[Sarge]

DENVER (Nov. 6) - Simone Holcomb's 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," Holcomb said Wednesday. "And I don't know how any parent on Earth could leave without knowing how they're going to be taken care of."

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 Holcomb's 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.

She also said her husband, a tank platoon sergeant with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, would be more sorely missed by his unit. He is now back in Iraq.

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.

"When there are extenuating circumstances, we obviously want to find a solution to work for both sides," he said.

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.
The Army inspector general is reviewing the case, said a spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who intervened at Simone Holcomb's request.

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.

"We're all human beings and most of us are parents. Just that normal human bond I thought would work wonders," she said.

Vaughn Holcomb's mother, Susan Bearer, who helped care for the children while the parents were in Iraq, wonders why the Army hasn't reassigned her daughter-in-law so she could stay in the Army while caring for her family.

"We want them to put her back on duty at Fort Carson, like before," Bearer said. "Let her do her service there where she could still be with the children."

Holcomb has told the children she's not leaving again, but she doesn't think they believe her. They know she's worried.

"For them, the Army is bigger than the world and it holds the strings to all of us," Holcomb said. "I feel terrible because I make these promises and now the Army could take it all away."


11/06/03 10:28 EST



This is a very touchy subject. I can tell you this by me being in the military, this womans Commander had the authority to send her home and leave her there to continue on with the custody trial depending on the information the Commander had about the case and the integrity of the soldier. In my experiences most Commanders are symphatetic with cases such as these. It is better to have a happy soldier in the trenches than a disgruntled one. As was mentioned IG (Inspector General) has not done a full investigation. In many cases soldiers are allowed to leave, then attempt to delay their return and ask for an extension. Soldiers are then extended and once the extension is completed go back or go AWOL (most know they are going AWOL the minute they are allowed to go on leave). It did not have to go to the extent that it has been taken to (national level). Things like this happen in the US Army all the time and are resolved by the use of the "Chain of Command", this is not an isolated incident. There are thousands of soldiers who are put in similar perdicaments and despite all the hardships of leaving family and other loved ones, continue to fulfill their contractual obligation for their country and instead of going AWOL, go through the "proper" channels to get full authorization, ie. Company CMDR, BN CMDR, BDE CMDR, etc. I do not know the full story but I truly believe if this soldier went up her "chain of command" she would have been authorized to stay home. IMHO, I believe she used the media to draw national attention to her cause and grow support for her. Despite how sensitive the situation is she was technically wrong to go AWOL.

[pyritechips]

Here's another one:

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/10/31/awol031031

[valley]

I voted that it depends. I am of the opinion that mothers should not be in the military and that their first and foremost responsibility should be to their husband and children. In this case, its her children. I dont support her going AWOL and I dont think she should even be allowed to serve with 7 children at home to begin with.

[CyBerAliEn]

I won't comment to any detail on this case as I really don't know too much about it, and there isn't a lot of information out on it. Let alone, unless your actually in the military or have been, your not going to completely understand the situation as completely (as Sarge noted, it is very possible she could have gone through the chain of command and gotten it extended, but I'm sure that about 99.999999999999% of the civilian population won't even consider such a thing).

Now, if I was in the military, would I go AWOL? I'd say no. Foremost, I don't see myself ever being in the military. Secondly, if I happen to end up in the military by whatever means, I will honor my duty and do my job.

You also should not join the military if you aren't able to deal with its demands and expectations. By joining, you not only acknowledge the demands and expectations, you accept the demands and expectations.

From what I do know so far though, at this point I would have to agree with Sarge that it really seems like she got the media involved to grow support for herself (as also noted by Sarge, these things happen all the time, do you seem them on the news?).

[Paquadez]

IMHO, I believe she used the media to draw national attention to her cause and grow support for her. Despite how sensitive the situation is she was technically wrong to go AWOL.


Sarge

____________________________

Totally agree, Sarge.

Far too many people sign on to a contract, change their minds and then use the media to exploit the "Just" cause of their case.

A deal is a deal.

As we say in the UK, if you take the queen's shilling, your hers!

paq

[AKA Arizona]

A womans place is not in the military and Ill leave it at that. However, I voted NO, once you make a commitment all you have is your integrity, if you split when things are tuff you have no integrity having no integrity is unacceptable. How does a woman with 7 children stay in the military? what about PT she must be in great shape, 7 CHILDREN WOW. this did not happen overnight she new what was coming, I would guess she should have gotten out after the first maybe the second but 7. There are plenty of ways to get out if you need to AWOL is not an option. Im not sure AWOL is the correct choice here she disobeyed a direct order, does that not fall into the treason catagory in the UCMJ.

