Refused deployment, not being court-martialed but discharged

[Joe_Ryder]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

You're the one comparing WWII to today.

Since I work on an Army base, I'm a little closer to the ground than you are.
Everyone looks at every job with an economic focus.
From the whining I hear, they didn't look too hard.

Are they serving for free?
Not from the AFAP meetings I attend.

Are you saying that people don't look at the money they're going to make? The educational benefits? The free health care?
That's what recruiters talk with them about.

Yes I'm comparing. I'm not quite sure why you find that so amazing. If the two were identical then comparison would be pointless.

Some do indeed go in looking only at the bennies and they're not hard to spot. When the reality that the military involves danger and the real possibility of getting killed, they seem quite surprised. But you claimed almost all did. I know too many retired, deployed, reserve, etc. soldiers to believe that statement for even a second.

You are indeed closer to the ground than I am at this time but at one time I was actually on the ground. With that in mind, those are the types I'd just as soon have discharged when push comes to shove because whether I support their poor decision making paradigms or not, they are a hazard to a real soldier who may be there for many different reasons. My reason was to travel the world but I knew the day might come. I had no problem with that but the last person I'd want in my crew would be someone looking for a way out. She should be discharged. I really don't care what type of discharge she gets as long as she's out. Usually basic training culls the misfits and slackers but sometimes they squeak through. That's a failing of the screening process.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm defending this girl. She has no honor and she's a coward which is a very good reason for her to be discharged.

But back to my original point... The fact is that she is a single parent with no one to care for her child. The military has for at least a century discharged hardship cases and though I have no respect for this girl, I see no reason why her case is so unusual and why it's getting so much press. Is she the first? Sorry, she just happened to catch a reporter's attention.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by faabala

No need to send her to jail but she should be discharged. Sounds like there was evidence she was using the child care issue to get out of deployment. If so then all Veterans benefits should be taken away.

I thynik teh military needs to lok at the issue of investing and trainign cost and likelyhood that such females would not be able to serve what they signed up for in recruiting really.

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by california-jewel

I cannot feel sorry for her, because these people hands are not being tied down, to serve. Everyone who signs up to serve, i guess needs a back up plan. Because so many things can and do change after you sign up. There was no way baby or no baby, she was ever going to deploy. The Army does require all Single parent Solidgers to submit to a plan for dependent children. Before they get ready to deploy. If they make exceptions in this case, then should they for the next that is identical to this case.

What should the answer be!

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by RjRobb2

Did you read the article? She joined the Army in 2007 and her son is 13 months old so she had her child after signing up.

She had a plan for the child and it fell through. Do you expect her to allow her child to go into foster care?

Your kids comes first. I dont care if you are in the military or not.

Ya they probably should have discharged her when she first got knocked up. .obviously wasn't taking her commitment seriously was she?