446
DONATIONS
Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

NC mom recalled to Army duty will be discharged

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
MiaCulpa Donating Member (684 posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 04:35 PM
Original message
NC mom recalled to Army duty will be discharged
Source: yahoo

RALEIGH, N.C. – The North Carolina mother who reported for Army duty with her two young children will be discharged from the military, her attorney said Monday. Attorney Mark Waple of Fayetteville said it wasn't yet clear if Lisa Pagan would receive an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions. It also wasn't certain when she would be discharged.

The reason for the discharge will be that she doesn't have, and cannot have, an adequate family care for her two young children, he said.

"There is definitely some feeling of relief, especially since she has been led to believe that the command at Fort Benning is going to do everything to expedite this so she can return to Charlotte, North Carolina, with her children," Waple said of Pagan's reaction to the decision.

She has received no time line "except they are trying to process it as quickly as possible," he said.

He advised Pagan against talking to reporters until after the discharge is official.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/militar...



More at the link...

She did it! :)

-Diane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   Excellent! Congrats to her!  Akoto   Mar-02-09 04:46 PM   #1 
   Not necessarily...  NavyDem   Mar-02-09 08:09 PM   #30 
      She wasn't single. (nt)  Nine   Mar-02-09 09:43 PM   #32 
   Yay!!  sasquatch   Mar-02-09 04:47 PM   #2 
   is that a pic of lemmy! ? nt  paulsby   Mar-03-09 12:12 AM   #36 
      Yes  sasquatch   Mar-03-09 07:32 AM   #40 
   This seems to be the only reasonable solution.  razorman   Mar-02-09 04:48 PM   #3 
   Thank you for pointing that out.  enlightenment   Mar-02-09 05:29 PM   #13 
   Yep.  Abq_Sarah   Mar-02-09 09:59 PM   #33 
   the real question:  Soylent Brice   Mar-02-09 04:49 PM   #4 
   I assure you it was the latter  Still Sensible   Mar-02-09 05:01 PM   #6 
      i'm sure others in a similar situations have already had their hopes quashed  Soylent Brice   Mar-02-09 05:55 PM   #17 
         I believe you are right  Still Sensible   Mar-02-09 06:10 PM   #19 
   Giving her a general discharge strikes me as less than  No Elephants   Mar-02-09 05:00 PM   #5 
   I agree that it should be honorable, but  Still Sensible   Mar-02-09 05:02 PM   #7 
   Honorable is my bet  jmowreader   Mar-02-09 05:24 PM   #12 
   As long as the discharge is honorable, she's good to go.  ACTION BASTARD   Mar-02-09 06:22 PM   #22 
   She shouldn't have signed  Abq_Sarah   Mar-02-09 10:00 PM   #34 
   Wouldn't have happened under Chimpy (I don't think).  acmavm   Mar-02-09 05:07 PM   #8 
   I can hear from conservatives already. "Great now all those irresponsible, baby having, liberals  elway7   Mar-02-09 05:11 PM   #9 
   But I thought liberals were infertile and hated babies?  ecstatic   Mar-02-09 06:49 PM   #25 
   Conservatives say a lot of stupid things while dodging military  TBF   Mar-02-09 07:42 PM   #28 
