Google
 

View Full Version : Army Using Policy to Deny Reserve Officer Resignations


orangikan
05-11-2006, 12:08 PM
Welcome to the new permament reserves! I guess it's this or the draft!
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 11, 2006; Page A03

The Army Reserve, taxed by recruiting shortfalls and war-zone duty, has adopted a policy barring officers from leaving the service if their field is undermanned or they have not been deployed to Iraq, to Afghanistan or for homeland defense missions.

The reserve has used the unpublicized policy, first adopted in 2004 and strengthened in a May 2005 memo signed by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, its commander, to disapprove the resignations of at least 400 reserve officers, according to Army figures.

"I don't think during a time of war you would want to let people go when you have a shortage of people," Army Reserve spokesman Steve Stromvall said when asked to comment on the memo, which surfaced during litigation over the policy. At least 10 reserve officers have sued the Army, saying they should be allowed to get out because they have finished their mandatory eight years of service.

Blocking reserve officers' resignations is one of several steps the Army has undertaken in recent years to keep soldiers beyond their original terms of service, as today's wars place unprecedented demands on the all-volunteer force. Under another practice, known as "stop-loss," thousands of active-duty Army and reserve soldiers have been temporarily prevented from leaving the military, either because their skills were needed or because their units were going overseas. As of January, more than 13,000 soldiers were being kept in the service under stop-loss, a policy criticized by some as a "backdoor draft," which the Army says it seeks to end.

But experts in military law say barring reserve officers from resigning is in some ways more expansive and open-ended than stop-loss. The policy applies to officers who do not fall under stop-loss.

At the heart of the controversy is whether a law stating that commissioned reserve officers are appointed "for an indefinite term and are held during the pleasure of the President" gives the government the power to force them to serve permanently -- as Army lawyers say -- or only to discharge them against their will.

"This is a dangerous precedent for the future of all officers. They are saying officer service is permanent," said Capt. Bradley Schwan, who served six years on active duty before joining the Army Reserve. He is suing Defense Department leaders to be allowed to resign, after being turned down twice. He is awaiting a ruling on a government motion to dismiss his case by a judge in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

"What the Army is saying is even though you are promised up front eight years as a reserve officer, they are saying they can keep you as long as they desire," said Stuart Slotnick, a lawyer involved in Schwan's case and four similar cases since 2004. Another pending case involves Capt. Jonathan O'Reilly, who has tried to resign five times in two years but was required to report to Fort Hood, Tex., on Monday to prepare to go to Iraq, said his attorney, Donald G. Rehkopf Jr.

.

jwreck
05-11-2006, 12:15 PM
as has been pointed out many time before, at the bottom of your contract, it clearly states that everything in the contract is subject to change for the good of the service. do i agree with it? no. do i think its right? no. however, no one forced them to sign, and i'm sure they've enjoyed all their benefits thus far, and shouldn't hesitate to take advantage of all the benefits available after seperation.

86Dude
05-11-2006, 01:38 PM
The world is about to freaking implode, it sucks, but it's necessary.

vindex
05-12-2006, 10:55 AM
The world is about to freaking implode, it sucks, but it's necessary.


disagree. this is one of those situations where it's easy to comment if you're not affected by it. try giving a chunk of your life to service for your country, going to war, and then when your term is up, having the government back door you. it's wrong. ours is a volunteer military. measures like this diminish the benefits given by a volunteer military, as it is no longer actually voluntary. this crap destroys moral, affects enlistment rates when word spreads, and weakens the fighting spirit. it's bad, bad policy, coming from people who are mismanaging and misusing the military to begin with.

86Dude
05-12-2006, 01:02 PM
OK, but at what point does it become necessary then?

jwreck
05-12-2006, 01:26 PM
it's wrong. ours is a volunteer military. measures like this diminish the benefits given by a volunteer military, as it is no longer actually voluntary. this crap destroys moral, affects enlistment rates when word spreads, and weakens the fighting spirit. it's bad, bad policy, coming from people who are mismanaging and misusing the military to begin with.i
agree, but they knew it was a possibility when they joined.

GROFF200
05-12-2006, 01:59 PM
Those who are currently affected did sign a contract and are bound by it whether they like it or not. That is a given...whether it is right or wrong it simply is that way right now.
The future implications could be profound though. If the US military is keeping people in the service indefinitely, then it's going to become increasingly harder to recruit volunteers.
Essentially, if this policy continues long enough, we will no longer have a volunteer military with which to fight wars.

angelone
05-12-2006, 02:13 PM
Bring them home bring them homeBring them home bring them home
Bring them home bring them Bring them home bring them homehome

fenianforever1689
05-12-2006, 02:15 PM
^why?

BooRadley
05-12-2006, 02:17 PM
The future implications could be profound though.


Big time. A lot of this stuff, like being forced to serve way beyond contract, or National Guard being deployed for years in hot combat zones, have always been a possibility, but now they're a reality. It's going to take decades to undo the damage this Administration has done.

jwreck
05-12-2006, 02:30 PM
Bring them home bring them homeBring them home bring them home
Bring them home bring them Bring them home bring them homehome
yeah, that would solve everything wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

BooRadley
05-12-2006, 02:32 PM
yeah, that would solve everything wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

Leaving them there isn't solving anything, either.*


*I don't favor an immediate pullout. It would give the GOP the troops they need to attack Iran, and I don't want to see that.

86Dude
05-12-2006, 02:33 PM
On the plus side this is undoubtedly the most experienced, highly skilled military at the reserve and guard level that we've had since before I was born.

h2g2Fan
05-12-2006, 02:34 PM
Boo shows flashes of brilliance from time to time.

I wish it was consistent.

jwreck
05-12-2006, 02:36 PM
Boo shows flashes of brilliance from time to time.

I wish it was consistent.
yeah, he reminds me of you, but less annoying.

Google