It sounds (from the article) like a breach of contract with the reservists, if the Stop-Loss" policy was an after the fact modification of the original contract they signed. Do they have any reasonable chance of winning this lawsuit?
Soldiers sue over extended enlistments - ‘Question of fairness’ cited by 8 who’ve been held over
Doubt it. Just saw a news story on CNN on this and it looks like the pentagon’s response is (paraphrased) “read the f*ing contract.”
I’m guessing that means somewhere buried in the fine print of their enlistment documents is a “the military can do whatever it feels like” clause. Knowing the military, I’d be highly surprised if there weren’t. At the very least a “the military can do whatever it feels like in a time of war” clause.
I wonder if there’s a copy of that reservist enlistment contract anywhere online?
Yep. Two years or as long as the military wants you.
Just about the only way out is a real estate deal on Klendathu.
I haven’t been in the Army for several years but the final re-enlistment papers I signed made it pretty clear stop-loss type actions could happen.
And my final discharge papers said I could be recalled to service up to five years after leaving.
They have virtually no chance:
The contracts almost definitely have some reference to stop-loss, recalls, or other applicable needs provisions. The fact that your article talks about “fairness” concerns seems to indicate that the reservists are trying to argue that they should be released despite what their contracts say, which is a really tough argument to win.
People are assumed to know the law when they enter into contracts. And if the law allows for stop-losses, then the reservists will probably be assumed to have been aware of those laws when they contracted with the reserves.
The Courts tend to be very deferential to arguments relating to military need. Remember, we’re talking about a court system that allows a non-consensual draft of citizens. It doesn’t seem too likely that the Courts will allow the military to draft people that don’t want to go into the military, but refuse to allow the military to continue people’s service beyond the originally specified terms.
I agree that they have a snowball’s chance of winning. I doubt the average enlistee read the fine print of his contract. Perhaps this will raise awareness and at least some future enlistees will scrutinize their contracts and ask “Gee, is $20,000 for college worth six years rotating in and out of a place where blowing up guys like me is a spectator sport?”
They might, repeat might, have a case if they enlisted for six years and have served eight full years. There’s almost always a clause that states that you have to serve 2 years in the Individual Ready Reserve, which means that you are not responsible for showing up for any Unit Training Assemblies but are still on the rolls and are eligible to be recalled for service. That’s the case for me, but I plan on reenlisting anyway so it’s pretty much moot.
Once those two years pass (eight total), you are free and clear. Unless you’re an officer and you retired rather than resigned your commission. Officers that do not resign their commission can be recalled anytime to go anywhere unless they are past the mandatory retirement age or are approaching it, making a recall counterproductive.
Anyway, if they’re holding you beyond that time period you might be able to make a case, and I’m not at all certain what the courts would say about that.
It is absolutely worth it. I’d go over tomorrow if I could. Most people are pragmatic about it, knowing that they don’t have a chance in hell if they don’t get away from where they’re at and/or go to school, and to top that off they are serving the country in a meaningful way.
Qualls is going to use a bait and switch defense. The program he signed up for was specifically for one year. Now they tell him he might be 60 before he gets out.
He’s 34 now.
Didn’t something like this occur at the end of WW2? Wasn’t the wartime length of service at that time something like the Duration + 6 months? Was the government back then trying to extend people beyond their wartime enlistment, and is something similar happening now?
Not to sound cold about it, but that’s why you have to read the contract before you sign. If it’s there then it doesn’t matter how many times the nice man said that it was only for a year. They’re stuck.
That said this is a fairly deceptive policy.
You can. You may not want to change your MOS or branch of service, but you would if you needed that GI bill or whatever they call it nowadays and was so sure it was absolutely worth it. The Army and Marines would love to show you how easy it would be to get you over there.
I didn’t even know you could sue the service. They have their own courts and prisons, for crying out loud.
Of course you can sue the service; the Military’s courts and prisons are for military crimes, i.e. crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which for service members supplants the US Judicial Code and the Justice code of whatever state or country that member is serving in. For example, when I was serving in Germany we had a Status of Forces agreement (SOFA) with Germany that said any serviceman who commited a crime in Germany was subject to the UCMJ but not to German law; therfore, no matter where I was in Germany I was still subject to the UCMJ but was not subject to German law. Some exceptions were made (such as for speeding, which is not explicitly covered by the UCMJ) but any major crime (murder, theft, etc…) was punishable under the UCMJ. In Korea, the SOFA made it the other way around, so we were first subject to Korean law, then if there was anything left to punish we were then subject to UCMJ. Any US legal system that detains a serviceman will first talk to the military to see if their jurisdiction trumps the local authorities, but will only punish the serviceman if the law allows them to.
Now, for the other thing, if a private citizen or a soldier wants to sue the service for something not contained within the UCMJ, or if the UCMJ no longer applies (i.e. discharged soldier) then a civilian court can have authority over the Military. An example of this was the wife of a fighter pilot whose husband was wrongly blamed for the fatal crash of his F-16 and thus denied benefits sued successfully in a civilian court for reinstatement of benefits and to clear her husband’s name (it turned into a made-for-HBO movie called ‘Afterburn’ but was a true story).
Well, I don’t know his specific details, but I do know my son looked at what the his recruiter called an “18-month enlistment.” But the recruiter (and, I’m sure, the contract, if it had gone that far) was quite specific that while he would only be signing up for 18 months of active duty, he would have served another 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 years in the Reserves (subject to being called up, of course) and then the final few years in the Individual Ready Reserve (again subject to being recalled).
None of this is a secret, BTW. When my husband and I were active duty (me from 1981-1986, him from 1976 - 2002) it was commonly talked about – even back in my day, when there was no war going on, it was commonly known that the Navy didn’t have to let you out until that ready reserve time was up. I never knew anyone who was refused discharge, but we all knew the possibility existed. My husband, who did serve under wartime conditions, knew people personally who were refused discharge or retirement. Several friends of ours put retirement papers in and had them bounced back. They weren’t delighted about it, obviously, but they weren’t surprised either.
The contract I signed in 1991 was for 8 years - 4 years active duty, 4 years inactive ready reserve. I chose to serve in the Air National Guard rather than the IRR, but could have been called back at any time during that 4 years. That makes my contract complete, but I knew going in that I was actually signing up for 8 years, not just 4 on active duty. I have friends who joined the Army at the same time who signed up for 2 years Active, 2 years reserve, 4 years IRR, but it all added up to 8 years in total. Anyone who didn’t read the contract is in my humble opinion out of luck.
On the other hand, I have heard rumours through military message boards of Marines / soldiers / sailors / airmen from specific MOSs whose IRR contract has expired who served who are being issued orders to return to active duty. I don’t know the legality of this action or veracity of these rumours, however…
Suppose you told the army that you turned gay- would that get you out?
Tell that to Todd Parrish
It would appear that the Army considers any contract signed prior to 9/11 is now inoperative.
Read the link above, GomiBoy. It is happening all too often. Better keep a bag packed.
I had a friend that was a Marine. He said that it was 1949, we were still fresh out of a World War, what would would it hurt to stay in the reserves, get the extra pay and benefits. A bullet ruined his pelvis at the Chosin Reservoir. I always listen carefully when Scrappy offered advice (not often).
Hell with that - I live in a different country now, was never an officer, and they’re gonna have to come find me. I done my time, got my honorable discharges (3 of them, from the Air Force and Montana and Oregon Air National Guard(s)) and ain’t coming back.
I was ready to volunteer again after 9/11, and even contacted my old unit in Oregon to do so, but they turned me down and I won’t come back for an illegal war.