| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Army medic, mom faces punishment |
| 2003-11-07 |
| EFL Simone Holcombâs choice was between duty and family. She chose family, and now the military may punish her. Holcomb, an Army medic married to an Army sergeant, refused an order to return to duty in Iraq because it could have meant losing two of their seven children in a custody battle. "For me to get on a plane and abandon my children would be against the law,â Holcomb said Wednesday. âAnd I donât know how any parent on Earth could leave without knowing how theyâre going to be taken care of.â Her commanders in Iraq have told her by e-mail that she is absent without leave, she said. Holcomb, 30, and her husband, Sgt. 1st Class Vaughn Holcomb, 40, lived with their children at Fort Carson near Colorado Springs when both were sent to Iraq in February. Family members were taking care of their children, but the couple returned on emergency leave in September when Vaughn Holcombâs ex-wife went to court to get full custody of two of the children from their previous marriage. A judge said one of the Holcombs had to remain home or they would lose custody. Simone Holcomb said she decided to stay because she is a reservist while her husband has 20 years of active-duty service and is near retirement. I couldnât link to the direct article. Its on the linked page under "local/state" |
| Posted by:Yosemite Sam |
| #15 OP and SgtDT, No the SCRA will not put the kids on the street. The story was that the kids were being cared for by relatives. And since the Mom had to deploy the Judge could not rule that the mom had to stay or lose the kids. Every NCO is required to know some basics about the UCMJ. The SSCRA is one of the first things the tell you about in the Military. I feel for her, but it sounds like she is going about this the wrong way. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2003-11-7 10:09:27 PM |
| #14 One of the big problems in the military is that there are always a few things that people don't get trained on. The UCMJ, individual rights and responsibilities within the legal framework of the United States military, and how to respond to civilian/military disputes is one of the biggies. I've had two or three subordinates get in trouble, and come to me with their sad tale. I'd usually ask a few questions, then say something like, "did you do 'this', or did you see the SJA??" The answer was usually, "Huh?" The kids don't have a clue. Usually by the time it gets to the legal people, it's too late, but sometimes you can put a stop to nonsense simply by learning the facts, and talking to the right people. Unfortunately, there are a number of people in our society that like to cause trouble. The number of judges that have eased themselves into that group is astounding, and depressing. The anti-military sentiment in some parts of our society is abysmal. Whenever we find one of these sick toads, we need to stomp it, hard. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-7 8:56:23 PM |
| #13 As a former Juvenile Court Bench Officer, I disagree. There is probably more to it, but, if the children are at risk and the relatives are no longer caring for them, the judge doesn't have the authority to order Mom not to return to duty, but he does have the authority to take the children into custody. Just because mom and dad are overseas doesn't mean the children are entitled to live on the street. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2003-11-7 7:33:57 PM |
| #12 Ed, After 20 years in the military nothing surprises me. But Judges can't randomly pick out troops and haul them into court. There has to be some pretext. But I can assure you that the first judge that tried to subvert the SCRA would find himself taken off the bench. NO elected official wants to be on the wrong side of that act, it would be political suicide. All this medic would have to do is file with the base JAG/ADC and they would have a FEDERAL Judge suspend everything. I have seen it happen many times, even with guys that really didn't deserve it (IMHO). |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-7 7:05:37 PM |
| #11 The only trouble with the Civil Relief Act is that some local judges try to subvert it, considering it a slur upon their judgement and an unfair restraint upon their judicial powers. They seem to take the concept of "the military is subservient to civilian control" to the extreme. I can't tell you where or when, for understandable reasons, but I was there when a local judge got into a pissing contest with a base commander. The judge did his level best to make life hell for any GI who set foot off the base, and flatly, PUBLICALLY, told the base commander that the harrassment would not end until the commander admitted to the judge's right to tell the military what to do. This didn't end until the spat rose to the point of being noticed by the governor of the state, who took steps to remove the judge from the bench. Last I heard, the little would-be legal tyrant was pouting about it ten years later. Ed Becerra |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-11-7 5:11:25 PM |
