Stop Loss Ignorance

June 11, 2008 By CJ
Posted in Life in the Military

It’s about time I set the record straight – again – about this whole “stop-loss” business since the media, Hollywood, and anti-war advocates like to use it at every opportunity. Many call the stop loss program a “backdoor draft” when that simply isn’t true. Now, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has introduced legislation that would pay Soldiers affected by stop loss $1,500 per month beyond their ETS date. This is WRONG!! So, get comfortable, sit back, relax, and prepare to be educated.

Let’s get the boring legal stuff out of the way since this is the cornerstone of how the whole stop loss policy is possible (and legal!). I’ve said this before, but apparently people just aren’t listening to me. Every servicemember, regardless of branch of service, signs a DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States. In very direct and unconfusing words, the document states in paragraph 10:

10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

Paragraph 13a further states:

I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS DOCUMENT. ANY QUESTIONS I HAD WERE EXPLAINED TO MY SATISFACTION. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY THOSE AGREEMENTS IN SECTION B OF THIS DOCUMENT OR RECORDED ON THE ATTACHED ANNEX(ES) WILL BE HONORED.

The recruit not only signs underneath this statement in block 13b, but also initials at the end of that paragraph. Is there anyone here that does not understand that when you sign a contract you are obligated to fulfill it? Bueller? Bueller?

Sen. Lautenberg wants to pay Soldiers, who have already been rewarded with bonuses and other enticements, MORE money for fulfilling a contract they signed. His bill, S. 3060 (which I’ve read) will “require the payment of monthly special pay for members of the uniformed services whose service on active duty is extended by a stop-loss order or similar mechanism, and for other purposes.” Again, I refer to the contract above. I could understand if these Soldiers were being stop-lossed beyond that 8-year timeframe that these recruits agreed to, but this isn’t the case. But, even if it was, check out this little gem in paragraph 9c that is also included in the contract they signed an initialed:

c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.

They agreed to serve up to six months beyond the premature Democratic withdrawal that will happen any day now. Now, to be fair, Lautenberg’s bill does make specific mention of those “whose enlistment or period of obligated service is extended, or whose eligibility for retirement is suspended” as being eligible for this carrot on a stick entitlement. But, I revert back to paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract. We’re at war, plain and simple, and therefore no one is really going beyond their obligation since their obligation “continues until six months after the war ends.”

Now, my critics will say, “but Bush declared the war over in 2004 when he so heroically landed on that aircraft carrier in his snazzy jumpsuit and declared ‘mission accomplished’.” I say to them, President Bush never declared the war over. Nor did he declare the war “Mission Accomplished.” As a matter of fact, he said quite the opposite.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

In reference to the “Mission Accomplished” banner behind him (actually, it wasn’t behind him – it was positioned on the USS Abraham Lincoln’s island), it was placed there to signify that the Lincoln had just completed the longest carrier deployment in recent history, logging over 100,000 miles, and was heading home. But, I digress… The war is still ongoing, though quickly winding down to a point where more troop redeployments are highly likely.

Our military is an all-volunteer force. No one is pointing a gun Joe and Jane Citizen to get them to sign the DD 4/1. No one threatened them with death or dismemberment for not volunteering for military service. None of us deserve money to do our jobs. We’re already getting paid!

Additionally, stop-loss is nothing new. It was used during Desert Storm, Kosovo, and other recent operations. It goes back further than that. Army enlistments have been getting extended since the Civil War. They happened in WWII, Vietnam, Korea and just about every operation since then. Sen Lautenberg’s bill would make payments retroactive to October 1, 2001. But, what about all those poor souls who also signed a DD Form 4/1 that were stop-lossed throughout all those years prior? Are they less worthy of these retroactive payments? World War II caused many more deaths and injuries on one day than all of Iraq and Afghanistan combined!! One would think they’d be more worthy of stop-loss payments than we are. And how are we going to pay for it? It is estimated that over 58,000 servicemembers have been stop-lossed in the past six years. With the average stop-loss lasting at least six months, it would cost AT LEAST a half BILLION dollars. However, some servicemembers have been stop-lossed for much longer than that, so naturally that number is the LOW end of what taxpayers would be coughing up. Perhaps, Lautenberg was stop-lossed himself during WWII and is trying to get HIMSELF some extra cash!!

Lautenberg has voted NO on every major bill to provide funding to troops in Iraq, so why would he want to spend MORE for those that are there. The fact is that Sen Lautenberg’s bill would practically force the military into bankruptcy in having to pay these troops that are stop-lossed. It’s sort of another back door method of trying to get the troops out of Iraq prematurely and at a great price. Stop-loss isn’t going away.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience of 600 soldiers at Fort Stewart today that the stop loss policy won’t end anytime soon, and he predicted a small rise in the number of troops forced to serve past their re-enlistment or retirement dates. According to the AP:

“I would like to see an end to the stop loss policy, but I don’t see it happening in the near future,” Mullen said during a question-and-answer session with the troops. “I see a slight growth in the next couple of years based on predictions right now.”

Say NO to S. 3060!! Well, doesn’t matter. He’s not even on the Armed Services Subcommittee so it probably won’t get anywhere anyway. But, if you’re in New Jersey….

Bookmark to:

77 Comments »

Miss Ladybug

June 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

What a maroon!

Bill Grisham

June 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am

Contract law is a strong case for any agreement one makes in life. I signed up for 6 years active duty Navy and then later extended two more years. By the time I got into those last two years, I had decided that this system was not for me for a career. I was honorably discharged with 8 years active duty. Ever since then one of my favorite sayings has been “The best thing I got out of the Navy was me.” Yes, the enlistment contract does sign one up for an 8 year stint and I would hope that this would be understood by the politicos who run the Congress and the bureaucracy. However, they are the biggest breachers of contracts ever to exist in the world. If it suits them to change an agreement, they will do it. If sticking to an agreement gains them the power they want, that’s good too. Whatever gives them more power works. Our Constitution has been breached so much by our ignorant political leaders for the expediency of satisfying political constituencies that it is surprising they haven’t tried to write us a new Constitution. The greatest contract ever to exist has been set aside because it limits the power of the government’s employees. Can we actually expect this kind of leadership to understand the system they themselves have built, or even the honor of the men and women who volunteer to defend our country and liberty?

David M

June 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 06/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

Jason H

June 19th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I don’t know where “CJ” gets his information but he is about as dead wrong as it gets. I’m one of those soldiers being stop lossed beyond my 8 year enlistment. Last time I checked there was no formal declaration of war against Iraq, and that we are in fact guests of the Iraqi government making this nothing more then a Peacekeeping Mission. To say that I signed up to be extended for a peacekeeping mission, or a conflict (regardless of the merits – or demerits as it were) is absurd. I lack the means to fight this legally right now… But I’ve been thinking of running for congress, and my first order of business would be to get rid of this unconstitutional law!

Stop-lossed American Paratrooper

June 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

I was researching the new stop loss pay and came across this gem.

Forgive my ignorance, I don’t come to this website often, but has the author of this article served his country and deployed to combat? Now, I’m only one of many combat veterans who are facing stop-loss after already serving a tour in Iraq (15 months straight minus 2 weeks leave on state soil, equivalent to two of the author’s tours) but I think an extra 1500 a month would be somewhat fair compensation to the troops and their families. On behalf of the combat veterans and all their families, who do support the extra change for serving past their ETS, let me apologize to CJ. Shame on us for not fine-combing our contracts when we joined. Do you think SGLI is too much too?

And for the record, if you’re going to cite legal fine-print that justifies contractual extension under “war”, congress has never filed for a formal declaration of war on Iraq. Ever ask why?

June 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am

SLAP (your moniker makes a great acronym),

Yes, I AM active duty AND I’ve been to Iraq. Judging by your post, I’ve even been in combat more times and longer than you have. If you’re being stop-lossed, it also means I have at least twice as much time in service than you do. And, no, I’m not a commissioned officer. I’m an NCO. But, let’s not argue semantics.

We don’t need nor deserve an extra $1500 per month because we are forced into serving our contract. We don’t deserve an extra $1500 per month if we’re extended beyond a 12-month or 15-month combat deployment. By agreeing to that you are saying that we are more deserving in our conflict than our grandfathers who served YEARS in combat before coming home – sometimes going from one theater to another and watching their friends die day in and day out. Their platoons and companies were obliterated and some of them barely made it out alive, only to be sent to another theater. But, you didn’t see them whining about extra pay for having to spend so much time fighting. Are we a weaker generation? I don’t think so.

What makes you or I any more special than those that served before us and had to fight in combat? YOU signed up (and didn’t read your contract, apparently) to defend your country and go where your Congress and Commander in Chief send you. This generation happens to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. You won’t get any sympathy from me that you didn’t read “the legal fine print.” That is YOUR fault and probably your parents fault for not raising you to do such. Harsh words? Absolutely! But, you’re a Soldier so you should have thick skin and be able to take the truth. So, yes, shame on you!! You better believe I read every word of that document and even made them research things like Executive Order 12333 before I signed since it was on almost every page. Do you know what EO 12333 is? Probably not. No one seemed to know and I was the first one to ask my recruiting office. Shame on everyone that came before me, too.

Now, on to this myth about the absence of a formal declaration of war about which both you and Jason (and the anti-war crowd as well, I might add) seem to be ignorant (look the word up, it’s not a put-down). A “declaration of war” is a “formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.” Congress “declared war” back on October 16, 2002, when they signed Public Law No: 107-243 authorizing the use of force against Iraq: “the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

The anti-war morons in this country would try to convince you that is not a “declaration of war.” When was the last time Congress officially “declared war” anyway? WWII? Not against Japan; not against Germany by their definition. Also, I would ask how you “declare war” on a philosophy (like terrorism)? Check the similarities in language between the Iraq declaration and the Japan declaration:

WWII-Japan: “the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states” Nowhere in the authorization to use force do the words “declaration of war” exist. They use the term, “state of war”.