   Just throw my case at them...  NavyDem   Mar-02-09 08:13 PM   #31 
   Four-deferment Dick is the one who has kids to get a deferment. nt  tblue37   Mar-03-09 01:09 AM   #38 
   Has to be filed under "NSS..No Shit Sherlock"....  lib2DaBone   Mar-02-09 05:15 PM   #10 
   No family care plan. I knew a SSG that did that and walked away with an honorable discharge & ~80K  Mr. Hyde   Mar-02-09 05:16 PM   #11 
   They dealt with a similar issue in "Army Wives"  ananda   Mar-02-09 05:44 PM   #14 
   I guess stateside assignments are outsourced now.  Grinchie   Mar-02-09 05:49 PM   #15 
   Not to gloat, but I was right  Tempest   Mar-02-09 05:54 PM   #16 
   No gloating...  WriteDown   Mar-02-09 06:14 PM   #20 
      Most Assumed that the Government Would Not ABUSE the IRR the Way They Have  AndyTiedye   Mar-02-09 06:49 PM   #24 
         So Obama is bowing to oil companies with the war in  WriteDown   Mar-02-09 07:05 PM   #26 
   Yay!!!!!!!!  glinda   Mar-02-09 06:09 PM   #18 
   CUE THE VONAGE THEME!  rocktivity   Mar-02-09 06:16 PM   #21 
   She's a hero to me  noamnety   Mar-02-09 06:47 PM   #23 
   I agree  rebecca_herman   Mar-02-09 08:00 PM   #29 
   HOORAY!!!!  crikkett   Mar-02-09 07:33 PM   #27 
   This should prove convenient  Tim01   Mar-02-09 11:21 PM   #35 
   A comment to those military and ex-military who think this woman is wrong  riderinthestorm   Mar-03-09 12:37 AM   #37 
   She did her time, as did her hubby. She was discharged 4 years ago.  IndianaGreen   Mar-03-09 01:15 AM   #39 
   I'm neither military nor ex-military, but I don't agree with this decision.  Nine   Mar-03-09 01:00 PM   #54 
   NC mom recalled to Army duty will be discharged  kpete   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #41 
   I've seen a couple cases like this on active duty...  NavyDem   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #42 
   It doesn't matter a whit what the discharge papers say  Cronus Protagonist   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #43 
   Agreed...  NavyDem   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #44 
      Well, in the real world it sure doesn't matter  Cronus Protagonist   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #45 
         honerable vs dishonorable  Pugee   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #46 
            and Iraq era vets get massive preference for Gov't jobs like the Park Service  NMDemDist2   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #47 
               Her first discharge from the Army trumps the second one  kmlisle   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #50 
                  good to hear and welcome to DU!!!  NMDemDist2   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #51 
                  There was no 'first time' she was discharged.  Lasher   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #52 
   As if taking care of your kids were dishonorable  Alcibiades   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #48 
      Watch out now we don't want to start talking about  sce56   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #49 
         Those are OK  Alcibiades   Mar-03-09 08:42 AM   #53 
   I thought the Army didn't want Pagans anyway ...  eppur_se_muova   Mar-03-09 05:15 PM   #55 
 
Akoto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent! Congrats to her!
Edited on Mon Mar-02-09 04:47 PM by Akoto
However, I have the worrisome suspicion that this decision only happened due to media attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem (86 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. Not necessarily...
Single personnel with dependents must provide an adequate family care plan in writing (in the Navy at least). If they cannot, they are usually offered a discharge. It was the right thing to do considering she had already completed her active duty tour, and got recalled during her inactive reserve commitment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nine (472 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. She wasn't single. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquatch (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yay!!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. is that a pic of lemmy! ? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquatch (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razorman (532 posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. This seems to be the only reasonable solution.
Obviously, the children cannot be left without care. And if the mother cannot do the job as required, and for which she volunteered, there is no reason that she should be allowed to keep the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Thank you for pointing that out.
I have sympathy for her position - but it's not the military's fault that she didn't read the ENTIRE contract she signed. That provision has been in place for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. Yep.
Give her a general discharge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. the real question:
did they come to their senses, or did they realize what a PR disaster it would be if they didn't...

either way, at least she can go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still Sensible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Mon Mar-02-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I assure you it was the latter
Even though it is the right decision in her case, the potential ramifications for the services are rather immense. They have essentially opened up a big can of worms here and invited others to do the same. While I am sure the PR on this one will not blow up in their faces, they'll face an avalanche of problems if this becomes even a mini-epidemic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. i'm sure others in a similar situations have already had their hopes quashed
after this little incident. i'm sureother CO's are already instructing subordinates they'll be punished for trying any similar stunts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still Sensible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Mon Mar-02-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I believe you are right
unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Giving her a general discharge strikes me as less than
fair. If she had a minor amount of time remaining, they should not have waited four years before recalling her. Way to mess up someone's life.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still Sensible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Mon Mar-02-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I agree that it should be honorable, but
they may end up giving her a "general under honorable conditions" in hopes of not inviting many many more people to try the same tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Honorable is my betUpdated at 12:35 PM
One of my commanders explained to me you really need a case of the ass at someone to get them anything lower than an honorable discharge, because you need a lot of paperwork to demonstrate the person deserves anything less. His tactic, on the exceptionally rare occasion he needed to throw someone out of the Army, was to give them a Reenlistment Eligibility code of 3 so they couldn't join the reserves, discharge them under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, and be done with them. A Chapter 13 tells anyone who knows what he's looking at that the guy's a fuckup, and removes them from the Army quickly which is the goal all along.

In her case, there's no gray area about this: Paragraph 5-8 (involuntary separation due to parenthood) demands either an Honorable or a "under honorable conditions" discharge, and it's hard to do the honorable conditions one quickly because you have to justify it. But they can do an Honorable in 24 hours if they have their shit together, and Fort Benning has people who know exactly how to kick someone out of the Army quickly--all basic training installations do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACTION BASTARD Donating Member (765 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. As long as the discharge is honorable, she's good to go.
I have a general discharge under honorable conditions and afterward worked for the federal government with NO problems. I explained why I got the GD, I'm sure they looked into it and I was good to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. She shouldn't have signed
The enlistment contract unless she planned on adhering to the requirements. A general discharge is more than fair since she refused to uphold her end of the deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wouldn't have happened under Chimpy (I don't think).
They'd be too afraid of setting 'precedent'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elway7 (5 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. I can hear from conservatives already. "Great now all those irresponsible, baby having, liberals
are gonna have more babies so they can avoid going to war, and then live off welfare and food stamps." Isn't it amusing how predictable, petty, and best of all, inconsequential the Repukes have become. God Bless America!!!... And our Founding Fathers for giving us a system that let's us remove all influence from the hands of the dangerous, right-wing fanatics that now make up the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. But I thought liberals were infertile and hated babies?
:shrug: Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Conservatives say a lot of stupid things while dodging military
service themselves. I don't see Bush sending his two daughters off to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem (86 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Just throw my case at them...
All of my family members fall under the Exceptional Family Member program due to medical or learning disabilities. We established a family care plan to take care of everyone (including my spouse), should anyone become incapacitated. It allows me to continue to serve.

I will be completing 20 yrs of service at the end of this year :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Tue Mar-03-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
38. Four-deferment Dick is the one who has kids to get a deferment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. Has to be filed under "NSS..No Shit Sherlock"....
The Republicans never met a war they didn't like.

Why Obama is not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday... I do not understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde (314 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. No family care plan. I knew a SSG that did that and walked away with an honorable discharge & ~80K
Of course, we weren't fighting two wars back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. They dealt with a similar issue in "Army Wives"
Edited on Mon Mar-02-09 05:45 PM by ananda
Claudia Joy's teen daughter made a friend
who was acting out because her mother
was about to be deployed again, and
Claudia Joy helped the mom get a deferment.

Childcare is a big issue for army
soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. I guess stateside assignments are outsourced now.
There used to be a time when the Military catered to the Military family by offering important support positions to those best suited for them. What has happened to these administrative and other support positions? I remember seeing very well equipped Schools for resident dependents, and I even volunteered my technical services for the Computer Labs back in the early 80's.

What has become of the Military? Are they so enamored with smart weapons that the people operating them no long matter?

These support jobs are like like any other, 9 to 5, and schooling for the kids was supplied for free. Schooling was the Day Care system so the personnell could go do their job.

Why don't people ask questions like this anymore? Am I too old to remember when education was a valuable asset, and the family unit was complemented by a social structure that allowed both work and family to co exist?

With all of the marvelous increases of Productivity per worker, why is it that people work harder and longer than ever, even to the point where you need two independant incomes to actually survive today?

