You also are drawing benefits (like adding to your military pension and education benefits).
And, IT WAS HER DECISION to join the IRR.
She could have got out completely.
She enlisted for 2 or 4 years and had a 8 year total obligation. Almost enlistment contracts are written this way. She did get out normally.
She is not in the wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She has zero pension. Her husband does not have to quit his job to take care of the kids. The military will have to figure a way to accommodate the kids. There is daycare on most bases. Maybe she can serve stateside.
Uh, no. Not even close.
Every person enlisting in the military is obligated for 8 years service, even if their contract is for two years.
In that case, the ist 2 years would be active duty, and the remaining 6 in the IRR.
Bottom line, I would have to think the Army is going to have to ensure she gets daycare for the kids. You cannot honestly expect people to put their lives on hold while on the IRR in anticipation for a activation.
“You also are drawing benefits (like adding to your military pension and education benefits).”
Not really
“And, IT WAS HER DECISION to join the IRR.”
Its part of everyones enlistment, you imply theres a choice she made when she seperated.
“She could have got out completely.”
Once you sign up for active you are committed to 8 years.
They force a woman like this to go active and then let some deserter go free without anything but a bad conduct. Thats wrong.
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. . .
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.