I think the article fails to address some things and here is something that is a misconception... "we have this notion that vets have seen combat and put themselves in harms way." This is a huge misconception...
Here are some example of my friends who are veterans, and veterans of foreign wars.
Joseph G - vet deployed in 2001, attached to the maryland national guard, to defend Andrews Air Force Base. Never seen Combat.
Daniel S- vet, deployed in 2004 to The Persian Gulf, attached to the Navy, stationed the whole time on the USS Kittyhawk.... aka the shytty kitty.
John L. vet, Deployed to Iraq, attached to the army, in baqubah, karbala serviced Humvees and military equipment, closest he came to battle was a mortar round exploding at the gates of his camp... stationed 2 tours there.
Daft- Vet attached to the Army, fought in many battles including Operation Anaconda, Operation Phantom Thunder just to name a few...
My point is there are many forms of Veterans... what kind is this guy... what led him to make these choices. I know that transitioning into civilian life is not easy... is not like yuh could put on a resume proficient in the A-1, M9, or M82... to me this article is too open-ended. Until I know more details, the fact that he is a vet is just too much sensationalism...