• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Soldier Mom Refusing to Report to Active Duty

Soldier mom to report for duty with kids

N.C. woman decides against leaving family behind, refusing orders

DAVIDSON, N.C. - A North Carolina woman who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged was braving the winter storm pounding the Southeast to report for duty, with her children by her side.

Lisa Pagan was driving to Fort Benning on Sunday, and said in a phone interview she hoped to reach the Georgia post by early evening.

Pagan is among thousands of former service members who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks, only to be recalled to service. She appealed, arguing that because her husband travels for business, no one else can take care of her kids. All were rejected, leaving Pagan with what she said was a choice between deploying to Iraq and abandoning her family, or refusing her orders and potentially facing charges.

"I have to bring them with me," she said Saturday. "I don't have a choice."

Obligations and commitments:
Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, an Army spokesman in St. Louis, said the commander at Fort Benning will decide how to handle the situation.

"The Army tries to look at the whole picture and they definitely don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the family or jeopardizes the children," O'Donnell said. "At the same time, these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country."

Of the 25,000 individual ready reserve troops recalled since September 2001, more than 7,500 have been granted deferments or exemptions, O'Donnell said. About 1,000 have failed to report. O'Donnell said most of those cases are still under investigation, while 360 soldiers have been separated from the Army either through "other than honorable" discharges or general discharges.

He said Pagan is not likely to face charges, since none of the individual ready reserve soldiers who have failed to report faced a court-martial.

Pagan, who grew up near Camden, N.J., was working in a department store when she made her commitment in September 2002. She learned how to drive a truck, and met Travis while stationed in Hawaii. She had her first child while in uniform, and they left the service in 2005 when their enlistments were up.

She always knew there was a chance she could be recalled, so she buried the thought in the back of her mind.

"When I enlisted, they said almost nobody gets called back when you're in the IRR," she said.

The young family settled outside of Charlotte in the college town of Davidson, where Travis landed a job as a salesman. It required lots of travel, but that was OK ? Pagan enjoyed her life as a stay-at-home mom to their son Eric and second child, a daughter named Elizabeth.

She opened a child-care center in her home, and started taking classes at nearby Fayetteville State.

Mom makes her plea:
The orders to return to active duty arrived in December 2007. She told the Army there was no one to take care of her children: Her husband spent most of his time on the road, and they believe quitting his job is a sure path to bankruptcy and foreclosure. Her parents live in New Jersey and her husband's parents live in Texas. Neither are able to help out. The Army was not persuaded.

Pagan hired attorney Mark Waple, who filed another appeal, which included a letter from Travis Pagan's employer that said bluntly: "In order for Travis to remain an employee, he will be required to travel." In December 2008, her appeal was again rejected.

"It's the obligation of commanders to make certain that service members have a valid family care plan and that clearly has not happened in Lisa's case," Waple said.

Tom Tarantino, a policy associate with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonprofit group that helps veterans, said the Army has taken a hard line on many of these cases.

"Usually the only way that someone can get out of the deployment or get out of the military due to a family hardship is if they get into a situation where the kids will be put into foster care," Tarantino said.

"That's how serious it has to be, and I'm sure what the military is telling her ? and I'm not saying that this is exactly the right answer ? but the fact that it is inconvenient for her husband's job is not the military's problem. It's very harsh."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29441874/


I do think the army needs some way for kids to be taken care of if the ONLY parent is going to be away on active duty but there is a father also. They know that there is always that chance to be called back to duty again. She took that chance and she has to go on active duty. The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids. Not thinking you'd get called back for active duty is not an excuse. I wonder how many men this happens to???



Time to pay the piper. People were warned a lock would happen if civility did not return. It didn't and now we're done with this.

Hayabusa Rider Senior AnandTech Moderator
 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Soldier mom to report for duty with kids

N.C. woman decides against leaving family behind, refusing orders

DAVIDSON, N.C. - A North Carolina woman who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged was braving the winter storm pounding the Southeast to report for duty, with her children by her side.

Lisa Pagan was driving to Fort Benning on Sunday, and said in a phone interview she hoped to reach the Georgia post by early evening.

Pagan is among thousands of former service members who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks, only to be recalled to service. She appealed, arguing that because her husband travels for business, no one else can take care of her kids. All were rejected, leaving Pagan with what she said was a choice between deploying to Iraq and abandoning her family, or refusing her orders and potentially facing charges.

"I have to bring them with me," she said Saturday. "I don't have a choice."

Obligations and commitments:
Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, an Army spokesman in St. Louis, said the commander at Fort Benning will decide how to handle the situation.

"The Army tries to look at the whole picture and they definitely don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the family or jeopardizes the children," O'Donnell said. "At the same time, these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country."

Of the 25,000 individual ready reserve troops recalled since September 2001, more than 7,500 have been granted deferments or exemptions, O'Donnell said. About 1,000 have failed to report. O'Donnell said most of those cases are still under investigation, while 360 soldiers have been separated from the Army either through "other than honorable" discharges or general discharges.

