Soldier who sued not required to report for duty

CNN ^ | 10-25-04

[Terabitten]

One hasn't resigned from the military unless the resignation is accepted. That would be quitting, an option not available in the military.

Not necessarily. I tendered my resignation to the Georgia Guard last December, but it wasn't accepted until February of this year. If my unit had been called up before my resignation was accepted, say in January, I'd still most assuredly be required to go play.

I think this guy is going to argue that his paperwork wasn't processed in a timely manner, (ie, it got lost, whatever), and that if it had, he would have been out.

[dwilli]

Apparently you were still bound in some way by your contract. You must have a mixture of two years active plus any agreements you signed in lieu of benefits. Nation Guard or reserves have unusual contracts because of monthly requirements in reserve, shorter active duty than 4 years total, but I cannot see how the military can hold a veteran once his contract and total obligation were fufilled.

The liability the military assumes if you were to get injured after your obligation were complete would be sky high.

[CWOJackson]

"...but I cannot see how the military can hold a veteran once his contract and total obligation were fufilled."

He wasn't on a contract, he was on a commission.

[dwilli]

He resigned the commission.

[HerrKobes]

I'll admit to missing the retired/resigned thing, although I most surely know the difference. I was still seeing red lol...

lol - Don't worry, I don't think less of you for it.

Off-topic, but I often think that being an Infantry officer is the REAL test of one's leadership. I sometimes envy you guys, at least until I remember that I get to cruise around in millions of dollars worth of gray-camouflaged aluminum.

[CWOJackson]

He submitted his resignation, he hasn't been accepted.

[dwilli]

He is no longer under military contract, he has fulfilled
his agreement. He is now a civilian. The only way the military can hold him is if there is a clause in his contract
that he agreed to sign another contract when the old one was completed.

Until his name is on a dotted line no superior officer
would dream of putting him in any danger of any kind.

I say again the military is not a lifelong obligation unless
retirement from it has occurred. Now if you're receiving
a pension that's a different story.

[CWOJackson]

"He is no longer under military contract, he has fulfilled his agreement."

He wasn't under contract, he IS holding a commission. Until and unless his REQUEST to resign his commission is accepted he is still under obligation.

[dwilli]

That's called involuntary servitude.

[CWOJackson]

"That's called involuntary servitude."

No, it's simply called holding a commission.

[lepton]

Noone, no matter the critical skills has a lifetime obligation to our military. Once the contract is carried out and the eight years of total obligation is full filled one is home free.

Military duty is not a lifetime sentence.

Legally, that's not true either.

Once you've served, there are circumstances under which you can be called up until like 65 - but that involves very special circumstances.

[Rome2000]

He worked in the engine room on a nuclear sub.

[jimt]

The force is being maintained by volunteers, howevever if the volunteers do not maintain force strength, conscription/obligation will again be in place.

So when President Hillary decides we need more troops to serve as meals-on-wheels servers in Africa, the "obligation" exists, right ?

There is no "obligation" forcing others against their will into the military that trumps the constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude. Except in the mind of statists and dictators.

Americans are obligated to perform the military service they contracted for. Absent a voluntary contract, which certainly can include things like stop loss, Americans are obligated to resist involuntary servitude.

And you served in....?

VOLUNTEER US Army vet

jimt

[dwilli]

USMC - Jan 1968 - Nov 1967

[dwilli]

USMC - Jan 1968 - Nov 1977.

How do you think the Pentagon would maintain the armed forces
of this country if the volunteers suddenly stopped doing
so and a large land war was imminent?

I hope it never comes back but if neccessary the government would have no choice, no matter which party is in power

[jimt]

I hope it never comes back but if neccessary the government would have no choice, no matter which party is in power.

If it comes back it's because the Pentagon is treating service members poorly, or because it's a very unpopular war. In either case Americans need to squeeze their congresscritters into action. Involuntary servitude is not the answer.

We're somewhat afield of the thread topic. If the captain in question is contractually obligated, he should go, unless he can provide the army good cause (in the army's opinion) to let him off.

[dwilli]

We're somewhat afield of the thread topic. If the captain in question is contractually obligated

I've never said anything different