Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions

[raedyn]

WASHINGTON Dec 6, 2004 — Eight soldiers are challenging the Army's policy requiring them to serve longer than the terms of their enlistment contracts.

In a lawsuit being filed Monday in federal court, the soldiers are seeking a judge's order requiring the Army to immediately release them from service.

"The Army made an agreement with me and I expected them to honor it," said David Qualls, one of the plaintiffs. He signed up in July 2003 for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard but has been told he will remain on active duty in Iraq until next year.

Under the Pentagon's "stop-loss" program, the Army can extend enlistments during war or national emergencies as a way to promote continuity and cohesiveness.

The policy, invoked in June, could keep tens of thousands of personnel in the military beyond their expected departure. The policy was also used during the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War.

The lawsuit contends the policy is a breach of the service contract because it extends the length of service without a soldier's consent. It also alleges the contracts were misleading because they make no reference to the policy, said Staughton Lynd, an attorney for the soldiers.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said he could not respond to the lawsuit until it was filed but defended the policy as necessary to maintain cohesive units in the war on terror.

"The alternative is people start leaving that unit in the middle of a tour," he said.

Qualls, the only named plaintiff in the case, is home on leave. The other seven, listed as John Does to protect their privacy, are now serving in Iraq or are in Kuwait en route to Iraq, Lynd said.

Qualls and two other plaintiffs enlisted under one-year "Try One" contracts that have expired. Four others are serving under multiyear contracts that also have run out. The remaining soldier's contract doesn't expire until spring, but he has been told to expect to serve in Iraq beyond the expiration date. The lawsuit names Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and with other Army officials.

AP story found here.

 

[MisterMike]

Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.

What do they think this? Summer camp?

 

[Bester]

Maybe rather than using our National Guard like this, they should use regular troops?
If they do not have enough, maybe they should have taken that into consideration prior to starting wars on a half dozen fronts?

 

[Ping898]

I'd love to know how having doezens of disgruntled workers who have had their tours extended mandatorily by a year would help unit cohesion. Seems to me you would have a lot of pissed off people and that would be a killer to morale which can hurt well a group works together more than having a new guy.

I say more power to these soldiers, let them sue and I hope they get what they want. They've done their time and they want to get back to their families. I can't blame them. I don't know what the contract they have signed specifically states, but if their is nothing abou the "stop-loss" in their, then they should be released.

 

[Adept]

Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.

What do they think this? Summer camp?

I'm finding myself agreeing with this. Those soldiers that have a legitimate complaint, well more power to them. But those who are only just realising they should have mayeb read that whole contract through before signing, tough bickies.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm finding myself agreeing with this. Those soldiers that have a legitimate complaint, well more power to them. But those who are only just realising they should have mayeb read that whole contract through before signing, tough bickies.

And I agree with your agreement

But, as we'll soon be told, the Armed Forces are just a place to send the poor, uneducated minorities off to die for the white man's war. So of course, they couldn't afford a lawyer even if they knew to go and consult with one. And if they could, they'd a been told everything was OK.

:uhyeah:

 

[OULobo]

Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.

What do they think this? Summer camp?

If I remember correctly, the problem was that the contracts that were signed gave no mention to the "stop loss" policy or the governments ability to use it, and the signers were never informed until after signing of it's exsistance.

 

[MisterMike]

The article mentioned that this policy was enacted in 1991 as well. I'm not sure how long it has been around, but it seems to be quite a while and in all these years there have been thousands who have enlisted. I'm sure it is not the first thing a recruiter will mention but I think the responsibility still falls on the individual when signing a contract.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'll agree with Mike on this one. The needs of the service have always taken precedent. You can get extended any time for any amount of time depending upon what Uncle Sugar needs. I knew it when I was on active duty, I knew it in the Reserves.

But the point was made that this is going to ruin morale in the Reserves and National Guard. It will, and it is. I've met men who are getting out...one guy had twelve years in...because they can't support their families on sergeant's pay. Their families need them home and working a decent job.

One local unit got back from Iraq (or Afghanistan, I can't recall) and suffered a 50% drop in manpower from people getting out. This is unprecedented.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

I'll agree with Mike on this one. The needs of the service have always taken precedent. You can get extended any time for any amount of time depending upon what Uncle Sugar needs. I knew it when I was on active duty, I knew it in the Reserves.

But the point was made that this is going to ruin morale in the Reserves and National Guard. It will, and it is. I've met men who are getting out...one guy had twelve years in...because they can't support their families on sergeant's pay. Their families need them home and working a decent job.