Germany “declared war” on the United States and thus the Congress reciprocated. The same goes with the state of war being declared against Italy, who “declared war” against us first. Just as in Japan, Italy, and Germany, Congress gave the President the authority to use the military against the threat of a specific country – in this case, Iraq. A little long winded, but I would say that Congress DID “declare war” six years ago. Again, I DID ask why and did my OWN research. I don’t rely on people to give me answers; I seek them out. That’s how I prevent my own ignorance. It would serve you well to study history a little more closely.

Do I think SGLI is too much? Hell no and I think we should be able to buy MORE if we want to! But, if you’d like to attack me on some of my other military fiscal opinion, I also don’t think married Soldiers deserve more BAH than single Soldiers. Guess what…I’m a married Soldier with three kids living at home (12, 10, and 6 years old). Care to attack me on that too?

June 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am

I personally have no desire to attack you; though I do find your reasoning flawed. I’m guilty as charged for not reading the fine print of my contract, yet my ignorance 8 years ago is not an excuse for the government to take advantage of me today. I’m glad you provided us with both the “declarations” to compare and contrast. I think we need to remember a few things when we read both of those side by side. First and foremost the language of legislation is worded VERY precisely, especially those authorizing and reauthorizing force. I think if we look at the text of the legislation we don’t see that very key word that would enact the very specific clause of my contract, the “war”. That is because war was never declared on Iraq, and if it was would we still be at war with our allies that Iraq has now become? Furthermore I contest the “War on Terrorism” being a war at all. Terrorism is not a philosophy; neo-marxism is a philosophy. A philosophy helps people describe the world around them and the existence of the world around them. Terrorism is not a philosophy or a theology it is a tactic – a tactic that the United States has proved works. Terrorism is no different from assaults, ambushes, and “shock and awe”. So now I’m still wondering the war I’m being called up under… as we aren’t really fighting a war.

June 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am

Jason, please tell me what WAS declared on Iraq then? The American English language has changed dramatically in the past 66 years. Where in the Constitution does it say exactly HOW war will be declared? If it’s such an important declaration, why isn’t it standardized? It doesn’t have to be. Congress knew they were declaring war on Iraq when they passed the war bill, sorry Public Law No: 107-243. The war is over, yes, but by convention, we are not relieved of our responsibility until we get the country back on its feet. Thus, the “war” is not yet over. That is to say, that the reconstruction phase of war is not over. So, stop-loss is very much needed and warranted. There is still fighting going on and we need troops to be true to their commitments. That commitment ends when the war ends – ALL phases of the war!! That includes reconstruction. By the way, if they authorized wasn’t war, what was it?

To be fair, if you have truly gone beyond your eight year commitment, I would say that you are still bound by that “six (6) months after the war ends” clause in your contract. However, it does plainly state that you can appeal to the President to have him end your contract.

Finally, terrorism IS a philosophy. It’s not a system of government and it’s not a nation. By its very purpose, terrorism is a system of thought based on or involving such inquiry – the definition of an ideology. And yes, neo-marxism is also an ideology. Terrorism is one of the rare forms of ideology that is also a tactic, though the two aren’t mutually exclusive. The fact that you just accused the United States of terrorism really speaks volumes about who it really is I’m speaking to.

June 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

No no no… I certainly did not accuse the United States of terrorism. It was poorly worded. The United States; through its actions – mainly through legislation reducing civil rights – has proven that terrorism is an effective means to get the United States to alter its way of living, which is a goal of terrorists. We have proved to terrorists through our action that terrorism is an effective tactic – not that the United States has used terrorism itself.

I don’t want to get too far off the stop-loss subject by discussing terrorism, because that will spiral into all sorts of chaos. I find your assertion that stop-loss should apply till the end of all phases interesting. As a student of history I’m sure you are aware that we did not keep our soldiers in Europe much past the surrender of Germany in WWII. We certainly didn’t keep all those American soldiers until Germany, and Europe, were reconstructed.

As for appealing to the President I’ll get right on that. Maybe in January our next President will be more sympathetic, as this one seems to be lacking.

June 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Okay, gotcha. You had me worried there. Just a misunderstanding.

As for Europe, I must be mistaken about something. Don’t we STILL have a kabillion bases in Germany? But, I understand what you meant. WWII ended because they actually gave up. In Iraq, no one gave up. We practically had to kill them until the very last person (or they just ran away). We’re still dealing with people who don’t realize they’ve lost. We could have been out of there a long time ago if the terrorists in Iraq (and the Iranian agitators) would have just given up, helped us rebuild, and let us leave. They didn’t do that.

Additionally, the Germans weren’t hampered by infighting and secularism and able to establish a government quickly. They had a military intact that could protect the country as they got back on their feet. Iraq didn’t have those luxuries. Partly because they all were killed or ran away and partly because of Rumsfeld’s idiotic ideas about deba’athification.

Dave

June 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm

CJ, you are wrong, about everything. I am a NCO, and I am currently on my 10th month of a 19 month stop loss. Now, for someone like yourself, I’m sure that doesn’t sound like too bad a deal. You sound like career military. One of those guys who just couldn’t make it on the outside, so the threat of forcing others to stay in the military is probably something that sounds pretty damn good to you.
However, some of us have a chance to do other things with our lives; temporary service to our country was what we intended when we signed that contract, not a career in the military.
I also suspect that your MOS of choice is something quite effeminate–perhaps you do laundry, finance, or supply. I, on the other hand, serve in the infantry, and I’ve already served one tour in Baghdad. So, as an infantryman, who has served in combat, I have done substantially more than the other 99% of our country. I suggest, that before you try to force me to do more, you should require at least something from the rest of this ungrateful nation.
As I’m sure you are aware, this war is unwinnable. There will always be attacks in Iraq. So, if our goal is complete destruction of AQI, or any other insurgent group, we will be waiting forever. Not that it matters much if we do win–the war never should have been waged in the first place. How can a nation go into a war based on the wrong premise? Weapons of Mass Destruction–even Bush acknowledges that they weren’t there. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Not until we got there. Our nation is waging this war in a malfeasant manner–doing the wrong thing, the wrong way.
Your statement regarding the legality of the contract is horribly wrong as well. In fact, when the Ninth Circuit decided the stop loss issue, they determined that, it doesn’t matter if the military breaches its contracts. The court understood that if you want to be a stickler to technicalities, you have to acknowledge that there was no declaration of war. You proved it yourself–in World War II congress DIRECTED the President to take action. In this war, they simply gave the President the choice. And, as you know, under the Constitution, the President does not have the right to declare war–that right is reserved to the Congress. So, with no war and no continued state of emergency, no cause for stop loss exists.
However, the Ninth Circuit decided that even though the Army breached the terms of the contract, the soldiers disputing the issue were not entitled to injunctive relief. The reason for this, and it doesn’t help your case, is that according to the Ninth Circuit, the military is not obligated to live up to its end of the bargain. That’s right, the military, because of its unique status, does not have to live up to its end of the bargain on anything–pay, term of service, anything. So, that means, CJ, that the military no longer has to continue to pay you and your pathetically government dependent family. But, it can still force you to work, and indeed I hope that it does–past the term of your enlistment.

June 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave. Have you tapped my phones? You are so right. I’m absolutely useless to the outside world. I have no skills, no education, and no motivation to work for a living. My goal is to stay in the military long enough to get out and mooch on another social program that will provide me a monthly paycheck that I don’t have to work for. Hopefully, that makes you feel good about yourself to denigrate other Soldiers. You know, the ones that wash your laundry, cook your food, get your supplies of much needed ammunition, grenades, and weaponry, ensure you get paid, take care of your boo boos and illnesses, make sure your promotion points and paperwork are adequately submitted to DA, carry you where you have to go, give you the signal you need to communicate to your fellow superior infantrymen, and provide you the intelligence you need to find and destroy the enemy. We are so not worthy of your selfish, oops, selfless sacrifices to this nation. I promise you that if we ever meet, I will promptly get down on my knees and give you the honor you truly deserve as I bow in adulation. Thank you SO MUCH for suffering the nightmares of stop-loss on behalf of the 99% of those not worthy of your uniform. What we should really do is get rid of EVERY MOS in the Army and only hire infantry guys. You don’t need anyone else anyway, right? I only wish the fact that I chose to make my service a lifetime event came even close to what YOU are doing for this great nation. You are the total and utter embodiment of our Army Values, especially selfish, d’oh, selfless sacrifice. If I had known that it was more noble to serve a few years and get out than spend a lifetime putting up with bureaucratic nonsense, I would have gotten out years ago. Scratch that. I forgot I don’t really have a choice but the military. There’s no way I would have made it and instead just added to the ever growing list of homeless vets.

I won’t respond to your other IVAW standard, line-by-line nonsense and leave you with the knowledge that you are my hero. You really are. They should name a football stadium after you. When you die, every network should dedicated hours and hours of endless tributes in your honor. Maybe if I contact Mountain Dew, they’d even name a soft drink flavor after you. It could be something like Mountain Dew: Raspberry Hero. Unless, of course, you’re not Airborne. In that case, we can think of something else. Maybe Infantry Fruitopia.