This incident demonstrates how totally fucked up our system is. The people in charge are shallow minded capitalists looking out for themselves, while society is left to rot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Not to gloat, but I was right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. No gloating...
you were right indeed. I disagree strongly with the decision considering that she is married and she had to sign about a bijillion forms stating she was aware of the IRR. I do wonder about the discharge though and I also wonder how this leaves all the people that have already left and are going to leave for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Most Assumed that the Government Would Not ABUSE the IRR the Way They Have
The IRR was supposed to be for grave national emergencies,
not every time they need more cannon fodder for the oil companies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. So Obama is bowing to oil companies with the war in
Afghanistan. Who knew.

I believe the IRR has been used since WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yay!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Mon Mar-02-09 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!Updated at 11:46 AM
And kudos to the Army for following my orders!

:woohoo:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Mon Mar-02-09 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
23. She's a hero to me
There was a time in my single mom days when I was worried I'd be thrown in jail after I was called back from the IRR.

I'd gotten out when I was pregnant specifically so I could handle child care. They let me out, canceled my bonus and GI Bill, which was fair enough I figured since I canceled the contract early.

But then after they swiped all my benefits under early termination of contract, they threw me back in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebecca_herman (455 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. I agree
I realize she signed a contract, but whether she made the right decision or not to have kids after, I still consider her obligation to the children she brought into the world, to be of greater moral importance than her obligation to the military. As far as I'm concerned when she had those kids she basically "signed" a contract to take care of them and see to their needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. HOORAY!!!!
:bounce:
:party:
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Mar-02-09 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
35. This should prove convenient
for anyone else who decides they don't want to honor their agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
37. A comment to those military and ex-military who think this woman is wrong
and that she is somehow shirking her commitment.

1. She's being recalled 4 years after she left. I know there's a contractual stipulation in the contract she signed that mandates her return for the IRR BUT the military has provisions for extraneous circumstances to those people whose situations NOW preclude reporting back for duty.

2. This woman's husband's job requires him to travel. Can you imagine him, in these economic times, telling his employer that he cannot fulfill his job requirements anymore? He'll be fired immediately in these economic times. If this woman had gone the route of forcing her husband into losing his job, the Army would have faced the same PR mess from the fallout of that action as they are facing from trying to force this woman back into service.

The Army has an honorable "out" for those people whose life situations have changed, and who (years later) are unable to fulfill that commitment. In my opinion this woman clearly meets that standard.

She tried to reason with the Army. They are the ones who refused to "understand". And now they deserve whatever shit is heaped upon them. I hope this does open a can of worms. It's a discussion that's more than overdue in these times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. She did her time, as did her hubby. She was discharged 4 years ago.
This abuse of IRR, at a time when Congress has NOT declared war, really takes the cake. They have even recalled people that were discharged over a decade ago, simply because they once held a critical MOS.

I am glad she created a PR nightmare for the Army, forcing the brass to discharge her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nine (472 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #37
54. I'm neither military nor ex-military, but I don't agree with this decision.
I think it's a wrong, unjust system and a wrong, unjust war. I'd like to bring all the soldiers home. I'd like to do away with the whole military concept that borders on indentured servitude. But none of that has anything to do with why this woman was let out of her commitment. It has to do with some ridiculous notions that (1) a man shouldn't be expected to take care of his own children and (2) a family where one of the two parents is called back into service shouldn't have to suffer any financial disadvantage or disruption from it.

It's ridiculous to say there was no one to take care of the children. Would a male have been allowed to argue that he couldn't fulfill his commitment because his wife would have had to quit her job and stay home with the children? The husband here needn't have become a stay-at-home father anyway. He could have looked for a different job even if it meant a cut in pay. He could have tried to work something out with his current employer and let them take on some of the PR burden of firing a man whose wife has just been called to go fight in a war.

