One thing I have seen a lot of these days is people who misrepresent themselves. Many refer to themselves as something they are not; I suppose they are trying to present themselves as more important than they actually are. While this covers various topics, one has left me especially steamed.
First, to average people as well as people who have served in the military, there is only one definition of a "Vietnam Veteran." This term means someone who served in Vietnam. Individuals who served in the military during that particular period of time, yet were never stationed in Vietnam, are described as "Vietnam Era Veterans."
I have a couple of much-older brothers in both categories. The eldest, who was stationed in South Vietnam for thirteen months, is a Vietnam Veteran. The other, who was in the military shortly thereafter, yet never directly served in Vietnam, is in the latter category. Second, average people as well as those who have served in the military would consider only one definition of "a disabled veteran" to be acceptable and valid. A "disabled veteran" is someone whose disability is directly related to his military service. Individuals who did not serve in the war, and did not become disabled due to their war experiences, are way out of line referring to themselves as "disabled Vietnam veterans."
In this locale, there was a young person who had the habit of wearing military gear. He even referred to himself by a rank. While it was way out of line, in my opinion it was no different from those who claim to be "disabled Vietnam veterans" when they never saw the war and became injured long afterward in their civilian lives. The point: don't call yourself something if you did not earn it.