"Bring your kids to your recall to active duty" day?

Without knowing this family or the detailed ins and outs of their situation, I can only wonder. But 9 years of experience makes me highly skeptical.

Quote:

---

DAVIDSON, N.C. - When Lisa Pagan reports for duty Sunday, four long years after she was honorably discharged from the Army, she will arrive with more than her old uniform. She is bringing her kids, too.

"I have to bring them with me," she said. "I don't have a choice."

Pagan is among thousands of former service members who have left active duty since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, only to later receive orders to return to service. They are not in training, they are not getting a Defense Department salary, but as long as they have time left on their original enlistment contracts, they are on "individual ready reserve" status — eligible to be recalled at any time.

Soldiers can appeal, and some have won permission to remain in civilian life. Pagan filed several appeals, arguing that because her husband travels for business, no one else can take care of her kids. All were rejected, leaving Pagan with what she says is a choice between deploying to Iraq and abandoning her family, or refusing her orders and potentially facing charges.

...

Pagan, who grew up near Camden, N.J., was working in a department store when she made her commitment in September 2002. She learned how to drive a truck, and met Travis while stationed in Hawaii. She had her first child while in uniform, and they left the service in 2005 when their enlistments were up.
- from MSN.com

---

My favorite line from the article...

Quote:

---

She always knew there was a chance she could be recalled, so she buried the thought in the back of her mind.

---

A fine strategy.

Do you think Ft. Benning has a child care facility?

Oh, wait ...


"The Fort Benning Family Child Care (FCC) program is dedicated to fulfilling its mission of providing quality child care in an in-home environment. The FCC program provides care for children ranging from 4 weeks to 12 years of age. Flexible options for care are available: full day, part day, hourly, before and after school, special needs, emergency care, and extended/long term care."

This smacks of another MSM article on how mean the Army is.

J Wolfsberger,

I just want to say that getting on-base child-care only covers about 12 hours a day maximum. If she is deployed in Iraq and the husband is on the road for work, then base day-care is not a solution. And even then, there is never enough base day care and there is usually a long waiting list to get on.

Since this woman's extended family is not local, the choice is either to provide a non-family member (neighbor or friend) with the legal authority and responsibility for the kids, send them out-of-state to the extended family, or have the husband quit his job. Those are not easy choices and are not always possible.

I have faced similar problems since my wife is active duty (I've been in the guard/reserve for about 8 years now - I got off active duty after meeting my wife because of the challenges to dual-military families). We have been lucky that my mother-in-law has been able to come down and care for the kids when we both have been TDY or deployed. I don't know what we would have done otherwise, so I'm very sympathetic to this family's situation, particularly since she's getting called up from the IRR. Personally, if it were not for my mother-in-law as the interim guardian for our kids, I would probably not be in the service today because we'd have a very hard time finding someone to fill that role in the case where we're both ordered away. We have to keep a detailed family-care plan, along with all the necessary power-of-attorney's, etc., updated continuously with both our commands - it is a requirement. I assume the Army has similar requirements.

Ken has spoken eloquently here about the US military's 1940's personnel and management system. Well, here is an example where that model meets the reality of the 21st century family. That old model is built on the assumption of a "nuclear" family with a single, male military wage-earner and an at-home spouse being the norm. That's not the case anymore and this story is another example of that broken system IMO.

I wonder if the Montgomery GI bill is paying for those classes at Fayetteville State? "I joined for the benefits" is always a good deal until one has to live up to his/her obligations. Harsh, maybe. Fair, definitely. There's alot of mil-to-mil folks dealing with the same thing.

When I met my wife, we were both on active duty. I was an 11B and she was a 91W. She opted to get out when she became pregnant with our second child. Shortly thereafter I joined the Special Forces and we were stationed in Germany. She was recalled to active duty but was granted an exemption because she had a husband who was stationed in overseas with a unit that deployed a lot. There was no way that we could have met the requirements for a family care plan. My parents were elderly and not able to take care of two small children. My brother could not afford to take on two more children and I doubt that he would have even been willing for any length of time greater than maybe a month or two. Her family was, out of the question. My wife is not one to shirk her duty and is even planning to return to active duty when I retire in two years, but she feels that her duty to her children outweighs everything else. I agree.
I sympathize with this woman. I can guarantee that there are plenty of people out there on IRR who do not have this kind of situation who can fill this role. I cannot, for the life of me, see why they are pushing this so hard. Do they honestly think that she had kids just to get out of her service obligations? I have always thought that the IRR concept was ridiculous. How can anyone plan their post military life around the small possibility that they might be recalled to active duty? Recruiters always, always, always downplay the possibility. I honestly believe that if more people actually thought that this might happen then fewer would join.
As for on post child care, Entropy is correct. It is great, when it is there. On every post that I have been on it is usually open from 0600 to 1700 or 1730 Monday to Friday. Period. Most have a rule to the effect that you are charged a dollar for every minute after closing that you are late and they will call the MPs and/or your commander if you are over a certain time late (usually 15 minutes if memory serves). They are closed on most holidays and all weekends. The care is exemplary while your child is there but it doesn't really help the single parent who has to work nights or weekends nor does it help one who has to deploy.