I want to also thank you for taking the time to even read my post AND the comments. I’m positive you have so much more important things to do. Instead of taking time to read my opinions, you could have been cleaning your rifle, waxing your chest, or even preparing for your next IVAW speech. But, you chose to hang out with me and I’m almost speechless about it.

I also want to apologize for not being able to live up to your high standards. Here I thought that a lifetime of service was actually a worthwhile cause and only 14 years later it took you to help me figure out how wrong I’ve always been. I find myself in something of a predicament now. Being an indefinite Soldier (can I still be considered a Soldier being in this long?), I’m going to have to request permission to get out of the military. As you know, I don’t have an ETS and with all this stop-loss going on my request will most likely be disapproved. But, I’ll ask so that you can finally be proud of me. If I’m lucky, they’d deny my request and I’ll truly know what it’s like to be in your shoes. Then, we could tour the country together with IVAW and talk about the evil government that forced us in voluntary servitude.

Now, onto the unwinnable part of your comment. I’m a little confused by this. Aren’t YOU, as an infantryman, responsible for fighting it? Aren’t you the cream of the crop in the Army? The way you talk, you’re the shiznit and can accomplish herculean feats of valor and courage unknown to the rest of the military. Doesn’t that sort of make YOU the loser here? I mean, I’m not infantry, so it’s not my fault we’re losing. I can’t help it if YOU can’t kill the enemy. I’m in the military because I can’t make it in the “outside world” but does losing this war mean you couldn’t make it in the “inside world” of the military? That must really weigh on your conscience. I used to hold a pretty high esteem for you guys (after all, I was always attached to the infantry and fought with 3/15 in Fallujah – probably not good enough for you). But, if you can’t get the job done, who can? That fact has got to be weighing on your pride.

What ever would we do without people like you in our military? Thank you for gracing us with your service!!

June 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 am

Thanks.

June 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 am

What are you thanking me for? You’re the one doing it all! Making it all happen and suffering the injustices of stop loss as payment. We should all be thanking you. July 4th should be renamed “Stop Loss Awareness Day” so we don’t lose focus ever again.

RUSMCUSA

June 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 am

Where does/did it state in the contract about requesting to get out of it after serving the 8 years…

I was held 367 days past my contract of 8 years….

June 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am

RUSMCUSA, paragraph 9c.

June 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf

check out the new and improved…there is no 9c.

Stop loss sucks…367 days past my contract which was already 3 mos past my MSO sucked.

I had 2 mos to go and my unit didn’t need me. they promoted so many crap bag NCO’s to get more pay on deployment (I was in a reserve unit) that my slot was useless really.

I was on medhold, treated like crap and my records finally got fixed…hell I didn’t even get a discharge certificate (DD form 256A0.

So yes, this bill while it may not pass, is something for these politicians to think about.

While I don’t want to make it personal, until you go through stop loss, which I hope you (and if you have a family) don’t, you do not know anything about this topic besides the words professed in the DD form 4. While what you say may be true in terms of regulations, there is a human side to those black and white words.

The Army treated me like crap upon discharge (I won’t say a stronger pejorative word instead of crap, but it is deserved) so I say screw their policy.

And to say one could petition the president is laughable. Yeah right…I hope you are the first…while I know their are regulations to do this…no one in a unit, even a JAG is going to help a soldier get out.

Its a lose lose for the soldier-you can’t even get promoted to a higher NCO rank…

While you say the bill is wrong, I say the bill is right.

June 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm

RUSMCUSA, thanks for competently disagreeing with me. When did you join?

The Army treating you (or any Soldier) like crap is uncalled for. That’s not who we are and you had some suckass NCOs if they allowed you to be treated like that. So, I apologize for that. No Soldiers should be treated like, especially those that have served their time.

With respect to the contract, thanks for showing me the new one. However, that doesn’t really apply to anyone stop-lossed right now. The contract didn’t even go into effect until October 2007, so it won’t apply for at least another 2-3 years for stop loss. It is interesting the sentence about the President being able to end an enlistment was left out of this one. I also notice that it got more specific about stop loss and other enlistment points. It’ll be a LOT harder for Soldiers to get upset in the future since the policy is pretty cut and dry now.

One of the reasons I didn’t go into the reserves or National Guard was that policy of only getting promoted when there is a slot. I saw way too many 40 and 50 year old Specialists and Sergeants and realized that I wanted to go further than that. I don’t agree with it at all and I’m not sure what can be done about it either.

June 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm

I joined the Marines in 1994-01 active duty then Army Reserve 01-05. I enlisted for 3 years in the Reserve, turned into 4 (Stop loss).

Out of those 4 years I was called up tweice within 11 mos of each other…totalling 23 mos 15 days..half.

I’m not crying about policy I guess…It just sucks to have been a part of that policy….but I served and I’m ok but I wasn;t liking it at the moment…like I said Ihad two months to go after already doing 9 years….

One good thing will come out of it…the stop loss time will translate into more active duty time for my US gov civil service retirement…so oh well…

BTW it was craptastic Army NG NCO’s who treated me like crap…outprocessing FT Dix…especially at the DEMOB site…they WERE NOT from my unit….

There should be a limit on who you can take…..

And I agree though on the new DD form 4…now they know what they are getting into…but…yeah it sucks even more for those of us that did their 8 year MSO.

June 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Hello all

I am currently still in the Army, effected by the stop loss. I will not argue about the legality of the program, I want to address the fact that people on stop loss are not being compensated for their services. I was supposed to retire on the 1st of January. I see allot of Soldiers reenlisting and getting sweet bonuses. Many of these Soldiers are not professionals by any definition. Yet here I am, senior enlisted, have never been offered a reenlistment bonus, stuck on stop loss without being compensated, because and I quote “This Soldier needs to be retained at all cost, the skills and knowledge he possesses cannot be replaced” end quote.

The amazing thing about having a retirement submitted and accepted is that the entire chain of command from the company to the division level has to approve it. After the retirement is approved at the division level DA will rubber stamp the request and process without a thought. The exception to policy works much the same, with one exception, if the division level does not approve the exception to policy to the stop loss then that is as far as the request goes, DA will adjust the retirement date based on the divisions needs. Based off the fact that my division needs me so badly they should pay for more my extended services in the form of monthly bonuses out of division funds. Once the division is faced with paying extra money from their pocket the number of people getting stop lossed will drop —–allot!!!

I do not want to hear that I should serve my country purely out of patriotism and dedication to service. Most of the people on this site have the option once they are stop lossed to reup for the short period that they will be stop lossed and receive a small bonus. Captains are being given anywhere from 25,000 to 35,000 to stay in for additional four years. Many senior officers receive incentive pays. Add the fact that junior enlisted with few mastered skills (not to be confused with potential) reenlisting and getting mad cash. Any junior enlisted reading this should see that it does not pay to stay in the Army as an enlisted, because once they go over 10 years of service all incentive bonuses disappear, this is completely backwards from the civilian world and the commissioned officer world . The Army has alienated an entire group, the senior Non-Commisioned Officer, which is “The backbone of the Army”.

I am deployed, this is number six. My family has been affected by this, I still serve with honor. I believe the Army should do the honorable thing………… Pay me for my extra effort…..

June 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

RK, you make a lot of sense there. I think I may agree with that one. If you’ve served your 20 years and are ready to get out, but get stop-lossed, now they’re eating into a much higher paying career after the military. It’s well beyond your 8-year committment. I get frustrated with the bonus thing as well, but I’m one of those “God and country” guys. I think I’m with you on this one.

Keith

June 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

You are way off. First off you do sign up for 8 years with your active and IRR included. That is not the same as 8 active years, you should do a little more research before you start shooting from the hip. Also currently stop loss does not affect only those with remaining IRR time in there contracts. It is decided by UIC. Everyone will get blaket stop loss, stop move orders for the entire unit regardless of whether you are deploying or not, that also included those who were supposed to retire.

Secondly if you havn’t figured out by now i’m active duty and yes I read and understood my contract when i signed. I actually specifically asked the CPT at MEPS what did “time of war” mean and he looked me straight in the eye and said. “For stop loss to happen it would take an act of congress.” If you want to talk contract law, ok we are not in a war, congress has not declared war. Now I don’t blame the CPT because at the time that was the DOD policy on stop loss. But DOD quickly changed there mind and decided after the official war ended in Iraq that “time of war” meant “hostile conflict.” Now I didn’t have any say in this I didn’t have any opportunity to redo my contract.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of stop loss and I understand why it’s implemented and i’m not saying that giving soldiers $1500 a month is fair. But I am pretty disappoited that some one who has served in the military for so long and who’s job partially entails understanding the frustration of his/her soldiers would be so misinformed on this topic. From my experience stop loss is not only a moral breaker but it’s a huge source of tension and anger with-in all ranks of the Army.

Also I understand stop loss has been used in the past but it has never been used for such a long period of time. When you are talking about a 15 month deployment that means a 24 month stop loss. And that “you can waive 90 day stabilization” is not true. You can request to waive your 90 day stabilization if it’s approved by your BN CDR. The truth of the matter is stop loss is a painful process to go thru and i speak from experience here. I understand if you have never been thru stop loss to not really understand why it’s so bad, but for some one to not only have gone thru it themselves but to have their soldiers go thru you either have the most dedicated and content soldiers in the Army or you are severly done playing the impact of stop loss.

If a soldier can re-enlist for two years and get a 5,000 bonus and that’s being conservative since most bonuses now are over 10,000. Then it would make sense to me that a soldier who is stop lossed for 12 months should get 2,500. I’m just throwing out numbers but it just makes sense to me that soldiers who are stop lossed should be given some kind of conpensation.

June 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Kevin,

Sounds like YOU are the one way off. An act of Congress DID take place when public law 107-243 authorized the war in Iraq. Congress DID declare a war with that passage, just as they did with past wars. All you have to do is read and do some research. I also think I made it perfectly clear that not just those with fewer than 8 years in are affected by stop loss when I quoted paragraph 9c of the contract. UIC is just one of many ways stop loss is imposed. There are some MOS that are affected as well as individual skills.

Just because major combat has ended, doesn’t mean the “war” is over. There are various phases of “war” and we are in what is called the “reconstruction” phase. Unfortunately, our enemies aren’t as smart as the Germans and Japanese were and won’t just give up and help us. Instead, they continue to resist making this phase drag longer than it needs to.

So, I hardly think I’m “way off” on much here. Stop loss is only a source of tension and anger because NCOs and officers don’t take the time to properly ensure Soldiers understand WHY they are being stop lossed. Trust me, I understand the frustration of my Soldiers. And I have a pretty strong chance of my retirement being denied when I apply soon. Many of my peers are suffering the same fate. I think I can understand how much it sucks! I deal with it on a daily basis.

If it’s about money and the Soldiers is stop lossed anyway, why NOT just reenlist for a short term and take the cash. It’s not about the cash, that’s why.

July 1st, 2008 at 4:49 am

Your right CJ, it’s not about the money, it’s about the fact the military forces you away from your family when you’ve already completed your contract. I too am an NCO who has already served his entire 8 year contract and will be spending a year on my government paid vacation to wonderful Iraq. You say myself and other soldiers don’t deserve compensation, go reenlist and get the bonus money? So, basically, get paid “extra” to be here? How is that any different than getting compensation for stop loss, easy, now I have to worry at the end of that contract of getting stop lossed again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. If the goal of the military/government is to make their soldiers lose all trust in the system and leave at their earliest available time, than they are doing exactly that. Does my family deserve for me to be sent away with the possibility of never coming home? Is the government gonna take care of my family if that happens? You know the answer as well as I do, NO. Rely on SGLI? I’m sure with stop loss they’ll figure out a way around that, afterall, they figured a way out around my contract. Trust the troops, AWLAYS, trust the military/government, only as far as I could throw them. You want to retire huh? What would you be saying if they told you “yes, you can retire, but you have to stay for another 5 years and then maybe we’ll let you go.” If I’m being forced to stay then yes I expect some kind of compensation, not neccessarily money.
You guessed it, I’m not career military, I have a great job as a firefighter/emt in the civilian world. Because of stop loss my fire dept. is a person short. How would you feel if one of your kids died because instead of riding the fire truck and being there, I had to be overseas and ride a desk? Maybe a little strectch for you, but possible, yes. Do I believe in God and Country, of course I do, thats why I enlisted, for those who can’t defend themselves I do. And no I’m not infantry, or GOD as you would put it, I am just another soldier doing a job I was not trained to do because the government stop lossed me. I even went to 2 weeksa of training to reclass to do the unit mission, and still I get put in a job that I am not trained for. Needed? I think not, but don’t ask me, ask my wife and 2 kids at home who now havew to worry if daddy will ever come home because he has to go sit in a “war zone” and puch papers around an office.

July 1st, 2008 at 5:07 am

Michael Cline, Executive Director of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, said: “Since early 2003, over 600,000 Guard and reserve members have fulfilled the ideal of citizen-soldier, leaving their civilian jobs and educational pursuits to take up arms to defend the country they love. The unusual sacrifice they and their families make on a daily basis are what makes this country great. Several thousand of them have been involuntarily retained beyond their normal term of service to continue to serve their country. Although this is patriotic on their part, and maintains unit integrity, it also was more than for which they and the Defense Department contracted.”

July 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

CJ you dont even sound like you are in the military. You sound like some 20 something yr old kid who has too much time on his hands to research these things. You also are someone who will say anything to win an argument…A complete hypocrite in every sense of the word. One of your points you mentioned in the first post was the the soldiers before us didnt get paid for stop loss. Well thats a great point, because it was one way in the past it should be that way now. If everybody thought like that the world would never change…Get a life and stop insighting arguments on the internet, troll

July 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

MB, you’re so right. I’m actually a 17-year hermaphrodite working on my Eagle Scout project and this was the best thing I could think of. Congratulations! You’re the first nerd to break through my hardened steel online persona and cut to the very core of who I really am. My pack is going to be very upset with you. Be right back…I need to pop a zit on my nose.

July 8th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Ewww, I wish I had a picture of that. When I popped the zit, it splatted against the mirror in the form of the letters “MB”. Weird.

July 12th, 2008 at 3:58 am

CJ, if you were in the military and had ever been held on stop loss or even knew someone who had you might actually be able to talk intelligent instead of a tight wad penny pinching politician. Oh, and if it’s not about the money, are you willing to pay back every enlistment/re-enlistment bonus you ever received? I didn’t think so, I guess part of it has to do with the money after all huh. So if we all believed like you, we should punish the “all volunteer military” and force them to do whatever the government wills huh? Doesn’t ound like “volunteer” to me, sounds more like WWII Germany.
I’m glad you are happy that you think you are “the man” and know all, but YOU are the hypocrite, punish soldiers you work with and that just the army way. Well, I could tell you my thoughts on that but then again this is a public forum and I wouldn’t want this erased before it gets posted. You should be ashamed to call yourself a soldier, if in fact you are. Just crawl back into your hole, because just like you, the rest of us could care less if you think militery members are underserving of anything.

July 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am

It is a shame that petty pickering has taken over this discussion. What the discussion should be about is Pride in our Nation, Pride in Service and Rewarding Soldiers for their Service to the Country. If a Soldier has served his country in accordance with the contract and has other Life plans he should be compensated, look at most civil court rulings when a contract is broken or altered. A $1500 bonus is a small penitence for being stop lossed, believe me, deployment number 5 since 2001, this one under stop loss, I am burnt out—- F*** this. If you have read my other posting you would understand how to end stop loss. People retained on stop loss often become ineffective and a burden on the unit, the reason is that their hearts are not into the fight anymore. People go through a mental change when they prepare to leave of the military. If a person is stop lossed they should be compensated, much more than a Soldier who is Volunteering to extend his Service. End of Discussion.

July 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

P.S.

I purposely capitalized the first letter in some words meaning to emphasize those words. Money will not fix most problems, it will make things easier and it will make people think twice about before making a life altering decision concerning another’s life. Unfortunately money is what makes our world go around and sometime stops the world. Our Leaders, this case being politicians and senior military (above the Battalion level) make these life altering decisions without regard to the life plans of others. I read somewhere that only 5% of people who join the military will retire, to force people to do something that is not their in their life plan is wrong. We have defended our country, we have faced the enemy, let us leave the military with Honor. Stop loss degrades many Soldiers, believe me, I personally have seen three Soldiers who fell apart during their unwanted service. Our country’s leaders talk allot about human rights, equality and respect for others, yet our leaders violate others by forcing an extended service. I was wrong about the last three words in my last posting, please except my apologies. Stop loss is wrong, remember only 5% will retire, most of the others get out when the first contract is completed

Please visit this site http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1328

SERGEANT

July 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

CJ I was googling the status of the possible stop loss pay and came across your little blog. I must say, I was rather interested and took a quick look, hell I even read some of your replies. You claim to be an NCO with over 16 years TIS if I read correctly yet you seem to have missed the complete idea of the Creed. Professionalism. It may just be me but it seems as if you get your jollies off on arguing with soldiers who are serving their Country in this “war”. (in quotes for a reason). Pardon my language but you need to look in that mirror you popped the zit on and realize who the fuck you are. A NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER, correct? Then act like one. People wonder why the Corps is losing their “Backbone” status, but you probably wouldn’t understand being that you’d rather argue with your peers instead of keeping your negative beliefs to yourself.
“NO ONE IS MORE PROFESSIONAL THAN I”

July 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

“SERGEANT”, I’m not going to sit here and be reprimanded by you or anyone else here. I know the creed, I understand the creed, and I live the creed. Don’t talk down to me when you have NO idea who I am. It’s obvious you have no idea who I am since your information is way off. I’ve been in the Army barely 14 years. There is no “claim” to my status as an NCO. I’ve been an NCO since 1997, back when you were probably still shitting in your pants.

And don’t tell me about my “negative” beliefs. I’m the most positive person you’ll ever meet. But, I’m also a realist. You don’t like the fact that you’re not going to get paid for doing your job in this man’s Army, get the hell out!! It’s that simple. I tell my Soldiers straight up I’m not going to talk them into staying if they don’t want to. And I get them everything I can if they do.

You want to talk about professionalism? I put myself out here every day. I don’t hide behind a fake name and hurl insults without consequence. I speak my mind and don’t care whether or not it’s popular. You hide behind a fake persona and think I actually give a damn you’re a “SERGEANT”. That means nothing to me. I’ve seen a lot of dirtbag SERGEANT’S and you’re probably one of them – making our troops into victims instead of the warriors we’re trained to be. No one joins the military to get rich. There’s a sacrifice inherent in military service. I’ve suffered that sacrifice and continue to do so. I’ve been to the “war” you like to relegate to quotation marks and speak from my past and my brothers’ current experiences there.

My backbone is perfectly in tact. Maybe I could loan you some of it.

RK, you’re just wrong. Nothing I can add to that.

