Article

2003-11-21 Home Front

AWOL Soldier Mom Released From Active Duty

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-11-21 9:35:33 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The PC myth that mothers should be combat soldiers (or for that matter active duty) continues to amaze me. What will it take before this country realizes that women in the military is at best a lack luster experiment?

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-11-21 9:41:51 AM|| [http://www.DouglasDeBono.com] 2003-11-21 9:41:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh please! Who is it who says, "you hear thundering hooves and expect to see zebras"?

Regardless of what you think about women in combat, this is hardly an example to make your point. The family made arrangements, the grandfather got cancer and the ex-wife filed for custody.

I guess by your logic, military men should not be allowed to fight in combat too...afterall, I'm sure, if I felt like looking for it, I could find at least one situation where a man's child-care arrangements for his children fell through due to illness, divorce, death or other emergency ...and he was unable to deploy.

Posted by B 2003-11-21 9:58:40 AM|| 2003-11-21 9:58:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Her Guard unit will most likely have a long talk with her.

I suggest that the Army have a long talk with Vaughn Holcomb's ex-wife, and the judge in the child custody case.

As for women in the military, there's nothing wrong with that at all. The fact that what happened in this case isn't occurring with regularity in the ranks means that there isn't a bigger problem that needs addressing.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-21 10:32:17 AM|| 2003-11-21 10:32:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 This woman and her family were getting jobbed by the ex-wife and the judge. She was forced to choose between going back to Iraq and keeping her family -- which is no choice at all. Let's have a law that says "Back Off!!!" to the divorce lawyers et al. when both parents are deployed, and provide whatever the extra support is needed when both parents go in harm's way -- they deserve it, in spades.

I have as much respect and gratitude for the women who want to serve their country in the military as I do the men. Anyone who doesn't think that they can be just as much the warrior as a man ought to talk to Killer Chick.

Posted by snellenr 2003-11-21 10:50:53 AM|| 2003-11-21 10:50:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is off topic, and kinda corny, but makes you appreciate those who serve.

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."

Posted by Homer J 2003-11-21 11:54:35 AM|| 2003-11-21 11:54:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 In many jobs, women are not only the equal of men, but in some instances,even superior. That doesn't mean they should be in combat. Women are just NOT the physical equal of men, and are far more sensitive - something that is a detriment to combat, but essential in human relations. Women in the intelligence field usually do exceptionally well - frequently better than men - at putting together minutae and building a coherent picture. They usually make better linguists than men - who knows why, but it's proven data. And of course, their basic sympathies, inherent mothering instincts (even if some idiotarians want to destroy that symbology), and plain caring make them excellent caregivers, from mothers to nurses to whatever else calls for that type of personality.

Let them do what they do best, keep them out of harm's way (not necessarily for their benefit, but to keep down the idiotarian mob and the berserker mentality of some of our enemies), and let contribute as much or as little as they can. It helps us and hurts our enemies - the best reason to do ANYTHING.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-21 11:59:57 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-21 11:59:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 B-A-R, there is a bigger problem that needs addressing - you all just don't hear about in the news. Where I've been -It happens. Whether it's pregnancies, v.d. issues, or sexual harrasment issues. I've seen women break their pelvices because they couldn't handle the pack weight some of us have to carry during hikes. So the military lowered it for conditioning hikes at boot camp. Though this doesn't even reflect how much shit they'd have to carry if they we're really going somewhere & doing the real shit.

I'm going to take fire for this, but the issue Doug brings up is true. The article is not the right one to support it though due to the circumstances of this particular woman. I've witnessed worse incidents and seen the PC police handle it, totally screwing over good order & discipline of a unit, totally screwing the tax payer, and ultimately the country. IMO, she should be let out of the service point blank. And Snellenr, there maybe less than 3% of the military female pop (at most) that represent the warrior analogy you give. I will leave it at that as there are probably female service folks on this site and I don't want to spend all day fighting about this. I respect their Patriotism, just don't feel, imo, that the branch I'm in is for them. I base my observation on pure experience in the Corps. I hate to be this negative. My great aunt was even a female Marine from '44-46. She went in on the "free up a man to fight" slogan. I respect her service but don't want her humping a pack & rifle around.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-21 12:12:56 PM|| 2003-11-21 12:12:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 You can blame the ex-wife and the divorce lawyers all you want, but this is HER problem. The service IS NOT AN 8-5 JOB WITH GOOD BENEFITS. The Army did the Right Thing and took her off active duty, but she shouldn't have been in the service in the first place. And JH is absolutely right, standards have been completely watered down to accomodate women in uniform, strictly for PC reasons. Bottom line is she wanted all the good and none of the bad, and guess what? You agree to the bad when you sign the enlistment contract.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-21 12:27:10 PM|| 2003-11-21 12:27:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I've always thought that nobody with kids below the rank of NCO should be allowed to serve in any deployable unit, or for that matter any military branch. At least not without the approval of their commander. I'd also look closely at recruiting any married people too. Ahh, you say, that would really cut into the available manpower needed for cannon fodder. I think not. Jarhead is right, the tax payers are getting screwed. With the money we'd save on all the crap that dependants of E4 and below require, you could pay those people alot more. An E4 or below, non NCO that becomes pregnant or impregnates, should be relieved of duty with a general discharg. That would really cut down on the slackers. Women in the Military means PC in the military.

