This was in the local newspaper so I looked up the story online.

Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was honorbably discharged in Sept. 2007 and was recently recalled to active duty for deployment in Iraq. He now very publically refuses to go.

http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/soldier_from_auburn_to_refuse_iraq_deployment/13754/

First thought was Stoploss the movie was taken a little too seriously. The rest of my thoughts I'll keep to myself for now.

i don't know a whole lot about the military, but can they force him to go if he has already been honorably discharged?

I am really scratching my head on the ARMY being so hard up for journalists that they are recalling those already discharged :dunno

This was in the local newspaper so I looked up the story online.

Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was honorbably discharged in Sept. 2007 and was recently recalled to active duty for deployment in Iraq. He now very publically refuses to go.

http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/soldier_from_auburn_to_refuse_iraq_deployment/13754/

First thought was Stoploss the movie was taken a little too seriously. The rest of my thoughts I'll keep to myself for now.

i don't know a whole lot about the military, but can they force him to go if he has already been dishonorably discharged?


The article says his discharge was honorable :dunno

i don't know a whole lot about the military, but can they force him to go if he has already been dishonorably discharged?

I totally typed that wrong...I'm so glad you caught it. It was suppose to say honorably discharged. It says in the article if you're honorably discharged you can be recalled for up to 4 years afterwards.

:wow that is sad. Poor thing

.......No offense but.....shit. I wouldn't wanna go back either. It sucks. BAD. And he served his time.

In my opinion if you're stoplossing SO many people you're using too many people to begin with.

:( thats crap! I cant believe that you can be recalled like that. I would think an honorable discharge would mean just that....a discharge :(

.......No offense but.....shit. I wouldn't wanna go back either. It sucks. BAD. And he served his time

ditto.

I am really scratching my head on the ARMY being so hard up for journalists that they are recalling those already discharged :dunno
no kidding. didn't realize journalists were so in demand.

Good for him the silent draft needs to be made of more awareness to the public. My BIL joined the Navy in order to avoid being stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp. When they stop-loss you it is not a certaintity that you will go back to your original job. He was a musician in the Marine Corps (and is now one in the Navy as well he is very talented plays multiple intruments) if he was stop-lossed he was going to war not to the band.

They were/are holding their breath hoping his wife (my SIL) is not stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp herself.

The whole thing is crap if they are hurting that badly for personal then they should stop-loss them BEFORE discharging them (which they can do its what happened to my DH and why he re-upped the first go around he had no choice) To let them out and then call them back one or two years after they have resumed a civilian life is crap.

The only problem I see here is that is initial obligation was probably 8 years... 5 active and 3 inactive reserve. He is obligated to serve the remainder of that term, whether he likes it or not. He signed the contract and is enjoying the benefits of his enlistment (using the GI Bill). He joined during a time of war and can't just back out now just because he doesn't agree with it. I refuse to feel any pity for this young man. He needs to shut up and serve the rest of his obligation. If he didn't want to be on the ground in a war zone, maybe he should have joined a different branch of the military.

Good for him the silent draft needs to be made of more awareness to the public. My BIL joined the Navy in order to avoid being stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp. When they stop-loss you it is not a certaintity that you will go back to your original job. He was a musician in the Marine Corps (and is now one in the Navy as well he is very talented plays multiple intruments) if he was stop-lossed he was going to war not to the band.

They were/are holding their breath hoping his wife (my SIL) is not stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp herself.

The whole thing is crap if they are hurting that badly for personal then they should stop-loss them BEFORE discharging them (which they can do its what happened to my DH and why he re-upped the first go around he had no choice) To let them out and then call them back one or two years after they have resumed a civilian life is crap.

I didn't know the part about the jobs...that seems really unfair and like a waste of money. Why would they pull somebody back, which cost money, and then pay even more for them to be retrained when they're obviously perfectly capable of doing a different job.

If he feels this strongly about it good for him for standing up and fighting. However, I don't like the way he is handling it publicly. Maybe it is me being tired or grumpy but the whole front page newspaper article just rubbed me the wrong way. I can't really articulate why though.

The only problem I see here is that is initial obligation was probably 8 years... 5 active and 3 inactive reserve. He is obligated to serve the remainder of that term, whether he likes it or not. He signed the contract and is enjoying the benefits of his enlistment (using the GI Bill). He joined during a time of war and can't just back out now just because he doesn't agree with it. I refuse to feel any pity for this young man. He needs to shut up and serve the rest of his obligation. If he didn't want to be on the ground in a war zone, maybe he should have joined a different branch of the military.

Forgive me for this if it is a really stupid question but when you're done with your AD time are you offically discharged or does that happen after your reserve time? Because if it only happens after your AD time and you're still obligated to serve your reserve time that makes a big difference in my opinion on the matter.

The only problem I see here is that is initial obligation was probably 8 years... 5 active and 3 inactive reserve. He is obligated to serve the remainder of that term, whether he likes it or not. He signed the contract and is enjoying the benefits of his enlistment (using the GI Bill). He joined during a time of war and can't just back out now just because he doesn't agree with it. I refuse to feel any pity for this young man. He needs to shut up and serve the rest of his obligation. If he didn't want to be on the ground in a war zone, maybe he should have joined a different branch of the military.
good point most people don't read the contract or pay much attention.

Forgive me for this if it is a really stupid question but when you're done with your AD time are you offically discharged or does that happen after your reserve time? Because if it only happens after your AD time and you're still obligated to serve your reserve time that makes a big difference in my opinion on the matter.
The inactive reserve time usually happens at the end of your enlistment (some folks have a year that counts from delayed enlistment), you're officially done after your total time is served, whether it be actively or inactively.

The end of my inactive reserve time was 23 Sept 01. I was nervous to say the least, but I would have served my time if I would have been ordered to.

