I think she should finish her four years. That's what she signed on for. She understood her obligation when she chose to have children. My niece is in the army, and has had to leave her little girl. It's very hard, but she made a commitment, and she never wavered from honoring that commitment.

She has an obligation to complete her service. If this were a man would anyone feel differently?

Every action has a consequence. Sadly for the children, I think she has an obligation too. Maybe dad could go inactive or on leave to take of the children while she is finishing up.

I feel differently about this...I think the kids need at least one parent with them. I know she made a comittment....but she did the same when she had kids. Many people can fill her shoes in the military..but her kids need a mother. I'll most likely get blasted for this...it's just my opinion. I think it would be so wrong do take her away from her kids now.

what i don't understand is that if the army discharged her, why does she have 4 more years? that seems strange to be discharged and still be obligated.

if she was discharged on a contignency and knew full well her obligation indeed included 4 years, then that's what she obligated herself to and promised her country she would do, so she should have to serve.

she is not the first, nor will she be the last, parent to have to serve in the military.

is there a link to this story?

maryanne

The story does not make a lick of sense. Once one is discharged from the service they have no more obligation. Where is the link to the news story??

If she were in the reserves it would make sense. Each person in the reserves knows that there's a chance they could be called. Of course I'd feel differently if it were my daughter, that's human nature.

I am a USAF veteran. When I was honorably discharged during a draw-down program in 1992, I was obligated for 12 years of IRR. I actually got called back for one day of duty a couple years later, just for paperwork and to ensure the system worked.

I got the call, and showed up ready to meet my obligation no matter how short, or long, it was going to be.

I was obligated. She is obligated. She knew about this program and obligation when she got out; she knew about it when she had children.

Giving birth does not make a soldier, or airman, "special." Same rules apply. We have thousands of mothers defending this country. If her number comes up she should do and act like all the others.

I have no tolerance for whiners.

I just read the article She has an obligation and I think she is using this for publicity

I forgot to add for Dilly Dally, one can actually be discharged from active duty service and still have an IRR commentment. There are many, many types of discharges and programs. They change constantly.

A person knows their status, and signs all the appropriate forms and statements, when they are discharged. Everything is spelled out in black and white.

Yes, children need a mother, but many military women have children knowing that there will be times they have to be seperated. They have to have powers-of-attorney on file saying who can keep the children (for up to one year, sometimes longer) once the child is born. There are thousands of very happy military familys and children that live this lifestyle.

One of the best things about the military is you're not a "man" or a "woman;" your a soldier/airman/sailor/marine. "Mothers" and "Fathers" have the same duties and responsibilities.

My husband retired nearly two years ago. He has an IRR obligation until he turns 65. My IRR expired four years ago; I'd give my right arm to go back in.

My son joined the Navy, got an education, served our country in Iraq, and several other countries. He was discharged, but knows he can be called back anytime. He knows because he signed the contract. She also signed a contract. I'm sure the paperwork didn't say if she had more children, the contract would be null and void. She should fulfill her obligation. It would send a very good message to her children. It also doesn't mean she would be serving outside the country.

earthlydelights- I thought I made it clear in #4 that she was being asked to FINISH OUT her 4 years.

jeanawa- I hadn't even thought about her staying in the States- good thinking. Then she could have her kids with her, couldn't she? Or isn't there any type of child care on bases?

caroline- What is IRR?

My farrier was in Special Forces (I don't know exactly what that means), he did 4 years. He is thinking he will be called back.
With as many military people that I have worked with when I worked for the Federal Gov. Public Health, I did not know that you could be called back even if you finished the time you signed up for.
I learn a bit each day...

Here is a link which tells in detail what IRR is. I found it very interesting.

Here is a link that might be useful: IRR

Posted by ilmbg: "I thought I made it clear in #4 that she was being asked to FINISH OUT her 4 years."

This is what is not making sense. You are not talking about IRR or Reserve or anything else. You make it sound like there is a reason to finish out the four years to the day after a discharge "just because". If you could provide a link to the facts of the story, maybe the contingencies would make it clear what is really going on with the case. I would try to Google it myself, but with out a name or anything concrete, it would be impossible to locate this particular case.