July 15th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

I was “retained in service 365 days for the convenience of the government per stop loss” as my DD 214 put it, and am obviously supportive of the proposal to provide additional compensation to service members effected by this policy. It’s not that I believe I or anyone else deserves pay for doing our jobs, but for the uncertainty. I was stop lossed in the early stages when it was Army wide by MOS- and there was no indication of when it would lift. Are there any gaps in the 14 years of service where you tried to find full time employment? It is difficult enough as it is, when you have a separation or prospective retirement date. I do not believe stop lossed service members now are more deserving than those others through the years, but then why is there tuition assistance (a recent update to the GI Bill, yes?), SGLI, or other benefits? A deficiency is identified and addressed. I was also recalled to active duty during my 8 year obligation, but granted an exemption due to my civilian position. If I am correct, there are federal laws in place that protect the rights of workers while recalled. Why not acknowledge the situation stop loss creates with a little monetary compensation for lives put on hold, plans changed, job opportunities, and lives lost. Again, I am not trying to say stop lossed personnel have sacrificed more, but it is a truly unique position to be in that most won’t understand, and one which this forum or any other will never be able to provide a clear account.

MEA

July 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

ETS date is August 15, 2008, 8 years of active reserve duty (I can get deployed on IRR so why not get my drill pay each month for the risk) with not a single blemish on the record. Promoted to E6 very quickly on a multitude of strengths that do not need to be listed. Found out last month we are deploying in October and under a stop loss that will last until at least when I return from the deployment, possibly longer if it is not lifted.

I feel I should be compensated. I will not bore you to death with the intimate details, but being married and 28 years old we have to put off having children and a move back near out hometown until the deployment is finished.

If you have kids, how much money would someone have to pay you to wait another 14 months after you decided you wanted your first one? The joy of seeing the newborn and holding it for the first time, being with the mother as she goes throught the ups and downs of pregnancy. Imagine being told that although you want to move back near family with a little baby, you have to leave and your wife is going to live alone for 14 months instead. Quite a change of direction.

The compensation is not only for the Soldier, at least for me. It is for the emotional rollarcoaster that we have endured in the past 2 months as well as having to put off our lives for another 14 months. Of course I could re-enlist, but another deployment is already coming down the pipe for 2010 and putting off kids again would probably be the end of the marriage.

I could list 6 full companies of Soldiers that have not been deployed once, as I am sure most people could while other units get tasked repeatedly.

When I return, I will have completed 9 years + of my 8 year reserve contract with just under 4 years of it being active duty time. And you wonder why the NCO core is decreasing? We need to take better care of our Soldiers and the families. I would gladly re-enlist if I could be assured that everyone of equal rank who has not deployed in my MOS will go before I get sent again. But sadly we all know that will not be the case, certain units are “safe”.

When I see that occurring while I am under stop loss and having to put off my own personal life goals, I damn sure want compensated for that. I could care less about civilian jobs or the like, but forcing family to wait while others sit around and enjoy life puts me to the place where I want something extra.

PS- Although I did love the reply to the infantry guy claiming to be better then everyone else. Maybe he was trying to compensate for some GT score jealousy. Love to him when he doesn’t recieve pay for a few months and his house is foreclosed, possessions repossessed, family starves. Or when he only has to eat MREs for 12 months while sitting bricks the size of small Yugos.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm

CJ,

You said…

“I tell my Soldiers straight up I’m not going to talk them into staying if they don’t want to.”

-these days the Army keeps them in on stop loss……so don’t waste your breath.

and then in the following sentence said…

“And I get them everything I can if they do.”

-so if one on your troopers was stop lossed, would you support him/her?

I wont challenge your creds, silly to do so on a black and white blog…but I will say that the sentences you wrotes eem a little odd….not wrong or anything, just odd, given your argument aout stop loss.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm

pardon my typos…

SGT Green, Samad

July 31st, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Forcing SOLDIERS to stay in the Military past there contract end dates weakens that force. The Military is voluntary and say what you want about that 8 year obiligation shit, if a soldiers serves then let him go. We are stretched thin because of this so-called war, but if thats the case lets send those on Active Duty who havent yet seen combat. And people if you haven’t served then talk like so. Sure on paper being stop lossed seems like its just serving a little more time. But tell that to the Soldier who has been deployed to Iraq 27 months out of the past 4 years.

August 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am

I remember being under stop loss. I was really mad about it. I researched it and guess what I found out? That the stop loss is not to exceed one year. Now you people saying that you’ve been under stop loss for 12 + months should really look into that. Second thing how come no one has mentioned the $100 dollars a day the government is supposed to pay you if they extend your contract, oh yeah that’s right they killed that off when they started a massive stop loss program. For those that argue you signed an 8 year contract and you should be stuck to it I present my case. i read the contract and saw the 8 year thing and I was getting ready to walk out the door but, the recruiter explained to me that the only way that would come into play is if WWIII broke out. I guess it was my fault for having faith in someone in uniform. I personally think that they should check everyone’s DD214 and pay them $100 dollars * X where X = “Retained in service X days for the convenience of the Government per USC12305″.

August 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

lol In that case I would get 374 days * 100…

lol if only….

redsoxMP

August 25th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

I was stop-lossed for 475 days after serving 9 years, just to go to Iraq with an already over strength company. So CJ instead of trying to find the injustice in the gov paying us some extra money for our inconviance, why don’t you find a more worthwhile cause. There are 1000’s of injustices occuring in our world everyday. If the only one you can find anger and spite in, is some Soldiers (most of us are just making enough $$$ to get by in the first place) getting a little extra $, then you need to re-evaluate your life. And heres another problem with stop loss – Flagged soliders, I know at least 3 that I deployed with that were under stop loss and flagged for various reasons. Now what do they do, obviously they can’t re-up (even if they wanted to) for the bonuses offred down range, nor can they be promoted, and I am willing to bet that most of them didn’t revice any end of tour award even after they did all the same mission as there counterparts.

Mike d

September 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 am

KISS MY ASS YOU COWARD. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN STOP LOSSED. NO CAUSE YOU’RE A FAG

KMS

September 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

when I was stop lossed in 2003 i had 23+ years in. I wrote my congressman only to be told there was nothing he could do because my unit needed me. I had a permanent profile for my knee and serious allergies to sand. but my unit needed me so none of that mattered. the only thing that mattered was numbers. what i saw and experianced because of this stop loss policy is just sad. soldiers are being treated so badly when they say anything aginst this policy. I think they should pay every soldier who is now and has been put in this situation. every time we had a sand storm in Iraq and I had to put on my protective mask just so I could breath or every rash I got on my skin I just got even more frustrated with this system. I have been out for 4 years and I am still having breathing problems because someone sitting in a cush office couldnt see past the numbers.

October 7th, 2008 at 2:27 am

For those of you that may not have heard, it sounds like stop loss pay is close to approval. $500 a month for those that are active duty currently, but looks like they left out the retroactive portion initially proposed. I thought that was their reasoning behind reducing it from $1500 to $500 per month- so more people could be included. Acticle in Army Times says this move will hold the cost to $72 million, retroactive payments would have cost $280 million. They can approve a $700 billion bailout package though. Did anyone read some of the funding they tied to that to get it to pass? CNN claimed $100 million for “racetracks”, $100+ million for “rum imports”, etc. Priorities I quess- sigh.

Joe

October 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Youre a moron. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moraly defencible. According to your logic since service members are notified they may be called to serve until a war ends then we COULD require veterans that were leaving the service Sep 11 2001 to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq till today, that’s your argument? You definately are the prime example of an educated idiot. Knowledgeable but lacking in judgement, compassion and common sense. So by your train of thinking it would be perfectly okay to require service members to deploy non stop… forever… since certain government officials estimate the war on terror will last generations i am glad you are not in charge of military policy. What a fool you are. Just because you CAN do a thing doesn’t mean you SHOULD. If you want to get into legalities neither Iraq, Afghanistan or the Global “War” on terror are wars. Congress never declared war, a power and responsibility specificly delegated to the U.S Congress in the United States Constitution. So that pretty much shatters that legal technicality. What is wrong is expecting 2-5 plus deployments to combat zones of service members and not taking into account the great sacrifices that all service members and compensating them fairly for it. Come to think of it you aren’t such an educated idiot after all, just an idiot. – An Iraq Veteran

in my own personal hell

October 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

CJ,
I’ve been involuntarily extend on active duty just past my 4th year in. I hate being in the army. I do not want to be active duty a day more than i have to. Apparently, the only way for me to get a reenlistment bonus is if i reup to have a total of 6 years. It’d be an extra 6 months past my involuntary extension date. $500 bucks a month is less than i’d make reupping. I think it’s almost fair. I don’t know you, but i’m pretty sure i hate you.

Anyone have any knews on we get paid?

October 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Oh, and $700 billion dollar bailout for greedy lenders. That’s completely fair. I could use an ACOG on my rifle, and those high speed fire resistant ACU’s. But i’d rather congress handing money out so AIG execs can go on a real nice retreat.
OH NO. My stocks !!!!!! Hand out money to banks. Thanks for your service, Soldier. Now go fuck yourself. I’ve got STOCKS!!!!111!!

October 15th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Just read todays Pacific Stars and Stripes. It had some articles on spending bills Bush signed that will provide funds for equipment, projects, payroll, and a 3.9% payraise for military and DOD civilians starting Jan 1st. It also states that it will provide the $500 per month for stop lossed personnel starting Oct 2008. Good news for you guys and gals still in uniform (not as good as going home), but it doesn’t sound like there will be the retroactive payments for those of us who are already out. “in my own personal hell,” good point on the AIG folks. These companies receiving bail out money can spend taxpayer money on executive retreats and other bullshit, but the government doesn’t or can’t want to find the funds to provide retroactive payments for servicemembers stop lossed due to the “War on Terror.” If your out, we should write our Senators or Congress reps on that one. Joe, good point on the duration of the “War on Terror” too. If servicemembers could be held indefinately until the war was over, I would still be in 5 years after getting out after my one year of stop loss.