I totally typed that wrong...I'm so glad you caught it. It was suppose to say honorably discharged. It says in the article if you're honorably discharged you can be recalled for up to 4 years afterwards.

nevermind...read brentcrystal reply.

I honestly don't feel bad for him as well. Who signs up for the army and refuses to go to war? It would of been a different situation if he signed up before the war. Once you join any service they tell you that you can be activated after you've been discharged for a certain amount of years. Why is his case any more special then others who were on the ground fighting?

I didn't know the part about the jobs...that seems really unfair and like a waste of money. Why would they pull somebody back, which cost money, and then pay even more for them to be retrained when they're obviously perfectly capable of doing a different job.

If he feels this strongly about it good for him for standing up and fighting. However, I don't like the way he is handling it publicly. Maybe it is me being tired or grumpy but the whole front page newspaper article just rubbed me the wrong way. I can't really articulate why though.

Well they don't have to retrain them ALL Marines are trained to be grunts in boot camp then they go to their various schools. I would imagine Army is much the same.

See I disagree with the part of the contract that says we can call you back anytime within x amount of years if it floats our boat.

I don't think that's right.

See I disagree with the part of the contract that says we can call you back anytime within x amount of years if it floats our boat.

I don't think that's right.
He didn't have to sign the contract, but he did... therefore he is obligated to finish his term.

He didn't have to sign the contract, but he did... therefore he is obligated to finish his term.

I'm not saying he had to sign it. I'm just saying the contract is morally wrong. When you're done with something you should be able to be done. None of the back and forth. That's not right.

I'm not saying he had to sign it. I'm just saying the contract is morally wrong. When you're done with something you should be able to be done. None of the back and forth. That's not right.

But I think the point is - he wasn't done. He still had reserve time to serve and they can be activated at any time, when their country needs them. So.. how is the contract morally wrong if he wasn't done with his enlistment?

The inactive reserve time usually happens at the end of your enlistment (some folks have a year that counts from delayed enlistment), you're officially done after your total time is served, whether it be actively or inactively.

The end of my inactive reserve time was 23 Sept 01. I was nervous to say the least, but I would have served my time if I would have been ordered to.

That is what I thought...I just didn't know if there was some kind of rule where after you're discharged and served your reserve time you could STILL be called back for 4 years. As in like discharged meant you were done with your entire contract and not just your AD part. It makes much more sense that he is doing his inactive reserve part of his contract right now.

But I think the point is - he wasn't done. He still had reserve time to serve and they can be activated at any time, when their country needs them. So.. how is the contract morally wrong if he wasn't done with his enlistment?

I know he wasn't done. But I'm not surprised he doesn't want to go back.

They shouldn't be able to let you go home and get used to civilian life again and then yank you back.

I'm not saying he had to sign it. I'm just saying the contract is morally wrong. When you're done with something you should be able to be done. None of the back and forth. That's not right.

But see, that is EXACTLY it! He wasn't done with his contract. Discharge from active duty is NOT the same as discharge from the military. You are even TOLD this when they discharge you from active duty. I got discharged all most two years ago, BUT I am still part of the navy until May 09. This was part of my ORIGINAL contract. See, everyone in the military knows this. It is easy to take sympathy as a civilian because it does seem bogus... but when you join, you know this, and except this. Trust me, the military gives you plenty of chances to read your contract and back out before you go to boot camp. I received a pregnancy discharge because we were dual military and no longer had a dependent care plan after my mother died. So I got out...However, I know that if I get recalled before May09, I am going to go back. That is part of my obligation.

I know he wasn't done. But I'm not surprised he doesn't want to go back.

They shouldn't be able to let you go home and get used to civilian life again and then yank you back.

Now that I kinda agree with - it must be kinda sucky. But he shouldn't refuse to go either - he signed the contract, he knew what he signed up for.

I'm not saying he had to sign it. I'm just saying the contract is morally wrong. When you're done with something you should be able to be done. None of the back and forth. That's not right.

I think morally wrong is a bit strong. It is obviously a provision for cases when there is a war and/or they need more people. I don't view it as a back and forth since it is a set amount of time they're obligated to serve. They are done with it if they aren't done with the X amount of years they signed up for. If they were called back randomly 10 years later it'd be a different story.

I think being stoplossed is probably incredibly painful and difficult and what this solider is going through is probably just as hard, but it is what he signed up for, fully aware of his obligations. My heart hurts that he and his family have to deal with another deployment but it isn't like they didn't know the risk.

Plus, if he wants the benefits the Army is giving him, he needs to fulfill his obligation to them.

I don't blame him!! He was discharged. Whether he had 2-3 years inactive reserve :dunno but its still really sad. I Loved his speech though!

Yes you can be recalled.And he an obligation.Im sure there are lots out there that don't want to go back.But know they have too.

But see, that is EXACTLY it! He wasn't done with his contract. Discharge from active duty is NOT the same as discharge from the military. You are even TOLD this when they discharge you from active duty. I got discharged all most two years ago, BUT I am still part of the navy until May 09. This was part of my ORIGINAL contract. See, everyone in the military knows this. It is easy to take sympathy as a civilian because it does seem bogus... but when you join, you know this, and except this. Trust me, the military gives you plenty of chances to read your contract and back out before you go to boot camp. I received a pregnancy discharge because we were dual military and no longer had a dependent care plan after my mother died. So I got out...However, I know that if I get recalled before May09, I am going to go back. That is part of my obligation.

I'm not saying he didn't know. But I can see the reasons behind the protest. I feel the stoploss option is being way over used and it's a big neon sign that maybe it's time to pull some troops back.

