Soldier To Sue Military After 5th Army Deployment

[Gaffer]

If he joined in 2001 then he has served at least six years. That tells me he has re-enlisted at least once. His MOS could be a factor in how often he is deployed. It's not mentioned as to what he does. He's a GI, that means government issue. He's the property of the military. If he doesn't want to be deployed again I think he needs to see about getting out. He'll have to repay his enlistment bonus though.

A family friend is just waiting to go back. He's scheduled for December. He volunteered to go earlier but they said he had to wait because he hasn't been back a year yet. My nephew, who's making a career of the army, has been three times. He took part in the invasion as a member of the 3rd ID. Then did two more tours. He has a wife and 6 kids. He hates being deployed but he deals with it. It's part of the job.

[Gunny]

If he wins that is excatly what will happen. He should get a dishonorable discharge as well.

No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.

[Gunny]

If he joined in 2001 then he has served at least six years. That tells me he has re-enlisted at least once. His MOS could be a factor in how often he is deployed. It's not mentioned as to what he does. He's a GI, that means government issue. He's the property of the military. If he doesn't want to be deployed again I think he needs to see about getting out. He'll have to repay his enlistment bonus though.

A family friend is just waiting to go back. He's scheduled for December. He volunteered to go earlier but they said he had to wait because he hasn't been back a year yet. My nephew, who's making a career of the army, has been three times. He took part in the invasion as a member of the 3rd ID. Then did two more tours. He has a wife and 6 kids. He hates being deployed but he deals with it. It's part of the job.

That just about sums it up. I can't say I remember a deployment I enjoyed at the time.

[nevadamedic]

No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.

But isn't that almost a slap in the face to the Army? I mean something about it just seems like it's not right, but I can't say for sure since I was never in the military. It just seems like he is bring disgrace on himself, the army, his unit and our country. Our enemies over seas love reading all about this.

[Gaffer]

I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

[Yurt]

No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.

These were my near exact questions. So, was he in fact "forced" back in?

I can't see the court's taking this though, it is a non-justiciable issue. Unless this guy is claiming involuntary servitude under the 13th. Which I HIGHLY doubt.

[nevadamedic]

I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

He probably had a really tough job in the military like a cook or something too. Probably got a Purple Heart for dish pan hands!

[Pale Rider]

Our troops are stretched too thin. The National Guards purpose was never to fight an overseas battle. That's what our active duty and reserve troops are for. The Guards purpose is "national," not "international."

While I agree we need to keep fighting terror and terrorists, the fact of the matter is, our military is stretched far too thin, and our troops are over worked. We either need a draft, or a different strategy to keep up this pace of war.

I can't say as though I totally blame the Guard troop. All these deployments are probably a far cry from what he was told he signed up for.

Pentagon Ends Active Duty Limits on Guard, Reserve Troops
Friday, January 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

Members of the Guard combat brigades that have served in Iraq in recent years spent 18 months on active duty — about six months in pre-deployment training in the United States, followed by about 12 months in Iraq. Under the old policy, they could not be sent back to Iraq because their cumulative time on active duty would exceed 24 months. Now that cumulative limit has been lifted, giving the Pentagon more flexibility.
The new approach, Pace said, is to squeeze the training, deployment and demobilization into a maximum of 12 months. He called that a "significant planning factor" for Guard and Reserve members and their families.

More

[Gunny]

I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

Agreed. The Corps goes by accumulated deployed time, not # of deployments. This guy's a whiner. I've had more deployed time in 18 months thn this guy has total.

[actsnoblemartin]

You are right on, I cant believe what a f-ing wanker this guy is. Its not like he was deployed 12 months 3 times, and doesnt wanna go back a 4th.

What is the longest amount or time, or deployments ever given, anyone know?

Agreed. The Corps goes by accumulated deployed time, not # of deployments. This guy's a whiner. I've had more deployed time in 18 months thn this guy has total.

[Gunny]

You are right on, I cant believe what a f-ing wanker this guy is. Its not like he was deployed 12 months 3 times, and doesnt wanna go back a 4th.

What is the longest amount or time, or deployments ever given, anyone know?

How much accumulated deployed time do YOU have?

[Psychoblues]

I've got a shitload of deployed time and I can agree with the man's argument. What WERE you? Some kind of supply sergeant or something?

[bluestatesrule]

I do not know the particulars of this story....but I do know this: I have never served in the military....and I have the ultimate respect for anyone that is in the military....particularly those who serve on the front lines. I may have my opinion....I may even disagree with his politcal views (which I am free to express!)....but I have no place to question his motives in regards to the battlefield......BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE!!!!

[red states rule]

I do not know the particulars of this story....but I do know this: I have never served in the military....and I have the ultimate respect for anyone that is in the military....particularly those who serve on the front lines. I may have my opinion....I may even disagree with his politcal views (which I am free to express!)....but I have no place to question his motives in regards to the battlefield......BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE!!!!

So when you emlist you can dictate when you will deploy and when you will not?

[Psychoblues]

Plainly, no argument here. The man is correct in his litigation. Enough is enough.