Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions

Mon Dec 6,12:03 PM ET Top Stories - AP

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Eight soldiers are challenging the Army's policy requiring them to serve longer than the terms of their enlistment contracts.

-------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit being filed Monday in federal court, the soldiers are seeking a judge's order requiring the Army to immediately release them from service.

"The Army made an agreement with me and I expected them to honor it," said David Qualls, one of the plaintiffs. He signed up in July 2003 for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard but has been told he will remain on active duty in Iraq (news - web sites) until next year.

Under the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s "stop-loss" program, the Army can extend enlistments during war or national emergencies as a way to promote continuity and cohesiveness.

The policy, invoked in June, could keep tens of thousands of personnel in the military beyond their expected departure. The policy was also used during the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

The lawsuit contends the policy is a breach of the service contract because it extends the length of service without a soldier's consent. It also alleges the contracts were misleading because they make no reference to the policy, said Staughton Lynd, an attorney for the soldiers.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said he could not respond to the lawsuit until it was filed but defended the policy as necessary to maintain cohesive units in the war on terror.

"The alternative is people start leaving that unit in the middle of a tour," he said.

Qualls, the only named plaintiff in the case, is home on leave. The other seven, listed as John Does to protect their privacy, are now serving in Iraq or are in Kuwait en route to Iraq, Lynd said.

Qualls and two other plaintiffs enlisted under one-year "Try One" contracts that have expired. Four others are serving under multiyear contracts that also have run out. The remaining soldier's contract doesn't expire until spring, but he has been told to expect to serve in Iraq beyond the expiration date.

The lawsuit names Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and with other Army officials.

------------------------------------

Botton line- they hit soldiers with "Stop Loss" in 1990 - 1991 to prevent unit strength loss. You know they can call you back because once you sign-up; you have an 8-year committment. You don't control that committment. As we said in the Army- for at least 8-years after you enlist- give your soul to the Lord, because your @$$ belongs to the Army (Corps, Navy, Force). You will serve either enlisted, Reserve, guard or IRR. You can be called up- so, even with a "1-year", I'm sure the paperwork still reflected an 8-year committment.

Quit crying, do your time- and get out honorably... That's my motto.

 

I completely agree with you. Everyone that enlist in the military KNOW’S this is a real possibility. Stop loss has been around for a very long time in one form or the other. When I first enlisted in 1982 it was around. Not sure if they called it stop loss or not but I was informed that during a war or conflict I could be involuntary extended beyond my release date.

Another thing I am getting tired of is hearing about a “few” soldiers whining about having their tours extended. This “few” act as if they only need to serve for 6 months to 12 months at most in the war zone. Damn, tell that to other vets that fought in WWI, WWII and Vietnam.

I have the utmost respect for those who have served and are serving and I can tell you from personal experience that it is very few, less then 5% or so doing the whining. I can also tell you those that are doing the whining are ones that thought they could take advantage of the great benefits the military offers. Money for college etc. They thought they could enlist do their time in peace and get out.

This is more so for those who enlisted for National Guard units and some of them are whining like there is no tomorrow. Oh well, so sad, you signed on the line and you are REQUIRED to serve as TOLD TO DO SO and guess what, you are obligated to the United States Military for 8 years. NEXT TIME READ THE CONTRACT MORON’S…


I have absolutely no tolerance listening or reading about people in National Guard units whining like some wuss bag that needs a good *** whooping. They tried to take advantage of the system and the system got its pay back. WHOOOOOOOOOOO WHOOOOOO baby…


To the vast majority of you, the 95% who serve with courage, dignity and pride, don’t worry because people like me know it’s only the 5% who are wuss bags that are whining like babies…

 

I equate these people just a little higher than the parents of young soldiers who, during the Gulf War, tried to sue the Army because their kids had no idea they'd actually ever see combat - they enlisted because of the GI bill.

My dad's been reserves for over 20 years, was activated for a year after the Gulf War and has been full-active since a couple of days after 9/11. Had to quit his job and everything. He's happily serving despite nearing mandatory retirement age. He doesn't want to retire...

Of course he hates my mom so if he retires he'll have to spend more time with her...

 

I don't want to crap on anyone who served, is serving, or will serve but you got to read stuff before you sign it.

 

I am still an inactive reservist. My 8 years is up I'm march of 05. If called up I will proudly go back and serve. when I ETSed in 01 my unit deployed to Kuwait and I had the choice to extend. I didnt. if they invoked the "stop loss" then I would have went, no big deal.

 

That's the thing, if given the option and you opt out, that's totally repectable.

But in time of need, it's lame (IMHO) to sue to get out.

Lees, I think your opinion is important to the discussion, because you served and are in a position to comment - that's a reality for you, a choice that you certainly may have to face.

I never served, so it's a bit of a stretch because I never had to make that decision. I'm just some dopey guy who's dad is in the service

 

I agree completely with all of you. When I signed up for the reserves in 1987,I understood the possibilities. My unit was activated for Desert Shield/Storm and I was currently in college. I dropped out half way through my fall semester to go to Saudi, but had some others that were also in school crying about this was not fair, we didn't sign up for this, blah blah, blah. It got old real quick.

Some of them did not report and were dishonorably discharged. I spent approx 13 months without complaint and came back to finish up the remaining 8 year commitment. I felt it was an honor.

I pray everyday this ends soon for all involved, but I respect the process and will support all of our men and women in uniform. The small % that complains and pulls this crap do not reflect the true nature and professionalism of the majority.

sarge

 

The problem with "stop loss" isn't serving the 8 year requirement that ALL servicemembers must do. The problem with "stop loss" is that it can be pretty arbitrary. The article pointed out it's used during a time of war or national emergency. Well, it's also used whenever DOD doesn't manage the numbers properly and end up with shortages in certain Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), jobs. Regardless of how many years one has served, if his or her MOS falls into that catagory at the time a stop loss is implemented, he or she is screwed. That part I find a bit unfair. Hell, even if you have 20 years, you must APPLY to retire. And guess what, if you're in a stop loss MOS, you're not going anywhere.