SFC W

Does her recall to active duty necessarily mean that she will deploy? I know lots of people on active duty who are stateside and their duty hours fall well within the hours of the post daycare center. I think she's got a good case for not deploying. But a case for not being recalled to active duty? Is free health care and job security in this rough economy - both of which are benefits of fulfilling an obligation that she already accepted - such a hardship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Do they honestly think that she had kids just to get out of her service obligations?

---

My hunch is that you are asking that rhetorically, but I think it is a good question. On the other hand, it is anyone's guess and I doubt that anyone wants to ask it or investigate it. I wouldn't. But, with that in mind, I would second the earlier comment about the personnel system needing to catch up with today's norms.

I know two married couples for whom a pregnancy was unplanned and precluded the wives from deploying. The realization that they could not deploy with their subordinates (both were officers) was only overshadowed by the joy of another child. But I also know that pregnancies in our MSB and FSB's had an uncanny correlation with deployments, to include NTC rotations prior to OIF or combat deployments once OIF kicked off - often times the pregnant Soldiers were not married and were hard pressed to narrow down the list of possible baby-daddies to what a reasonable person would regard as a short list. The size of the pregnant PT formation should be considered an EEFI because it is the best indicator of a unit's deployment timeline.

Our current system seems to be an honor system that lacks any honor code by which it can be self-policing. There are legitimate unplanned pregnancies, to be sure. But the number of unmarried Soldiers who fill the ranks of the pregnant PT formation, coincidentally at the same opportune time, many of whom cannot say with certainty who impregnated them, suggests that the honor system is being taken advantage of.

WW II model. It was out of date in the 60s and has only gotten worse. The IRR concept is flawed -- badly. The 'eight year service obligation' on entry is dumb and I could go on for hours about other things. Not least that DoD continues to financially reward people for getting married.

I see both side of this one -- a contract is a contract and a little thought would have precluded a problem. Conversely, the lady got out and got on with her life -- and now the system that has not caught up with the present day has snared her. I hope she and / or the Army can work something out.

The whole system needs a massive shakeup.

I don't think that anyone (or at least very few) join the Army with the intention of dodging their obligations but the IRR is just not a well thought out system. Basically, you are telling these people that for upwards of six years after they get out they have to be prepared for the very slim possibility that they will have to drop everything at a moments notice and report back to duty. Come on. That's just ridiculous.

I also have to wonder if the negative publicity that this story is generating is really worth the loss of a truck driver who has likely not driven a truck in four years.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Does her recall to active duty necessarily mean that she will deploy? I know lots of people on active duty who are stateside and their duty hours fall well within the hours of the post daycare center. I think she's got a good case for not deploying. But a case for not being recalled to active duty? Is free health care and job security in this rough economy - both of which are benefits of fulfilling an obligation that she already accepted - such a hardship?

---

It also means paying for two households, not a cheap prospect at the best of times. Further it means she has to shut down her daycare business and then try to restart it once she is back off of active duty. It further appears that the kids will be separated from their father for most of the duration of her activation as he apparently was not able to come with her due to his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

My hunch is that you are asking that rhetorically, but I think it is a good question. On the other hand, it is anyone's guess and I doubt that anyone wants to ask it or investigate it. I wouldn't. But, with that in mind, I would second the earlier comment about the personnel system needing to catch up with today's norms.

I know two married couples for whom a pregnancy was unplanned and precluded the wives from deploying. The realization that they could not deploy with their subordinates (both were officers) was only overshadowed by the joy of another child. But I also know that pregnancies in our MSB and FSB's had an uncanny correlation with deployments, to include NTC rotations prior to OIF or combat deployments once OIF kicked off - often times the pregnant Soldiers were not married and were hard pressed to narrow down the list of possible baby-daddies to what a reasonable person would regard as a short list. The size of the pregnant PT formation should be considered an EEFI because it is the best indicator of a unit's deployment timeline.

