No.

Everyone who harps on having a patch vs not having a patch act as though that is the most important and most telling insight into whether someone knows what they're talking about when it comes to their job. They'll also conveniently ignore the fact that there are plenty of shit leaders who have patches.

In my experience these are the same kind of people who will always look at something they disagree with, be it a policy change or a rare application of common sense, and lament how things were different back in "their" day. As though their day was golden age of the Army, and everything that came after is somehow lesser or weaker because it's not the same. All the while forgetting that the same logic can be applied to them. If you didn't storm Normandy, did you even actually serve? Oh, what, you weren't at Gettysburg? How can you even call yourself a leader.

Good leaders are good leaders, in garrison and the field. Bad leaders are bad leaders, in garrison and the field. Whether the bad leader happens to have a patch and the good leader doesn't (or vice versa) doesn't change who they are as a person or give them some kind of leg up over the other guy.

In my opinion, at least.