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-21 1:04:45 PM|| 2003-11-21 1:04:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I read the score on this story as: "Sergeants 7, ex-wife 0". I believe the Army would have done the right thing whether or not the story got the congressional interest and media attention that it did.

Mom's troubles aren't over yet. She has to file a new family care plan with the CNG within 90 days. And she says she's out of options. The Colorado Springs Gazette has a detailed story here.

I'm proud of all those who serve; particularly when service is at the sacrifice of self and family. and don't forget the families left behind.
We all should be able to spare a bit of compassion since many of us "have been there".

Posted by Gasse Katze 2003-11-21 1:40:49 PM|| 2003-11-21 1:40:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 An E4 or below, non NCO that becomes pregnant or impregnates, should be relieved of duty with a general discharg.

No, they don't get relieved, they get stateside duty doing a job that has to get done. They take care of the kids just like any other working parent. But they can deploy into a stateside logistics, intel, etc. unit. These are good people. Don't throw them out, put them where they can be effective and still keep their kids.

Women in the military is a moot question: they're in. So now let's be smart about it.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-21 2:50:32 PM|| 2003-11-21 2:50:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Women in the military is a moot question: they're in. So now let's be smart about it."

-Steve, true enough. They do get stateside duty, but remember - usually a guy fills their billet overseas or goes on the deployment the female was supposed to go on. This does cause a big problem. Especially if the guy has a family, wife, and usually just came back from somewhere in the last year. I wonder who took this mom's spot in Iraq. The good guys will "suck it up", but that will only last so long. The problem is, we put stock that they are going to be able to do these things and then it falls through. (I'm saying in general, this particular situation has a different dynamic w/the ex-wife) I've seen it too many times. I will say this: they're not going anywhere and are country needs to have the balls to shift the way we do utilize them. As OP said, they can bring a lot to the table in various jobs. The rub comes when congress under pressure from the special interests make us open more combat like MOS's to females (i.e. combat engineers), when we know we can't really put them in actual harm's way. There's only so many of those jobs, they want females to fill a portion but they will never deploy for actual combat even though that's part of the deal. The males see through the pc illusion. Let's just call it like it is.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-21 3:52:18 PM|| 2003-11-21 3:52:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 First and foremost the guy's ex-needs a good bitch slapping,and the family court judge needs to be censored for hearing the case.

How the hell was this patriotic young mother supposed to know that the husbands ex- would take advantage of a bad situation.
It's a pretty good bet that the ex-was unfit,or did not want the kids in the first place or the husband wouldn't have had custod.We will probably never hear about it,but this probably about the ex-bitch trying to get her hands on the kids allotment.

Posted by Raptor 2003-11-21 5:56:43 PM|| 2003-11-21 5:56:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm surprised that the raping canard didn't get brought up. My wife and I watched Gulf War I stateside on CNN - my ship was pulled apart in the yards. I remember being shocked to see a CNN mugshot of a little guy who I remebered as a gymnastics coasch at USNA. Evidently, he had just been downed an captured and had beat his own face against a wall on purpose to appear to be a victim of torture in the Iraqi propoganda interviews. My wife says that I almost levitated off the couch in rage.

I beleive the guy received the old car battery to the testicles tre4atment while in the custody of the Iraqi's. My outrage over male soldiers being tortured, sodomized and/or shot, is no less thatn when a woman soldier is fonddled, raped, tortured or shot.

