50,000 more US troops stop-lossed

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 50,000 more US troops stop-lossed

Posted: 1/29/2006 8:24:34 AM EDT

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/iraq_usa_stoploss_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.

can anyone in the know tell us if this really does have a terrible effect on morale, or is the media exaggerating things as usual?

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:33:42 AM EDT

[#1]

I would guess it would cause lower moral to some degree, it would seem natural.
I read that they are also consider "reduceing" the numbers in the army reserves within a few years, if that makes sense........

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:38:11 AM EDT

[#2]

so much 4 the "all volunteer army"

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:39:29 AM EDT

[#3]

Stop loss has been in effect since 9-11. There were some guys challenging the stop loss policy but recently a judge threw the case out. I believe that is where that number came in .

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:41:27 AM EDT

[#4]

When I came in 1998 my AFSC was in stop loss. Stayed that way for about 3 years on and off. Not only does it has a horrible affect on morale, it works a number on peoples work ethic as well.

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:45:16 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
so much 4 the "all volunteer army"

It still is. I would've been disappointed if I was placed on stop loss but I wouldn't have an issue with it. I signed up & agreed to the possibility of serving more than the anticipated 4 years. It's the same with being called back up - I agreed to that possibility in the contract I voluntarily signed.

So, it's still very much an all volunteer military.

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:54:46 AM EDT

[#6]

It's freaking amazing. I'd be glad to rejoin the AF either in the reserves or regular component, but due to a relatively minor screw-up in the way my DD214 was written, they won't take me.

Freakish.

CJ

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:58:26 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It's freaking amazing. I'd be glad to rejoin the AF either in the reserves or regular component, but due to a relatively minor screw-up in the way my DD214 was written, they won't take me.

Freakish.

CJ

That's interesting. What did they screw up on your 214 that would prevent you from serving?

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:06:41 AM EDT

[#8]

When i enlisted they explained stop-loss to me in my contract(read the fine print) Units and soldiers in them are routinely stop-lossed when the unit recieves MOB orders. You get released after your unit returns to CONUS. Some guys get pissed about, it didnt bother me though, if they leave the service because of it, good ridance, we dont need half-steppers.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:07:19 AM EDT

[#9]

Damn....that would really rub me wrong as a "volunteer". I wouldn't condemn any soldier who switched their status to "conscientious objector" after they fullfilled their initial term. Any individual who put their ass on the line and served is a hero in my book and don't owe anyone jackshit after that. So what is the purpose of the contract if the government doesn't have to honor it?

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:08:28 AM EDT

[#10]

My friend got stop lossed. He's going back to Iraq in October. I'm sure it pissed him off, but when I talked to him he seemed okay with it.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:16:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Damn....that would really rub me wrong as a "volunteer". I wouldn't condemn any soldier who switched their status to "conscientious objector" after they fullfilled their initial term. Any individual who put their ass on the line and served is a hero in my book and don't owe anyone jackshit after that. So what is the purpose of the contract if the government doesn't have to honor it?

The government does have to honor it, it is in effect for 8 years after you sign it. During the IRR part of your 8 year obligation, you can be 'un-I'RRed. They can also refuse to release you into the IRR and force you to stay on active duty untill you complete your intial 8 year enlistment.

Your initial term is 8 years. They havn't served their intial term until 8 years have passed, regardless of whatever combination of active, reserve and IRR it includes. After 8 years, you don't owe jackshit anymore and they can't touch you. Before that, if you are reactivated and refuse, you are nothing but a sack of shit as you signed the contract.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:42:20 AM EDT

[#12]

I almost got stop-lossed in 2001. My LT. kept forgetting to request replacement medics for those that were ETSing. I heard my plt. SSgt. hassle him about it. When I was due to ETS they said that I was going to have to stay on for a few more months, I was really pissed because I had already payed my first month of rent at a new apartment stateside, and this was all because of an ate up LT. I told the CO as much and he helped me out. I didn't end up staying, but my platoon eneded up being short and understrength for awhile. I felt sorry for 'em, but I was ready to go. I had been there for almost a year and a half already.

Posted: 1/29/2006 11:24:40 AM EDT

[#13]

The re-enlistment code got goofed up on my 214. There was no valid reason for me to receive a code starting in a 2. If it had been typed as a 1 like it should have been, I'd have gone back in many years ago.

My requests that I made several times over the years for a review went NOWHERE....because the
people I asked didn't know the right answer.

Now I could get a review board to evaluate the situation, but am I really going to do that now when
I'm 40 and my job is starting to get me somewhere, finally?

Would I sign up for the reserves knowing that I'd probably be activated for active duty the
day I got out of tech school?

I just don't know if I'm really ready to do that. I can't go back to 1988. Would I if I could?

CJ

Posted: 1/29/2006 11:49:07 AM EDT

[#14]

"The re-enlistment code got goofed up on my 214. There was no valid reason for me to receive a code starting in a 2. If it had been typed as a 1 like it should have been, I'd have gone back in many years ago."

