Currently reading an oral history of WW1 (Make the Kaiser Dance by Henry Berry) which was published in 1978. One interesting viewpoint that is shared among most of the vets that Mr. Berry is interviewing is their belief in the righteousness of the US's involvement in foreign conflicts. Nearly every Doughboy that is interviewed explains that US involvement in the wars (WWI, WW2, and Korea) were, in their eyes, necessary conflicts. They also admit that the US should have involved itself sooner. This same view applies for the Vietnam war. Interestingly, the multi-war veterans make a subtle observation: in each subsequent war after WWI, the fighting spirit of the American soldier had diminished from the previous war. WWI had men taking inititative, going over the top to their doom in wave after wave, attacking trenches and foftified positions without adequate artillery, munitions, leadership, tactics, etc. WW2, according to some of the veterans, had a noticeable decline in this "esprit de corps" among soldiers. Korea had even less, and then Vietnam had so much less that men would move to Canada or dodge the draft to avoid the fight. Obviously, when it comes to this last point, the veterans get so worked up that they refer to these men as cowards, traitors etc.

Now, how accurate are these statements? What makes the heroic defense of Belleau Wood any less heroic than the defense of Bastogne, or the defense at Wake Island. Are these just old timer vets trumpeting their glory days, or do they have a point? Maybe of a little of both. Every army in every war has their deserters and their conscientious objectors, but Vietnam's was more widely publicized and probably the most visible. Also, they are still around today, whereas the conscientious objectors of WW1 have long since passed away.

So how does this relate to your question. The vets that Mr. Berry is interviewing in the 1970's were either just on the verge of retiring, or had already retired. Also, most of them had successful careers in a variety of fields, and had achieved a high position in their respective companies. If the majority of them shared this viewpoint to the draft dodgers of Vietnam, and held positions of power in their respective companies, you can imagine the outcome if the draft dodger were to apply at the old-timers company. Is this last train of thought circumstantial? Sure, but it doesn't require a leap of faith to see that draft dodgers and conscientious objectors had a difficult time starting careers in the decade following the Vietnam War.