WT - Soldier Wins Discharge, Drops Lawsuit
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050429-124433-6295r.htm
Washington Times
April 29, 2005 Pg. 8
Soldier Wins Discharge, Drops Lawsuit
POTSDAM -- The Army honorably discharged a reserve officer who had gone to court to challenge his assignment to Iraq, saying he had properly resigned more than a year earlier.
Carl A. Petitto, 32, dropped his lawsuit against the Army after securing his honorable discharge, which took effect yesterday.
This is one of the several cases where someone in the Army has realized they're engaging in moving the goalposts around in an ex-post-facto fashion and done the right thing. It's one thing to be unable to separate from service due to a stop-loss order, quite another to have one imposed on you after you've actually separated.
Yes, I'm now aware that the contractual obligations allow for one to be extended for the duration, but if one's already separated before one is extended, how does that work. Recalling someone is one thing, if they're in a status which can be legally recalled, such as the IRR or Retired Reserve; but a draft or some other legislation would seem to be indicated in order to access those no longer under either contractual or statutory obligation.
"I feel like I have a new lease on life," said Mr. Petitto, who resigned as a first lieutenant to run two health care centers in rural northern New York.
Mr. Petitto, who filed for resignation in February 2004 after serving 14 years of active and reservist duty for the Army and Navy, was to report for duty on March 24 and faced deployment to Iraq for at least a year and a half.
Washington Times
April 29, 2005 Pg. 8
Soldier Wins Discharge, Drops Lawsuit
POTSDAM -- The Army honorably discharged a reserve officer who had gone to court to challenge his assignment to Iraq, saying he had properly resigned more than a year earlier.
Carl A. Petitto, 32, dropped his lawsuit against the Army after securing his honorable discharge, which took effect yesterday.
This is one of the several cases where someone in the Army has realized they're engaging in moving the goalposts around in an ex-post-facto fashion and done the right thing. It's one thing to be unable to separate from service due to a stop-loss order, quite another to have one imposed on you after you've actually separated.
Yes, I'm now aware that the contractual obligations allow for one to be extended for the duration, but if one's already separated before one is extended, how does that work. Recalling someone is one thing, if they're in a status which can be legally recalled, such as the IRR or Retired Reserve; but a draft or some other legislation would seem to be indicated in order to access those no longer under either contractual or statutory obligation.
"I feel like I have a new lease on life," said Mr. Petitto, who resigned as a first lieutenant to run two health care centers in rural northern New York.
Mr. Petitto, who filed for resignation in February 2004 after serving 14 years of active and reservist duty for the Army and Navy, was to report for duty on March 24 and faced deployment to Iraq for at least a year and a half.
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 6:19 AM
1 Comments:
My husband and I are facing just such a battle with the army (lower case as a show of complete and total disrespect for the leadership of this institution). My husband has been illegally recalled after completing his MSO in June of 2003. We have just about run out of options with the Delay and Exemption Board (giggles at mention of this farcical group). Our next stop...federal court.
Post a Comment
<< Home