Posted on 11/29/2003 7:45:54 AM PST by neverdem
Army Reservist Accused of Insubordination
(AP) Capt. Steve McAlpin of the 401st Civil Affairs Battalion is shown in this Jan. 8, 2003, file photo... Full Image
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - Capt. Steve McAlpin, a 25-year Army reservist, spent most of last year deployed in Afghanistan and just returned home in January. Now his unit is about to ship out again, and he's facing insubordination charges for criticizing the quick turnaround.
McAlpin questioned the legality of a waiver that his battalion was asked to sign that would put his unit back in a combat zone after just 11 months at home. Under federal law, he pointed out, troops are allowed a 12-month "stabilization period."
On Wednesday, members of his 401st Civil Affairs Battalion are being deployed for duty overseas, but McAlpin likely won't be among them. A memorandum this week notified him that he was being removed from the 401st's battle roster, and he said he could also face other punishment, including a court martial and losing rank.
The commander, Lt. Col. Phillip Carey, charges in the memo that McAlpin had a "negative attitude" and was being "insubordinate towards the leadership" of the 401st.
McAlpin said he questioned the waiver last Saturday during a teleconference with Col. Guy Sands, commander of the McAlpin's parent unit, the 360th Civil Affairs Brigade based in Fort Jackson, S.C.
About a dozen other officers refused to sign the waiver, as well as four enlisted soldiers called to redeploy, McAlpin said.
"Soldiers are proud to serve any time, anywhere. I'd go tomorrow," McAlpin said from his home in Victor, 20 miles southeast of Rochester. "But I have four soldiers that don't want to go."
The memorandum sent Wednesday commands McAlpin to clear up his affairs at the unit by Monday, when it bans him from battalion grounds. It also transfers him to the Individual Ready Reserves, whose soldiers can be called up in the event of a national emergency.
Instead of signing the reprimand document, McAlpin attached a note of protest, stating his performance evaluations have been excellent and that his record shows "no pattern of incompetence." He also plans to meet with a military attorney.
"We signed up to fight our nation's enemies and we are fully prepared to do that. But if they're going to usurp the laws of this country at the expense of our most precious asset, our soldiers, then I will not stand for that, not for a minute."
McAlpin served in Bosnia in 1996. Last year, while stationed at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, he was a liaison to local warlords, coordinated humanitarian relief supplies and organized an English-language teaching program.
"I'm looking at something I love more than just about anything - my service to the Army and my fellow soldiers - and they're trying to stab me in the back," McAlpin said.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, "we need every soldier we can muster," but he said the military should also "honor soldiers that have gone already" by giving them "a break from the hazards of combat."
A spokesman for the 401st, Capt. Brian Earley, said McAlpin's questioning of the waiver was only one reason he was being disciplined. Individual members of the 401st are allowed to refuse to sign the waiver, but Earley said McAlpin was "butting in" for other soldiers.
"People who were on the mission, who wanted to go, he was questioning their orders," Earley said. "He was pursuing a non-issue."
Earley said the military was also taking action because of "an accumulation of things," including difficulties in one of his previous missions to Afghanistan. He declined to elaborate.
"There's a lot of soldiers we're not sending because they have one issue or another," Earley said. "It's important that we put together a solid team. Not all soldiers are ready, even though they think they are, to deploy."
Translation: He was providing other soliders information, something good officers do, and it went against the Chain of Command grain.
If the law says 12 months, then 12 month's it is. I know that extra month can mean a lot to the solider going away.
I've seen commands that use every little excuse to degrade a person, so the harshness doesn't suprise me.
Nah, not nescessary yet. Just freeze all discharges for the duration of the War, like in WWII.
Besides, who ya gonna draft? A bunch of kids that have been indoctrinated by the public schools to be terrified at the sight of a mere drawing of a gun? Be better off drafting the street gangs; at least they sorta know how to shoot.
I disagree with both your opinion on the draft and the "harsh, uncaring, command". I was both a draftee in '67 and 6 years later spent two years in the National Guard, so I know a little about both.
A draft will not work now. This conflict has to be "sold" to those who want to participate. Conscription was one of the reasons we lost Vietnam.
As for the Guard and Reserves, many (not all) of these guys sign on for a gravy train of weekend fun, two weeks a year playing army at a fort (but sleeping in a BOQ) and having a nice little addition to their retirement income in their "Golden Years".
It's time for the Guard and the Reserves to join the rest of the US military (which Bush is doing). That this "officer" has "issues" is without doubt. He should go, as ordered, or face a CM and risk the loss of benefits if found guilty. The word "fair", in the UCMJ, only applies to a courts martial.
Exactly.
It doesn't matter what his job was, every solider is a rifleman first. He would be spending his time in the desert right along side the troopers, eating those delicious MRE's, sleeping in tents, waking up with sand fleas the size of cockroaches because they feasted on you while you slept, and let's not forget the sand, it get's EVERYWHERE!!
Complaining because his unit is being shafted out of a month allowed by Army reg's is, in my opinion, the mark of a good officer. It show's he's looking out for his men.
It might not seem like a lot of time, but to the trooper going out there, for a stint as long as 18 months, it is immeasurable.
An officer willing to stand up for his enlisted men? He sounds like a leader of men rather than someone who orders troops into battle from a safe distance.
I believe that we had a military about twice the current size during the Reagan Administration. If Bush was willing to spend the money on National Defense, we would not have much trouble building back up to a Reagan size military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.