October 17th, 2008 at 7:13 am

CS, I said “COULD” be held. Obviously, that isn’t happening, is it? I’m personally still strongly opposed to even the $500 extra per month.

In My Own Personal Hell, I have stocks too and I’ve lost a lot of money as well. Too bad, so sad. You aren’t pulling my heartstrings because you gambled on heart strings and the market tanks. It’s called RISK for a reason. I’m completely against the $700 billion or any billions of my money bailing out ANYONE who VOLUNTARILY created risk. There are less risky (though not as lucrative) ways to save money. I care even less when you use the kind of language you’re using. It just goes to show your lack of communication skills.

marion

October 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

The saddest part of this whole article is your veracity to spew this shit out to the misguided public out there. I am 100% sure that you never served in the fucking military, thus, are free to talk all the shit you want because you have no factual basis, just your own bias opinion. By the way, if by some miraculous reason you did serve, I bet you were the piece of shit in your platoon, and then got out, and now hates everytning about the military. Have a good day, and I hope you get raped by a German Shepherd wearing a swastika doggy shirt.

October 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

There will be a study in April 2009 to see if the $500 can be authorized retroactively for stop loss service prior to Oct 2008.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’m glad it is law now.

CHUB

November 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

All,

I have just hit my 4 yr. mark in the US Army and will be stop-lossed for 8 months to finish my 2nd tour. When finished my service will have 55 months TIS and 27 months in Iraq. Since reading alot of junk that is posted on this website, I currently looked at my contract and yes it does say that I have to serve 8 yrs in the military. I have to serve my 4 yrs active duty and 4 yrs IRR. I was not stupid when I joined the Army I was 21 and I asked alot of questions when I was at my MEPS station in Des Moines, IA. There is a big difference between active duty and Inactive Ready Reserve.

In the 4 yrs active duty I have been done my traning, went to Germany and deployed then to the States and deployed. I have not seen my son or any of my family other than 2 to 4 weeks a yr. I was planning to get out on my ETS date. I dont hate the Army or dislike it, it just is not for me. I dont not like to be stop-lossed or the fact of thinking about it, but if the Army is going to pay soldiers alittle more $ to keep them when they should be out and doing what they had planned what the hell is the problem with that. I have not yet heard a single person complain about the 3.9% cost of living pay increase in January or the past 4 yrs. The MGI Bill and SGLI increase and BAH for soldiers going to school, all of which go to every soldier and NCO in the Military. I have not heard one complaint about them from a single soldier I am serving with. One more is that soldiers serving in an OCONUS station when deployed get to also keep there Cola for that station while deployed and airborne soldiers as long as they have a qualifying jump 30 days prior to deploying also get to keep that pay the whole month. How many airborne missions you heard of here in Iraq other than Special Forces or Rangers if they even have jump missions.

I think the whole damn problem is that some can not stand the fact that the politics and government that we have change daily and they want to make the service better for all soldiers in the military. My father, grandfather, uncles, and great grandfather have all served in the Army and of the ones still alive do not see a problem with this stop-loss pay. To them it is better that it is happening now than it never to happen. So I will leave it at that and say unless you have not been stop-lossed or will be stop-lossed, most soldiers that are or have will not really give a cr-p about your personal feeling on the issue. For the NCO with 14 yrs in I would of also thought that in those yrs the Army would have taught you that you should keep your personal feeling to yourself or peers not your soldiers, cause if I was one of your soldiers and knew you wrote your arguements on this post, you would be getting relieved of your position. We want the facts here about when and how to get the damn money for us who deserve it, not your personal bias opinion on it, so how about when you are in your fancy office and you get that frago or Milper message on the info we need, you let us know.

I'm a Beast!

November 13th, 2008 at 3:06 am

CJ, you are “just plain awful”! But at least you make me laugh! I needed a laugh, seeing how I’m stop lossed and very much deserving of the money along with everyone else! Oh well, it got passed, so that proves your word doesn’t mean shit, or your opinion! I see the pull you have………NONE! hhahahahahah

DAN THE MAN

November 13th, 2008 at 3:31 am

I completely %100 agree with “I’m a Beast” and likewise CJ you are got me on the floor laughing. I’m also stop lossed, I came into the Army right after High School and signed up for 4 years active 4 reserve, emphasis on reserve. Every soldier that’s ever been Stop-lossed more then deserves some extra money every month past their ETS. I’m pissed that the law is not retroactive like originally planned. Their have been thousands of other soldiers ever since we started this “War on Terror” that have been stop-lossed and they won’t be compensated at all. The Fact that I am being held past my ETS and being forced to spend even more time away from my family and friends is just pure horse shit. I had to put all the plans I had of starting school, getting a job, a place, and starting a promising lucrative career on hold until the Army says I can go. SUPPORT THE TROOPS! FUCK YOU CJ

November 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am

Beast and Dan,

Be still my bleeding heart. Let me just be clear that I never said I have any “pull”. This is political, plain and simple. If it weren’t an election year, your precious money would never have come up. Money that you don’t deserve that could better be spent on better weapons and armor. Congratulations on your windfall monthly bonus!! You should be proud. Both of you need to read your contracts that you signed up for 8 YEARS!!

Dan, you’re an ignorant Soldier that probably shouldn’t even be worth the stop loss. You can’t even communicate without profanity. Glad I’m not YOUR First Sergeant. That poor guy must have his hands full.

November 15th, 2008 at 4:50 am

I wasn’t worth stop lossing because as soon as my ETS hit I quit working and right now I’m about as useful to the Army as a cap gun! And I’m damn proud of it!!! I’m glad your not my first sergeant either cause then youd be a women!!

November 15th, 2008 at 5:17 am

Let me tell you a little about myself. I am 27, I enlisted in the Army after high school. I have served beyond MY EIGHT YEARS! I reenlisted once to fulfill my 8 year obligation. And by the way it’s called “inactive reserve” My ETS date was Nov. 27 2007! We deployed two days afterwards. So I served my eight years. I am sure I could have fought it, but took it like a grain of salt. Im still here too! So I am more than deserving of the stop loss money!!! Guess what? I’m getting it too! Don’t blame the stop loss bill on you not receiving new weapons or armor! Not my fault your not in a combat mos and have to walk around with the M-16! The Army has been using the same weapon systems forever. Where I’m at we have all the new armored vehicles! Blame your bunk ass unit!
All I know is, it is election year and I got my money! Your logic sucks, get over it!

Eat a Dick Bitch! I’m sad I even share the same uniform as you! By the way, to be my First Sergeant you’ll have to be in the infantry and a BEAST! You can’t be on profile! So your eliminated from contention!

November 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am

Beast, if you have served past your eight year requirement, I have made it clear that you DO deserve that money. I’ve said that many times over. I’m talking about useless pieces of flesh like Dan there who are a bane on this entire country; who have no integrity and honor and is getting $500 extra per month for being “about as useful to the Army as a cap gun”.

Now that you have told your story instead of just attacking PART of my message, I advise you to get a lawyer if you want out now. Your contract is specific about an eight year requirement and if you’re being held past that, you have a breach of contract dispute, plain and simple.

Finally, I work in the SF world. I haven’t seen an M16 since watching the History Channel. I work directly with Infantry units on combat patrols and kicking down doors. I’ve got probably better weapons than you’ve ever seen. Next time, try to pull the phallus out of your mouth long enough to articulate your point without ignorance and stupidity. You might actually get somewhere and put across an educational argument. You are educated, aren’t you?

Dan, you’re as useless as I thought and I’d ensure you left with a dishonorable discharge. Yes you are useless and proof that the Stop Loss bonus is being wasted.

November 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

People like you is one of the many reasons I hate the Army.

November 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

The more you post the clearer the reason for your position on the stop loss. People in SF units generally have a stronger desire to serve the country and because of that fact the Army tends to spend more money for SF units. SF units will receive more money and newer equipment. Bonuses for SF are higher, most regular army guys will not recieve a bonus if not deployed when they reup. Special pays are higher, most SF Soldiers recieve special pays, most regular Army guys do not. SF Soldiers more than likely have earned everything they recieve (money of equipment). When a Soldier in the SF desires to ETS all they have to do is notify their chain of command and they are out when the time comes. I know of three guys that were in SF units with my MOS and rank who were allowed to leave with no questions asked. Why? Their unit agreed to it and lived up to their word. SF will entice another person to join their ranks and all is well for them, not so in the regular Army. I do not want to start an argument between the regular Army and SF, I am just high lighting some differences.

Stop loss is not about money or patriotism. It is about someone that has made a decision to no longer serve their country and being forced to serve after that time. If they are beyond their contractual eight years they should be allowed to ETS. Soldiers that are still within the initial eight year commitment should face reality and serve their nation as they swore to do.

With all that said, we need something to deter abuses that happen when a Soldier is retained under stop loss. The asinine practice of applying stop loss across an entire division is out of control. CSM’s have said the main reason for stop loss is that we have the numbers to fight the war. Has anyone ever noticed that the Fobbits almost always out number the guys who actually fight the war, that see the enemy everyday. The Army would do better to entice Soldiers to stay active duty by showing them that there are better jobs and opportunities, thus keeping the number higher. Stop loss is not a positive solution, it could be useful if it were selective and because it is not selective a stipend of $500 a month might cause leaders to reassess the way they use stop loss. As I stated in an earlier post the funds for stop lossed Soldiers should come directly out of the division level funds, which would stop the blanket stop loss practice. DA applies stop loss when the division requests the Soldier by name and SSN.

