Stop Loss Ignorance
June 11th, 2008 (10:59 pm) by CJ-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….
June 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
What a maroon!
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
CJ
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
CJ
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…
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….
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.