Skip to comments.
Question about the military
Posted on 01/09/2003 7:05:53 PM PST by TheStickman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
Yes I was a CSM but that was a long time ago.
To: spectre
To: Doohickey
Even before 9/11 it was routine to extend people whose enlistments in the Navy ended while deployed. My son was extended for four months until his battle group returned from the Gulf in '01.
So9
43
posted on
01/09/2003 8:56:43 PM PST
by
Servant of the Nine
(We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
To: TheStickman
I enlisted this past october in the Army (at age 25 and taking a pretty darned big pay cut in the process, but that's a story for another time). At MEPS, they don't tell you the inactive service clause until just before you put your final signatures on that stack of papers, and the civil servant processing me through sort of mumbled through that part and was surprised I heard her and asked for her to explain it. If I wasn't paying attention at the time, I would have missed it entirely, and I bet most people aren't paying attention to what they're signing.
44
posted on
01/09/2003 9:06:46 PM PST
by
jz638
To: jz638
run on sentence -2.
45
posted on
01/09/2003 9:10:40 PM PST
by
jz638
To: TheStickman
The only problem I have with the other posts is that they ignore the fact that when the military wants to enforce your oath/signup as a contract they call it that. However, when it works against them they claim that there is no contract. That was my observation in the early 70's when I observed that other soldiers were being reassigned to other posts or jobs/MOS's even though their papers were quite clear on what they had signed up for. Notwithstanding the above my papers stated and I was told quite clearly that my enlistment included 3 years of reserve duty and that my active duty could be extended for that 3 years. But again, if the Marines are doing the extension this time the other services should also do so as well. If not from fairness but from the practical long term needs as well (i.e., this will cause a long term reduction in enlistments/re-enlistments).
46
posted on
01/09/2003 9:12:57 PM PST
by
Warthog
To: Warthog
Its in the fine print and the needs of the service
To: Warthog
I believe that the Marine Corps is the last of the armed services to do this in recent years.
To: Happy2BMe
The total service obligation was increased to eight years in 1984, in any combination of active/drilling reserve/inactive reserve status.
49
posted on
01/10/2003 4:20:16 AM PST
by
Poohbah
(Taglines? We don't know nothing about no taglines...we don't NEED NO STINKIN' TAGLINES!)
To: blaster88
Perhaps so,...I was under the impression that he had completed his mandated tour, was extended on active duty, perhaps because of reserve commitment, but remained on station afloat after the war and had submitted for early release. I may have the details confused, but i remember the issue was a sore point with Perot at that time.
50
posted on
01/10/2003 6:45:27 AM PST
by
Cvengr
(John 3:17...doesn't begin with 'except')
To: Poohbah
"The total service obligation was increased to eight years in 1984, in any combination of active/drilling reserve/inactive reserve status." Tnx. Learned something.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson