title 10, 14, or 32, plus the authority for the US Public Health Service Reserve Component, and does not serve at least one day of active service (other than active duty for training), or is not injured in the performance of any type of authorized duty (active or inactive), or doesn’t have at least 20 federally creditable and qualifying years toward retirement, or doesn’t receive a discharge “other than dishonorable,” they are not a statutory veteran as defined in US law and VA regulations.A Reserve member who is injured in the line of duty during an authorized period of duty is usually granted full statutory veteran status, and is thus qualified for any veterans benefits for which they would otherwise be eligible (which might be considerable, if they are seriously injured).Note 4: However, one other type of Reserve member may qualify for statutory veteran status, even if not any veterans benefit: the “Delayed Entry Into Training,” or DET, Reserve Training Category Code “P” member. Category “P” is applied to those members who have duly enlisted into the Reserve component service, in either the federal reserves or National Guard, and are authorized by law and Service Regulations to perform inactive duty for training (IDT), i.e., drills/unit training assemblies/etc., with their Selected Reserve unit before completing basic training. Whether that unit is a Reserve unit or a National Guard unit; the Army National Guard still uses this, but the USMCR ceased using “Cat P” in 1999, and I don’t know off-hand if other Service reserve continue to use it today. During such Category “P” status, the DET member is not considered a part of the Delayed Entry Program, instead they are deemed part of the DET because they have already begun performing military duties with their units before they have been fully trained at their Service basic training and initial entry training pipeline. If such an member was injured during their IDT in a way that was covered by 38 USC 101 and 38 CFR 3.1, et al., and VA regulations declared the individual was a statutory veteran and (possibly) eligible for veterans benefits, as well, the Reserve component member might never have even started, let alone completed, basic training before they became a veteran. This is highly unlikely…but possible, given the combinations of variables involved.[7]THE CASE AT HAND!So, after having reviewed the applicable laws and regulations, let’s examine more closely the original question:If you have not gone through military basic training, are you considered a veteran? My father-in-law said he was on a list to be drafted but never went through basic training.Question #1: Did the individual swear the Oath of Office or Enlistment, and thus enter into the federal uniformed services?Answer: It would appear from the information given that the individual did not swear into the uniformed services.Question #2: Even if the individual did swear the Oath and enter the uniformed services, did they perform even one day of active service … or … any days of active for training or inactive duty for training during which they were injured in the line of duty, that might qualify them for “statutory veteran” status?Answer: It would that from the information given the individual did not perform any active duty or inactive duty of any type at all, nor does it appear they were injured during performance of authorized active or inactive duty.Question #3: Even if the individual did perform some type of active or inactive duty, even for one day, and/or were injured in the line of duty, were they discharged formally with a characterization of service “other than dishonorable”?Answer: It would appear from the information given that the individual did not receive any discharge at all, let alone one characterized as “other than dishonorable.”Conclusion: given the facts presented, the individual is highly unlikely to be qualified as a federal, statutory veteran of the US uniformed services.However, it is possible that some States or private organizations may recognize their service in some other fashion.Footnotes[1] 38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions[2] 38 CFR § 3.1 - Definitions.[3] 38 CFR § 3.12 - Character of discharge.[4] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133214p.pdf[5] Blue discharge - Wikipedia[6] https://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/docs/COD_Factsheet.pdf[7] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130425p.pdf