The national guard will submit a waiver to the national guard bureau for even an re 4 from any branch "other than the army or national guard", depending on the narrative reason for it, and they approve a lot of them. Less than re 4, 3 or lower should be a lot easier with them.
IF you still care to serve, talk to a national guard recruiter.
I have been attempting to re enlist into the guard with a bad re code from the navy, medical, since june '04, I have a good discharge from the army, but I was in the navy last and that's what they go by.
Anyhow, it's all about talking to a recruiter willing to assist with a waiver.
I eventually talked to 1 that would with the va national guard and passed a meps physical thursday, and a waiver will be submitted 1st of the week for God willing approval or disaproval, that should be 3 weeks and I'll know. If approved I'll be re enlisting into the va. guard, infantry or medic. I'm 39 and will be 40 in feb., so i know how it is at this age but it's doable..

Posted: 1/29/2006 11:57:48 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted: can anyone in the know tell us if this really does have a terrible effect on morale, or is the media exaggerating things as usual?

Well, the MEPS was full of people every time I stopped by. All kinds of people: young, mid, old, newbies, previous service, reserve to active, men, women, immigrants, native-born. They were all chomping at the bit, bidding their time so they can ship out to boot camp or to their specialty schools. Bad on morale? No way! Those transit vans/buses were packed. The only drain on morale was: paperwork.

Posted: 1/29/2006 12:02:02 PM EDT

[#16]

meps was crowded the other day when I was there, 1 guy was older than me, he was 41. But that said, it would be different for the people who have been serving and were preparing to be discharged.

Posted: 1/29/2006 12:14:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted: meps was crowded the other day when I was there, 1 guy was older than me, he was 41. But that said, it would be different for the people who have been serving and were preparing to be discharged.

Everybody knows about the 8 years right from the start. You need to take a closer look at the crowd. A surprising number of them were prior service, switching service, going active from reserve, previously deployed and being re-processed, etc. We're talking about a surprising number of guys who have been there, gone back, got out, then wanted back in.

Posted: 1/29/2006 12:28:00 PM EDT

[#18]

I was just at MEPS on saturday. Had a real old looking guy there. Must have been near 40. Had a prior service navy guy and maybe 4 prior service army. One of the army guys was going marines. Some poor bastard had his paperwork misplaced so he sat in a waiting room for 5-6 hours and no one knew he was there. Someone walking past a few times noticed he had been there forever and did something.

Posted: 1/29/2006 12:36:02 PM EDT

[#19]

They are not EXTENDING people!!!!!!! They are activating your inactive reserve obligations!!! When you enlist you do it for 8 YEARS!!! Not four or three or five. People should just stop bitchin about obligations.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:00:18 PM EDT

[#20]

Punisher BS, they are extending people I fulfilled my original 8 yr obligation, I got 12 years and I was legally out past my ETS, when i got extended. I'm not complaining after Iraq, I decided to stay in for my full 20. But they are extending people, I know guys that had their 20yr letter and submitted their paperwork to retire, that where extended and sent to Iraq.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:16:00 PM EDT

[#21]

What is sad is that when a person hits 20 years and hasn't made E-7 they show them the door - with very few exceptions. I had a really squared away sailor working for me who did great work - the "total sailor" - but took the advancement tests very poorly. 20 years and out. I tried to get him a waiver to have one more shot at advancement but they turned him/me down.

After you serve 20 years in the Navy and you get out of the actives you transfer to the Fleet Reserve and stay there until you have 30 years of service total. I've got five more years of reserve time to serve - you don't drill or anything, it's just that if they have to dig deep, way deep ... they can roll out us beat-up old farts out on to whatever old ships are still left to fight.

Here's a picture of my last command underway:

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:18:58 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The re-enlistment code got goofed up on my 214. There was no valid reason for me to receive a code starting in a 2. If it had been typed as a 1 like it should have been, I'd have gone back in many years ago.

My requests that I made several times over the years for a review went NOWHERE....because the
people I asked didn't know the right answer.

Now I could get a review board to evaluate the situation, but am I really going to do that now when
I'm 40 and my job is starting to get me somewhere, finally?

Would I sign up for the reserves knowing that I'd probably be activated for active duty the
day I got out of tech school?

I just don't know if I'm really ready to do that. I can't go back to 1988. Would I if I could?

CJ

We have a 43 year old SSgt in my shop..got out of the AF sometime in the 1980's came back in 2001 as SrA. He was probably the oldest SrA in the AF.

Doubt they would let you back in nowadays...the AF is being rightsized...

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:22:50 PM EDT

[#23]

You came in after 9-11 then you should know that this might happion to you. The Marine corpe has not stared it yet. I know because I'v got untill March 31,2006 .

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:31:21 PM EDT

[#24]

From part 9 c of the DD form 4, enlistment contract:
“In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the president of the United States.”
We are at war with the terrorist! I have been stop loss twice in 23 years. It’s part of the job. Get over it!

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:34:08 PM EDT

[#25]

From another forum:

Yeah, this article just blows the lid off of the whole issue! This proves it - the SECDEF is a lying liar whos pants are totally on fire! Or maybe the MSM is, as usual, not quite telling the whole truth:

Quote:
Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty

Well, the headline sure makes it seems like this decision was implemented yesterday, doesn't it? But is that really the case? Buried deep in the article we see it's not quite so:
Quote:
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. An initial limited use of stop-loss was expanded in subsequent years to affect many more.

