SwiftVets.com

[nickb]

I am not sure what I think of it yet. (if this is posted in the wrong forum, feel free to move it)

Soldier Sues U.S. Military Over Extended Service

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California Army National Guard sergeant filed a lawsuit on Tuesday asserting that the government can not prevent reservists from leaving the military when their enlistment periods end.

the rest of the article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040817/ts_nm/security_usa_reservists_dc

[Polaris]

nickb,

I am a veteran, and that Sergeant doesn't have a case. You need to read the fine print on the enlistment documents. You serve for a given period of time subject to the needs of the service. Stop loss is quite legit.

Of course I am not a lawyer, but I do remember this detail very clearly.
_________________
-Polaris

Truth is Beauty

[Scott]

I'll be moving this thread to Gedunk & Scuttlebutt shortly.
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler!

[ArmyWife]

Tough call.

I think we all feel unconfortable about stop-loss. There is an un-American smell about it.

It is legal, though.

The problem is in whether it is used occassionally for temporary needs, or whether it has become or will become a crutch that allows the DoD to fail to plan and staff the military appropriately. When you start keeping thousands of servicemembers years beyond their original ETS dates, either the populace is going to rise up and change the law, or the Federal courts are going to have to take a case like this. Are we there yet? I dunno.

[JN173]

[ArmyWife]

I haven't seen any hard statistics yet on just how many servicemembers are on stop-loss at any given time. I know the anecdotal stories are disturbing, and I have personally known people on stop-loss who were pretty angry. I have heard of soldiers being told that they just have to re-enlist because they are on stop loss, and it strikes me that ordering a soldier to sign re-enlistment papers might be an illegal order.

As for the current situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror, it does seem like we're over a barrel, especially with certain MOS' like military police. In the last few months the Army has announced a major reorganization which will go a long way toward fixing things. They are going to units-of-action, which are more deployable brigade-sized units rather than clinging to the WWII sized divisions. This will make for more predictable deployments, and troops will transfer in and out of their units, and ETS, within a set window in their deployment cycle. I don't know what the other services are doing.

I guess what I'm coming down to is that a serious plan is in place for the Army, so a viable argument can be made that current Army stop-losses are truly temporary and necessary, unless you can find some shockingly high number that overwhelms that argument.

[JN173]

I thought I heard Tommy Franks say (that means I'm not positive what I heard is exactly what he said!) on one of interviews for the release of his new book, that he was concerned that the Army had not adequately study the question of what skills (MOS mix) was needed overall (i.e. how many MP's.) before the reorganization was announced. That as much as anything recently raised my concern level.
_________________
A Grunt
2/503 173rd Airborne Brigade
RVN '65-'66

[Orolonn]

I always thought that a soldier/sailor cannot sue the government, at least not while serving? Hmmm...guess that is what I get for thinking!

I don't think he will win this case, but will be watching to find out.
_________________
Orolonn

[sixdogteam]

Think I'll sue the government for stopgapping me to Vietnam for a year via the draft...
_________________
HHC 212th CAB MMAF RVN '70-'71

[ArmyWife]

Orolonn, you are right that the biggest hurdle this case has is getting permission from the Federal Gov't to sue it. That's, in essence, what I always heard has to happen. Occassionally one gets through, though.