Reply
Tue 11 Nov, 2003 12:35 pm
Soldier-Mom in Custody Battle Reassigned by Army
She Has Been Given Time to Find Care for Kids or Get Out of Military
FORT CARSON, Colo. (Nov. 11) - A soldier who stayed home with her children during a custody battle rather than returning to Iraq was reassigned to Fort Carson, but also received a conflicting message she could face criminal charges.
Spc. Simone Holcomb, a medic in the Colorado National Guard, was reassigned Monday to Fort Carson to give her time to find care for her children or get out of the Army, post spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Budzyna said.
"She's been reassigned to Fort Carson for compassionate reasons and she's in the process of being demobilized from active duty status to National Guard status," Budzyna said late Monday.
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 seven 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.
Simone Holcomb told a judge she would stay home with the children and refused an Army order to return to Iraq.
Her reassignment to Fort Carson was backdated Oct. 10, the day she was due back in Iraq, which means she couldn't be charged with being absent without leave, Budzyna said.
But a commander in Iraq called Holcomb on Monday, gave her an administrative punishment and read her her legal rights for possible criminal charges, Simone Holcomb's attorney, Giorgio Ra'Shadd, told The Gazette of Colorado Springs.
It was not immediately clear what the administrative punishment was or what criminal charges she might face.
Ra'Shadd and Budzyna said they were trying to sort out the conflicting messages.
"Common sense is going to prevail in this matter. We are going to take care of the soldier," Budzyna said.
Simone Holcomb referred questions to Ra'Shadd. He did not return a telephone message late Monday.
I have never been proponent of women in our Armed forces. At least not in fighting units or on the fireing line. That aside should the army have sent both the mother and the father to Iraq which in the worst case could have made the children ophans? I will hearken back to the rule established during WW2 when 5 brothers were killed while serving on the same ship. Should there be a rule to avoid this situation?
I don't think, in the interests of gender equality, that there should be a law against women fighting on the front. What about fathers? Are their losses not significant enough to prohibit them from the front lines? Should there be a law against all parents?
I think that's too sketchy. . .
However, I do think that the army should be a little more accomodating of such emergency situations. I saw a piece on this story on the news last night, and they say she appealed to her supervisors for a temporary reassignment, which was denied. Putting mothers in a position to choose between their job or their children is unfair, and the army should be a little more willing to accomodate such situations. But a law forbidding women (or just mothers) from the front? No. It's their business if that's what they want to do.
Methinks there is a lot to this story that hasn't been stated publicly.
Both Spc Holcomb and her husband knew that they could both be deployed at the same time and they were required to make accomodations should that event occur. That apparently was done.
Then the ex-wife steps into the picture and decides to disrupt the apple cart. Why didn't his lawyer throw up the legal roadblock available to him and have the proceedings halted under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act? That is the entire purpose of the law! It's there to prevent people from taking legal action against a military member that is assigned elsewhere where they can't adequately defend themselves in a court room. If that had been done then the jugde would have had no choice but to suspend all proceedings regarding the children until he was back in the country for 60 days and the immediate casue of concern would have been squelched.
There is also a lot of other BS floating around in that story. A Commander can't call somene on the phone and read them their rights or take punative administrative actions. Or I should say, doing so has zero effect. None the less, her orders were back-dated to Oct 10th so he/she wasn't her Commander on Monday and had no legal authority to do anything to her.
But overall, no, this story has nothing to do with women in the military. And a process already exists that if one spouse is killed the other surviving spouse is immediately removed from the combat zone so that children aren't left as orphans. Spouses are also not supposed to be assigned to the same unit if they are both deployed.
Quote:A Commander can't call somene on the phone and read them their rights or take punative administrative actions.
Au, contraire! A unit commander can initiate Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) proceedings whenever he or she wishes to for whatever reasons he may feel are appropriate. A soldier does not even have to be present for the Arty one five proceeding! The unit I was with in Germany used this method frequently. Several soldiers from the EQ and Earthmoving Platoons found themselves called into the CO's office after first formation to hear that they ahd receieved company grade Article 15s, sign the paperwork, and learn their punishments. Not very nice, but entirely within the CO's rights.
Fishin', I know you are an attorney, but were you ever in JAG? If so, is this sort of thing legal under UCMJ? As I said, it is quite common in line units.
I'm not an attorney and have never claimed to be one. I have a degree in Criminal Justice and interned with a JAG office as a paralegal while I was working on getting my degree. I was also a 1st Sgt. before retiring and the major portion of my job was dealing with disciplinary issues for Commanders.
A Commander can initiate anything they want at pretty much any time. They can have things investigated and they can draw up all the paperwork they'd like but none of it has any effect until it is administrated to the individual. The Manual for Courts Martial requires that that me be done person. There are only two exceptions to that rule that I am aware of - A person can be court martialed in absentia if they are AWOL or a deserter or if they are in POW status. But again, in both those instances, any penalty wouldn't be enforced until the individual was physically present, read the charges, told of the trial results and given opportunity to appeal.
Unfortunately, the situation you describe happens because the younger troops are unaware of their rights or to scared to open their mouths. The Commander has very few rights in the Article 15 process. Sure, the individual doesn't have to be present when their fate is decided but it has to be presented to thr individual in person and the individual doesn't have to accept the Article 15 either. An Article 15 is an adminsitrative proceeding and the indivudal can refuse the Article 15 and demand a trial by court. A Commander can't force you to accept an Article 15 punishment.
But, the Army tends to treat Article 15's as just another piece of paperwork so people accpet them as the status quo. People rack up 10 or 12 of them in their 1st enlistment and they're considered a bit of a badge of honor. In the Air Force you can survive with one but a 2nd is the kiss of death and you're gone.
The article I read yesterday said the soldier in question had been declared (or whatever the terminology is) AWOL, before they backdated the assignment.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace