National guardsman voices objection to some mobilization policies

I am a member of the New Jersey Air National Guard. In response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, our unit was placed on active duty status and was mobilized. We were issued active duty orders for one year and deployed. In addition to mobilization, "Stop-Loss" was implemented. Stop-Loss is a program where active duty, National Guard and Reserves hold members in stressed career fields from separating or retiring upon conclusion of their commitment in order to sustain manpower for war operations.

I have a great love for my county and am as patriotic, if not more, than most. I entered this mobilization with zeal and was willing to sacrifice time away from my family, friends, and civilian job in defense of my country. I do, however, have an objection to the recent policies in regards to the mobilization.

As a member of the National Guard Security Forces, we were mobilized to augment our active duty counterparts, as a result of low manning and an increased threat to military installations. We are closing in on the termination of our one year orders, and are now being told, not only are we not going to be permitted to return to our civilian roles upon termination of these orders, we are going to be issued another set of orders for an additional year. The forced retention is not permitting those who have passed retirement and separation dates to return to their civilian lives.

Herein lies the crux of my objection. As of September 1, 2002, the Department of Defense lifted the Stop-Loss policy, stating that all that are eligible to retire or separate, regardless of military specialty, may do so. However, this policy, as it stands, only affects active duty personnel and not National Guard and Reserves who are still mobilized. The hypocrisy of this situation is baffling. Active duty personnel are permitted to transfer to unrelated career fields, retire, and/or separate from military service at the conclusion of their enlisted commitment. All of this occurring, while the same rights are being denied to mobilized National Guard and Reserve members. Essentially, active duty military members, the same people we were mobilized to support are permitted to depart the military and further their civilian endeavors, while we are forced into involuntary duty for an additional year.

As I stated before, I am proud to serve my country in this time of uncertainty, but there is an obvious incongruence that must be addressed. National Guard and Reserve forces should be given the same privileges, as the active duty component. If active duty personnel are permitted to separate and retire, so should their National Guard and Reserve counterparts. My civilian life should not be allowed to suffer and flounder, while the same active duty personnel whom I was activated to support are released to pursue promising civilian careers of their own.

Brian D. Sicknick

Staff Sergeant,

N.J. Air National Guard

South River