|
Hundreds Of Reservists Balk At Involuntary Call-Up
POSTED: 5:51 pm EDT October 1, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Army is getting a grudging response -- or none at all --
from hundreds of former soldiers it ordered back into uniform for duty in Iraq
and Afghanistan, although none has been declared AWOL.
Army officials said Friday that 622 people, about one-third of the 1,765 Individual
Ready Reserve members who were supposed to report for duty by Sept. 28, failed
to show up. Some requested more time. Others wanted to be excused entirely.
Some have not responded at all.
The no-show rate is approximately what the Army anticipated when it announced
the call-up last June, and officials said Friday they believe some no-shows
eventually will turn up.
"No one is considered AWOL at this point."
- Brig. Gen. Sean J. Byrne
That the Army has had to reach this deeply into its store of reserve soldiers
is a measure of the strain the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have put on the
active-duty Army. When the U.S. invading force toppled Baghdad in April 2003,
the Army thought it would be sending most of its soldiers home within months.
Instead, it has kept 100,000 or more there ever since.
Brig. Gen. Sean J. Byrne of the Army's personnel office in the Pentagon told
reporters the Army was "pretty much on track" to getting the 4,402 IRR soldiers
it expects to need to fill positions in active-duty and National Guard and
Reserve units between now and next spring.
However, another official, Robert H. Smiley, told the same news conference
it was too early to rule out the possibility of expanding the IRR call-up to
reach the 4,402 target.
"We're going to have to track this on an almost daily basis," Smiley said.
Smiley also said a separate call-up of several thousand more is likely next
summer or fall because there will be more slots to fill in the force that rotates
into Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006.
Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are rarely called to active duty. The
last time was 1990, when nearly 20,000 were mobilized. IRR members are people
who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually
four to six years, but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment
they made when they joined the Army. They are separate from the reserve troops
who are more routinely mobilized -- the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army anticipated, based on past experience, that about one-third of the
IRR people it called up would be disqualified for medical or other reasons.
The trend so far bears that out. Thus the Army is calculating it will take
5,765 call-ups to get the 4,402 it needs.
A separate problem is those who simply refuse to report. Byrne said he did
not know how many have refused, but he disavowed recent statements of other
Army officials that at least six no-shows have been listed as Absent Without
Leave, or AWOL. He would not say how much leeway the Army will give no-shows
before they are declared AWOL and subject to prosecution.
"We're trying to deal with every individual case to make sure that we're giving
everyone appropriate time to rectify whatever situation they may have," Byrne
said. "No one is considered AWOL at this point."
A total of 3,899 IRR soldiers have been contacted since July and given a report
date as late as March 2005. Of that total, 1,498 have asked for a delay or
an exemption based on a wide range of issues including medical, financial and
personal problems, officials said.
The Army has approved about 350 of those requests and rejected 26, said Raymond
Robinson, chief of staff for the Army's top uniformed personnel officer. He
said the 26 have been told to report for duty, and it was not clear what would
happen if they did not.
Of the approximately 350 approvals, 239 were for outright exemptions, meaning
they will not have to come on active duty, Robinson said. As an example, Smiley
cited a person who is already in Iraq as a Defense Department civilian employee.
Others have been exempted for personal financial hardships and for medical
reasons.
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Anonymous Sender wrote:
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:37:32 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
|
| |
| |
Jake Bradley wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:37:32 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
|
| |
| |
|