It amazes me that Sadaam can have scores mass graves of executed civilian children all over the country, but if an Iraqi touches a little blond girl, the gloves come off.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-21 7:03:17 PM|| 2003-11-21 7:03:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 There's a big difference between a 19 yr old enlisted woman in a supply convoy, who had been inadequately trained for combat situations, and (for example) the older female pilot POW in Gulf 1, who had the physical, emotional and mental resources to deal with her sexual and physical abuse at the hands of the Iraqis. I have not undergone combat training myself, so perhaps I don't really have a basis for having an opinion on this topic. But I work with young female officers-in-training as well as young men. The women I teach, and whose training I've observed, have just as much mental toughness on average as their male counterparts of the same age. They are in superlative physical condition, some are top athletes, and they train as hard as their male peers. I can't comment on their suitability for infantry combat conditions, but I'm pretty sure that some of them could be and probably will be pilots in combat zones, for instance. And every one of them, male and female, knows there's a good chance they will go to Iraq or Afghanistan or some other hotspot within the next 12 months. They know what the score is and in their own ways, they are all getting themselves ready for what may come.

I suspect that the women-in-combat issue isn't an either/or situation. There are many combat roles other than the foot soldier or marine that are important, dangerous and require courage, endurance, mental and physical strength, aggressiveness and leadership. "EVERY soldier a rifleman." EVERY soldier should be trained - mentally, physically, emotionally and tactically - for combat. The old distinction between those who fight and those who support from the rear has blurred almost beyond recognition, as PVT Lynch's experience underscores.

Jarhead, there are few of these young women I know who could perform physically to the level of Marines in combat. Agreed. But that's not the only important combat role in our military services.

Super Hose, I'm with you - both male and female soldiers are susceptible to torture and abuse and it is a barbaric outrage when it happens to ANY soldier, seaman, airman or marine.

Just some possibly-off base observations fr om someone who spent a few decades cracking glass ceilings in a different environment - which may or may not be very applicable experience for this question.

Posted by rkb 2003-11-21 9:58:49 PM|| 2003-11-21 9:58:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 RKB, I respect your opinions. I'm not sure which branch you work w/as far as the officers-in-training go. USAF? I could go all day on the combat pilot thing from my experiences though. I saw the Corps spend millions of dollars training females to be Harrier pilots when they could never put the physical weight on to handle the event of the ejection seat. That was not the female's fault, that was the fault of an over zealous politician in the uniform of a Marine trying to get some 'window dressing' to appease congress. I know Hornet pilots personally, I've gotten their stories first hand as well. I never said females were incapable of doing any combat MOS, my point is that the costs we've incurred to put them through have not resulted in the benefits *imo* that were supposed to result. For example, I knew a female SAR helo-pilot (Search & Rescue) who was damn good, could count on her anytime, anywhere. I've know top notch female D.I.'s. They are out there. I just don't buy into the media hype about the subject - simply because I've been around it too long. An ajenda is being pushed as usual. Lynch's story was one of poor training by her command as you describe. She never got a shot off, dirty weapon (unforgiveable actually) or whatever (she's lucky they didn't kill her). And like I said, there are some really tough ones out there. I've not seen enough to change my mind though on the combat roles; support roles - yes. Again, all my statements are based on my experiences w/grunt units, on deployments, and in training recruits. You can take what I say w/a grain of salt, as maybe your experiences have been different from mine.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-21 10:30:35 PM|| 2003-11-21 10:30:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Jarhead, and I respect yours. I do know that I don't know the realities in combat first hand. ;-) Although I do suspect that ejection seat handles on the Harrier could be redesigned. Or maybe not because they must be mechanical only? Wonder what the F16 has ..... hmmm.

Anyway, I work with Army right now. No doubt training cadets over the course of 4 years, to become commissioned Army officers, is and should be different from training Marine recruits, in lots of ways .... plus I can't claim to have gone through or even observed all their training directly. I have been part of a number of discussions on this whole topic though, with both male and female officers, some of whom were in theatre in Kuwait/Iraq during Gulf 1, in Bosnia and in Afghanistan.

Perhaps a year or two from now, the experiences in Iraq will offer useful data for this whole debate. Some women might well decide they don't belong in or near combat. Others might prove themselves well in various non-infantry roles. It will be interesting to find out.