I think active duty should be the end of duty PERIOD.
Now that I kinda agree with - it must be kinda sucky. But he shouldn't refuse to go either - he signed the contract, he knew what he signed up for.

Protest is a big part of change though. Without protest oftentimes there would be no change.

Yes, he signed the contract. That doesn't change, though, the fact that many feel the IRR time/stop-loss/etc are all just a back-door draft dressed in a pretty package.

I'm not saying he didn't know. But I can see the reasons behind the protest. I feel the stoploss option is being way over used and it's a big neon sign that maybe it's time to pull some troops back.

I think active duty should be the end of duty PERIOD.


Protest is a big part of change though. Without protest oftentimes there would be no change.


But where would our country be if EVERYONE protested about stipulations in their contract and did not have to honor that contract? Can you honestly say that would make our military, our country stronger? The military has been good to me. Yes, there are things that I did not like, but I would still fulfill my OBLIGATION, what I AGREED to do when I enlisted and accepted all the military benefits, including a free education.

You really think the stop loss should be a part of that obligation though? Honestly?

The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.

That is NOT right. View whole story here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-stoploss9-2008may09,0,4341624.story)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/Mymindissoblank/3050908C.gif

Yes you can be recalled.And he an obligation.Im sure there are lots out there that don't want to go back.But know they have too.

Ridiculous... I don't know what to think of everything thats going on these days... :sigh and to think I'm only 20 y/o!

I think that if someone is ordered to return and doesnt they should be sued for breach of contract and ordered to repay the benefits they are recieving from the military and some past benefits. Sorry but you are told repeatedly about this and still decided to join. Mine was over with in Jul of 06 and had I been called back I would have.

Good for him the silent draft needs to be made of more awareness to the public. My BIL joined the Navy in order to avoid being stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp. When they stop-loss you it is not a certaintity that you will go back to your original job. He was a musician in the Marine Corps (and is now one in the Navy as well he is very talented plays multiple intruments) if he was stop-lossed he was going to war not to the band.

They were/are holding their breath hoping his wife (my SIL) is not stop-lossed back into the Marine Corp herself.

The whole thing is crap if they are hurting that badly for personal then they should stop-loss them BEFORE discharging them (which they can do its what happened to my DH and why he re-upped the first go around he had no choice) To let them out and then call them back one or two years after they have resumed a civilian life is crap.
I didn't read all of the thread. Are you meaning to use the term stoploss?
First bolded- they can't stop you from ETSing when you're due if you're not on stop loss, (and second bolded) it's in the contract they signed.

The only problem I see here is that is initial obligation was probably 8 years... 5 active and 3 inactive reserve. He is obligated to serve the remainder of that term, whether he likes it or not. He signed the contract and is enjoying the benefits of his enlistment (using the GI Bill). He joined during a time of war and can't just back out now just because he doesn't agree with it. I refuse to feel any pity for this young man. He needs to shut up and serve the rest of his obligation. If he didn't want to be on the ground in a war zone, maybe he should have joined a different branch of the military.
Thak you. It's in the contract! I read a little more of the thread and there is a lot of misinformation going on here.

The only problem I see here is that is initial obligation was probably 8 years... 5 active and 3 inactive reserve. He is obligated to serve the remainder of that term, whether he likes it or not. He signed the contract and is enjoying the benefits of his enlistment (using the GI Bill). He joined during a time of war and can't just back out now just because he doesn't agree with it. I refuse to feel any pity for this young man. He needs to shut up and serve the rest of his obligation. If he didn't want to be on the ground in a war zone, maybe he should have joined a different branch of the military.

I think that if someone is ordered to return and doesnt they should be sued for breach of contract and ordered to repay the benefits they are recieving from the military and some past benefits. Sorry but you are told repeatedly about this and still decided to join. Mine was over with in Jul of 06 and had I been called back I would have.

I agree with both of you. He signed the dotted line. He needs to fulfill his obligations.

Yes, he signed the contract. That doesn't change, though, the fact that many feel the IRR time/stop-loss/etc are all just a back-door draft dressed in a pretty package.

Yeppers not to mention recruiters (or at least the ones I have none) do not fully explain what stop-loss means or is. Good thing for my kids both my DH and I have served (well he is still serving LOL) so if my kids for some unknown reason ever feel they "need" to join we can go over it and explain fully what everything really means before they sign. Not all kids are getting that treatment though. Many don't fully understand/comprehend what the contract all means and the recruiter needs to put a pretty spin on it to get his/her job done.

You really think the stop loss should be a part of that obligation though? Honestly?


That is NOT right. View whole story here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-stoploss9-2008may09,0,4341624.story)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/Mymindissoblank/3050908C.gif

Would you rather have a draft and then an increase in taxes to pay for the additional training? I don't think that is a better alternative. Bottom line, EVERY contract for the military is 8 years, active or inactive. You choose to go inactive, you know the risks...

When a soldier signs up the individual signs an 8 year contract. After completing 2 or 4 or whatever years active duty, and ETSing that does not fulfill the 8 year requirement. At that point the individual goes into IRR for the remainder of that 8 years. In fact when you ETS and sign your DD 214 it specifically states you are subject to recall to active duty if the need arises. It even tells you exactly how much time you have left!

BTW I have a friend who went from Regular Army to the Army NG for the remainder of his time to avoid the call back. He draws a monthly check instead of twiddling his thumbs hoping he won't be called back! Of course he may deploy with the Guard. :dunno Either way at least he was getting paid a little in between time.

I'm not saying he didn't know. But I can see the reasons behind the protest. I feel the stoploss option is being way over used and it's a big neon sign that maybe it's time to pull some troops back.

I think active duty should be the end of duty PERIOD.


