Maybe those making these statements (complaints) should nut up and shut up and do a risk assessment. Would they like better accolades or would they like to complete their 20 years of "service" with their life, limbs, hearing, etc intact?
This article leaves confused - There's a difference between Military/Law Enforcement/Firefighters and other public service venues. I am not sure what formal system of awards, honors, and accolades as recognition for services performed should be adopted to give those in less risky capacities more public atta-boys so they can feel better about their service? Even at our most basic level of training in the military there is risk of bodily injury, let alone the rest of the issues faced during a career in the military.
Take those complaining about lack of recognition need to tour a VA sometime and do a weekend of community service assisting Veteran's who have sacrificed their body, mind and/or soul in service to the United States. After that weekend, they can write down their definition of 'service' and how their atta-boy should be as big as or bigger than the Veterans they worked with throughout that weekend.

Maybe I'm already pissed the F off by spending a chunk of my weekend with left wing, every third sentence starts with "well I work for a non-profit", closed minded asshats and that's skewing my view when I read this article.
If you've served your country, in any capacity, great! Everyone should "serve" their community in some capacity and feel good for doing so. Based on your choice of service, there's a significant difference in the risks & sacrifices taken and as such, there is going to be a different system of awards & recognition.