SCOTUS rules that military has right to recruit on campus

[Fifty]

Oh he knew full well that he was headed to Iraq, it's just the part where they told him he'd be in Iraq 1/3 as long as he was that makes me mad.

It isn't as if they said "well we think you're going to be there x amount of time but it can certainly be more" it was like "it's easy! you go here x amount of time, then you simply leave with tons of money for college!!!!"

 

[MobBoss]

Oh he knew full well that he was headed to Iraq, it's just the part where they told him he'd be in Iraq 1/3 as long as he was that makes me mad.

It isn't as if they said "well we think you're going to be there x amount of time but it can certainly be more" it was like "it's easy! you go here x amount of time, then you simply leave with tons of money for college!!!!"

Well, look on the bright side....the 2/3rds more time he spent there, the money he earned was still tax free!!

How long was he over there?

 

[Fifty]

Well I'm not sure because I know he rotated between Iraq and army bases in the USA, and such. I don't know the army terminology but he was promised to do something like "one tour" and he ended up doing three. The word tour might not apply or whatever but you get the idea.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

As well they should. The argument of the law schools was beyond shaky.

If you take the Fed's money, you play by the Fed's rules.

Precisely. If the students don't want to join, just say no, or avoid the recruiters.

 

[MobBoss]

Well I'm not sure because I know he rotated between Iraq and army bases in the USA, and such. I don't know the army terminology but he was promised to do something like "one tour" and he ended up doing three. The word tour might not apply or whatever but you get the idea.

Well, if he didnt do one contiguous tour in Iraq longer than a year, then all bets are off. If he did a year in Iraq, then a year out, then another year in, thats not the recruiters fault.

If someone expects to serve in a multi-year contract with the military and only deploy once, they are kidding themselves.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Kinda like those poor guys who signed up for TRY ONE
and got another FREE. Stop loose orders orevented him for returning home. It was something about a long extended tour. I think He ended up staying for 16month (?) deployment

But the courts rules that stop lose order was legal and part of hes contract.
Didnt follow up on the story dunno If hes still stuck serving even though he signed for a single year. (I think he got stuck in reserves as per the contact and called to serve another tour)

 

[MobBoss]

Kinda like those poor guys who signed up for TRY ONE
and got another FREE. Stop loose orders orevented him for returning home. It was something about a long extended tour. I think He ended up staying for 16month (?) deployment

But the courts rules that stop lose order was legal and part of hes contract.
Didnt follow up on the story dunno If hes still stuck serving even though he signed for a single year. (I think he got stuck in reserves as per the contact and called to serve another tour)

Its called Stop Loss and yes it can affect just about anyone. It puts a stop to your ETS (End of Term of Service), even your voluntary retirement. The only thing a stop loss cant stop is a Mandatory Retirement Date.

Another thing people need to know is that all military contracts, no matter the active portion are ALL for eight years. If you sign up for a 3 year active hitch, you still have a 5 year obligation after that in the inactive reserve pool. You are not totally off the hook until that 8 years is up.

Now your friend with the try 1 was a former active duty guy trying 1 in the reserves. Its a special program meant to give former active duty guys a look at how the guard/reserve works and a year to try it. Oh and btw, it states right in the contract if you are on a try 1 and the unit is called to war you will be involuntarily extended to meet the deployment length. But then that language is standard in every contract no matter the length of enlistment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They Should Call it TRY ONE GET SEVEN FREE

At least the pentagon has been rather sensible in unit rotations. Thou support for return home troops has been lacking and streched. Not to mention cut backs in the VA when they should really be expanding it with all the seriously wounded comming back.

 

[MobBoss]

They Should Call it TRY ONE GET SEVEN FREE

At least the pentagon has been rather sensible in unit rotations. Thou support for return home troops has been lacking and streched. Not to mention cut backs in the VA when they should really be expanding it with all the seriously wounded comming back.

You misunderstand FF...the only people who can "try one" are people coming off of Active Duty (prior service folk), so they are already several years into their 8 year obligation.

The Try One option is not available for non-prior service recruits as their would hardly be any time left to get them through basic and AIT before they ETS'd.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

SCOTUS rules unanimously in favor of the military.

I can't believe it took so long to get a decision or that any judge would rule differently. Yea SCOTUS!! The policy is not dreamed up by the DoD, it is a law enacted by Congress. If they really wanted to protest the policy they should have tried to ban politicians. While I strongly disagree with the law itself, this ban on recruiting was ridiculous.

The law itself has some very important effects now that personnel are deployed to combat zones. There are some homosexuals who still decide to serve and just "don't tell". This policy becomes very bad if that person has a significant other that they would otherwise be married to that becomes critically injured or ill. If I'm deployed and my wife (or children, or sibling, or parent) becomes critically ill, I'll be sent home on 'emergency leave', while homosexuals have only the options to not go home or identify that they are homosexual and get removed from service to return home.