A veteran of the first Persian Gulf War is suing the Army after it ordered him to report for duty 13 years after he was honorably discharged from active duty and eight years after he left the reserves.
Kauai resident David Miyasato received word of his reactivation in September, but says he believes he completed his eight-year obligation to the Army long ago.
“I was shocked,” Miyasato said Friday. “I never expected to see something like that after being out of the service for 13 years.”
His federal lawsuit, filed Friday in Honolulu, seeks a judgment declaring that he has fulfilled his military obligations.
His lawsuit states that Miyasato is suing not because he opposes the war in Iraq (news - web sites), but because his business and family would suffer “serious and irreparable harm” if he is required to serve.
Miyasato enlisted in the Army in 1987 and served in Iraq and Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf War as a petroleum supply specialist and truck driver.
Miyasato said he received an honorable discharge from active duty in 1991, then served in the reserves until 1996 to fulfill his eight-year enlistment commitment.
They haven’t called me yet. My skills shouldn’t be needed since we WON the war. This really hits home though. :roll: Obligations go both ways. He’s paid his dues.
This sounds more like a computer glitch than anything else.
Also, you probably should have left in this paragraph:
Within hours of filing the lawsuit, however, Miyasato received a faxed letter from the Army’s Human Resources Command saying his “exemption from active duty had not been finalized at this time” and that he has been given an administrative delay for up to 30 days, said his attorney, Eric Seitz.
It sounds like the Army may not actually want him, but the paperwork is in the works.
An enlistment in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard in effect at the beginning of a war, or entered into during a war, unless sooner terminated by the President, continues in effect until six months after the termination of that war.
Of course, that doesn’t apply unless operations in Iraq occur under an official declaration of war, something the Admistration wouldn’t want to do because it would tie their hands with “non-combatant” prisoners and the Geneva Convention.
That’s a bit of conspiracy-theorization that doesn’t really hold up. Declarations of war have nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Soldiers of Saddam’s army would qualify under the Geneva Convention, since they openly carried their weapons, displayed the formal insignia of the Iraqi Army, and conducted war operations in accordance with the laws of war. Terrorists by and large do not, because they hide their armaments, disguise themselves as allies or noncombatants, and conduct operations directly against civilian targets.