Posted by rkb 2003-11-21 11:10:24 PM|| 2003-11-21 11:10:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Hi,
My name is Debbi Piland. I am the biological mother of Dustin and Taylor
Holcomb. All the media attn that Simone Holcomb (AWOL MOM) got was for nothing. She lied about every aspect to get sympathy from the public. Vaughn and I have joint Custody. I was awarded temp sole custody while they were deployed
and the grandmother had visitation.All the articles said that the grandmother was returning to Ohio because her husband was sick. Her husband flew out here when Vaughn and Simone came home and stayed for nearly a month. The real reason the grandmother went home is because she resented taking care of children that weren't her biological grandchildren. I never tried to get custody while they were gone. Simone is just a coward that used her children and my children for her own gain.Her own biological children could have went to their respective fathers.The youngest, Harley spends most of the time with her dad, and the boys have three fathers between the four of them that they spend the summer with.If she can trust them for the summer, she could trust them while she was deployed.. The judge never ordered her to stay. There is an article in the Gazette telegraph that interviews judge miller and he says that he didnt tell her to stay..Simone duped the world in a susan smith fashion and then sold her story for a made for tv movie. We should stop honoring people like her and honor real soldiers like Jessica Lynch and the soldiers that gave their lives for freedom over there..

Family, Army loyalty not only conflict in battle for custody
BILL HETHCOCK and JOHN DIEDRICH, THE GAZETTE. The Gazette. Colorado
Springs, Colo.: Nov 8, 2003. pg. A.1
Copyright Freedom Newspapers, Inc. Nov 8, 2003
Spc. Simone Holcomb, a soldier and mother to seven children, has been portrayed as a woman forced to choose between family and duty.Court records, however, tell a more complicated tale of what is the latest twist in a custody case that has boiled for four years The case highlights challenges soldiers and the Army face when
parents must pull on uniforms, kiss their children goodbye and ship out for war.Simone Holcomb and her husband, Sgt. 1st Class Vaughn Holcomb, have seven children between them. They went to Iraq this year, Simone Holcomb with the Colorado National Guard and Vaughn Holcomb with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.Vaughn Holcomb's mother and his ex-wife were caring for the children when a dispute arose. Vaughn and Simone Holcomb returned on
emergency leave, and Simone Holcomb stayed, saying she could lose two of the kids to the ex-wife if she goes back to Iraq.The Army wants her back, and Simone Holcomb has said her commanders threatened to list her as absent without leave, or AWOL, when she didn't return Oct. 9.
Army officials could not confirm Friday if she had been declared AWOL. The decision would be made by commanders in Iraq, who did not respond to inquires from The Gazette.Simone Holcomb's dilemma soon may be resolved.Her attorney, Giorgio Ra'Shadd, said Friday he had heard "encouraging" news from the Army.Simone Holcomb, who did not return phone calls for this story, may
be stationed temporarily at a unit in this area, giving her time to figure out care for her children before returning to Iraq, Ra'Shadd said.It isn't clear who in the Army told Ra'Shadd about the possible resolution. The Army had no comment.
The deal could hinge on when Vaughn Holcomb returns to Fort Carson from Iraq. He is supposed to be back in a month or so, a spokesman in Sen. Wayne Allard's office said.Fort Carson officials said Friday they don't have a date for when Vaughn Holcomb is supposed to return to the post.
Allard understands Vaughn Holcomb would stay with the kids and Simone Holcomb would return to her duty in Iraq, said the senator's spokesman, Dick Wadhams.However the Holcombs' case is resolved, it shows the challenge of balancing family and duty to country, especially when unforeseen circumstances arise.The Army says it tries to be sympathetic to the needs of soldiers with children, but in the end it must be able to count on those parents to be ready for war."We understand she has a responsibility to her children," said Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman. "On the reverse side, she has a responsibility to her country and the Army."The custody case behind the national stories started when Debbie and Vaughn Holcomb's nine-year marriage ended in May 1999. They have sparred since about custody of their children - an 8-year-old boy and a 6-year-old girl.Debbie has remarried and taken the last name Piland. Vaughn married Simone.Piland and Vaughn Holcomb agreed in August 2002 he would get custody