Protest is a big part of change though. Without protest oftentimes there would be no change.
You think active duty should be the end of duty PERIOD? WTF? This guy is not a blind illiterate person. He knew exactly what he was signing, if he didn't read it, that is his own problem. He sure read the part where he was going to get the GI Bill and how to use that benefit, didn't he? The stop loss option is not such a bad thing if you think about it... who knows what would be happening if it weren't an option! It could be as bad as the draft being started again, would you prefer something on that scale instead?

Members of the military aren't allowed the protest luxury... if they were, it would be a pretty messed up military.

wow i dont know what to say

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.

its his freaking job/obligation, he needs to pull up is big boy pants and be a man

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.

I don't think it's really a termination though.
I thought everyone understood they had 8 years, bottom line.

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.

UMM HELLO, IF YOUR CONTRACT SAYS YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO A TOTAL OF 8 YEARS X AMOUNT ACTIVE X AMOUNT INACTIVE, THEN ITS NOT BREACH OF CONTRACT! YOU ARE NOT "TERMINATED" AFTER YOUR FRIST X AMOUNT OF YERAS, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY TERMINATED AFTER 8 TOTAL YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAWD PEOPLE DONT DEFEND SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO BREACH THEIR CONTRACT YET STILL REAP THE BENIFITS!

ps this pisses me off if you cant tell....

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.
But the point here is that he wasn't done... not terminated. He still owes the gov't the time. I read every word in my enlistment contract, I knew exactly what I was signing, and my son will as well when he signs it either this summer or next. This young man is totally responsible for his actions and is obligated to report to finish out the rest of his time if ordered.

I didn't read all of the thread. Are you meaning to use the term stoploss?
First bolded- they can't stop you from ETSing when you're due if you're not on stop loss, (and second bolded) it's in the contract they signed.


Thak you. It's in the contract! I read a little more of the thread and there is a lot of misinformation going on here.

My husband was stop-lossed I explained that, BEFORE he got out. Or he would of gotten out when his first term was up.

If they need personal they CAN in fact keep them rather then let them out it also says THAT in the contract. I fully understand what it is and that it is in the contract doesn't mean I agree with it. I feel it is a screwed up system that lets people resume normal lives and then one or two years later yanks them back. They don't have the protections that the reserves are supposed to have as in the job they have to leave is held etc.

Also like I said at least with whats happening to the Marine Corps ready reserves (which is what it states in your contract you are in your last four years of obligation) they are not going back to the jobs they held in the service they are just going boots on the ground as grunts to Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter what their MOS originally was.

It IS being used as a back door draft because of that main reason. It is being used in a way that it was not intended to be used, which was if your MOS needed bodies you could be pulled back. That is not what they are doing though they just need bodies in the war zones period with complete disregard to what their MOS actually was/is.

UMM HELLO, IF YOUR CONTRACT SAYS YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO A TOTAL OF 8 YEARS X AMOUNT ACTIVE X AMOUNT INACTIVE, THEN ITS NOT BREACH OF CONTRACT! YOU ARE NOT "TERMINATED" AFTER YOUR FRIST X AMOUNT OF YERAS, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY TERMINATED AFTER 8 TOTAL YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAWD PEOPLE DONT DEFEND SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO BREACH THEIR CONTRACT YET STILL REAP THE BENIFITS!

ps this pisses me off if you cant tell....

i am so sorry you feel the need to yell at me, for my opinion. and no not everyone knows that they are obligated for an 8 yr term.

and i can defend anyone i damn well please. you do not know me or the reason for my feelings on the "voluntary" part of things in the military.

i still cannot believe that you are screaming at me in this post. my husband is slowly and i do mean slowly dying in front of my eyes for something the military chose to not make voluntary without informing the soldiers it was expiramental.

i did not negate your opinion i simply stated my own. i am allowed to have my opinion just as you are. i stated mine politely and you feel that you have the right to scream at me.

so take your condescending attitude , ms. my opinion is right and everyone else is stupid and can it.

i am so sorry you feel the need to yell at me, for my opinion. and no not everyone knows that they are obligated for an 8 yr term.

and i can defend anyone i damn well please. you do not know me or the reason for my feelings on the "voluntary" part of things in the military.

i still cannot believe that you are screaming at me in this post. my husband is slowly and i do mean slowly dying in front of my eyes for something the military chose to not make voluntary without informing the soldiers it was expiramental.

i did not negate your opinion i simply stated my own. i am allowed to have my opinion just as you are. i stated mine politely and you feel that you have the right to scream at me.

so take your condescending attitude , ms. my opinion is right and everyone else is stupid and can it.

if someone doesnt know the bolded part when they sign then t hey obviously cant freaking read!

also i wasnt yelling at you, more at the idea of the article. I apologize that it came out as if i was yelling at you

The whole thing is crap if they are hurting that badly for personal then they should stop-loss them BEFORE discharging them (which they can do its what happened to my DH and why he re-upped the first go around he had no choice) To let them out and then call them back one or two years after they have resumed a civilian life is crap.

:yes

Thats pretty much all I have to add.

if someone doesnt know the bolded part when they sign then t hey obviously cant freaking read!

well honestly nearly 16yrs ago when my dh signed on that dotted line neither of us knew nor did we understand that we were obligated for 8 yrs. so i guess i cannot read, guess that makes me an idiot.

well honestly nearly 16yrs ago when my dh signed on that dotted line neither of us knew nor did we understand that we were obligated for 8 yrs. so i guess i cannot read, guess that makes me an idiot.

Same here I didn't understand the IRR portion of my contract and when I questioned it I was told it never happens. That was in 1996. I don't think I was stupid I think I was 17 years old and trusted what my recruiter told me. Didn't fully understand it or even think about it until after 9/11 and it started happening to people I knew.

If its part of his contract to be IIR for so long after discharge then he needs to uphold his end of the deal.