Even if he did have to quit his job and had to take care of the kids himself because he could not find another that paid enough to afford childcare, would the family be worse off than many other military families in the same situation? The army does provide housing and other support to military families, does it not? It's not as if this family would have gone hungry and homeless, they might just not have had quite as comfortable a lifestyle as before. I think there's some classism at play here as well as sexism. If the husband worked a low-level job at Mcdonald's, even with a shift schedule that precluded easy childcare arrangements (just as his traveling job did), would people be insisting that he couldn't possibly be expected to quit his job or look for another? There seems to be some assumption that this nice, middle class family shouldn't have to be put through what lower income families must go through. Isn't that idea something we liberals are supposed to oppose?

If it were just a matter between this woman and the military, that would be one thing. But letting her not fulfill her commitment means that others must serve in her place. That's not fair. The greatest disadvantage to being called back for anyone is the very real risk of being killed. I would say that dwarfs any financial matters. As I see it, this woman is sending someone else to risk life and limb in her place based on the argument that her family shouldn't be expected to give up her husband's supposedly well-paying job and begin living on her military pay. I don't see how that can seem right to anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
41. NC mom recalled to Army duty will be dischargedUpdated at 11:19 AM
Source: Associated Press

NC mom recalled to Army duty will be discharged

RALEIGH, N.C. – The North Carolina mother who reported for Army duty with her two young children will be discharged from the military, her attorney said Monday. Attorney Mark Waple of Fayetteville said it wasn't yet clear if Lisa Pagan would receive an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions. It also wasn't certain when she would be discharged.

The reason for the discharge will be that she doesn't have, and cannot have, an adequate family care for her two young children, he said.

"There is definitely some feeling of relief, especially since she has been led to believe that the command at Fort Benning is going to do everything to expedite this so she can return to Charlotte, North Carolina, with her children," Waple said of Pagan's reaction to the decision.

She has received no time line "except they are trying to process it as quickly as possible," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/militar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem (86 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. I've seen a couple cases like this on active duty...
Usually, it is a general under honorable (Needs of the service) when a single parent (male or female) cannot provide an adequate family care plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. It doesn't matter a whit what the discharge papers say
No once cares anyway. She just needs to get back home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDem (86 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Agreed...
But under honorable conditions is definitely better than dishonorable :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Well, in the real world it sure doesn't matter
I've hired ex service people before and they all seem to be very concerned about what that piece of paper says, and really, as far as I'm concerned, it is meaningless. If they served and came back in one piece, I have never cared what their status of discharge was and I've never asked, nor have I ever asked to see the papers. For all you service people out there, I say this, don't sweat the details on the discharge papers, I've never seen anyone care what they say. You served, and that's enough any one needs to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pugee (295 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. honerable vs dishonorable
It does make a big difference if she wants benefits or veterans housing later on in life. I work with homeless men and they do not qualify for housing in veteran homes if they were dishonorably discharged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. and Iraq era vets get massive preference for Gov't jobs like the Park Service
BLM, any of them actually and it DOES matter what that DD214 says in that instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kmlisle (21 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Her first discharge from the Army trumps the second one
As long as she got an honorable discharge when discharged from active duty the first time around she will be entitled to benefits. The second one she will get now from the IRR will not take any benefits sh earned with the first one away. She earned those!

My question: The IRR is supposed to be called up in time of 'National Emergency" - so whats the national emergency that requires the army to take a mother away from her children. Are they going to deploy her to wall street?

This is just another form of the backdoor draft - alot like the poverty draft and stop loss.

GI Rights Counselor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. good to hear and welcome to DU!!!
:hi:

you may find our DU Glossary both informative and amusing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. There was no 'first time' she was discharged.
She was transferred from active duty to the reserves. That was not a discharge. A GI Rights Counselor should know such a fundamental thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. As if taking care of your kids were dishonorable
If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a family, you would have been issued one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Watch out now we don't want to start talking about
Class B dependents!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. Those are OK
Nuclear families tend to get in the way.

The fact that they are recalling mothers who are responsible for providing care for their kids--kids they didn't have when they joined up--four years after discharge from active duty, is just nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
55. I thought the Army didn't want Pagans anyway ...
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Feb 10th 2010, 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC