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

[Entropy]

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.

[LawVol]

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.

[Uboat509]

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

[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?

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.

[Uboat509]

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.

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

[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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

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.

[J Wolfsberger]

... 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.

[Rank amateur]

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

[Ken White]

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.

[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.

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

[Fuchs]

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!

[sapperfitz82]

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?

[Stevely]

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

Precisely this.