We demand that our Soldiers live up to their word everyday and we ourselves (NCO’s and Officers) lead lives of double standards by allowing the abuses of stop loss to continue. If we are really taking care of our Soldiers needs we will fight to get them exempt from the stop loss policy. Almost every NCOER in the duties and scopes block will start off something like this “Responsible for the health, welfare, training and morale of X amount of Soldiers”. If are truly focusing on our duties and scopes we would fight to help get these guys out instead of spending a heck of a lot more effort keeping them in. Time we face that fact and stop abusing Soldiers just because of a legal loophole. Paying them for the extra time we are demanding is not unrealistic; it’s taking care of our Soldiers.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Dan, that’s fine. It’s people like you that bring the Army down. You won’t get any sympathy from me. You want sympathy? Buck up and do something! Your stop lossed. Deal with it. Instead, you choose to make EVERYONE’s life harder by being a pain in the ass. I have no patience for you. You’re a drain on resources. If you want people to care about your plight, you have to put forth an effort. Lack of effort will not be rewarded.

RK, first of all, I don’t get all those SF bonuses because I’m not 18 series. However, those guys that DO get the bonuses and extra pay deserve what they get. THey are working harder than the regular Army and go through more crap. They are a specialized group of Soldiers. Here’s a question for you: what do you think about stop-loosed losers like Dan? Do you support his actions?

November 17th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

I never intended to take away from the SF guys in anyway. They have earned everything they get. As far as Soldiers like Dan. If Dan has served his eight years he should be allowed to ETS, if not then life is tough.

As I quoted in reference in NCOER’s that the duties and scopes block will start off something like this “Responsible for the health, welfare, training and morale of X amount of Soldiers”. I am now in my forth deployment that has stop lossed Soldiers. Most of these Soldiers have continued to serve with honor. But there is percentage that will be a huge burden to the unit. As I stated in other post, they have made a mental decision to ETS. They probably have plans for school, future employment or family obligations. Because of the fact that these Soldiers have made the decision get out we as leaders should recognize this fact and use every effort to get these people an exception to policy. If that Soldier is essential to the mission, he is not going to be replaced or cannot be replaced then we as Leaders need to counsel the Soldier to let him know that he is valuable to the unit. This counseling needs to take place well before the stop loss policy is placed in effect.

The way stop lossed Soldiers are treated is that their ETS is anytime from 90 days prior to or somewhere in the deployment. They never get counseled by anyone, they are simply told to get one the plane and to at ease. Essentially they feel shanghaied. It should be they responsibility of the SGM/CSM to counsel these Soldiers. The reason for this is that the SGM/CSM are the ones that are telling their boss that these people are needed. Commanders at the Battalion level need to interview these Soldiers prior to stop loss, because they might be the one enforcing UCMJ when these Soldiers rebel.

Stop loss could be a good tool if used correctly. The real issue is that stop loss is applied in a blanket manner. Our leaders have become lazy, they cannot look a Soldier in the eye and tell them why they are being retained, and that is the real issue.

Any stop lossed Soldier should be compensated with money, $500 a month is nothing compared to the extra life that Soldiers are giving. There is nothing else for Army to give, with the exception to a honorable discharge and an award for a job well done.

November 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am

CJ, I agree with you 100% about how the leaders deal with the stop loss. The majority of my brigade is stop lossed, 12 people just in my platoon including my PL. I know that none of us were counseled on why we were being stop lossed, they basically handed us a list that said “Change Of ETS” I mean we knew we stop lossed because our unit had to deploy and what not but the thing that bugs me is now that we are towards the end of our deployment we are getting a barrage of new people in. I asked why we were getting them all so late in the deployment and they said it was to replace me and the other guys, it confuses me cause it seems like thats what they should’ve done about 15 months ago. I think it’s due to the fact that when it comes to giving soldiers bad news the leaders just don’t want to deal with having to answer a whole lot of questions that they don’t wanna answer so they type up a memo and say “send this to all the battalions and companies” Thats just my take on it from my personal experiences.

michael

November 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am

Ive read all of your posts. And you are correct on everything you have put into word. However, you have missed one small detail. The war is over. “US President George Bush says the war is over and a new era in Iraq can begin.” Hmmmm.
So, i get your point on what your saying. But you should now all the facts. Oh, i did 8 years, when i finish ill have 9 and a half. So dont make your little comments about there not being anybody that hasnt reached that point just because you dont personally know them. Also, just so you know. Im not mad about being stop-lossed. My contract was never fullfilled because they never held up there end of the deal, however im still here, in Iraq, serving my country.
Im mad cause your an idiot!

November 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Michael, congratulations on being in Iraq. I’ve been there a few times myself. If you actually “read all my posts” you would see how ignorant your statement. Before you get into a pissing match you’re going to lose, why don’t you go ahead and take the time to do so now.

Jason

December 7th, 2008 at 10:14 am

CJ,
You are a piece of s()t to say the least and as for your nco status great job becoming one..we all know you most likely recieved the rank and more money just because you went over seas(moron)…listen 1500 a month is nothing for the sacrifice that men and woman are making everyday in the combat zone…..we signed up willing to give at least eight years of our life to the united states of america, and as for our grandfathers and fathers that served, well you know we appreciate that and our country does as well…as for your dumba@@ statement saying we dont deserve b@h, that is crap because our familys do…honestly maybe u are the one that doesnt deserve it because you have three children and a wife that you just wrote doesnt….are you nuts sh%th#ad…..lol, congress has learned from mistakes made by older generations and for all the people that serve…even you…we deserve everything and more because you can never and I mean never put a price tag on one single life….give me and every soldier millions…..guess what our familys and as well as us deserve more money then we can ever be offered…..take care and thanks for breaking down the law for all of us, even though nobody agrees with you….take care my dear friend who was promoted for being over seas nco…

December 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am

cj,
one more thing…..being promoted and recieving more money over seas is not an awful thing…..just wish they didnt give you nco status because an nco is supposed to want the most for its soldiers..you dont…and you dont get it at all….IDIOT

December 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Wow!!!

It is difficult to understand postings that have so many grammar errors. Are you even in the U.S. military? It seems that the school systems in the United States are failing. James, if you want to engage in an intelligent dialogue try to spell the words correctly and try using capital letters for proper names. Next try to calmly state your position on the issue. Dumb people use poor grammar and spelling and are often not taken seriously. James, please seek an education or use MS Word next time and spell words correctly. Try not to hate, even though you do not agree. CJ is not an NCO because he has served overseas (not over seas), he is a NCO because other people have seen something in him that says that he is intelligent, trustworthy and capable of making sound decisions. James one day, if you are worth anything, you will become a NCO or officer, remember where you are now, keep that in mind. Because when you get promoted to whatever rank, the lower ranking Soldiers will believe to you are the dumbest person to ever walk the earth, much the same way you view your current leaders. And if you get out do not think that the same thoughts are not shared among the civilians, they are people to. That thought gives me solace everyday; I am guilty of such an ignorant thought. As far as money is concerned: I am still waiting for my $500 a month stop loss payment. To refresh anyone that has not read my postings, I am over 20 years, have an approved retirement and was later denied what was promised. My family receives BAH because the military swore to provide it to married Soldiers, not single Soldiers.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

December 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Jason, do you read English? If so, do you understand it? My statement about BAH was, to quote myself, “I also don’t think married Soldiers deserve MORE BAH than single Soldiers.” (emphasis added) Why do I deserve more money because I decided to have a bunch of a kids and get married (I’m married with three kids, by the way)? Of course, if you didn’t understand me the first time I said it, I don’t expect you to understand me this time. I’m just hoping you invested in a dictionary. Of course, we deserve BAH, but there should be equity. Why do we create classes within the military – haves and have nots? But, you’re probably a socialist who likes that sort of stuff anyway.

Personally, Jason, I think you’re in it for the wrong reasons. Probably didn’t graduate high school and had to get a GED, based on your writing. Therefore, you HAVE to be in the military maybe. Either way, it sounds like you joined for all the wrong reasons. “WE DESERVE IT”?! What kind of crap is that? Doesn’t sound like the kind of humble attitude Soldiers should possess to me.

I don’t care if you agree with me or not. The law is the law whether you like it or don’t. Oh, and I’ve never been overseas that wasn’t a deployment. I got my promotions taking care of trash like you. I want my Soldiers to have everything they DESERVE! And I bet I do more to ensure they get it than you could possibly even imagine.