One local unit got back from Iraq (or Afghanistan, I can't recall) and suffered a 50% drop in manpower from people getting out. This is unprecedented.


Regards,


Steve

Agreed.

I'd love to know how having doezens of disgruntled workers who have had their tours extended mandatorily by a year would help unit cohesion.

To dovetail with that previous post..they arent "workers" they're soldiers. They are different.

 

[Ping898]

To dovetail with that previous post..they arent "workers" they're soldiers. They are different.

They are soldiers, but they are also workers. People who are doing a job the best they can to support their family and defend their country. And yes their job is a lot more dangerous than mine probably will ever be and they can't just quit if theydon't like their current work assignment, but in the end, they get a paycheck for what they do same as any cop or engineer or janitor. They have families who miss them, that they can't afford to support on their pay half the time. I see nothing wrong with if their contract is up and says nothing about the stop-loss, anyone of them suing to get out. I don't think it will work, but I wish it would. It's a heck of a way to say thanks to someone for a job well done by forcing them to do it for 12 t 18 more months than they signed up to. If the contract mentions the stop-loss than yeah it is their job and duty to continue working.

 

[CanuckMA]

Anybody ever figured out the negative effect on the economy by removing so much manpower for so long?

When an employer hires a National Guardsman, he knows that the individual will need some weekends and a couple of weeks a year, in addition to regular vacation time. The employer also knows that the worker can be called away to assist in emergencies. But having workers taken away from their jobs for that amount of time is insane.


Also, individuals serving in the Guards have a lifestyle comensurate with their civilian income. They just cannot maintain it under the military pay. It is grossly unfaur to ask them to do so for that long.

I hope they win the lawsuit.

 

[loki09789]

If I remember correctly, the problem was that the contracts that were signed gave no mention to the "stop loss" policy or the governments ability to use it, and the signers were never informed until after signing of it's exsistance.

In the contracts there is always a line or statement to the effect that in any circumstance the need of the government will come first. That would include things like stop loss, contract extentions, changing orders, job training, work hours....That is why it is so significant that you swear an oath and aren't just 'hired' into the service....and that term "service" is significant too now that I think about it.

It is a bitter, hard and demanding thing they do. I can understand the frustration. I am more than sure that there were gripes, complaints, criticisms during WWI, WWII, Korea...Vietnam (obviously) and even Desert Storm. War tests the breaking point. These people have found thiers.

My hope is that they aren't doing a 'work stoppage/protest' action while in country though. It is one thing to sue/petition your case in a legal sense. It is a whole 'nother thing to quit doing your duty and making others pick up the slack because you don't feel like playing anymore. If they are doing some form of mission sabotage/non-team player reindeer gaming and that contributes to a fellow soldier's death that is a heavy thing to live with over time.

 

[Ping898]

My hope is that they aren't doing a 'work stoppage/protest' action while in country though. It is one thing to sue/petition your case in a legal sense. It is a whole 'nother thing to quit doing your duty and making others pick up the slack because you don't feel like playing anymore. If they are doing some form of mission sabotage/non-team player reindeer gaming and that contributes to a fellow soldier's death that is a heavy thing to live with over time.

They aren't. All but 1 are listed as John Doe cause they are still deployed or about to be and don't want reprucutions cause of the lawsuit and the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.

 

[PeachMonkey]

The "Try One" plaintiffs are taking an interesting bent. They are not disputing that the Army enlistment contract provides indefinite stop-loss extension in times of war or emergency; they are, however, pointing out that the Army used the "Try One" promotion to lure former Reservists to sign up for a year of Guard duty, then when they chose not to re-up at the end of their "Try One" period, that only then did the Army invoke the stop-loss clause.

While I think their chances of prevailing in court are dubious (and I think anyone who didn't see through this particular recruiting tactic during a time of war probably needs to have their head examined) I do find this sort of recruiting tactic despicable.

 

[loki09789]

They aren't. All but 1 are listed as John Doe cause they are still deployed or about to be and don't want reprucutions cause of the lawsuit and the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.

What may become an issue after the fact is whether they can be tried by the UCMJ for either Unauthorized absence/Absent without leave...desertion or some other chargable offense.

 

[Matt Stone]

...the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.

And if he does he'll be in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (permission). Further, if he is deployed into a war zone, the charge of Article 85 (Desertion) could be levied against him instead (it is a more punitive charge than Article 86, which is a lesser included offense to Article 85).

He'll stay until they let him go. Period.

They are soldiers, but they are also workers.

Nope. They are soldiers only. The rules, rights, and attitudes of civilian employees simply do not apply. Period.