Same here I didn't understand the IRR portion of my contract and when I questioned it I was told it never happens. That was in 1996. I don't think I was stupid I think I was 17 years old and trusted what my recruiter told me. Didn't fully understand it or even think about it until after 9/11 and it started happening to people I knew.
This guy signed up after 9/11... I don't think he has an excuse.

I already explained that most kids don't understand the IRR and it is in the recruiters best interest not to explain it realy well when asked about it by the recruit.

Most 17 & 18 year olds joining in their senior year of high school don't really understand the military or the contract any better then I did when I was joining in '96.

Even if he didnt understand it its still in his contract and he should fullfill that part of his duty also.

Well if the Army can prove there is indeed a shortness of Army reporters then I guess they will win and get him back. If not it will stop them using the IRR as a back door draft because it gives all the others being recalled into a job that was not their MOS a leg to stand on and call attention to the misuse of the IRR.

Am I the only parent, that has a child who is wanting to join the military, that wants to make sure that my child KNOWS what he is signing? If this were any other time (ie; peace time) I wouldn't have given two thoughts to him signing up. But because it is war time, I want my son to KNOW what he is signing, to KNOW what his OBLIGATION(s) is/are, etc. Life was different in 1996 (I came in in '93), I still think that this kid KNEW what he was signing, he sure understood the GI bill well enough...

this guy needs to pull up his pants, grab his balls and get his butt on the plane.

i dont feel sorry for him at all...

.......No offense but.....shit. I wouldn't wanna go back either. It sucks. BAD. And he served his time.

In my opinion if you're stoplossing SO many people you're using too many people to begin with.

:agree

Not all parents are that involved many never come down to the recruiters office with the kids joining. Not hard to know to contact the VA about your GI Bill they help you with the paper work too if you ask for help.
Besides knowing their is a war on somewhere in the world and actually going to war and getting shot at, or watching your friends get wounded completely different. I don't think ANYONE who has been over there and refuses to go back is a coward.

Wow. Just read the post. I mean, would you want to go back? I know I wouldn't!

Wow. Just read the post. I mean, would you want to go back? I know I wouldn't!
But would you if you had signed an enlistment contract that obligated you to 3 more years of service if need?

this guy needs to pull up his pants, grab his balls and get his butt on the plane.

i dont feel sorry for him at all...

you would feel sorry if it was your db/df/dh/ds and you thought he was finally done and then he suddenly got sent back....just because he is journalist doesnt mean he cant be killed or that it isnt dangerous. its iraq. no matter what youre doing there, its life threatening.

But would you if you had signed an enlistment contract that obligated you to 3 more years of service if need?

Nope if I were worried about being recalled (if I were a Marine or Army) then I would maybe think about relocating to Canada after my first four years were honorably served, I would NOT be going back to fight in a war I do not believe in. I would not be willing to give my life for Mr. Bush.

You really think the stop loss should be a part of that obligation though? Honestly?



If it's within the 8-year time of initial enlistment, yes. But not after that.

Nope if I were worried about being recalled (if I were a Marine or Army) then I would maybe think about relocating to Canada after my first four years were honorably served, I would NOT be going back to fight in a war I do not believe in. I would not be willing to give my life for Mr. Bush.
Oh, that's very American of you... I can't believe that you would go to Canada.

you would feel sorry if it was your db/df/dh/ds and you thought he was finally done and then he suddenly got sent back....just because he is journalist doesnt mean he cant be killed or that it isnt dangerous. its iraq. no matter what youre doing there, its life threatening.

yes it would suck.. but the fact is, i know and df knows that when his 4 year of active duty is finished he will still serve uncle same for 4 years of inactive duty. he takes the chances of getting called back. so yes it would suck, but if df ever tried to "protest" serving his country id give him a good smack across the head.

Same here I didn't understand the IRR portion of my contract and when I questioned it I was told it never happens. That was in 1996. I don't think I was stupid I think I was 17 years old and trusted what my recruiter told me. Didn't fully understand it or even think about it until after 9/11 and it started happening to people I knew.
I didn't realize they could pull you back into just any old MOS in the Marines. In the Army that would mean paying (time and money) to send them to a whole school before they could qualify to be deploye under that MOS. :dunno That's horrible if they can pull Marines back into any area they want.
In all fairness in 96 it didn't ever happen. Now it does, and not only can the enlistee read it, but I know recruiters are supposed to emphasise it in particular.... doesn't mean they all do. :sigh I know that during processing through separation transfer point they emphasise it verbally so this guy in paticular has no leg to stand on. I feel bad for him though.

you would feel sorry if it was your db/df/dh/ds and you thought he was finally done and then he suddenly got sent back....just because he is journalist doesnt mean he cant be killed or that it isnt dangerous. its iraq. no matter what youre doing there, its life threatening.

I wouldn't feel we were finally done, I would always know he wasn't really done yet, till those 8 years are up.

Anyway, we are in it for the long haul, and my husband enjoys his work over there, so I find all of it a bit hard to understand.

I think the key to it all is education. My husband made sure he read every line, and in between. Very important! If recruiters aren't helping people understand it, that's sad. I'm not sure if that happens or not, just saying.

Nope if I were worried about being recalled (if I were a Marine or Army) then I would maybe think about relocating to Canada after my first four years were honorably served, I would NOT be going back to fight in a war I do not believe in. I would not be willing to give my life for Mr. Bush.

give your life for Mr. Bush? Really? i thought being in the military was serving your country
and i highly doubt President Bush sits in his office all day thumbing through discharged military members files randomly picking who to send to Iraq.

Oh, that's very American of you... I can't believe that you would go to Canada.