Our current system seems to be an honor system that lacks any honor code by which it can be self-policing. There are legitimate unplanned pregnancies, to be sure. But the number of unmarried Soldiers who fill the ranks of the pregnant PT formation, coincidentally at the same opportune time, many of whom cannot say with certainty who impregnated them, suggests that the honor system is being taken advantage of.

---

This is a different issue. I have known women who intentionally got pregnant to avoid deployment. This really ticks me off. Not only do these women make all women in the Army look bad when they do crap like that but they bring children into the world that they don't really want. I can recall one in particular who had two children by two different fathers who spent of of her time trying to pawn her children off on her friends so that she could go party. She made me sick. I think that one of her neighbors called child welfare on her. I PCSd before the case was resolved but I do hope that she lost custody of those poor kids. They deserved better.

But I digress. As I said, this is a separate issue from the one discussed in the article. I don't honestly believe that any woman ever got pregnant to get out of an IRR commitment.

SFC W

Wasn't the IRR always intended as the 'ready' manpower of a rapidly-expanded mobilization-based Army a la WWII?

If you're not mobilizing the nation, the recalling the IRR seems dumb. I know we have to do it because we're trying to fight 2 wars while not impacting Americans in their day-to-day lives (ie, rapidly-expanding in a mobilization-based Army), but it seems a bit stupid to me, and has for several years.

It was probably unfair. A lot of good points have been made in the lady's defense. However, she was working when recalled, and presumably had to arrange day care. The tone of the article, which is the reporter's actions, not the lady in question, struck me more along the lines of "I didn't think I'd have to follow through on my end of it."

The point I was driving at, which got lost in the tone of my response, is that there are options that were not even mentioned in the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BayonetBrant

Wasn't the IRR always intended as the 'ready' manpower of a rapidly-expanded mobilization-based Army a la WWII?

If you're not mobilizing the nation, the recalling the IRR seems dumb. I know we have to do it because we're trying to fight 2 wars while not impacting Americans in their day-to-day lives (ie, rapidly-expanding in a mobilization-based Army), but it seems a bit stupid to me, and has for several years.

---

The idea behind IRR is to allow people to be called as individuals on an as needed basis. In that regard, it's similar to IMA, without the opportunity to earn retirement points through drill attendance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

... I think that one of her neighbors called child welfare on her. I PCSd before the case was resolved but I do hope that she lost custody of those poor kids. They deserved better.

---

Unfortunately, from unpleasent experience, child warfare won't to jack unless there's physical abuse or evidence of severe neglect. They are completely oblivious to the concept of emotional neglect or abuse.

It made me sick, too.

I though Bring Your daughters To War Day was an annual event ;).

This grabbing people out of the IRR or long in the tooth from the officer corps (long retired or absent from service) is interesting. I figure it will slow down if the operational tempo slows. If I may prattle on a bit.

In 1983 I joined the US National Guard. I was a junior in high school, and I did basic training between my junior and senior year. Upon return to my unit at the urging of several members of my unit I applied to go active duty. Not long after that I was visited at home (interesting in itself as I lived on a boat with my parents) by a Marine recruiter who said I would be going active duty with the Marines. Some rule, unknown to anybody I've ever met, said they could grab me out of the National Guard since I wanted to go active duty and intra-service transfer me to the Marines. The summer after my senior year of high school I went to boot camp at MCRD San Diego. In 1986 I was processed out of the service with a Medical Discharge. Seems breaking your back in multiple places in the 1980s was reason to out process me.

Flash forward to a little disturbance in the Middle East called Desert Storm. I was visited by a nice Marine Corps captain, about three months before actual hostilities broke out, at home who noticed I was a "disabled" veteran who was a serving law enforcement officer. He said that I still owed the marine corps the balance of my time and since I was "healthy" there would be no barrier to me entering service at my original rank or even maybe picking up a stripe. I told him I would think about it, he never returned, in the back of my mind I thought it was a joke.

Zoom forward a decade plus some to 2003. During Christmas I received an email from the United States Navy Reserve Officer, Recruiting Office, Indianapolis Indiana. The letter had all my dates of service, information only retrievable from my SRB, and information about my education. It said that I had the option of returning to active duty as a corporal, or accepting their tendered officer of a junior reserve officer position to serve out the remainder of my contract. In what I figured was an elaborate joke I ignored it. I got another letter scheduling me for a meeting in Indianapolis (why not Chicago?) and I ignored that one too.