People who are doing a job the best they can to support their family and defend their country.

Just like every other soldier, right? Why should one group of soldiers be treated any differently than any other group? It is an all volunteer Army, and nobody forced them to sign (whether they fully understood what they were doing or not).

And yes their job is a lot more dangerous than mine probably will ever be and they can't just quit if theydon't like their current work assignment, but in the end, they get a paycheck for what they do same as any cop or engineer or janitor.

But, you see, it isn't the same. Not even close. Apples and exhaust pipes are being compared when you try to compare the demands of military service with civilian employment.

They have families who miss them, that they can't afford to support on their pay half the time.

And that is different from their active duty counterparts exactly how?

I see nothing wrong with if their contract is up and says nothing about the stop-loss, anyone of them suing to get out.

Certainly, due process is the right of every citizen. But when they signed their contract, regardless of the particular clauses or enticements they were recruited under, they were fully aware (or reasonably should have been) of the potential for activation. For someone to sign up and then allege "I didn't know I'd have to go to war" is ludicrous.

And I'm sure the contract speaks to the possibility of involuntary extension, especially since it happens far more frequently than civilians are aware.

I don't think it will work, but I wish it would.

Why? So there'd be a precedent for any soldier to just pack up and go home when things get rough or when they miss their family? Please...

It's a heck of a way to say thanks to someone for a job well done by forcing them to do it for 12 to 18 more months than they signed up to. If the contract mentions the stop-loss than yeah it is their job and duty to continue working.

Whether it mentions the stop-loss or not, it is their duty to remain until they receive orders reassigning them, redeploying them, or releasing them from active duty. Part of the enlistment oath refers to obeying the "orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." That implies that they are fully aware that they are subject to whatever regulations exist governing their service. I've been in for 15 years and I know there are regs out there I am unaware of.

The "thanking them for a job well done" comes from a number of things, like pay, benefits, and awards issued for service. Letting them go home isn't a "reward," but rather a simple component of service.

Bottom line, their panties are in a wad over being extended. There are quite a few active duty folks who were extended as well. Tough. That's part of being in the military, and they all knew it (especially the ones that were prior-service!). Alleging that their service contract for "try one" didn't remind them of the possibility of deployment, activation, or involuntary extension, and so they should be released from their contract, is a big smelly load... Nice chance for their civilian attorneys to get some face time with the media, but ultimately I don't hold any hope of their allegations being upheld by the court.

 

[Tgace]

Well said Mr.Stone. People who havent been soldiers dont understand. Its different....

 

[Rynocerous]

(Shaking my head in disgust)...

These men know that they have a total of eight years to which they may serve. If you enlist for four years, you can be recalled at any time in the next four years after that. This is all very clear in the contract, along with the fact that in the needs of the military you can in fact be stoplossed indefinately. When you enlist, the MEPS officer asks you if you understand what you read before you sign, just for this reason. It is all in the contract, and soldiers who try to wriggle out of deployment make me sick. We have thousands of troops over there, who don't want to be there, but they suck it up and drive on, because they have to. As far as the Reserve and National Guard, as soon as they are activated to full time they get paid full time(with full benefits, medical, dental, etc.). It's not like they aren't getting paid for what they are doing. I hope they lose this battle and go do their job that they swore in to do. Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[OULobo]

Nope. They are soldiers only. The rules, rights, and attitudes of civilian employees simply do not apply. Period.

I believe that is what the courts, in this, case civilian, will decide.

Just like every other soldier, right? Why should one group of soldiers be treated any differently than any other group? It is an all volunteer Army, and nobody forced them to sign (whether they fully understood what they were doing or not).

If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).

Certainly, due process is the right of every citizen. But when they signed their contract, regardless of the particular clauses or enticements they were recruited under, they were fully aware (or reasonably should have been) of the potential for activation. For someone to sign up and then allege "I didn't know I'd have to go to war" is ludicrous..

It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date.

And I'm sure the contract speaks to the possibility of involuntary extension, especially since it happens far more frequently than civilians are aware.

If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.

Why? So there'd be a precedent for any soldier to just pack up and go home when things get rough or when they miss their family? Please... .

Only when they forfill the stipulations of their contracts.

Whether it mentions the stop-loss or not, it is their duty to remain until they receive orders reassigning them, redeploying them, or releasing them from active duty. Part of the enlistment oath refers to obeying the "orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." That implies that they are fully aware that they are subject to whatever regulations exist governing their service. I've been in for 15 years and I know there are regs out there I am unaware of..

The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.