Posted on 03/01/2009 3:40:30 PM PST by Libloather
NC military mom heads for Fort Benning with kids
By TOM FOREMAN Jr., Associated Press Writer
13 mins ago
DAVIDSON, N.C. – A North Carolina woman who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged was driving nearly 400 miles and braving a Southeastern winter storm to report for duty Sunday, with her children by her side.
**SNIP**
Pagan is among thousands of former service members who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks, only to be recalled to service. She filed several appeals, arguing that because her husband travels for business, no one else can take care of her kids. All were rejected, leaving Pagan to choose between deploying to Iraq and abandoning her family, or refusing her orders and potentially facing charges.
Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, an Army spokesman in St. Louis, said earlier that the commander at Fort Benning will decide how to handle the situation.
"The Army tries to look at the whole picture and they definitely don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the family or jeopardizes the children," O'Donnell said. "At the same time, these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country."
Of the 25,000 individual ready reserve troops recalled since September 2001, more than 7,500 have been granted deferments or exemptions, O'Donnell said. About 1,000 have failed to report. O'Donnell most of those cases are still under investigation, while 360 soldiers have been separated from the Army either through "other than honorable" discharges or general discharges.
O'Donnell said Pagan isn't likely to face charges, since none of the individual ready reserve soldiers who have failed to report faced a court-martial.
**SNIP**
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Right. My recollection is that you get an HD when you go from enlisted to officer. But, in my experience (Vietnam era), you didn’t get a discharge when you moved form Active to IRR. But maybe it was different for officers.
It just seems to me that the article is misleading.
Sorry to hear about the tumor, and thank him for his service!
Actually, no, it wasn’t.
ANY active duty service incurs a IRR tour afterwards, but you aren’t generally made aware of it until you’re at contract signing and oath swearing. A lot of training ALSO incurs an IRR committment. And at the time she signed up, calling up the IRR was HIGHLY unusual.
The bottom line, however, is that she signed on the dotted line to the committment.
I just fail to see how things are so tight that they have to recall TRUCK DRIVERS. . .
Truck drivers are in shorter supply than infantry, have been for years.
I know that, but men don’t get pregnant, they just make babies, and those babies need a mom and a dad, but most of all, they need the constant care of mom.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Then mommies shouldn’t enlist.
I went from active to IRR and spent just over two years finishing up college before receiving my commission.
I did not go directly from enlisted to officer and thus spent over two years as a civilian.
That's not the real problem. Do the math. Let's say a woman joins up at 18 out of high school and does 4 years active. That makes her 22 years old if she gets out. Between then and 26 there is greater than 75% odds she or even a man after their four years active are up will marry a year or so after getting out. Marriages many times produce children in the firt year or so.
Put the enlistments back to total of six years. Better yet do what congress has been avoiding since 1996. Raise the End Troop Strength Levels for allowed active duty and recruit for that goal ending the heavy reliance on reserves. That's the real answer. Simply meaning create more active duty billets for 4 year active duty with 2 years inactive to follow hitches and leave a person be afterward.
Only Clinton, Bush, and now Osbama terms could keep things so screwed up for so long. The GOP elected majority in congress failed to do anything about it as well.
Carter managed to do without heavy reliance on reserves as well as Reagan who took us to the strongest post WW2 defense posture without this eight year first enlistment obligation nonsense. No first time enlistee should sign such a contract period.
You make good points, but in the meantime everyone is expected to meet the obligations they agreed to. The military is full of parents who do just that.
For many years now, when a person initially enlists, they enlist for 8 years (IIRC it is 8). Part of it is for active duty and the remainder is for the reserves. In fairness to her, this was likely really minimized the entire time from her initial encounter with a recruiter through her discharge from active duty. ("Yeah, you are still in the reserves, but don't worry about it. Only time it will count is if we go to full-out war with the USSR" was how it was explained to me with the 6 year total commitment when I enlisted back in 1981)
Folks, don't give her a hard time. She did her 4 year active duty enlistment honorably (according to the article). She is doing the right thing now (according to the article). The military will likely do the right thing. This really should be a non-story, except for the MSM still trying to cast assertions on the military, as usual.
Because she raised her right hand a swore an oath. Every enlisted member incurs an eight year commitment, regardless of the term of active duty enlistment. In peace time your name goes on a list and you never hear from the military. In war time you might get called.
I would advise any parents with sons or daughters considering joining to not encourge them until this policy is ended. Most parents likely didn't think about it as they served 4/2 or 3/3 like the rest of us. Most parents are not aware of the newer 8 year obligations.
BTW most military service parents are second enlistment or beyond. IOW they understood fully what they were doing. An 18 year old signing papers does not. It's just a bad policy for first enlistments.
There are quite a few who are married with children when they enlist. I think that is a huge mistake too.
I am sure some, early on, were caught up in the war after enlisting in NG to receive their benefits. But that is not true now. Any enlisting know full well they will be leaving their kids and spouses behind for tours of duty. It's the children that suffer.
Even if they are not deployed they can’t afford a family on an E-1s pay.
Unless they are prior service I agree with you. First enlistment pay grades can't support a family. Only one guy in my shop was married on his first enlistment. He was an E-5 who did a full six years hitch. I can't remember the exacts about why but he may have been a Nuke School washout. But he was one great chiller mechanic though.
I did 4 active and got out in 1980. In less than a year I was married as were I imagine most the guys in my shop. At 23 a person is ready to settle down LOL. I remember the threats of frozen enlistments before I got out due to the Iranian Hostage Crisis and I was in a critical rating. But retention bonuses resolved the issues. Going price for a Machinist Mate in 1980 to re-up was $15K for 6 years and 2 years shore duty along with next rank. I kept my Chief guessing till about my last couple of months and said no thanks. Smart move as due to a medical condition I would have never made my 20 especially as a MM.
One note though. In 1982 during the recession I considered going back in and my wife was OK with it. The ranks then were pretty well full meaning I would have taken at least one rank reduction to join back up. Reagan used the recession wisely in that regard. I did a year in the Army Guards later instead. That enlistment was only on a two year contract.
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.