43 year old single mother called to active duty

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
While most of her friends and neighbors are amusing themselves with Christmas decorations and holiday gifts, Patricia Arndt is fretting over far more serious matters.

The single mother from Medford has been unexpectedly pulled from the inactive Army reserve and ordered to report for active duty by Feb. 5.

As Christmas nears, Arndt, 43, is trying to sell the Medford home she says she will not be able to keep on an Army salary of approximately $60,000 a year, and is searching for someone to care for her 13-year-old son, Shane. She expects to train for an 18-month tour of duty that could take her to Iraq or Afghanistan.

She said she never saw her return to active duty as a possibility. "Never in a million years," she said.

"This is a very hard thing for me," she said. "I absolutely love my country. I feel I owe it to the Army and my fellow soldiers, because I wouldn't be here without them.

"If I were a reservist assigned to a unit, I'd have been trained and informed of the possibility that I would be called. I'm not prepared for this."

U.S. Army officials said Arndt is not being treated unfairly.

"Single parents are treated no differently than any other soldier, and are expected to have a family care plan at all times," said Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart.

Arndt, a respiratory therapist at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center and a small-business owner, has been called back to active status after 20 years as a reservist. She spent four years of active duty in the Army in the 1980s based in Germany prior to becoming "an individual mobilization augmentee reservist" -- which required her to fill in for regular duty soldiers called to overseas duty.

Last year, she said, she was transferred to another category called the Individual Ready Reserve, which made her eligible for a combat assignment. She is to report to Fort Jackson, S.C.

Her return to active duty will leave her teenage son without a parent for 18 months, she said, and cost her more than $100,000 in income during that time.

As the U.S. Army has lagged in meeting recruiting goals, Arndt's story is another indication of how the ongoing war in Iraq is forcing bigger responsibilities onto the shoulders of a relatively small number of military personnel. Officials have said that many of the 172,000 troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are on their second or third tours of duty.

Increasingly, the military has turned to so-called stop-loss orders -- preventing some military personnel from retiring -- and to National Guard soldiers or older reservists to fill the ranks.

According to Army officials, approximately 110,000 Army personnel are listed in the Individual Ready Reserve. By law, they may be called up for as long as two years to fill vacancies. But because they are not attached to any unit, they may go years without the training and supervision needed to transition back to active duty, officials said. The Army has traditionally not sent IRR soldiers into battle.

The war in Iraq, now 21/2 years old, has changed that. Currently, more than 6,500 ready reservists have been called back to active duty, including Chief Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, 56, of Schenectady. While receiving training at Fort Jackson last year, Murray told Newsday that she hoped she would not be sent into combat. If she is sent, she said, "I'll do the best I can."

Pentagon officials say soldiers who volunteered for the reserves knew they could be called up at any time.

"Why I got activated and called, I have no idea," Arndt said. "People have no idea what this is doing to families."

Almost half of IRR members who have been reactivated have asked to have their recalls delayed or eliminated, officials said. Of those requests, one quarter were from single parents or other soldiers with family problems arranging for the care of a child or other dependent. The remainder were for medical reasons, financial hardship or other difficulties.

Arndt, who is also appealing her orders, is far from alone. Almost 8 percent of all current Army personnel -- and 13.8 percent of female soldiers -- are single parents, the officials said.

Arndt, who never married, at first arranged to have Shane live with her sister. But those plans are in danger of falling through, she said, because of family problems. She said her son's emotional well-being worries her the most.

"He says, 'My father's not here, you're not here, why should I be here?'" Arndt said. "His life as he knows it is gone."
Click to expand...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lisold1208,0,5515557.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines

Wow, just wow.
 
I'm so sick of this fucking country and all the bullshit that goes on. I can't even read stories like this anymore. Too sad...
 
Why we need an army in this day and age im not quite sure. The last time I checked it was kind of hard to invade the US. I mean, we have Mexico to the south, and all we have to fear from them is bad drinking water, and Canada to the north, and all we have to fear from them is Celine Dion. I feel bad for Ms Arndt....
 
I gotta say, this really sucks for her but she knew the risks of staying enlisted as a reservist. Had she ended her tour back in the 80s and not reenlisted (assumingly for the extra money) then she would have nothing to worry about. Part of the risk of keeping that reservist paycheck coming is that you might be called to duty.
 
Why is the government terrible for doing this to her? In the individual ready reserve and she's callled into active duty?

I'll save my sympathy for the "food insecure" instead of this woman getting her salary cut from $70,000 to $60,000 and having to find an interim home for her son for 18 months.

This must be the age of entitlement.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Why is the government terrible for doing this to her? In the individual ready reserve and she's callled into active duty?

I'll save my sympathy for the "food insecure" instead of this woman getting her salary cut from $70,000 to $60,000 and having to find an interim home for her son for 18 months.

This must be the age of entitlement.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, she'll be taking a paycut but how much money has she made for the past 20+ years by collecting a reserves paycheck?
 
[quote name='Quillion']Why is the government terrible for doing this to her? In the individual ready reserve and she's callled into active duty?

I'll save my sympathy for the "food insecure" instead of this woman getting her salary cut from $70,000 to $60,000 and having to find an interim home for her son for 18 months.

This must be the age of entitlement.[/QUOTE]

What exactly does the Army need a 43 year old woman for on Active Duty abroad? I can understand, maybe, deploying her to an Army base in the US and having her for some clerical job, or working in and around the US. However, is the Army so aching for new recruits that they redeploy 43 year old women?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']What exactly does the Army need a 43 year old woman for on Active Duty abroad? I can understand, maybe, deploying her to an Army base in the US and having her for some clerical job, or working in and around the US. However, is the Army so aching for new recruits that they redeploy 43 year old women?[/QUOTE]

Well considering she's going to have a salary of $60,000 and her civilian job involves being a repiratory therapist, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say she's needed for some kind of medic duty.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']What exactly does the Army need a 43 year old woman for on Active Duty abroad? I can understand, maybe, deploying her to an Army base in the US and having her for some clerical job, or working in and around the US. However, is the Army so aching for new recruits that they redeploy 43 year old women?[/QUOTE]

Arndt, a respiratory therapist at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center
Click to expand...
Apparently she serves in some sort of medical capacity. It takes a long time to train good medical specialists.

I won't even discuss the apparent sexism in the "some clerical job" statement you made.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I won't even discuss the apparent sexism in the "some clerical job" statement you made.[/QUOTE]

What sexism is there that isn't already in place by the army? She's not alowed to serve in any sort of combat capacity. Also, if she's not an officer in the reservers, then chances are, she may only be a RN, which is only a few more classes ahead of a paramedic, which, in and of itself, is just an associates degree away.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao'] Also, if she's not an officer in the reservers, then chances are, she may only be a RN, which is only a few more classes ahead of a paramedic, which, in and of itself, is just an associates degree away.[/QUOTE]

First off that's all speculation on your part and secondly it doesn't breed a point either.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']First off that's all speculation on your part and secondly it doesn't breed a point either.[/QUOTE]

Here's the US Dept of Labor's take on respiration therapy:
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos084.htm
An associate degree has become the general requirement for entry into this field
Click to expand...

That being said, a combat medic is essentially a paramedic, which requires certification and a few classes short of an associate's degree. If the Army is able to train paramedics, I don't see how they can't train nurses. I'm sure that medical staff that have actual MDs are in short supply, but I doubt that nurses are in extremely short supply.

The point (which you couldn't quite grasp) is that any position that requires only an associate's degree is quite easy to cultivate among the ranks. It's most decidedly more difficult to train a doctor than it is a nurse or any of the numerous therapists.
 
she still can get an extension and even exempt. She signed up voluntarily D: I doubt she'll be doing hardcore combat tho...
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Here's the US Dept of Labor's take on respiration therapy:
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos084.htm


That being said, a combat medic is essentially a paramedic, which requires certification and a few classes short of an associate's degree. If the Army is able to train paramedics, I don't see how they can't train nurses. I'm sure that medical staff that have actual MDs are in short supply, but I doubt that nurses are in extremely short supply.[/QUOTE]

So your argument is basically that anyone should be able to collect a reserve paycheck for over 20 years with no obligation to serve as long as they are a single parent. WOOHOO free money loophole.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So your argument is basically that anyone should be able to collect a reserve paycheck for over 20 years with no obligation to serve as long as they are a single parent. WOOHOO free money loophole.[/QUOTE]

No, you've skewed my argument. My argument was never that she was a single mom, nor did I ever actually take note or mention that fact, nor did I even ever say they were exempt! My argument was questioning why the Army needs a 43 year old woman on active duty to only fulfill a job requirement that isn't the most difficult to cultivate among the younger ranks.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']No, you've skewed my argument. My argument was never that she was a single mom, nor did I ever actually take note or mention that fact, nor did I even ever say they were exempt! My argument was questioning why the Army needs a 43 year old woman on active duty to only fulfill a job requirement that isn't the most difficult to cultivate among the younger ranks.[/QUOTE]

you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk volunteer?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']No, you've skewed my argument. My argument was never that she was a single mom, nor did I ever actually take note or mention that fact, nor did I even ever say they were exempt! My argument was questioning why the Army needs a 43 year old woman on active duty to only fulfill a job requirement that isn't the most difficult to cultivate among the younger ranks.[/QUOTE]

No, I have not skewed your argument, I've brought into light the fact that the army has had someone on their payroll for over 20 years who they have used for very little duty and now they expect that person to make good on their requirement. Why should her age have ANY bearing on this issue whatsoever. If she was too old for army duty then she should not have been able to be enlisted on the reserves.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']No, you've skewed my argument. My argument was never that she was a single mom, nor did I ever actually take note or mention that fact, nor did I even ever say they were exempt! My argument was questioning why the Army needs a 43 year old woman on active duty to only fulfill a job requirement that isn't the most difficult to cultivate among the younger ranks.[/QUOTE]

You're assuming that the army isn't having problems staffing positions in the first place.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']You're assuming that the army isn't having problems staffing positions in the first place.[/QUOTE]


His entire argument in this thread has been based on assumptions, why would that be any different?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']No, I have not skewed your argument, I've brought into light the fact that the army has had someone on their payroll for over 20 years who they have used for very little duty and now they expect that person to make good on their requirement. Why should her age have ANY bearing on this issue whatsoever. If she was too old for army duty then she should not have been able to be enlisted on the reserves.[/QUOTE]

Yes you have. You tried to break my argument down into components that I never mentioned (that she's a mom and that she's single). If you wanted to bring it up and ask my opinion, that's one thing, but you characterized my argument as being solely about her being single and a mother, which academically dishonest and obnoxious since, as I mentioned before, her being a mother was never mentioned by me before you brought it up. Second, the Army turns away enlisted recruits after a certain age. 34 for Active duty, and 39 for reservist duty. Why the army kept a 43 year old on reservist duty is beyond me, but that seems to be typical bureaucracy at work. Third, age has a lot to do with this. In the military, you're typically given so much time to advance in rank before being let go (early officers in rank O5 or lower and most of the Enlisted soldiers), so why she hasn't been let go is beyond me.

Finally, I posed the question of why she needs to be shipped abroad. If they need to fulfil non-combative roles (since women aren't allowed in combat roles), certainly they can find one in America to put her in, and ship someone else off that is younger than her, more experienced and already on active duty, no?

[quote name='RedvsBlue']His entire argument in this thread has been based on assumptions, why would that be any different?[/QUOTE]

My argument has barely been based on assumptions. My argument is questioning why the army has use for a reservist that is 43 years old and is in a position that isn't quite difficult to cultivate. Zion makes a point that staffing has been a bit more difficult recently, presumeably based on low recruitment numbers, however, dipping into older pools of people past their prime seems rather obtuse.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Here's the US Dept of Labor's take on respiration therapy:
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos084.htm


That being said, a combat medic is essentially a paramedic, which requires certification and a few classes short of an associate's degree. If the Army is able to train paramedics, I don't see how they can't train nurses. I'm sure that medical staff that have actual MDs are in short supply, but I doubt that nurses are in extremely short supply.

The point (which you couldn't quite grasp) is that any position that requires only an associate's degree is quite easy to cultivate among the ranks. It's most decidedly more difficult to train a doctor than it is a nurse or any of the numerous therapists.[/QUOTE]

You obviously don't grasp the meaning of speculation. You have no idea if her capacity there will be medic, nurse, or what. You don't even know where exactly it is she'll be deployed to. I'd also like to see some evidence backing up this claim that apparently there's so many nurses in the service. If you knew much about medical practice you'd know that from about the year 2000 til about now there's been a national and international shortage of nurses (thus the reason for so many job oppertunities and the boom in nursing school applicants), so I'd be impressed if the army magically had such an abundance of them on hand.

Also you didn't make a clear point with your first post but let's dismiss that and go with your logic anyhow. An associate's degree is essentially two years training. By your definition we'd have very few new nurses in this war for about two years so we can take time train all new ones. Also you don't know much about medicine apparently because it's like paramedics and RNs are that closely tied. "A few more classes" as you call it is really about a couple years of study and training (even more if we are talking about BSN nursing grads). Plus like the article already mentioned recuiting has fallen short lately and with the job market for RNs and even RTs being so open and lucretive right now I hgihly doubt all that many people interested in nursing/medicine (or at all really) are signing up.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
My argument has barely been based on assumptions. My argument is questioning why the army has use for a reservist that is 43 years old and is in a position that isn't quite difficult to cultivate. Zion makes a point that staffing has been a bit more difficult recently, presumeably based on low recruitment numbers, however, dipping into older pools of people past their prime seems rather obtuse.[/QUOTE]

Then why have people past their prime on inactive duty at all? If we want to make assumptions I would assume she's only on inactive duty because she's either getting paid for it or used it to get out of military service before her last contract was up.
 
Past her prime? Since when can a person be 43 and not be involved in medical practice? If she was being sent into combat or so I could see your argument, but if she's being deployed for the positions you've described so far then she doesn't exactly have to be 24 or 25. Walk into a busy metro hospital sometime and check to see if all the employees are under 30 (or even 40) years old.
 
Though you say that the woman's attributes of being single and her age make no difference, one thing has been constant in your arguement, the fact that she is female.

She joined the reserve knowing the risks of what may or may not happen. If she didn't want to be called to do her job, she shouldn't have signed up for it in the first place. Reguardless of the reason, the Millitary can call her to active duty whenever they feel it is required. Would you feel the same if it was a 43 year old man? The Army just needs meat to fill its positions. Being that she is a woman, she could have avoided millitary involvement all together since, as far as I know, the draft does not include women.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']You obviously don't grasp the meaning of speculation. You have no idea if her capacity there will be medic, nurse, or what. You don't even know where exactly it is she'll be deployed to. I'd also like to see some evidence backing up this claim that apparently there's so many nurses in the service. If you knew much about medical practice you'd know that from about the year 2000 til about now there's been a national and international shortage of nurses (thus the reason for so many job oppertunities and the boom in nursing school applicants), so I'd be impressed if the army magically had such an abundance of them on hand.