He said Pagan is not likely to face charges, since none of the individual ready reserve soldiers who have failed to report faced a court-martial.

Pagan, who grew up near Camden, N.J., was working in a department store when she made her commitment in September 2002. She learned how to drive a truck, and met Travis while stationed in Hawaii. She had her first child while in uniform, and they left the service in 2005 when their enlistments were up.

She always knew there was a chance she could be recalled, so she buried the thought in the back of her mind.

"When I enlisted, they said almost nobody gets called back when you're in the IRR," she said.

The young family settled outside of Charlotte in the college town of Davidson, where Travis landed a job as a salesman. It required lots of travel, but that was OK ? Pagan enjoyed her life as a stay-at-home mom to their son Eric and second child, a daughter named Elizabeth.

She opened a child-care center in her home, and started taking classes at nearby Fayetteville State.

Mom makes her plea:
The orders to return to active duty arrived in December 2007. She told the Army there was no one to take care of her children: Her husband spent most of his time on the road, and they believe quitting his job is a sure path to bankruptcy and foreclosure. Her parents live in New Jersey and her husband's parents live in Texas. Neither are able to help out. The Army was not persuaded.

Pagan hired attorney Mark Waple, who filed another appeal, which included a letter from Travis Pagan's employer that said bluntly: "In order for Travis to remain an employee, he will be required to travel." In December 2008, her appeal was again rejected.

"It's the obligation of commanders to make certain that service members have a valid family care plan and that clearly has not happened in Lisa's case," Waple said.

Tom Tarantino, a policy associate with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonprofit group that helps veterans, said the Army has taken a hard line on many of these cases.

"Usually the only way that someone can get out of the deployment or get out of the military due to a family hardship is if they get into a situation where the kids will be put into foster care," Tarantino said.

"That's how serious it has to be, and I'm sure what the military is telling her ? and I'm not saying that this is exactly the right answer ? but the fact that it is inconvenient for her husband's job is not the military's problem. It's very harsh."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29441874/


I do think the army needs some way for kids to be taken care of if the ONLY parent is going to be away on active duty but there is a father also. They know that there is always that chance to be called back to duty again. She took that chance and she has to go on active duty. The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids. Not thinking you'd get called back for active duty is not an excuse. I wonder how many men this happens to???

I spent 11 years in the Army (9 active duty), so while I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the convenience of her and her husband, I do think it would make sense for them to find her a job stateside - the negative PR would be caused by deploying her just isn't worth it since her MOS (88M - motor transport operator a.k.a. truck driver) isn't very specialized. They could cross-train someonen else to do that pretty easily and honestly, she could do just as much good working in a recruiting station or something.
 
The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids.

You support him collecting welfare and getting food stamps to do this, right?

Thanks Bush administration, for mismanaging Iraq so badly that honorably discharged moms that already served 4 years are needed to keep the meat grinder fed.
 
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids.

You support him collecting welfare and getting food stamps to do this, right?

Thanks Bush administration, for mismanaging Iraq so badly that honorably discharged moms that already served 4 years are needed to keep the meat grinder fed.

how the fuck... you lefties will blame anything possible on bush, and then bitch when someone tries to place blame on your ever amazing clinton or obama...

 
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids.

You support him collecting welfare and getting food stamps to do this, right?

Thanks Bush administration, for mismanaging Iraq so badly that honorably discharged moms that already served 4 years are needed to keep the meat grinder fed.

how the fuck... you lefties will blame anything possible on bush, and then bitch when someone tries to place blame on your ever amazing clinton or obama...

So you think the need for massive use of stop-loss, sending national guard units offshore, and recalls of reservists (including 40-55 year olds) has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq? All righty then.
 
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The father needs to quit his job and take care of the kids.

You support him collecting welfare and getting food stamps to do this, right?

Thanks Bush administration, for mismanaging Iraq so badly that honorably discharged moms that already served 4 years are needed to keep the meat grinder fed.

how the fuck... you lefties will blame anything possible on bush, and then bitch when someone tries to place blame on your ever amazing clinton or obama...

The righties have been blaming this country's problems on Clinton for the last 8 years. Blaming Obama is extremely premature, seeing as he has only been in office for a little over a month.
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.

I heartily agree with this for two reasons. 1.) They are signing a contract that could lead to them being killed, and 2.) Military recruiters are liars. Horrible, horrible liars.

I would bet right now that a substantial percentage of people signing these military contracts don't know they are actually signing up for 8 years. While people in the end are responsible for what they sign, I think our government has a duty to make sure that people know what they are signing up for.
 
When I enlisted back in 91 my recruiter really downplayed the 8 year obligation as well as a few other key items. Fortunately my 3 years of inactive RR were uneventful.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: marincounty
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.

