Being a “Vietnam Era Vet” who honorably, actively served stateside in 1968 and 1969 I take the tone of your post as an insult to those of us who served during that period but did not get assigned to Vietnam. The term is entirely accurate and an entirely proper way to describe those of us who served during that era, often at substantial personal sacrifice, but did not serve in Vietnam.
I didn’t mean to insult anyone; my apologies if you took it that way.
I was suggesting that the Indian was misrepresenting his own service with some wiggle-room. Like some others here, I personally doubt he saw duty in Viet Nam but was trying to share the mantle of those who did.
Also, there are the yearly average of 300,000+ Army, Air Force and Navy/Marines who served in Europe and the Med, facing the Soviets and Warsaw Pact, during the time of the Vietnam war are considered as “Vietnam Era Veterans.”