[ComputerFix]

The use of the media is an obvious "blackmail" ploy. That being said, I am not going to say she is "wrong" (she is legally, but I think we are talking conceptual at this point), either. Custody battles can be long and uncertain, the case may have extended out last minute, thus putting her in AWOL status before her commander could do anything about it.

Cyber is right, us civies don't know the system or culture well enough to know if she got "jammed" or just didn't bother going about it the right way.

My mother was full active at the time of her pregnancy with me. She was granted early discharge from service without so much as a glitch. She served up to the day of delivery (pretty much, anyway) and was discharged after that. Not that I remember ( ), but I don't recall her mentioning any problems (that was nearly 30 years ago, though....ohhh man I'm getting old)

[bassetman]

I thought the Military was more family friendly these days!
It would appear they thought that they had the custody thing settled. It was his ex that undid the plan wasn't it?

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by bassetman:
I thought the Military was more family friendly these days!
It would appear they thought that they had the custody thing settled. It was his ex that undid the plan wasn't it?

It certainly looks that way. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the "timing" was no accident, either.

A judge said one of the Holcombs had to remain home...

I wonder if this gives legal grounds. Sounds like a jurisdictional mess, but if a judge required one to stay, how does one reconcile that? Defy the judge, defy your commander?

(BTW, it sounds as if the judge was helping to bias the case as well. While being in the military is voluntary, it's not like she had a business trip scheduled. She doesn't get to decide if she goes or not)

Amazing how we all "support our troops" so long as it is only words. Here a man was fired from his job because he was placed on active duty (he was a reservist), since there were no solid return dates available, they canned him. Needless to say, he got a lawyer.

[EarthTech]

As a former officer I question as to why both where in the same theater during war time. In my opinion she should not have joined having that many children. It has been my experience that some join the military for the money and really do not understand the fine print on the paper work. If she had been under my command which would not have been possible I would have filed for her discharge. Someone with such responsibility outside the military should not have enlisted to begin with. I can imagine what the children think when they here that a soilder has been killed on TV and wonder if it was mom or dad. She joined knowing that one or both could be called to duty and one or both may not return. God be with the family

[eggplant43]

It seems to me that this soldier made two potentially mutually exclusive agreements: One that she would serve her country when called upon to do so, and one that she would be "the mother" and be responsible for the lives of her children. I question her even being a soldier in this case, but she made the committment to the US, and is obligated to fulfill it. She abrogated her responsibilities to her children when she signed up IMO. Now she is simply making things worse.

IMHO, the military does a fairly decent, but realistic bureucratic job of evaluating "hardships", and usually does the right thing, or at least they did 30 years ago when I served.

[Servant of Eru]

Having experience with several nasty b!otches that didn't deserve to be called human, yet were exes of friends and family members, I can assure you the time was not on accident. People like that stir up the $h!t whenever given the opportunity. She saw her chance to possibly get her kids back, whether she cared about them or not, I'm sure there was a revenge complex agains her ex involved in this...and she sprung for it. Stupid wench shouldn't be allowed to live, screwing up her kid's lives for the sake of revenge. Makes the blood boil it does.

[cnimbus]

I agree substantially with irox about the ex-wife, certainly a malevolent person.

The real source of the problem, though, is the judge. He knows full well that the Holcombs are obliged to go where the Army sends them. The judge's decision that one of them must stay home effectively awards custody to the ex-wife. This also punishes the Holcombs for serving their country. Seems to be a case of bad judgement, especially for a judge (and others, too).

[Sarge]

Originally posted by bassetman:
I thought the Military was more family friendly these days!

You thought correctly BM

Originally posted by EarthTech:
As a former officer I question as to why both where in the same theater during war time. In my opinion she should not have joined having that many children.... If she had been under my command which would not have been possible I would have filed for her discharge.

On what grounds?

[EarthTech]

On the grounds that she did not want to return to active duty and had obligations at home that apparently were far more important t her. Some that join have no concept of being captured, shot at, or killed when they sign up. Some do not read the fine print. With both parents of the other 5 children gone for an undetermined amount of time, I think shr would have best finished her service at home or accepted a "other than honorable discharge".