Also you didn't make a clear point with your first post but let's dismiss that and go with your logic anyhow. An associate's degree is essentially two years training. By your definition we'd have very few new nurses in this war for about two years so we can take time train all new ones. Also you don't know much about medicine apparently because it's like paramedics and RNs are that closely tied. "A few more classes" as you call it is really about a couple years of study and training (even more if we are talking about BSN nursing grads). Plus like the article already mentioned recuiting has fallen short lately and with the job market for RNs and even RTs being so open and lucretive right now I hgihly doubt all that many people interested in nursing/medicine (or at all really) are signing up.[/QUOTE]

Associates degrees are 2 years long because they are including many courses that fulfil general education requirements. Meanwhile, as a grad, I could stand to significantly reduce the amount of time required to get an associates in a specific field, such as RN, electrician, paralegal, simply because I already have all their general requirements fulfilled, and I'd only be taking classes relating to the material at hand. That being said, if the Army were to wish to train recruits in just the field that they are to learn, they can cut down training time, significantly, to the tune of a few months. I know that a paralegal certification, for me, should only take about 1 semester.

However, this is beside the point, since they're already putting her through 18 months of training... Why not take a recruit that went through bootcamp recently and just put him through training?

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Past her prime? Since when can a person be 43 and not be involved in medical practice? If she was being sent into combat or so I could see your argument, but if she's being deployed for the positions you've described so far then she doesn't exactly have to be 24 or 25. Walk into a busy metro hospital sometime and check to see if all the employees are under 30 (or even 40) years old.[/QUOTE]
Past her prime for military service, not medical service, you dip.

[quote name='zionoverfire']Then why have people past their prime on inactive duty at all? If we want to make assumptions I would assume she's only on inactive duty because she's either getting paid for it or used it to get out of military service before her last contract was up.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. You tell me. I was under the assumption that by a certain age, they tend to release people from military service, unless they're actively serving, high in rank or still getting promotions.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
I don't know. You tell me. I was under the assumption that by a certain age, they tend to release people from military service, unless they're actively serving, high in rank or still getting promotions.[/QUOTE]

Which is probably how she got into this situation. Most likely she's been on inactive duty for years because she gets some benefits from it or she got out of her contract early by signing up for inactive duty for a number of years. You know I wonder if she had this kid while on active duty.
 
If the government deserves any blame here, it's for keeping a 43 year-old single mother as a reservist.

So you need to ask yourself, should the government

A) Ban 43 year-old single mothers from being reservists (running the risk of being called ageist and sexist)

or

B) Allow 43 year-old single mothers to stay as reservists, and then call them into active duty when they are needed.
 
Arguing about this and feeling bad for her are the same as all of the reservists or NG personnel that gladly took the money for tuition reimbursement, payment of student loans and then turn around and complain that they have to actually do something for the money.

There are a good number of people that have been called up under IRR to fill medical, technical or language positions. You almost never hear about it and they go either willingly and enthusiasticly to grudgingly.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The IRR is part of every standard enlistment or commission.

I fail to see why this story is at all noteworthy.[/QUOTE]

ehh, maybe there are some more reasonable jobs she can do. It seems odd that they'd even want to call up a 43 year old, but maybe it does make some sense depending on where they put her. If they put her in the field then I go back to the "what the hell?" reaction.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Associates degrees are 2 years long because they are including many courses that fulfil general education requirements. Meanwhile, as a grad, I could stand to significantly reduce the amount of time required to get an associates in a specific field, such as RN, electrician, paralegal, simply because I already have all their general requirements fulfilled, and I'd only be taking classes relating to the material at hand. That being said, if the Army were to wish to train recruits in just the field that they are to learn, they can cut down training time, significantly, to the tune of a few months. I know that a paralegal certification, for me, should only take about 1 semester.

However, this is beside the point, since they're already putting her through 18 months of training... Why not take a recruit that went through bootcamp recently and just put him through training?[/quote]

Ilike how you select points you think you can backup but don't bother to touch the other things I pointed out. Anyhow, IIRC alot of RNs now graduating are from four year BSN programs, not asscoicate's anyways (more money and oppertunities, LPNs I dunno about). Also I doubt you'd finish the course needed to be a paralegal in a semester (particularly if you have little knowledge of law). Even if you couldm a paralegal isn't an RN anyhow. Associate's degrees typically have shortened or more specialized GE requirments compared to a Bachlor's particularly a BSN sure, but they still usually have at least a year's worth or specified or related education/training in that field. Don't forget there's training (in the case of RNs & RTs clinicals), you'd likely have at least a semester (or two) of medical,chemistry, and biology classes followed by clicnical work. Even becoming RN through a diploma program which technically involves less higher education classes than an asscociate's degree takes about 2 years to finish I believe.

Also no place in the article does it mention her going through another 18 months training (least not that I saw), so I have no idea where you get that. As for yanking a recuit out of boot camp to become a nurse, I'm not all that familar with army protocol, but I don't know if that would be so hot. I doubt the soldier who wants to be say an engineer would be too keen on somebody just switching his occupation and hindering his/her future career. At the very least you'd have some unhappy and with your plan undereducated medical personnel. Don't forget the army trained this lady some already and it's somewhat likely they paid for her education and training to become an RT.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']
Past her prime for military service, not medical service, you dip.
[/QUOTE]

Well if she's there to serve in some capacity in medical service like you suggest would you care to explain the difference. She has already been trained and has presumably been doing the same or at least very similar task she'll be doing overseas for a number of years. If she's past her prime for it why is she still doing it here and why can she not do the same thing over there? Or is she past her prime because she's a woman. You mentioned you thought there was likely a bigger shortage of military doctors or surgeons, so if it was a 45 yr old male doctor we were talking about he wouldn't be past his prime then in your definition? I mean they are both doing military service, possibly in the same location for all we know.
 
Army Policy on Service Age Limits

Commissioned officers are allowed to do 28 years of service, and if they are in the rank of lieutenant colonel (promotable) or colonel they can do 30 years of service. Officers retire after reaching their mandatory removal dates due to years of service or age (60), whichever comes first. However, clinical Army Medical (AMEDD) officers who are Reserve Soldiers (including IRR) can request Mandatory Retirement Date (MRD) extensions and do more years of service (up to age 67) if approved.

I fail to see how 43 qualifes as "past her prime" oh wait.... I forgot.

I'm dealing with a wonder tard here.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Army Policy on Service Age Limits

Commissioned officers are allowed to do 28 years of service, and if they are in the rank of lieutenant colonel (promotable) or colonel they can do 30 years of service. Officers retire after reaching their mandatory removal dates due to years of service or age (60), whichever comes first. However, clinical Army Medical (AMEDD) officers who are Reserve Soldiers (including IRR) can request Mandatory Retirement Date (MRD) extensions and do more years of service (up to age 67) if approved.

I fail to see how 43 qualifes as "past her prime" oh wait.... I forgot.

I'm dealing with a wonder tard here.[/QUOTE]

Somehow, I doubt she's an officer.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Ilike how you select points you think you can backup but don't bother to touch the other things I pointed out. Anyhow, IIRC alot of RNs now graduating are from four year BSN programs, not asscoicate's anyways (more money and oppertunities, LPNs I dunno about). Also I doubt you'd finish the course needed to be a paralegal in a semester (particularly if you have little knowledge of law). Even if you couldm a paralegal isn't an RN anyhow. Associate's degrees typically have shortened or more specialized GE requirments compared to a Bachlor's particularly a BSN sure, but they still usually have at least a year's worth or specified or related education/training in that field. Don't forget there's training (in the case of RNs & RTs clinicals), you'd likely have at least a semester (or two) of medical,chemistry, and biology classes followed by clicnical work. Even becoming RN through a diploma program which technically involves less higher education classes than an asscociate's degree takes about 2 years to finish I believe. [/QUOTE]

We're getting sidetracked. She's a respirational therapist. I've already posted the Department of Labor's page on being a respiration therapist which already stated you need an associate's degree to be a respirational therapist.
 
[quote name='Mono`']"I owe it to my country..."

To be sent to die, hurrah America. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Have you ever posted anything intelligent? Link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top