Since 2002, about 50,000 regular Army and part-time National Guard and Reserve soldiers have extended into involuntary service under the Army’s stop-loss program, per a Reuters Alertnet article out yesterday.

Says Will Dunham,

When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military.

Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.

As Dunham relates later in the article, recent court challenges to the stop-loss policy have failed. Last week, a case filed by two Army National Guard soldiers (David Qualls and Rafael Perez) was dismissed in U.S. District Court.

In sum,

[The judge] said Qualls' claim was moot because he voluntarily re-enlisted in the military shortly after filing suit.

The judge said Perez's enlistment contract made clear that the Army might extend his service, and there was no evidence that his recruiter misled him.

Perez was enlisted under the Army National Guard’s “Try One in the Guard” program, “which allows a veteran to serve for only one year on a trial basis before committing to a full enlistment.”

Judge Royce C. Lamberth says, in the Memorandum Opinion issued on the case on Jan. 24,

• Perez' contract put him on notice that the Army might extend his service.
• The parties understood that laws and regulations not set forth in the contract would govern (the “stop loss” policy).
• Because Perez had previous military experience he should have been “familiar with the conditions in which service may be involuntarily extended.”

But the paragraph in the Opinion that particularly strikes me is the following:

Furthermore, the Court can find no fraudulent misrepresentation in the recruiter’s explanation of the “Try One” program. There is nothing in the record that showed the recruiter misled Perez, or indeed, told him anything that was inconsistent with his enlistment contract. Perez interpreted his rights and duties after talking with his recruiter differently from the terms in his enlistment contract. But like most recruiters in the military, Perez’s recruiter did not discuss the rare occurrences of the military’s “stop loss” policy nor did Perez ask about that policy. As unfortunate as this may be, there was no affirmative misrepresentation made by his recruiter. After all, the recruiter was not dealing with a brand new enlistee out of high school but rather a veteran.

I’m not a lawyer and I am not intending to make a legal argument here. But two thoughts come to my mind as I read this:

1. The breeziness of the program title (Yo, dude, “Try One”…what can it hurt?) and the characterization of it as something that is “on a trial basis” is certainly a bit of a misrepresentation. Perhaps, for ethics' sake, we need a pharma-ad-like disclaimer.

   Strong, determined male voice: You’re a veteran, but you don’t want to stop fighting for freedom. You still want to represent something greater than yourself. But you’re not sure if continued service will fit in with your family life, your career. Why don’t you just “Try One” year? That’s right, with our “Try One in the Guard” program, you can join the Army National Guard on a trial basis before you commit to a full enlistment. Test it out – see if it’s right for you!

   Hurried, dismissive voice: The Try One program may result in an involuntary extension of your service of up to 18 extra months. Side effects may include: deployment to a war zone, dizziness, shortness of breath, heatstroke, economic instability for your family, post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, dismemberment or death.

2. Rare occurrences? Seems like a slap in the face to the 50,000 soldiers who have been extended.