| #10 Forgot to link to the Civil Relief Act: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/Relief_Act_Revision/ |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-7 2:08:52 PM |
| #9 The fact that she went the congressional route shows one of two things: She didn't try to use the chain-of-command or wanted to subvert it. No one likes (including Congress) when they have to play Mommy for someone who should know better. P.S. She cannot have her children taken away from her. In fact NO legal decision can be made on her while she is deployed. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2003-11-7 1:45:36 PM |
| #8 After reviewing the article, the following caught my eye: The Army requires two-soldier families to agree on custody plans before deployments so that children are taken care of, said Col. Rich Thomas of Army Forces Central Command in Atlanta. Seems to me that the Army had this figured out from the beginning, and that the judge's actions in the custody case were terribly inappropriate, to say the least. In matters regarding active deployment, it is absolutely ludicrous to put military personnel in a position where their responsibilities for their children and their military service obligations are in obvious conflict. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-7 1:28:43 PM |
| #7 Excuse my ignorance, but aren't there laws protecting soldiers in cases like this? I mean, when you're called to active duty, should the courts but a hold on any cases you're involved in? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-7 1:21:53 PM |
| #6 Here's more from the story: Army officials in the United States said they could not confirm Simone Holcomb's status without talking to her unit commanders in Iraq. Officials said the punishment for going AWOL ranges up to discharge or imprisonment. Holcomb said she has been told only that she would forfeit all her pay since disobeying the order to return to Iraq, but hasn't been told what other measures she might face. That sounds better, AWOL punishments under UCMJ can be pretty flexible. Sounds like a slap on the wrist from the commander, just taking the pay for duty she missed. The Army inspector general is reviewing the case, said a spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who intervened at Simone Holcomb's request. Oops, she went Congressional on them. Holcomb said her commanders had been sympathetic, extending her leave when the court process dragged. She still thought they would help even after they rejected her request to be taken off active duty on Oct. 3, within hours of the final custody hearing. From reading the whole story, I'd say it's much ado about very little. She's gonna get a slap on the wrist and discharged. The DOD stills needs to fight this judge's order tooth and nail, this could affect a lot of other divorced military personnel. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-11-7 12:53:11 PM |
| #5 I agree that this is pathetic all around. The Army should back up S Holcomb in the short term, but she should be discharged ASAP once the custody problems are cleared up. Its obvious with her family situation she is unable to adequately perform her duties as a reservist. |
| Posted by: Dakotah 2003-11-7 12:36:55 PM |
| #4 My sentiment is that the Army should have evaluated the situation before calling up BOTH husband and wife BAR, if you read the story again you'll see that she is the reservist (medic) and her husband is active duty. While they were on the same base, they most likely were not in the same unit. Something smells ripe about this, I can't see the unit commander not approving one or the other parent staying behind until this is worked out. It sounds like she just decided to stay behind without asking. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-11-7 12:27:21 PM |
| #3 The Army should go to bat for her. This is unfair and reflects as poorly on the military as it does on the judge. |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-7 11:41:41 AM |
| #2 A judge said one of the Holcombs had to remain home or they would lose custody. Pardon my French, but this is simply bullshit. For a judge to force this kind of choice is inexcusable. Simone Holcomb hould have her head examined for having seven children and still staying in the reserves when there was real possiblity of both parents being shipped overseas. My sentiment is that the Army should have evaluated the situation before calling up BOTH husband and wife. I see nothing wrong with both being Army reservists, but it makes no sense to call them both up when major combat operations are no longer in effect, and the situation isn't a dire one. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-7 11:24:49 AM |
| #1 "A judge said one of the Holcombs had to remain home or they would lose custody". That judge should be disbarred if the legal profession had any sense of honor and patriotism. The ex-wife should become a pariah in her community for making this gambit during the war.Simone Holcomb hould have her head examined for having seven children and still staying in the reserves when there was real possiblity of both parents being shipped overseas. This story is pathetic all around. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-7 11:07:11 AM |