I heartily agree with this for two reasons. 1.) They are signing a contract that could lead to them being killed, and 2.) Military recruiters are liars. Horrible, horrible liars.

I would bet right now that a substantial percentage of people signing these military contracts don't know they are actually signing up for 8 years. While people in the end are responsible for what they sign, I think our government has a duty to make sure that people know what they are signing up for.

It's called reading what you are signing. It's these same stupid people that signed off on these housing loans without reading them.
 
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.
The contracts are very straightforward, however the implications change depending on the situation. The IRR commitment is a non-issue during times of peace, but has a whole different significance during times of war.

PR wise, it doesn't make sense for the military to pursue this, and the article clearly indicates that the Army has yet to court martial any soldiers who failed to report for duty when called up on the IRR.


 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: marincounty
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.

I heartily agree with this for two reasons. 1.) They are signing a contract that could lead to them being killed, and 2.) Military recruiters are liars. Horrible, horrible liars.

I would bet right now that a substantial percentage of people signing these military contracts don't know they are actually signing up for 8 years. While people in the end are responsible for what they sign, I think our government has a duty to make sure that people know what they are signing up for.

It's called reading what you are signing. It's these same stupid people that signed off on these housing loans without reading them.

Right, what's your point?

The government is supposed to act in the interests of its citizens. It is clear that as it currently stands, large numbers of those citizens are not aware of all the stipulations of their contracts. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask the government to help further clarify this matter.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: marincounty
Be careful of what you sign your name to. There also should be a requirement that a lawyer be consulted to examine the contracts that enlistees sign.

I heartily agree with this for two reasons. 1.) They are signing a contract that could lead to them being killed, and 2.) Military recruiters are liars. Horrible, horrible liars.

I would bet right now that a substantial percentage of people signing these military contracts don't know they are actually signing up for 8 years. While people in the end are responsible for what they sign, I think our government has a duty to make sure that people know what they are signing up for.

It's called reading what you are signing. It's these same stupid people that signed off on these housing loans without reading them.

Right, what's your point?

The government is supposed to act in the interests of its citizens. It is clear that as it currently stands, large numbers of those citizens are not aware of all the stipulations of their contracts. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask the government to help further clarify this matter.

She knew what she was getting into when she put her name on those papers......no sympathy here!!
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy

I heartily agree with this for two reasons. 1.) They are signing a contract that could lead to them being killed, and 2.) Military recruiters are liars. Horrible, horrible liars.

agreed 100%!

they intentionally not record the recruiting process so the recruitors can lie... from personally experience.. wasted 3 yrs of my life.

oral contract means nothing in military.

especially now that we are withdrawing from war, we should not be sending people over.
 
Sh*ty situation. I have to wonder if a lot of people who join the military don't realize how terribly upheaving it can be to family life. I think that is the key reason against joining the military. Nothing like missing most of your kids' first years of life, eh? Sounds like a damn awful thing leaving your new baby and saying "see you in a year!".
 
She's got a husband? Own up lady, it sucks but you have an alternative. You'll get paid while your husband watches the kids.
 
To me the welfare of the kids is way more important to the country than having an additional truck driver for a year or two. In this case, there is nobody else to raise the kids, unless dad stays home, and that would mean losing his job and thus upending the family home for the kids. That makes no sense to me.

I understand commitments and such, but family and children are more important -- period.
 
If she signed the single parent/military married to military paperwork stating that she is responsible for making arrangements for her children should she get deployed, she is out of luck.
 
Originally posted by: Dingster1
If she signed the single parent/military married to military paperwork stating that she is responsible for making arrangements for her children should she get deployed, she is out of luck.

and do what with the kids?

having the father quit his job is not the answere. then what? the goverment is going to support them.

best situation is put her in ajob stateside.

but htey really need to redo how they handle females in the milatary.
 
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Dingster1
If she signed the single parent/military married to military paperwork stating that she is responsible for making arrangements for her children should she get deployed, she is out of luck.

and do what with the kids?

having the father quit his job is not the answere. then what? the goverment is going to support them.

best situation is put her in ajob stateside.

but htey really need to redo how they handle females in the milatary.

Exactly. Using an antiquated model or a "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work.

I know she signed on the dotted line, I don't have a problem with the military making people live up to their commitments... but life situations change. Nobody can look 8 years into the future and know for sure that there might not be a life situation change that could impact them in the next 8 years.
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
To me the welfare of the kids is way more important to the country than having an additional truck driver for a year or two. In this case, there is nobody else to raise the kids, unless dad stays home, and that would mean losing his job and thus upending the family home for the kids. That makes no sense to me.

I understand commitments and such, but family and children are more important -- period.

Then she should get a discharge..... other then "honorable". That's the only fair thing to do considering how much time others have had to spend deployed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
 
That's idiotic,
I'd think it's more of an oversight on the army's part rather than the general policy. If there's no one to take care of your kids, how do you expect them to manage it?
 
Back
Top