As a card carrying member of the UFS (ugly, fat, slow) Club I can't imagine I would be of interest to the military. If not an elaborate joke. I figure my name was on a list, if so I was a contact with no response, and therefore helped some poor recruiter make numbers. There seems to be a lot of guys getting snatched out of the woodwork unsuspecting, but at the same time I don't figure they are scraping the bottom of the barrel yet. I'm still walking around.

It really sucks to see families hurt by the response to low man-power. I figured if I ever was actually called back, my family would have to adapt, my wife would have to learn how to be a military spouse (something she's never done), and it would suck. But dang, if family is remote, that is a choice. If you've got kids and a commitment that is a choice. Having kids while on active duty is a choice, and having plans if deployed for those kids is a responsibility. If subject to recall than I guess having a contingency plan no matter the infinitesimal likelihood is just a good idea. From what I remember in my Scotch soaked and befuddled brain the military expects you to adapt to their needs not the other way around. It is like a rule or something.

The one I'll focus on...

How aggressively did the Army Reserve Personnel system solict volunteers from the IRR and other Reserve elements?

My experience and observation has been than reserve involuntary callups/mobilizations/activations are arbitrary, and possess only the most tenuous connection to rational thought. Especially given the current economic climate, I cannot believe that there was no retiree, IRR, or other reservist that possessed the right qualifications but wouldn't volunteer. Especially given that a position can be filled by a soldier one or two ranks below or one rank above the position to be filled (so, hypothetically, a captain's slot could be filled by a 2LT, a 1LT, a CPT, or a MAJ). The single best example I can cite from first hand experience is an NCO, a Viet Nam vet, called up to fill an MOS he hadn't served in since Viet Nam. He was called up to fill an NBC NCO slot, and in Viet Nam, as an NBC MOS soldier, he had crewed a flame track. But he had the right secondary MOS and grade, so it was all the personnelists needed...

On the other hand, I actively campaigned for active duty tours and was told to sit down, be quiet, and go to drills.

If the Army wants high quality people, the Army needs a high quality personnel system, not a stockyard management system.

Looks like she's going to be discharged. Great for her, not so much for the military with the press this story received.

My son is an 11B with two tours to Iraq under his belt and about 5 years of active service. He just re-enlisted for 2 years. In talking about his plans he mentioned that he might extend out to 8 full years to avoid getting yanked out of college by the Army.

I asked what he meant, and he told me his unit (2/27th Infantry, 25th ID)was full of guys who had done their time, ETS'd and were going to college on the GI Bill when they got recalled to active duty due to their IRR obligation. Kids are becoming fatalistic that there is no sense in getting out as the Army will just pull you back in again.

I haven't seen anything in the news on this (like there has been on the whole Stop-loss issue), but it sounds like we may be relying far too heavily on the legal strings we have on these vets and dragging them back in with what is essentially a draft, instead of doing the hard work to recruit non-vets to serve.

What say you, SWJ community? How prevalent is this?

Bob,
I saw it first hand in 2006. A soldier who was attached to my company during OIF 1 ETS'd out of the Army after serving his time 3 or 4 yrs. Got out went to college and then was called back via his IRR commitment to help build up 4/1 ID at Riley. He was a 96R GSR guy which the Army was downsizing as a MOS before 2004 time frame. Brought back in same MOS which was even mor epuzzling to me. I know when we were training Advisors at Riley I saw it with several officers that were recalled due to their IRR time. Unfortunately for one of them he was killed the following year in Afghanistan by an IED. Yes it does happen with the recall no if ands or buts about it.

Kelly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I don't think that anyone (or at least very few) join the Army with the intention of dodging their obligations but the IRR is just not a well thought out system. Basically, you are telling these people that for upwards of six years after they get out they have to be prepared for the very slim possibility that they will have to drop everything at a moments notice and report back to duty. Come on. That's just ridiculous.

---

Not at all.

The ridiculous thing in the story is the war.

Nobody would think that such a thing as an IRR would be a bad idea if it was about a war of necessity. Europeans were used to the idea that they could be called up for 25 years after leaving the army - and almost all of them didn't even volunteer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

That old model is built on the assumption of a "nuclear" family with a single, male military wage-earner and an at-home spouse being the norm. That's not the case anymore and this story is another example of that broken system IMO.

---

So..is the modern family the broken system or is the Army?