I served my time infact I served ALL I was obligated to and can not be recalled. (not to mention my health issues protect me from it) So given that I signed up and served 7.5 years before being medically discharged I can say I am an American and just because I would refuse to be killed in an illegal war does not make me UN American. KBAITHANX.

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.


but leanne, it IS explained, multiple times. The recruiter is supposed to explain it, but on the off chance s/he doesn't (grin), it's explained at MEPS, and then again at MEPS on the ship-out day, and then again in boot camp/basic training. Additionally, it's explained again every time a person transfers to a new command in the Navy (can't speak for other services), even in the person is in their final tour of a 20+ year career.

yes it would suck.. but the fact is, i know and df knows that when his 4 year of active duty is finished he will still serve uncle same for 4 years of inactive duty. he takes the chances of getting called back. so yes it would suck, but if df ever tried to "protest" serving his country id give him a good smack across the head.

yes but not all people understand this when they sign...
not to mention that a lot of people dont even agree with this war in the first place. i personally support our troops, who are giving their lives to protect us, not our president who is simply signing their lives away while he lives comfortably.

give your life for Mr. Bush? Really? i thought being in the military was serving your country
and i highly doubt President Bush sits in his office all day thumbing through discharged military members files randomly picking who to send to Iraq.

It is his war. It is how I feel, my opinion now can the personal attacks on me stop (not just directed towards you)

The fact that you would leave and go to Canada, if you had another 4 IRR left, is what would make you UN american...KBAITHANX (back at ya :P)

but leanne, it IS explained, multiple times. The recruiter is supposed to explain it, but on the off chance s/he doesn't (grin), it's explained at MEPS, and then again at MEPS on the ship-out day, and then again in boot camp/basic training. Additionally, it's explained again every time a person transfers to a new command in the Navy (can't speak for other services), even in the person is in their final tour of a 20+ year career.

IRR was never mentioned to me at MEPS or when I re-upped or when I transferred. I don't recall them talking about it in boot camp either. i ASKED my recruiter about it and it was not explained then either except to tell me it is "just something they put in there and never happens".

It is his war. It is how I feel, my opinion now can the personal attacks on me stop (not just directed towards you)

i agree with you :yes

yes but not all people understand this when they sign...
not to mention that a lot of people dont even agree with this war in the first place. i personally support our troops, who are giving their lives to protect us, not our president who is simply signing their lives away while he lives comfortably.
its just like any contract, you (in general) should read it before you sign. especially when joining the military.
and if they dont' read the contract, that sucks for them next time they will read it a little better.

It is his war. It is how I feel, my opinion now can the personal attacks on me stop (not just directed towards you)

i wasn't attacking you :)
i just didn't agree with your statement.

The fact that you would leave and go to Canada, if you had another 4 IRR left, is what would make you UN american...KBAITHANX (back at ya :P)

OK guess I am UN American then. Happy now will you stop personally attacking me for my opinion?

The fact that you would leave and go to Canada, if you had another 4 IRR left, is what would make you UN american...KBAITHANX (back at ya :P)

im glad we are on the same page. just think if we were president... lol

Not all parents are that involved many never come down to the recruiters office with the kids joining. Not hard to know to contact the VA about your GI Bill they help you with the paper work too if you ask for help.
Besides knowing their is a war on somewhere in the world and actually going to war and getting shot at, or watching your friends get wounded completely different. I don't think ANYONE who has been over there and refuses to go back is a coward.

The problem that I have with it is that our pool of potential recruits is a function of the economy, and a military contract (job+school+housing+medical) is awfully, awfully juicy for someone who is poor.

I do understand that many recruits are so bombarded with information that at some point it just goes in one ear and out the other, past the glazed eyes and bouncing off the trampoline brain. I also think that they are so enamored with the possibility/probability of a stable life for themselves (and maybe for their family) that they near what they want to hear.

OK guess I am UN American then. Happy now will you stop personally attacking me for my opinion?
I said WOULD. Not that you are ARE un American. I wasn't personally attacking you, just your comment...

And like someone said else said, everyone in the military is serving their country... not an individual man.

The problem that I have with it is that our pool of potential recruits is a function of the economy, and a military contract (job+school+housing+medical) is awfully, awfully juicy for someone who is poor.

I do understand that many recruits are so bombarded with information that at some point it just goes in one ear and out the other, past the glazed eyes and bouncing off the trampoline brain. I also think that they are so enamored with the possibility/probability of a stable life for themselves (and maybe for their family) that they near what they want to hear.

i agree eelo :D
and not only do they hear what they want to hear, but sometimes they forget the things they don't want to know.

The problem that I have with it is that our pool of potential recruits is a function of the economy, and a military contract (job+school+housing+medical) is awfully, awfully juicy for someone who is poor.

I do understand that many recruits are so bombarded with information that at some point it just goes in one ear and out the other, past the glazed eyes and bouncing off the trampoline brain. I also think that they are so enamored with the possibility/probability of a stable life for themselves (and maybe for their family) that they near what they want to hear.

That maybe true i know I was confused and bewildered at MEPS, and at boot camp I was exhausted and just fighting to stay awake at some points I could of missed it they pack a lot of info in there. LOL I am not saying I don't bear responsibility for not understanding IRR, I just feel that it is being misused for the reason I stated before it is meant to be for specific MOS's that is NOT how it is being used though.

I said WOULD. Not that you are ARE un American. I wasn't personally attacking you, just your comment...

And like someone said else said, everyone in the military is serving their country... not an individual man.

We serve UNDER him as he is our CIC.

The problem that I have with it is that our pool of potential recruits is a function of the economy, and a military contract (job+school+housing+medical) is awfully, awfully juicy for someone who is poor.