of the children except for three weekends a month and four weeks in the summer, when Piland would have custody.In Vaughn's absence, Simone Holcomb would serve as the primary parent, according to the agreement.Piland, however, said Friday she misunderstood the agreement when she signed it and thought it gave her custody in Vaughn's absence.She regrets that and resents what she sees as Simone Holcomb using the custody dispute to shirk her duties."I love my kids more than anything in life," Piland said. "I feel like I should have them with me. Instead, she's using them to get attention."Piland sought custody in March based on Vaughn Holcomb's deployment to Iraq. Simone Holcomb had deployed.Judge David Miller temporarily transferred custody to Piland for the period of Vaughn Holcomb's deployment.Miller ordered Vaughn Holcomb's mother, Sue Bearer, to care for the two children while Piland was at work. Bearer had moved from Akron, Ohio, into the Holcombs' house at Fort Carson to help take care of the Holcombs' other five children during their deployment.Relations soon soured.Piland wrote a letter Sept. 2 to the judge and to child-advocate lawyer Elizabeth Hoover complaining Bearer was undermining her attempts to teach her children about religion.Simone Holcomb called Hoover from Iraq and accused Piland of hitting the 8-year-old son, cursing at the children and leaving them alone with her boyfriend in violation of a court order. Holcomb said she based her allegations on what her children told her.Vaughn and Simone Holcomb returned Sept. 11 to Colorado Springs from Iraq because of concerns about the safety of their children.When they arrived, they found Bearer no longer could help care for their seven kids because she needed to return to Akron to care for her ailing husband, Ra'Shadd said.After her father-in-law fell ill, Simone Holcomb tried to postpone her return to Iraq until she found someone to care for all seven children, but she never refused to go back, Ra'Shadd said."She loves that uniform, and it was never her choice to come back early," he said.There's no way to plan for every contingency, Ra'Shadd said."There are just some things that happen that we call life, and life happened to them," he said, referring to the custody battle and the father-inlaw's illness.Hoover, the child-advocate lawyer, filed a Sept. 16 report detailing more allegations.The Holcomb's attorney, Roberta Earley, said Piland took the kids to see faith healer Benny Hinn, where Piland told the crowd she had a hole in her heart, then was healed.Piland had been preaching to the children about how they were going to hell, Earley said.Piland denies the faith-healing incident and denies telling the kids they were headed to hell.Miller vacated the temporary order Sept. 17, denying Piland's
custody. The judge ruled Vaughn Holcomb should have custody - as outlined in the August 2002 agreement - because he was no longer in Iraq.Earley sought the court's permission Sept. 26 to allow Simone Holcomb to maintain custody when her husband returned to Iraq. The motion states Vaughn Holcomb would be sent back to Iraq, but Simone Holcomb "will be remaining in Colorado."Records show Miller - a former Air Force lawyer - did not order
Simone Holcomb to defy the Army's deployment orders or risk losing custody, as some media accounts have suggested.Simone Holcomb said National Guard commanders told her she could stay in the area, Earley said.Based on the assumption she wouldn't return to Iraq, Miller went back to the old plan and gave her custody.
Miller took the step "to stabilize the children," according to the order.Miller appointed a parenting coordinator Thursday. That person will evaluate the situation and recommend a solution within 90 days.The Holcombs represent a challenge for the Army: soldiers who are married to each other with children.Of the 495,000 soldiers in the Army, about 11 percent, or nearly 55,000, are married to other soldiers, the Army said.The Pentagon couldn't say how many of those two-soldier families have children, but nearly half of the entire force has children.In addition, 7.5 percent of soldiers, or 37,000 men and women, are single parents.Single parents and two-soldier families must have a plan in place at all times, spelling out who will take care of their children in the event of a training mission or deployment, said Stover, the Army spokesman.The Army can't hold those people back from deployments, even if it means shipping out both parents, he said. It wouldn't be fair to other soldiers.Soldiers sometimes have problems with their care plans. Caregivers get sick or can't do the job for some other reason.
The Army generally gives soldiers 30 days to come back and find someone else to take care of their children.
If they can't fix the problem, the soldiers are offered a chance to get out of the military as a hardship case, Stover said.Those decisions are made by commanders, he said.
Simone Holcomb doesn't want to get out of the military, Ra'Shadd said. She just wants more time to find good care for the children.The Army can't let Simone Holcomb come to Fort Carson when her unit, Colorado's 109th Area Support Medical Company, is deployed to Iraq, Stover said. About half of the Army is deployed around the world, he said, so everyone is needed.The Army is concerned about the precedent Holcomb's case could set for the thousands of soldiers in Iraq who have others taking care of their children at home."If you make special consideration for one, it is going to impact a large number of soldiers who are adhering to the Army's policy on family care plans," Stover said.

Posted by DEBBI PILAND 2004-2-26 4:35:38 AM|| 2004-2-26 4:35:38 AM|| Front Page Top

04:35 DEBBI PILAND
11:55 Bulldog
08:00 Shipman
07:52 Shipman
01:57 Jeff
01:54 Jeff
01:38 Atomic Conspiracy
01:25 Val
00:15 Korora
00:13 Lu Baihu
00:07 Robert Crawford
23:48 Fred
23:45 Fred
23:35 NotMikeMoore
23:35 Anonymous
23:33 Charles
23:31 NotMikeMoore
23:30 Frank G
23:26 Frank G
23:17 Anonymous2U
23:17 NotMikeMoore
23:13 Chuck
23:11 NotMikeMoore
23:10 rkb