| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Reservist Fighting Fifth War Call-Up |
| 2007-07-14 |
| PORT ST. LUCIE - Erik Botta believes he's done right by his country. Days after 9/11, as a young Army reservist, he volunteered to go to war. He was soon in Afghanistan. The next year, he was sent out again, this time to Iraq, part of a Special Operations team. In the next two years, he was sent to Iraq again. And again. He thought he was done. But now, the Army wants Sgt. Botta one more time. The 26-year-old Port St. Lucie man has been ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., on July 15 for his fifth deployment. And that has compelled Botta, a first-generation American who counts himself a quiet patriot, to do something he never thought he'd do: sue the Army. "I'm proud of my service," he said. "I never wanted it to end like this." Nearly seven years into his eight-year commitment to the reserves, the personal costs are higher for Botta. He could lose his home. His job at Sikorsky, working on the Black Hawk military helicopter, could be on the line. He's halfway to his electrical engineering degree, planning a career in defense work, but his professors say he'll suffer a significant setback if he is deployed. He doesn't mention the danger another deployment would bring, but his wife and parents do. "I'm proud of being in the Army," he said. "They taught me responsibility. They taught me maturity. And they gave me a good toolbox of technical skills to work with. I think I'd be more valuable to my country at this point by being here, getting my degree and working at Sikorsky." In a lawsuit he expects to file this week in federal court in Florida, Botta says he will ask for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies. He will also ask the court to prevent the Army from requiring him to report for duty until the legal questions are settled. His attorney, Mark Waple -- a West Point graduate and former military judge advocate who practices in Fayetteville, N.C. -- says Botta's case shows that the Army is inconsistent in its decisions when selecting reservists for involuntary mobilization, over and over. "This is an arbitrary decision by the Army Human Resources Command with no rational basis," Waple said. Deployment now would mean that he could no longer afford his house -- his wife would probably have to move in with her parents. Plans to start a family would be on hold. He would probably have to repeat some engineering courses after his return, and he might even lose the job he just landed about a month ago. Previously, he worked at Pratt & Whitney in the Joint Strike Fighter and Raptor engine programs. "This is no peace protester," Waple said. "I wouldn't have touched this case with a 10-foot pole if it was. He's put the boots on and been in combat." Although Botta knew there was a risk that he would be called to duty again, he assumed that it was very slight, given his four combat deployments, pursuit of an engineering degree and employment with military contractors, he said. "The world pretty much stopped when I got the notice," said Botta, weighing each word. "I've sacrificed a lot for the military. I didn't want to end with litigation, but I feel I've done my service to my country. I've done what I signed up for in more ways than one." The Army doesn't agree. It turned down one appeal, with another pending but unofficially denied. Last year, it granted Botta a 287-day delay, pushing his deployment date to this month, after an inquiry by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "This is something we're starting to see more of," Bryan Gulley, Nelson's spokesman, said about repeat deployments. "It's one of the reasons Nelson has been saying we have to stop relying so heavily on the [National] Guard and the Reserve." Army spokeswoman Maj. Cheryl Phillips issued a statement Friday regarding Botta's case, saying in part that the Army evaluates "each request independently to determine if the mobilization will cause undue hardship for the Soldier or the family. We appreciate the sacrifice our citizen Soldiers and their families make when called to active duty." The Army has granted 87 percent of delays requested by Soldiers -- most are 90 days or less -- and 54 percent of exemptions, the statement said. It did not comment on Botta's case, but the Army said in a letter sent to him regarding one of his appeals that he did not "meet the requirements for a hardship exemption/discharge." Botta joined the reserves in 2000 and asked to be activated in 2001 -- "I felt like I had to do something" after 9/11, he said -- and his tours of duty have lasted up to eight months. He left active duty at the end of 2004. Under his current reporting date, he might not even complete the semester; classes end in August. Attorney Waple says the Army has granted an exemption in at least one similar case, in 2005. A 24-year-old North Carolina enlisted Army reservist with two combat tours under his belt -- in Iraq and Kosovo -- was involuntarily mobilized while attending community college in Raleigh, pursuing a degree in chemical engineering. He had completed five of his eight years in the service, Waple said. The man's first appeal was denied, but after Waple filed a second appeal, he was given an exemption and honorably discharged, Waple said. Botta's case may be even stronger. He has completed more years of service and more combat tours, has a job in the defense industry while pursuing his engineering degree, and was granted a 287-day delay already, Waple noted. Botta has tried hard to avoid a suit, Waple said, filing every appeal available within the Army's justice system. Botta and his wife have sent letters to everyone from Sen. Nelson to the White House. His professors and employers have sent letters, too, on his behalf. "It's an awkward thing for any serviceman," Waple said. "He has a very strong sense of responsibility and duty to serve." In his own letters to the Army, Botta notes that he is attending school on the GI Bill, maintaining a 3.9 grade-point average, and is grateful that he can use his Army skills in his work with military contractors. "If I was to go back to the Army at this juncture in my life, I could very well lose my house and be in considerable