I do understand that many recruits are so bombarded with information that at some point it just goes in one ear and out the other, past the glazed eyes and bouncing off the trampoline brain. I also think that they are so enamored with the possibility/probability of a stable life for themselves (and maybe for their family) that they near what they want to hear.

:agree

you can read the contract as many times as you want, that doesnt mean that everyone will always completely understand the ramifications of signing it.

We serve UNDER him as he is our CIC.
True. But, I'm betting that most of the guys out there didn't join the military to serve him... they joined to serve God and Country, as corny as that may sound.

You'll be happy come January! ;)

He signed that contract. He should put on his big boy undies and do his duty. If it was my son/husband/brother or whoever I would tell them the same thing.

He signed that contract. He should put on his big boy undies and do his duty. If it was my son/husband/brother or whoever I would tell them the same thing.

:yes im glad you agree :D

I didn't know the part about the jobs...that seems really unfair and like a waste of money. Why would they pull somebody back, which cost money, and then pay even more for them to be retrained when they're obviously perfectly capable of doing a different job.

If he feels this strongly about it good for him for standing up and fighting. However, I don't like the way he is handling it publicly. Maybe it is me being tired or grumpy but the whole front page newspaper article just rubbed me the wrong way. I can't really articulate why though.
I agree with this. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for this guy, but I don't like the way he's handling it either. I'm sure if he doesn't take it public there will be some type of very bad reprecussions for him, but at the same time taking it publicly makes bad reprecussions of the military where people are serving and giving and don't need any more negative press.

Its not the presidents war. Its the United States Of Americas war. This reminds me of that song. Have you forgotten? Have you forgotten WHY? Have you forgotten all the people killed??

Its not the presidents war. Its the United States Of Americas war. This reminds me of that song. Habe you forgotten? Have you forgotten WHY? Have you forgotten all the people killed??
Didn't the US Congress vote in favor of this?

I agree with this. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for this guy, but I don't like the way he's handling it either. I'm sure if he doesn't take it public there will be some type of very bad reprecussions for him, but at the same time taking it publicly makes bad reprecussions of the military where people are serving and giving and don't need any more negative press.

:agree this is true..

That maybe true i know I was confused and bewildered at MEPS, and at boot camp I was exhausted and just fighting to stay awake at some points I could of missed it they pack a lot of info in there. LOL I am not saying I don't bear responsibility for not understanding IRR, I just feel that it is being misused for the reason I stated before it is meant to be for specific MOS's that is NOT how it is being used though.


Anhd I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that when I was facilitating Command Orientation, I made a point to go over and over and over that fact.

But yeah on the back-door draft thing.

Didn't the US Congress vote in favor of this?

The president is really a nobody. Congress has the final say on just about everything. He could want a war but congress has to approve it.

The president is really a nobody. Congress has the final say on just about everything. He could want a war but congress has to approve it.
Ok, I haven't lost my mind then...

He signed that contract. He should put on his big boy undies and do his duty. If it was my son/husband/brother or whoever I would tell them the same thing.

i agree.
i understand him not wanting to go back, but he has an obligation to fulfill. when he signed that contract it was his responsibility to read every little thing, and UNDERSTAND it.

The president is really a nobody. Congress has the final say on just about everything. He could want a war but congress has to approve it.

yes but thats still not much better. congress is not fighting the war either.

yes but thats still not much better. congress is not fighting the war either.

If you dont want to fight this war or any war dont go to that recruiters office. You are not fighting any war for any one person. You are fighting for COUNTRY. Does no one remember the way we all felt when the towers went down?? We are fighting this war for something.

True. But, I'm betting that most of the guys out there didn't join the military to serve him... they joined to serve God and Country, as corny as that may sound.

You'll be happy come January! ;)

Most people join to better their life situation the fact they are serving their country is not something most actually think about. We do/did serve our country but we do/did serve under the CIC as well. AND yes I will be very happy in Jan. just crossing my fingers that nothing happens that makes him feel that he needs to stay in office under martial law.

If you dont want to fight this war or any war dont go to that recruiters office. You are not fighting any war for any one person. You are fighting for COUNTRY. Does no one remember the way we all felt when the towers went down?? We are fighting this war for something.

This war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was not even the original reason we were told we were going into Iraq although the reason has changed many times since then.

Also once again I urge people to read the Patriot Act our President has more power then any other president ever to serve in office before him. The patriot act upset the system of checks and balances.

This war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was not even the original reason we were told we were going into Iraq although the reason has changed many times since then.

Also once again I urge people to read the Patriot Act our President has more power then any other president ever to serve in office before him. The patriot act upset the system of checks and balances.


My reasonings still stands. He signed that paper. He needs to man up and do his job. And I havent forgotten 9/11. If we dont fight to protect our country we will be violated many more times. You have your opinion and I have mine.

I have not forgotten 9/11 either. When we go after the people that actually committed the act I will be happy.

This war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was not even the original reason we were told we were going into Iraq although the reason has changed many times since then.

Also once again I urge people to read the Patriot Act our President has more power then any other president ever to serve in office before him. The patriot act upset the system of checks and balances.

:duh thank you someone who finally understands what im trying to say!! :yes

I have not forgotten 9/11 either. When we go after the people that actually committed the act I will be happy.
I think everyone has forgotten that we are still going after those responsible for 9/11... in in AFGHANISTAN...

I have not forgotten 9/11 either. When we go after the people that actually committed the act I will be happy.

Do you honestly think that the soldiers over there arent looking for the taliban and anyone else that poses a threat to the US? Anyway we are so off topic now. It should be in the back of everyones mind that steps into a recruiters office that there is always the possibility of a war at anytime. If you are not prepared to actually fight that war dont sign the papers.

I think everyone has forgotten that we are still going after those responsible for 9/11... in in AFGHANISTAN...