The some day Mr. Edwards

December 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Hey whats going on. Holy cow seems like cj needs someone to help him with his defense on why stop loss pay sould not go through. I’m not going to be a big help, Im just going to lightin the mood here, with a story of mine. I was originaly just surfin the net here in Iraq. by the way it is pretty nice over here. We have phones Internet games Its alot better now. I only have 30 min. left so Ill have to make this quick. you know these locals down here are strick on time limits. Anyways like I was saying I was surfin looking to see if the stop loss pay went though, and I ran across this blog. Im not going to lie Its alot to read like my contract so I just skimmed most of it, sorry. Oh and I have to mention I am one of those as you mentioned “stop lossed losers”, but please dont refer to me as such. I have not finished my full eight years. I served my 4 years and was out processing. I was heading out the door to go on termanal leave, which I pupously put on my birthday, witch was a mistake. So ya had a job lined up already had my interview. Just bought a house, because I needed some were to live, and now stop lossed, on my birthday. So there went all my plans down the drain and no I didnt go on leave so my family did not get to see me. My unit was just gitting back from there leave and then we all deployed. Im going on 15 month stop lossed. out here I have my 3 month left and 3 when I get back. It was kind of wierd out here, everyone left me alone because they thought I would be angry all the time. I was actully told by my reinlistment NCO that It would be better to just re up so I could at least get some money out of this. Hes a little slow so I left him alone with my big list of why Im not reinlisting. Why would I re up when I know that if I do I will just be stop lossed again. The bad part is my solders see my peers all becoming E6’s and Im not when asked why, I have to tell them because Im stop lossed. My solders know that if they re up now even if its only for 2 years, they need to expect 4 years and not plan on advancing, and thats something I really dont wont to patray because truthfully I love my job here in the army. Its just a bunch of small things and other storys that I dont have time to tell right now, that is telling me to get out. well that was not the story I wonted to tell I’m sorry for going on that really long tangent, but I figured I’d give my backroung and vent a little. so anyways back to my story to lightin the mood. CJ earlyer you stated “And don’t tell me about my “negative” beliefs. I’m the most positive person you’ll ever meet. But, I’m also a realist. You don’t like the fact that you’re not going to get paid for doing your job in this man’s Army, get the hell out!! It’s that simple. I tell my Soldiers straight up I’m not going to talk them into staying if they don’t want to. And I get them everything I can if they do.” I read that get the hell out line and it reminded me of a story when I was in Korea….. One day a bradly was cunducting a field exercise and ran over a little girl in a near by city. I was on Camp Page. On this day they were Morning her loss with a small protest at our gates. And of course we were all on lock down. The all had sighns that said “Americans get out” and other stuff like that. Well In our unit we had this one solder. He was like Dan. Just plane angry with the army. So there I am sitting in my room looking out my door with a good view of the angry protesters, and of course a beer in hand, when I see little (for refernce sake well name him dan) dan go running out to the gate with no shirt on and two broom sticks. at the ends of the broom stick he taped a sighn to it in reply to the locals. The sighn said ” I wont to go home but they wont let me” well he got his wish I never saw him again. Well I hope you got a laugh out of that. My main point is were stop lossed and I cant go home. Well I guess I could if I ran around with our a shirt, or played gay, or crazy, or shot my self like the so many other dans. and may be money is what we should get may be leave dates to replace the days we should have been with our familys. So back to my origanal reason for being on here did the bill go though for sure? Well no time to spell check this sorry.

Richard

December 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Why would a government adopt a policy of stop loss after a major conflcit. It’s brutal on our forces whether it’s being discloused or not. I don’t agree with the policy because it’s socialst in nature. When secret societies dictate our war policies so that their children are excluded from war , we have abandoned our democratic process to allow a submersive process of collusion to dictate our nations
political policies. Don’t we have a right to know how our government works ?

Is the military program of Stop Loss directly related to the repercussion of Watergate and should these policies be halted ? When Mark Felt { Deep Throat } leaked the information that a policy of war had been signed into our Executive that would exclude certain members and sectors of our society from having to serve in the military , are the current policies of Stop Loss what they had in mind ? Although the Stop Loss policy has some redeeming benefits , it’s long term goals are mainly responsible for the fatigue and exhaustion of our current troops. The personal effort in the military has become so desperate that you have some soldiers serving in war zones while taking psychological medications and sleeping pills. Considering the long and short term effects of this policy , it appears genocidal in nature and unfair to the military personnel that have so boldly volunteered to serve and defend our country. Please take a minute through the holiday season and think about the people defending your nation and write your legislators and demand the program of Stop Loss be stopped.

Reference = All The President’s Men / Un Censored – Warner Editions 1st Edition – ( Simon And Shuster are all Censored )
Reported that Mark Felt Leaked that A System To Delete The Need For War was signed into the Executive and that a Black Operational Government had been incorporated into our government.

Rob

February 9th, 2009 at 7:53 am

Its been my experience that only individuals who are not currently stop lossed play the “you signed the contract card”. After 5 years of active duty and 6 years as a reservist, I finally decided to cut my losses and return to civilian life full time. Not so fast, the Army feels otherwise. I was stop lossed with less than 3 months remaining on my 6 year contract. Guaranteed to spend at least another 12 months in. When I signed my last contract, I was 23 years old. I am now 29, alot of things have happened in those past 6 years. I find that the stop loss policy is appauling. What is the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps doing that the Army cant? Those branches haven’t used stop loss since 2001/2002. The Army has been consistantly meeting or exceeding its recruiting goals for months now. Why do they continue to use stop loss? They claim that unit cohesion will be affected. How does one explain those sections that are comprised of 40 to 50% of back fills and volunteers from other units? I would say there isn’t mush cohesion there anyways. They can afford to let soldiers ETS without affecting cohesion. Because the Army is meeting or exceeding its recruiting goals, bonuses are going to decrease, that you can almost be assured. President Bush signed the stop loss payment bill on September 30th, 2008. Those individuals stop lossed will be (eventually) payed up to $500 per month in fiscal year 09, for being stop lossed. Why not eliminate stop loss and keep re-enlistment bonuses at current levels for those who wish to continue to serve. They are going to pay people who are stop lossed and reduce re-enlistment bonuses, makes no sense at all.

Dallas Peterson

February 14th, 2009 at 11:24 pm

Well this is a new one for me. I see all of the soldiers, airman, saliors and Marines comments. I agree with most and am shocked at the author of this article. Having served for 21+ years, it saddens me to see that there are still people in the US that do not understand the facts of what it takes to serve our nation, in the military. I was that straight out of high school get the money for college kid. After serving my first enlistment I decided to stay for another one. Out of duty to my country. Less than 0.5% actually serve in the military. THAT is appauling. We stand and do not question what we are told to do. That is our duty. The other 95.5% has the choice to either support us or not. We guarentee that choice.
Now because Congress has decided to give us something they(the 95.5%) are not getting for us giving them their choices they want to bring up stuff that was put into our contracts. Be concerned for money given to banks and mortage companies. We earned it , did they. I was stop lossed 19 days prior to my retirement, for 18 months.
If you have never put on the uniform for any branch of the services then please keep your mouth tightly closed and be glad that others did, FOR YOU. Personally I am very proud of my service and will always support anything that Congress or anyone does that is meant to help my brothers in uniform, so should every other citizen the the United States.

Niz

February 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am

CJ, you’re an idiot military lifer that I see all too often and can’t wait to get away from. If you think that it’s BS that somebody gets stop-loss pay for serving their ACTIVCE duty part of the contract, then why should they recieve any of the entitlements that any members of the service get. The fact is these people served once (or more) and were asked to go back again, and did, even though they should have RIGHTLY been moving on with their life.

March 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

I’m on stop loss orders right now, and honestly it doesn’t bother me, I was going to try to re-enlist for 7 months so I could deploy with my unit if I didn’t get stop lossed. The one point that no one has made is if you re-enlist you get a bonus, so if you get stop lossed why not get some kind of a bonus? If you don’t support the $500 a month for stop loss do you support any bonuses for re-enlistment?

Ryan

May 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 am

From a deployed Stop-Lossed soldier…
1)Is it legal? Unfortunately, yes.
Now that this is out of the way let’s answer the question that MATTERS… Is it WORTH (who cares if it is legal this is NOT the point) additional compensation? I believe it is. Let me just remind people that congress and the army don’t pass bill or pay soldiers extra money because they wronged them legally. That is not what this is. For example, if you are deployed and married you get an extra “seperation” pay. Is this because the Army can not, by law, separate you from your family and this is there way of “settling” some sort of legal wrong-doing? LoL, no it is not. Did these married soldiers not understand or read their contract and get the idea that they MAY have to seperate from their families? You see my point? this is not what it is about. Congress realizes, that however legal it is, because soldiers are Stop Loss at such a low percentage (1% reports the army times since 2002) then obviously we plan for a future on the outside once our four (or whatever u signed up for it out) years of service is up so when you find out THREE months before you are supposed to sign out that you will be stop lossed then that means those Resumes you just sent out to the Fire Departments, the university you applied for and got into, and the family events you were scheduled to go to (all things that happened to me) mean NOTHING now. So if the Army wants to be a stand-up organization (actually we can thank congress since.. to be honest in my experience I don’t find the Army to be “stand up” by any definition of the term) and say “Hey SPC. XYZ, we know we only get about 1% of you guys and you just got the short end of the stick since 99/100 get OUT on time, so we’re gonna give you a little something extra.” then obviously I am fine with this and I do not see WHY anyone else would have a problem with it.

May 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Ryan, you are absolutely right about the legality issue. You are also right that married Soldiers get “separation pay” while deployed. I also think this is wrong! I don’t think married Soldiers (and I am one) should get more money for the same deployment as a single Soldier. We need to get rid of this entitlement mentality in the military because we are single, married, stop-lossed, black, female, white, gay, etc.

The bottom line with stop loss is that it should NOT be paid if the troop is within their 8-year requirement that they signed up for. If they are stop-lossed beyond that 8-year mark, then yes they deserve it! I could care less if only one or one thousand are affected, we’re spending tax dollars for coddle troops that volunteered for eight years. Our government is turning us into welfare babies and entitlement hogs. Whatever happened to the “service” in military service?!

I have a problem with it because we’re paying troops more money for something they voluntarily entered into. If you think you’ve been wronged because of job offers (which you didn’t mention – just resumes) and other plans, seek a waiver and go that route. I sympathize with you. I know it sucks. I’ve made plans for my family at one duty station, only to find out literally days prior to my final out that my orders were changed and I’m going to a completely different state! It sucks, but we deal with it. We’re Soldiers, not welfare babies!