Raw Story is reporting on a WaPo story indicating that Army reserve officers are being stop-lossed, just like the EM.

The Army Reserve, taxed by recruiting shortfalls and war-zone duty, has adopted a policy barring officers from leaving the service if their field is undermanned or they have not been deployed to Iraq, to Afghanistan or for homeland defense missions. The reserve has used the unpublicized policy, first adopted in 2004 and strengthened in a May 2005 memo signed by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, its commander, to disapprove the resignations of at least 400 reserve officers, according to Army figures.

"I don't think during a time of war you would want to let people go when you have a shortage of people," Army Reserve spokesman Steve Stromvall said when asked to comment on the memo, which surfaced during litigation over the policy. At least 10 reserve officers have sued the Army, saying they should be allowed to get out because they have finished their mandatory eight years of service.

This seems like one of those “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” stories. Reserve EM are being stop-lossed, pending activation of their units for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, so why not the officers too? OTOH, do we really want disaffected officers leading troops in a war zone?

Blocking reserve officers' resignations is one of several steps the Army has undertaken in recent years to keep soldiers beyond their original terms of service, as today's wars place unprecedented demands on the all-volunteer force. Under another practice, known as "stop-loss," thousands of active-duty Army and reserve soldiers have been temporarily prevented from leaving the military, either because their skills were needed or because their units were going overseas. As of January, more than 13,000 soldiers were being kept in the service under stop-loss, a policy criticized by some as a "backdoor draft," which the Army says it seeks to end.

But experts in military law say barring reserve officers from resigning is in some ways more expansive and open-ended than stop-loss. The policy applies to officers who do not fall under stop-loss.

At the heart of the controversy is whether a law stating that commissioned reserve officers are appointed "for an indefinite term and are held during the pleasure of the President" gives the government the power to force them to serve permanently -- as Army lawyers say -- or only to discharge them against their will.

Having been a relatively good boy in uniform, I’m not really too schooled in UCMJ, but I do know that officers are held to different standards than EM, and rightly so. The only disciplinary action I was ever faced with (that I’m willing to discuss publicly) was a “First Sergeant’s Article 15” for sleeping in one morning, and ditching reveille. Let me tell you: it’s a lot better getting your Art 15 from the First Sgt than from the CO. Unless corrected by Len Clevelin, or some other former JAG officer, I think a good point is made that a reserve commission can actually be for life.

Defense Department lawyers say that the federal law, including its use of the phrase "indefinite term," clearly gives the administration the authority to disapprove officer resignations. "The term 'indefinite' means what it says," they said in a filing in the Schwan case. "An indefinite term has no specific length, but is rather unlimited."

In addition, Army regulations have included broad language for several decades that could be used to restrict a reserve officer's ability to leave the service, including a 1987 rule that resignations may be accepted except during a national emergency proclaimed by the president or "other conditions which may necessitate such action."

There has been some discussion in other online magazines, including Jeff Huber’s Pen and Sword, regarding this issue. The issue can conceivably affect retirees, as well. See here. And here.

Not all Army Reserve officers fall under this policy. Those affected by it belong to the 167,000-strong force of "drilling reservists" assigned to units that train on weekends. Another category is the Individual Ready Reserve, made up of 110,000 soldiers who are not assigned to units and who are given the opportunity to resign after they complete eight years of service unless they are mobilized before then.

What really disturbs me most about this story is contained in the second paragraph of the story.

The reserve has used the unpublicized policy, first adopted in 2004 and strengthened in a May 2005 memo signed by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, its commander, to disapprove the resignations of at least 400 reserve officers, according to Army figures.

Unpublicized policy? Adopted 2 years ago? When I read that the first thing that came to mind was Dean Wormer’s memorable quote:

“Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!”