I'm not sure at what point it changed, but this modern military can be recalled anytime until they have fulfilled an 8 year obligation.

Four years may be the signed committment, but the fine print allows for trained troops to be recalled in wartime, which unfortunately is our status, to an extent of 8 years. That is disclosed at sign-up, even if it is downplayed. The soldier knows the possibility.

The difference is that this is the first time since Viet Nam it has been put into full use. I have two kids who served. One will never be recalled because he completed 8 years, 4 months of active duty. He has no outstanding committment. The other, while having only completed 5 years, 2 months of active duty, got a 70% medical discharge, and cannot be recalled. But they knew of the long-term post discharge committment before they took their oaths.

IMHO she owes the time. She agreed to it, she did not serve as promised and so she now owes the remaining service time. Accept the responsibility for your own actions.

I can't help but wonder....if this were a man would it be news? Would we be having this discussion?

She has a committment and she obviously knew this when she had the children. I think she should serve her time.

I feel that no military should allow both parents to be enlisted under any circumstance. One parent should always remain with the children. If you choose to serve in the military then serve, if you choose to have a family, choose to raise them. If circumstances happen that a woman becomes pregnant while enlisted she should be discharged and asked to repay the "training" as you would any student loan for any further education.

Here's the article.

Here is a link that might be useful: article

She should finish out her four years, perhaps with children she can ask for a short delay, but she made an agreement, a committment.

The Rest of the Story (your articles evidently
left it out)..she is reporting back and taking her
children with her. An Army spokesman said a decision
will be made, and they don't want any hardship caused
to families that is unnecessary. Her CO will make
a decision.

I think she made a committment that should be honored. However, I feel for the child,who is innocent. The baby needs a mama.Kids are so often victims of parents careless choices.

The article that MaryC linked was in my newspaper today also.; it does mention that she is reporting in today (Sunday) with kids in tow.

It also says she knew she was obligated, but buried the thought in the back of her mind.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Sue

Mary_c, thank you for the article with the facts.

The real story is nothing like what the OP posted.

The article clearly says, "They [she and husband] left the service in 2005 when their enlistments were up."

So this is not a case of being asked to "finish the four years" of enlistment as the OP wrote in the post. She is IRR.

A person IRR can apply for a waiver. Some are granted but not all are.

I do think that it is asking a lot to expect former troops to remain ready for the rest of their lives and not ever get on with their life. This fact is downplayed by recruiters and some recruiters even lie to applicants about what the real obligation is when you sign and take the oath, so it may not be clear to many who join.

I am wondering who signed to take care of the children when they were active duty? Where are they now?

Simple enough. She should be ordered to appear and if she doesn't, she should be thrown in the brig. And this business of bringing her kids with her? Fine. They simply take the kids away. It's called child abandonment. Offer them back to the father and let him make arrangements for their care or put them into foster care. She's obviously a totally irresponsible parent and shouldn't have the kids anyway.

My DH is in the Army. If by any reason he gets discharged early he can be called back to finish his term of service. Unless it is a dishonorable or medical discharge which physically stops him from normal duties in the military he would report back. He and I both knew this when he signed up years ago.
I can understand her grief over this but when you sign on the dotted line you have full knowledge of the hows, whats, whys, etc...
My DH will be taking another tour of Iraq in August, you think I like that? Heck No! But you suck it up and deal with it!
I wonder just how many people enlist in the military and really grasp the concept of it all.
Susan

What would she be teaching her children if she didn't fulfill her 4 year military obligation?

Here's an update:

Here is a link that might be useful: She won

Under the circumstances, it's probably best she be discharged. It's not easy for her husband to find a different job, and it appears that neither set of grandparents are physically or financially able to help out. To just give up a paying job in hopes of finding one which wouldn't require travel would be a really bad move in this economy. It's not like we pay our enlisted personnel a living wage.

She did serve her initial term of duty. I have no quarrel with this outcome.