So this program is currently affecting significantly fewer soldiers than 50,000. I wonder why they didn't have the headline read "Army forces 12,500 soldiers into extended duty"?

Stars and Stripes has an article too: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34624
Quote:
“Currently, there are approximately 12,500 soldiers under Stop-Loss: 7,600 active duty soldiers, 2,450 reservists, and 2,450 National Guardsmen,” Hart said in an e-mail.

“We estimate that approximately 50,000 of the more than 1.5 million soldiers who have been/are in the Army have been affected since 9-11.”

So there's your breakdown. I wonder why they didn't have the headline read "Army forces 3.3% of it's soldiers into extended duty"?

Or better yet: "Army forces 3.3% of it's soldiers into extended duty since 2002"? Or maybe: "Army forces average of 1.1% of it's soldiers into extended duty"? Or even: "Army currently forces 0.83% of it's soldiers into extended duty"?

This reminds me of the NYT attempt to say that Bush lost 30 truckloads of high explosives that were never there... Come on bigmountain!! This is the MSM - you cannot trust them!! How many times are you going to let them fool you?

Courtesy sneakerboots.
_________________

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:38:09 PM EDT

[#26]

if the pussies don't want to go ....SEND ME!
I wish I could have enlisted when I was 18, Hearing issues.
The goober next to me in MEPS had coke bottle bottom glasses and he GOT IN!!

I may be 36 but I am in great shape, and can shoot pretty damned good too!
Id rather see the enemy, cause you cant shoot what you cant see!

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:02:42 PM EDT

[#27]

Hell, it is no big deal. I got involuntary extended back in 1976 and there wasn’t a war going on. They simply didn’t have a replacement for me and it was deemed that my job was critical to the operation of the unit. The term they used on my extension orders was “Convenience of the Government” which means they can generally do just about what ever they wanted. When they extended me they didn’t even know how long it was going to be for. As it turned out I stayed an extra 23 days. Sure I was a little disappointed, but I still had a good time. Back then no one thought anything about you going to the club and drinking yourself silly every night. Everyone knew that I got extended and they all bought me drinks!

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:12:02 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Punisher BS, they are extending people I fulfilled my original 8 yr obligation, I got 12 years and I was legally out past my ETS, when i got extended. I'm not complaining after Iraq, I decided to stay in for my full 20. But they are extending people, I know guys that had their 20yr letter and submitted their paperwork to retire, that where extended and sent to Iraq.

Then they were under their second or third contract. If you keep signing contracts, they can keep extending your ass.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:21:29 PM EDT

[#29]

Big deal, we've got an upcoming rotation to Iraq coming this summer. People dont realize that no matter who or where you are, if your unit is slated to deploy, youre gonna deploy with it. Stop loss/move is over 3 months after you return from where you are going. Im glad we have the stoploss, most people end up re-enlisting overseas to get the tax free bonus instead of mopping around like an abused puppydog waiting to ETS when tey get home.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:22:51 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
so much 4 the "all volunteer army"

Its in the contract and your recruiter is required by law to ensure you understand how stop loss works before you sign. I have my contract in the drawer next to me, it has my initials right next to the stop loss agreement. It is all volunteer.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:37:15 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Punisher BS, they are extending people I fulfilled my original 8 yr obligation, I got 12 years and I was legally out past my ETS, when i got extended. I'm not complaining after Iraq, I decided to stay in for my full 20. But they are extending people, I know guys that had their 20yr letter and submitted their paperwork to retire, that where extended and sent to Iraq.

Then they were under their second or third contract. If you keep signing contracts, they can keep extending your ass.

That is not true, I am on my second enlistment, and kept my same obligated service date as the first enlistment. However, you are obligated 8 years, no matter what you sign up for.

Posted: 1/29/2006 5:19:51 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

We have a 43 year old SSgt in my shop..got out of the AF sometime in the 1980's came back in 2001 as SrA. He was probably the oldest SrA in the AF.

Doubt they would let you back in nowadays...the AF is being rightsized...

I've seen older SrA, but they were NCOs once.

Posted: 1/29/2006 6:03:35 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/iraq_usa_stoploss_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.

can anyone in the know tell us if this really does have a terrible effect on morale, or is the media exaggerating things as usual?

Boo fuckin hoo............It happens for a reason. They cant afford to let highly experienced people out without replacements during wartime. It happened to me. I had to say a significant amount of time in theater. No big deal. If its a problem you should have thought twice before you put your signature to paper.

Posted: 1/29/2006 7:38:45 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Damn....that would really rub me wrong as a "volunteer". I wouldn't condemn any soldier who switched their status to "conscientious objector" after they fullfilled their initial term. Any individual who put their ass on the line and served is a hero in my book and don't owe anyone jackshit after that. So what is the purpose of the contract if the government doesn't have to honor it?

Duh, read the post just above yours. It IS part of the contract.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 50,000 more US troops stop-lossed

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us