Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions

[Sapper6]

ask each of these soldiers how well in-depth they read over their 4 series and i doubt they could even tell you what it is. the 4 series is the enlistment/re-enlistment packet. most soldiers, even more so prior-service troops, fail to read it. these troops think their getting hosed over, it's a shame. shall i enlighten the "living-room" soldiers here on what a DD 4-1 states? sure i will. and please rest assured, it's not in fine print either. it's the same size font as every other word in the enlistment agreement.

here's the link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

please pay special attention to Section C, Paragraph 9. also attention to Section C, Paragraph 10. if only the enlisting troops had done this, they'd have nothing to whine about now would they.

and for the people who think these troops are just "employees", read carefully the first paragraph in Section C again.

what it comes down to, nobody lied to these troops. these soldiers failed to do the most INTELLIGENT thing before signing a contract; THEY FAILED TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE PUTTING THEIR SIGNATURE ON, and now seek justice...? gimme a break

 

[Rynocerous]

Quotes by OULobo



If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).

Actually no, if you didn't read the contract that is your fault. You signed a legal document, with the US Government nontheless. You have to do as you swore in, and be ready to fufill the needs of the Military.



It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date.

Absolutley correct, extension that you agreed to when you signed your contract.



If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.

This is true, soldiers have been getting stoplossed for a couple years know, it is nothing new. Just a few crybabies who don't want to stand up and do what they promised to do.



Only when they forfill the stipulations of their contracts.

You may fufill your Active duty term, but you still have those four years to get called back. Or, you can just get stoplossed, either way, you aren't going anywhere.




The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.

Well that "yahoo" is your superior officer, and whether you like it or not you have to obey him. You can't fully understand the discipline it takes sometimes until you are in the military. Also a general having it out for a lowly "Joe" will never happen. The only contact you have with them is saluting them on the homefront. Besides they can't just stoploss one person, they have to stoploss an entire MOS. OH, and the one that got me was the slavery comment... Did we not get paid, did we not originally join on our own accord. Slavery? Not quite...

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Sapper6]

great post ryan. of course the folks who have never been there will never understand. these people are like hungry sharks snapping at every negative tid-bit that comes out as a result of war. it's like they are looking for every possible reason to bad-mouth the whole ordeal, i think it helps them to sleep at night.

i learned at an early age if you don't know what you're talking about, then keep quiet. apparently some people are lacking in that area.

hey OU LOBO and everyone else who thinks these guys got the shaft, click the link i so convieniently posted above. read the same contract these guys signed and tell us again they got screwed. LOBO, i actually got a good laugh out of your last post, with all that non-sense you posted, did you come up with all that on your own...? :idunno:

 

[Matt Stone]

Though it has been adequately rebutted, as I work in Army JAG I feel a real need to address this civilian BS being spouted by OU "I've never been in the military" Lobo...

I believe that is what the courts, in this, case civilian, will decide.

And I'd say that it is a pretty fair chance, given the precedent it would set, that the court will not find in favor of these crybabies. Civilian though their suit may be, it will be a military court that tries them should they just hop on a plane if they don't get their injunction... AWOL is an offense characterized by absense, and the millisecond they depart without proper authorization constitutes the offense. Even in the unlikely event they were to win their civil suit, if they leave without permission, they'll just get to hang around a military confinement facility for a little while as they look forward to life with a federal conviction on their record...

If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).

#1 - Duress is when someone is holding a gun to your head saying "sign or I'll shoot." Stupidity is when someone signs a legal document stating they've read it fully and understand it, when in fact they do not. Amazing stupidity is when they later try to say they should be released from the contract for having been stupid in the first place...

#2 - As stated above, winning a civil suit like this will benefit no one other than the selfish little bastards who want to run home to mommy. Providing a precedent like this would injure the Armed Forces as a whole, and I am putting my money on the judge telling them to suck it up and drive on...

It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date.

No, it is about agreed upon possibility of extension beyond the termination of service as outlined in the enlistment documents. It isn't the fault of the contractor (US Army) that the contractee (idiot National Guardsman) didn't know what he was signing... That'd be the same as if you were to purchase a vehicle, and then later said you should be released from the contract because you didn't know you had to pay for the car... The judge'll laugh over that one in chambers, I'll guarantee ya...

If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.

Take a look at the enlistment contract provided in the link... Really read that section 9, will ya? Tell me if it is unclear somehow...

The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.

Stop-loss and stop-movement happen all the time... Retirees aren't allowed to retire, soldiers moving from one assignment to another have their assignments rescinded, soldiers planning on leaving active duty are told they have been extended for specified or indefinite periods of time. It happens. And it isn't like they weren't aware that it could happen.

You've been soundly rebuked, OULobo. You didn't know what you were talking about, and now you've been educated. I just hope you are adult enough to come back and admit you were misinformed and your opinions were flawed due to ignorance.

:asian:

To my brothers in arms, current and past -

Strength and Honor

 

[Flatlander]

==========================================
Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
===================================================

 

[Sapper6]

...taken from MT Forum Rules and Policies:

MartialTalk.com (“Agent” or "Company") does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of material posted by Discussion Board/Chat Room Users or endorse any opinions expressed by Users. User acknowledges that any reliance on material posted by other Users will be at User s own risk.

while i agree with this whole-heartedly, i believe i have a responsibility to the forum users who frequent this fine establishment to "correct" posted falacies by other forum users. it would be a great injustice to "new or naive" forum users to let allow certain posted information to go unresponsive.

in this case, a forum user (and forum moderator) blatantly criticizing something he knows nothing about; the enlistment policies and practices of the U.S. military's reserve components. he now stands corrected. (enlistment contract posted above).

perhaps i came across a little harsh in getting my point out. if you feel i've engaged in the act of "sniping", i do apologize. i enjoy martial talk, but hope in the future when i, or any other forum user, opens up a topic, what they read is truthful discussion rather than blatant lies.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I've never been in the military (for which one suspects that the military can be glad), but even I know quite well that when you sign, you've signed yer butt away. it's always been my understanding (and it's what I tell students) that while the military is at least as honest a career as, say, being a college professor, you do need to understand what you're getting into.

Basically, when all those kids take the oath in "Starship Troopers," and they recite the line about serving, "for not less than four years or what term of service the Federation shall deem necessary in an emergency," that's pretty much right.

The military does try to avoid doing it for obvious reasons, and they don't do it that often, but it does indeed happen. Legally, too. Same thing with the Guard.

Outside the scope of their challenge, of course, was whether or not the extensions were the result of wise policy--but again, I believe the answer here is, "Soldier, shut up and soldier." Soldiers do not get to set policy--and while democratic in principle, the Army (like a martial arts studio) ain't a democracy.

Odd of me to say this, ain't it.

 

[Tgace]

While all you guys know Im with you...I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a National Guard bashing. While yes, the Guard does have some issues they need to work out, there are many honorable SOLDIERS there too. My area (Western New York) has had plenty of them returning home under flags while over there doing their duty.

 

[Sapper6]

Odd of me to say this, ain't it.

not all that odd, it's the truth. what can be so odd about the truth? great post, thanks for the contribution.

 

[Tgace]

HOLY @#$&!!! I agree on something with rmcrobertson! Is that the earth shifting under my feet?

Absolutely Robert. I think these guys forgot what the rules of the game were.

 

[Sapper6]

While all you guys know Im with you...I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a National Guard bashing. While yes, the Guard does have some issues they need to work out, there are many honorable SOLDIERS there too. My area (Western New York) has had plenty of them returning home under flags while over there doing their duty.

it shouldn't be an issue about the Guard. it's an issue of a soldier not being a soldier. it's about taking responsibility for their own adult actions, in this case, the full understanding of a contractual agreement, with full disclosure sitting out in front of them with pen in hand. i'll be the first (in this case, the 2nd) person to state the Guard (and Reserve for that matter) has issues to resolve but that's neither here nor there.

i have 3 very close friends serving with the 42nd ID out of the NY guard. i wish them well.

 

[Tgace]

Absolutely.....I was just detecting a hint (small hint) of "those dumb NG guys" in the air. This is about duty and honor, not about branch of service......

 

[Flatlander]

...taken from MT Forum Rules and Policies:



while i agree with this whole-heartedly, i believe i have a responsibility to the forum users who frequent this fine establishment to "correct" posted falacies by other forum users. it would be a great injustice to "new or naive" forum users to let allow certain posted information to go unresponsive.

in this case, a forum user (and forum moderator) blatantly criticizing something he knows nothing about; the enlistment policies and practices of the U.S. military's reserve components. he now stands corrected. (enlistment contract posted above).

perhaps i came across a little harsh in getting my point out. if you feel i've engaged in the act of "sniping", i do apologize. i enjoy martial talk, but hope in the future when i, or any other forum user, opens up a topic, what they read is truthful discussion rather than blatant lies.

:asian:

Sapper, please do not challenge my posted warnings. That should be reserved as a private discussion. The fact is, I am not moderating the message, but the delivery. Want a Mod job? Apply. Otherwise, keep your opinion about the way I do my job private. Do you have a problem with how I administer the rules? Escalate it. But keep it out of the discussion here. You are now taking us off topic.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sapper, Matt - Up until I read the information that Sapper posted, I was in agreement that there was a case. The language in that piece was very clear to even me. In addition, the original AP piece didn't appear to mention the extension clauses. With only that to go on, without previous experience in the military, or with military law, us 'never-been-in' folks of course wouldn't have a clue on what to look for, so the link is much appreciated.

The seeming "holier-than-thou" attitudes however aren't. There are ways to debate and correct without crossing the line into the disrespectful or rude, which a few of those 'rebuttle' comments did. I understand your intent was to clarify a matter, which you did. You needn't have resorted to taking the shots as well.

but hope in the future when i, or any other forum user, opens up a topic, what they read is truthful discussion rather than blatant lies.

I don't see lies. I see civilian speculation, based on the available information.

Please, Correct the information, counter the points. But do it in a respectful manner.

3 additional points from our rules:

"- Treat others as you would wish to be treated. We ask that you be professional and polite to one other and respect our intention to have a forum for the friendly discussion of the martial arts.
- Any abuse directed at our all-volunteer moderation/administration team, including defying the moderators/administrators to suspend or ban a member, may result in an immediate suspension or ban.
- Moderators and administrators are posting their own personal opinions unless their post is signed "-MT Mod(erator)" or "-MT Admin(istrator)"."

Peace.

 

[Matt Stone]

Kaith, et al -

I'm not in the habit of apologizing for my comments, except in the event that I've been unnecessarily "something" in one instance or another.

While my tone may have come across as "holier than thou," I stand by my comments. Certainly, Sapper, I and others have experience, knowledge and acces to and in things many don't, but that doesn't mean that our responses to certain individuals in particular or in general aren't warranted.

We just finished with an election fiasco wherein the actions of the military have been called into question by scads of civilians who simply don't know any better. Our activities are publicized and televised by reporters who aren't after the truth, just another yellow journalism sensation that'll make their careers and get them an anchor slot on a major network. Christ, these guys still ask about troop numbers and movement, fully realizing that divulging that information would get people killed and ultimately isn't any of their business in the first place...

People deliberately, in order to pursue their own agenda, misrepresent the actions of my brothers in arms (and when I say brothers, I mean it in the familial sense, inclusive of my sisters in arms as well), and purposefully mislead public opinion by failing to portray things in an objective light.

OULobo is a victim of this and needed correction in the worst way.

I take it very seriously, and very personally, when some misinformed civilian, abusing the rights my brothers and I provide, calls for action that would quite likely degrade the delicate balance that exists in the military. It is very much akin to calling for abolishment of all government, law, public safety, etc. The military is a house of cards, and if one foundation piece is removed or damaged, the entire building will suffer drastic consequences.

Sometimes the lesson has to be taught with the rod, and I genuinely believe that this is the case. Any weaker response would fail to have the same impact, especially given the complete lack of orientation that civilians have, both of enlistment procedures, requirements, regulations, as well as general military lifestyle.

Sorry if it got a bug up your butt, or up the collective butts of others. But too many civilians ride the backs of the military without the first clue of what they are talking about. They present their views, their opinions, as authoritative commentary without realizing just how empty and baseless their opinions really are.

It is really easy to sit at home, snug in your Barco-Lounger or La-Z-Boy recliner, with only "what is for dinner tomorrow" being the major issue at hand. It is easy to be a livingroom general, speaking about all manner of things military and how the military would be reformed under different leadership.

Then there's those of us that live this life and realize we only have 1*... "One *** to Risk."

Discipline me if you feel a need to. I don't post that much online anymore anyway. But I won't step back and pretend to be sorry when I really, really am not...

Strength and Honor

 

[Sapper6]

@ Flatlander

check your PMs

@ Kaith

sorry if i do come across as possessing a "holier-than-thou" attitude, i know i'm far from it and wish not to cast that appearance of myself. being in the military is like a club, and big giant club. to see or hear someone falsely criticizing the actions, etc, of that club is offensive. in this case, it's not about the war but rather, obviously, the process of entering this club. the negative posts containing accusations of lies, duress, and other falsehoods in the enlistment process needed addressed. again, i apologize if my manner of "addressing" was wrong.

@ OU Lobo

i sincerely hope that i've helped you in understanding how the US military's enlistment process works.

 

[Tgace]

Sometimes the lesson has to be taught with the rod, and I genuinely believe that this is the case. Any weaker response would fail to have the same impact, especially given the complete lack of orientation that civilians have, both of enlistment procedures, requirements, regulations, as well as general military lifestyle.

While not as brutal anymore, that concept is as old as organized warfare itself. The military "isnt just a job"....

'Ho Lu, king of Wu asked Sun Tzu, "Can you conduct a minor experiment in control of the movement of troops?" Sun Tzu replied positively. "Can your conduct this test using women?" asked the king. "Yes," said Sun Tzu. The king thereupon agreed and sent 180 beautiful women. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies and put the king's two favourite concubines in command. He instructed them how to do things in military fashion. After getting positive and satisfactory clarifications pertaining to relevant military subjects, and the "regulations" having been announced, the "executioners" weapons were arranged. Sun Tzu then gave the orders three times and explained them five times...... The women all roared with laughter. Sun Tzu declared: "If regulations are not clear and orders not thoroughly explained, it is the commander's fault." He then repeated the order three times and explained them five times. The women again burst into laughter. 'Sun Tzu said, "If instructions are not clear and commands not explicit, it is the commander's fault. But when they have been made clear and are not carried out in accordance with military law, it is a crime on the part of the officers. "Sun Tzu thereafter ordered beheading of the commanders of the right and left. The terrified king's message to Sun Tzu was, "I already know that the General is able to employ troops. Without these two concubines my food will not taste sweet. It is my desire that they be not executed." Nevertheless the two women commanders were executed as an example and the next seniors were made commanders. None dared thereafter make the slightest noise. Sun Tzu then sent a message to the king: "The king may descend to review and inspect. The troops may be deployed as the king desires, even to the extent of going through fire and water." The king, however, did not wish to inspect the formation. Sun Tzu said, "The king likes only empty words. He is not capable of putting them into practice." The king Ho Lu then realised Sun Tzu's capacity as a commander, and eventually made him a general.

 

[Matt Stone]

One other thing...

Even within the military there is a huge misunderstanding of our regulations, customs, laws and procedures.

When I was in the Infantry, I didn't know squat about rules and regs. Didn't know form numbers, didn't know what reg governed what activity, and I really didn't care... That was for the admin folks, and if someone told me to sign something, I figured there was a pretty good reason my signature had to go there.

Now that I'm one of those admin folks with 9 years in the JAG Corps under my belt, I can attest to the fact that I have some pretty good job security... Given the nature of my current job (Legal Assistance NCO), given the frequency with which other ancillary agencies refer clients/customers to my office regarding the policies and regulations of their own offices that they themselves are unclear on, it would seem a common occurence that a soldier might not fully understand something he/she signed.

I deal with bad leases, purchase contracts, bills of sale, insurance scams, car sales, and enlistement contracts, on a daily basis. All because some soldier failed to read what he/she was signing. I've done it myself, and after being burned will never do it again. But getting burned was due solely to my own failure to read and understand what I had in front of me before I signed it. I had one client that flatly told me that, while he knew the enlistment contract signature had the statement above it stating that he had read and fully understood the contract, he didn't even bother to read the documents and simply took the recruiter at his word... Then he got screwed because he thought something was in the contract that wasn't. Whose fault was that?

Anyway. I'm done with this, and won't stir the waters any more than I already have. I think I, Sapper6 and others have all made the point fully clear to those who were uninformed previously...

ST1 OUT

Strength and Honor

 

[OULobo]

Where to start. First of all, thanks to Ryan and Tgace for attempting to keep the replies civil and somewhat informative, instead of accusatory, caustic and easily disregarded due to tone. As to salvery, many slaves were compensated for their work, and still beaten, docked the same pay and not allowed to leave. To Sapper and Mr. Stone, save the "never been there" stuff for someone else, preferably someone who cares. I never joined for reasons such as this.


"Vagueness, Omissions, and Ambiguity

As we mentioned earlier, a judge may find a contract unenforceable if its
terms (the specification of what the parties must do) are too vague. What
may appear clearly to express the intentions of the parties at the time
they write a contract may seem totally unclear on later analysis.

Another common problem is that subsequent events may reveal that
important provisions covering fairly foreseeable potential problems were
not included in the agreement, leaving the parties at sea without sails or
tiller.

Typically, for example, people who are enthusiastic about a new
transaction or cooperative venture of some kind, and filled with feelings
of optimisms and good fellowship, do not even want to think about the
possibility that something could go wrong, much less that the participants
could end up suing one another. A contract should always contain
provisions for dealing with obstacles, failures, and even betrayals, no
matter how farfetched such things may seem at the time.

Here is an important principle to remember: The courts will construe an
ambiguous provision in a contract against the person who wrote it. So, if
you are responsible for offering a part of a contract which is worded
unclearly and which could as easily be interpreted against as for your
interests, the court will choose the interpretation that goes against you
rather than penalizing the other party for your ambiguity."

Having an Indian sign an X by his name doesn't make it a legal contract.

As for any other rebuttle, Kaith rather neatly summed it up for me. I never claimed to be an expert and I made my opinions known, with judgments made from available sources including the intitial AP report that states that the basis of the case is that the "Stop-Loss" policy is not in the contracts signed by the Plaintiffs. Add into it such things as this is not a congress declared war and that there are no criteria for government "emergencies" to my knowledge, there is still more than enough room for these contracts to fail on basis of law. Though I will concede that they will likely fail in that such an event would undermine the current structure of the military, by bringing more people who want to come home, home from a pointless, trumped up and possibly illegal war.

 

[Tgace]

To be fair though, many soldiers have wanted to come back from "necessary, popular and legal wars" as well. Should we have let them go when they wanted.....

I think some people had erroneous concepts of what service as a soldier meant when they signed up.