| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| ’AWOL Mom’ May Be Given Guard Duty |
| 2003-11-13 |
| This story has gone on long enough, just the new stuff: In the Holcomb family, it was the part-time soldier who went to war first. Simone Holcomb, 30, a medic with the Colorado National Guard, was mobilized with her medical team and sent to the Middle East in January. First Sgt. Vaughn Holcomb, 40, stayed with the children at their home at Fort Carson until he, too, was ordered to the front in April with his unit of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. The Army required the couple to present a family-care plan before the deployment, and they produced an acceptable one: Vaughn Holcomb’s mother would move from Akron, Ohio, to Fort Carson to care for her grandchildren. This arrangement worked until late summer, when the grandmother told the Holcombs that she needed to return to Ohio to care for her ill husband. With the child-care situation looking precarious, Vaughn Holcomb’s first wife, the biological mother of two of the seven children, went to court in Colorado to seek custody of those two children. Blah - blah - blah - snipped But Army officials now say the case will probably be resolved through a "compassionate reassignment" that will permit Simone Holcomb to leave her active-duty status and return to part-time National Guard duties here. "She’s in the process of being demobilized," said Lt. Col. Thomas Budzyna of the public affairs office at Fort Carson. "The paperwork will take about a week, and then she will be returned to her National Guard unit." Master Sgt. Debra Smith of the Colorado National Guard said, "An offer has been made to her, and it is still standing, for a position with a Guard medical support unit here in Colorado." "From what we understand, they have determined that she will not be going back to Iraq," said Dick Wadhams, spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), who intervened in the case. "We don’t know yet what will happen to any possible disciplinary measures, but they may go away if she returns to her old Guard unit." Budzyna said the military "is looking for the common-sense solution to this situation." They were all along, it just takes time. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #8 There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 20-30 something vets who would gladly go back on active duty. Hell, if they didn't want to send me back to basic, I'd reup tomorrow. But I think OP is right, there are plenty of vets who would join up as 'Home Guard' troops, filling admin and training billets in CONUS. I'd still rather ruck up and go do what I could to help out with the 10th mtn. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-13 11:21:23 PM |
| #7 Perhaps that is something we should consider, given our manpower shortage. A secondary, 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, military reserve. I'm not sure about the "Monday through Friday, 8 to 5" bit, but I agree, we need a back-up plan - something we don't have now. Originally, the Guard and Reserve WERE the backup plan. Unfortunately, the HUGE drawdown of military forces after the collapse of the Soviet Union was way too deep, too soon. We knew even then that there were other enemies to face, and our military was stretched dangerously thin. Today, we use the Reserves and Guard the same way generals in World War II used their combat reserves. At the moment, the Guard and Reserves are as over-stretched as the active force. Unfortunately, that leaves us with no back-up at all. The Brits used mustered-out, wounded, and overage military and former military to fill home base positions, while the young, active duty warriors went off to BE warriors. We're a huge nation, with nearly 300 million people. There are more than eight million Vietnam era vets we could draw on to take care of stateside duties while we fought in Iraq. Many of us volunteered. Many more probably would. Perhaps what we need is a back-up force consisting of former and retired military, volunteers, and family members, who can do the routine, day-to-day things that need to be done, but don't require an active military soldier to do them. Perhaps they could be organized to support specific units, or a specific base, or a specific command. Someone yesterday mentioned Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". Heinlein's philosophy in that book was "Everyone works, everyone plays, everyone fights". Maybe that's how we need to re-shape our military. The War on Terror may well last fifty years. We need to start thinking in those terms. We may be lucky, and it won't last that long, but we need to plan as if it might. That should have started the day after 9/11. We may be getting the ball rolling late, but better late than never. Incidents like this may be the catalyst to begin those changes. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-13 10:17:12 PM |
| #6 They both deployed that indicates a willingness to serve to me. On the Yellowstone I had 23 women working for me - one of them was a QM3 who was serving on her second ship. She never deployed and never intended to. Here husband could have taken care of her daughter during deployments but she weasled out just before deploying on a Med cruise. She left the team short. Luckily, we had crossed trained several others QM's for plotting duty during Navigation Detail. Used to really gripe me that she drew active duty pay but never intended to serve. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-13 8:05:47 PM |
| #5 I am local to this. What happened is the Ex-Wife caused all this trouble, and some damn fool judge in Family Court allowed her too. The childcare plan was set, and was fine, passed all the regs for both of them and the Army. But once they both got overseas, the EX-WIFE judge shopped, and got a judge to declae, in their absence that one of the two HAD to be there or they woudl lose custody to his 2 children form the former marriage. This was a cold blooded power play by the ex-wife. The ex knew that either he had to screw his career up, or his new wife would have to screw up her time with the Guard, or else she could steal sole custody. This whole thing was set up by the ex-wofe to cause as much pain to her former husband and new wife as possible. The Civilian Judge should be ashamed for going along with this, and putting in a court order forcing one of the two to remain home or lose custody. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-13 4:36:57 PM |
| #4 Perhaps that is something we should consider, given our manpower shortage. A secondary, 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, military reserve. That in ADDITION to the normal reserves. We'd pick up any number of useful people, even former military personell, who aren't serving because they have their hands full of family and can't do the 24/7 thing anymore. Just a thought. Ed Becerra. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-11-13 4:08:48 PM |
| #3 If you can't deploy, don't enlist. End of story. The military has rules regading this sort of situation - enlistees are required to arrange child care in advance. The problem here is that some sort of dispute arose between Sgt. Holcomb's mother and ex-wife (who were caring for the kids in their absence) and it ended up in the court system. She cashed those guard checks every month and now that she is needed she can't deploy? She already did deploy to Iraq. Both husband and wife had to take emergency leave to try to sort this whole mess out. I forgot where I read this, but apparently someone higher up in the chain of command is possibly looking to discharge Sgt. Holcomb's wife for parental reasons. No mention was made if it would be honorable or not. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-13 4:06:08 PM |
| #2 Damn Straight! She cashed those guard checks every month and now that she is needed she can't deploy? I understand her situation but she should have resigned from the reserves long ago. Anyone want to bet they rewrite the rules for spouses in the military? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-13 3:47:49 PM |
| #1 I'm glad this was worked out, but the bottom line is that she shouldn't be in the service if it interferes with raising her/his kids. It is NOT an 8-5 job with weekends and holidays off, with good health benefits. She knew when she signed her enlistment contract that part of the deal is you are willing to be deployed. She signed it and she banked the checks. She just ended up making everyone do a shitload of paperwork, when the Army could have easily have booted her out, instead of doing the scutwork and doing it right. Basically it's her and her husband's fault. If you can't deploy, don't enlist. End of story. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-13 3:17:01 PM |