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.
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.
Bookmarks