Nope I have not I do know that our president has stated that he is no longer concerned with where Osama is though.

Do you honestly think that the soldiers over there arent looking for the taliban and anyone else that poses a threat to the US? Anyway we are so off topic now. It should be in the back of everyones mind that steps into a recruiters office that there is always the possibility of a war at anytime. If you are not prepared to actually fight that war dont sign the papers.

No, I don't think that they are not looking for the Taliban in Afghanistan. I know they are using the Taliban to control/take out insurgents though in Iraq. I know that most of the terrorists on those planes where Saudi nationals and I know that we have not done anything about that. I know that the Taliban was not in Iraq until after we went in because Saddam would not allow them to be he didn't want that threat to his control/power in Iraq.

Sorry for the derailed thread.

I am out I have said my bit.

Another thing that kinds of gets to me is that he says he was basically was too scared before to tell the "truth" while he was active because of the military, but now that he's willing to "come clean" this is going to paint him as courageous and a hero while our loved ones over there serving and being courageous every day are going to be painted unfairly.

If he gets drafted back in isn't he considered awol? AWOL during times of war can be tried as treason if i remember correctly

If he gets drafted back in isn't he considered awol? AWOL during times of war can be tried as treason if i remember correctly

We are not actually AT war though. It is a police action.

In the case of Iraq, Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, or authorized any military action whatsoever. Even the sweeping Use of Force resolution approved by Congress three days after the attack on the World Trade Center falls short of authorizing military action against Iraq. That resolution would sanction war with Iraq only if it is determined that the Iraqi government "aided" the commission of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. The evidence for that proposition seems far weaker than it did in October, when Czech government officials announced that hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague last April. Recent reports in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Czech press have cast doubts on whether that meeting ever occurred.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3405

If he gets drafted back in isn't he considered awol? AWOL during times of war can be tried as treason if i remember correctly

If he dodges his responsibility I hope they try him. And I hope they throw him in prison.

We are not actually AT war though. It is a police action.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3405OHHH TRICKY TRICKY!

If he dodges his responsibility I hope they try him. And I hope they throw him in prison.treason can carry the dealth penalty but we're not at war lucky for him

OK hubby just added his two cents he said bush made a declaration of war against terrorism so TECHNICALLY we are still at war with terrorism he said "catch 22"

while I do believe he should fulfill his contract, i still do feel bad for him. Who would want to go back and face life with uncertainity? I know you can die anywhere but the threat of death is evalated over there. I would be very upset if my DH was called back but I still would want him to be a man of honor and fulfill his duties he signed his name to. But in the same reguard, I do wish the US military branches would do all they are supposed to do. It's not like they honor their obligations all the time either.

OK hubby just added his two cents he said bush made a declaration of war against terrorism so TECHNICALLY we are still at war with terrorism he said "catch 22"

but i thought he was "nobody" as someone said earlier.

but i thought he was "nobody" as someone said earlier.
he may be "nobody"to some people but he's a "nobody" who's catching attention which means they'll probably try to make an example of him :no

he may be "nobody"to some people but he's a "nobody" who's catching attention which means they'll probably try to make an example of him :no

:agree...you do make a very valid point.

but i thought he was "nobody" as someone said earlier.

He is the nobody that made a declaration. Congress still has to approve it. The president is just the one that has to open his mouth and say all the words and take all the backlash. President Bush may not be my favorite person but I support him fully. And I support the war that our loved ones are fighting.

iam just going to say that this is a back door draft and should be illegal. no other company that i know of can legally say that they have a right to your services after termination so why should the military be allowed to.

i could care less what the contract he signed says the stupid thing is not explained to new recruits many of whom are fresh from highschool and have no clue how to interpret a contract. and i am sure that none of them carry around let alone have the money for a lawyer to read over the contracts before they are signed.

when dh signed we had no clue what all the legal terms were and the recruiter did his job he sugar coated everything.

i think that once you terminate from the military they should not have to go back, unless they want to. if it is all voluntary then this should be voluntary as well and not some sneaky back door way of drafting soldiers.

besides who wants to fight with someone that does not want to be there. that could be very dangerous.

:tu
My husband was stop-lossed I explained that, BEFORE he got out. Or he would of gotten out when his first term was up.

If they need personal they CAN in fact keep them rather then let them out it also says THAT in the contract. I fully understand what it is and that it is in the contract doesn't mean I agree with it. I feel it is a screwed up system that lets people resume normal lives and then one or two years later yanks them back. They don't have the protections that the reserves are supposed to have as in the job they have to leave is held etc.

Also like I said at least with whats happening to the Marine Corps ready reserves (which is what it states in your contract you are in your last four years of obligation) they are not going back to the jobs they held in the service they are just going boots on the ground as grunts to Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter what their MOS originally was.

It IS being used as a back door draft because of that main reason. It is being used in a way that it was not intended to be used, which was if your MOS needed bodies you could be pulled back. That is not what they are doing though they just need bodies in the war zones period with complete disregard to what their MOS actually was/is.

If they're so hard up for personnel that they need to get people that have been out for 1-2 years then they need to keep the people they have. Getting out and then having to go back is a mindfuck.

The underlined is SO true. And the second bolded is the truth and that's SAD and DISTASTEFUL.
I already explained that most kids don't understand the IRR and it is in the recruiters best interest not to explain it realy well when asked about it by the recruit.

Most 17 & 18 year olds joining in their senior year of high school don't really understand the military or the contract any better then I did when I was joining in '96.


High school doesn't really prepare you for shit unless you go out of your way to get the information. I took finance and learned a lot about credit and loans and financial planning. That's something everyone should really know but it's not mandatory and most honor students don't have time for it. The only reason I had time was that I declined to take an AP course. I can totally see how the average high school senior wouldn't know what they were signing.