debt for years to come," Botta wrote. "I am proud of the fact that I can still continue to serve my country with the knowledge that I have acquired from the U.S. Army." The Army's response during the appeals, Botta said, has been "minimal communication." Carlos Botta, his father, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Argentina, said he applauded his son's military service -- until now. "He served in Afghanistan. He served three times in Iraq. The odds are getting slimmer and slimmer for him. He might get hurt. Don't you think he has served the country enough already?" Botta's wife, Jennifer, who married him between Iraq stints, said she can't face the idea of his returning to combat. Losing their house, painful as that would be, is the least of her worries. "He's been over there four times. There's only so many times you can go over without something happening . . . ." Her voice trailed off. During his deployments, she said, she would watch television news reports about bombings and then count the hours until he called. "My cellphone was in my hand 24 hours a day," she said. "I never let it go." For Erik Botta, who keeps his hair military-short, the last few months have played out as a struggle between his battle-hardened loyalty to the Army and an abiding sense of what's right. "We were in a wartime situation," he said. "I did what they asked me to do. I went over and did it. And then when I was leaving, they told me I could leave. They told me to get on with my life, and I did. Now it seems they've changed their mind." But he doesn't regret his service -- at all. "I'm proud to be in the Army, and I'm proud -- cheesy as it might sound -- I'm proud to be an American." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #14 Once again Bush is napping while necessity demands more boots and more boot camps. Either the man's a jerk or he's getting secret messages through his aluminum beanie. He's blown more chances than Linda Lovelace. He had a trunk Congress and he didn't manage to even get his sucessful tax cuts permanent. What a maroon. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-07-14 21:51 |
| #13 OK, this guy has "4 deployments" under his belt, including 2 that lasted less than 30 days. He has only spent 10 nonconsecutive months deployments. He needs a good ass kicking from his chain of command. As they say in my Corps, USMC...U Signed (the) Motherf*cking Contract. Suck it up and deal with it. I know guys that have 4 REAL deployments and 3 purple hearts. Don't hear this crap from them! |
| Posted by: 0369Grunt 2007-07-14 16:53 |
| #12 OK, this guy has "4 deployments" under his belt, including 2 that lasted less than 30 days. He has only spent 10 nonconsecutive months deployments. He needs a good ass kicking from his chain of command. As they say in my Corps, USMC...U Signed (the) Motherf*cking Contract. Suck it up and deal with it. I know guys that have 4 REAL deployments and 3 purple hearts. Don't hear this crap from them! |
| Posted by: 0369Grunt 2007-07-14 16:53 |
| #11 It was Bush, just not this one. BJ just kept a good thing going. There was nothing wrong with it. But after 9/11, the policy should have been reversed but it wasn't. That's what's this Bush's fault. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-07-14 16:24 |
| #10 It wasn't Bush who downsized the military. We all know who that was and that coupled with his roving eye (not on the critical mass of known terrorism since 1979) is what has got us where we are today. Bush and Rummy have made their share of mistakes but to somehow give him the boot for not adding a brigade is disingenious at best. It would have taken 5 years to get a brigade operationally fit. I still say the biggest issue with the military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan is RoE and the war being overlawyered. Also, we had the right generals (Franks) for the invasion but then the wrong ones for the post-victory occupation. Now we have a COIN general and team of repute that seem to be making very acute corrections. If we could only get the RoE changed on civilians.... |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-07-14 16:19 |
| #9 Does seem that this fine young man has done his share (and more) for us, doesn't it? I agree with Old Spook, give him an exemption, keep him in the Guard and let him get his degree. I've said before that Dubya should have asked for a new division of Army and a new brigade for the Marines after 9/11. These things take time, you never build up as quick as you build down, but had he done this we'd have those new units, well trained and set, on line now. Then we'd see if we need another new division. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-07-14 14:22 |
| #8 By the WWII standard everyone who volunteered after 9-11 should have deployed continuously for the next 3 years without a break - except for wounds or death. Terrorism is in part an attempt to criple our economy. So far it has been unsuccessful because we haven't done and general call-up and are continuing to let free market forces control production. In some ways it is awful attractive to contemplate the government bailing GM out of their 40 years of stupidity taking control of their plant and making them manufacture tanks that we don't need. A general call-up of American men wasn't necessary to take Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither will be necessary to take Iran or Syria. A general call-up would be quite useful for occupying Iraq or Iran but American casualties would skyrocket. Currently most of the casualties for our side are being absorbed by Iraqis. If the surge is successful, the casualty rates for Iraqis themselves will drop and we are a step closer to stable self-governement. All this while the DOW climbs and without undue inconvenience to Paris Hilton and her adoring fans. Who would have thunk it on the morning of 9-12-01. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-14 13:13 |
| #7 "the buck on this issue has to stop at G-Dub's desk" My late uncle hated Bush for just that reason. As a former WWII vet, he loathed the overuse of troops in combat areas because Dubya refused to expand the military. I sure as blazes couldn't argue with that. |
| Posted by: E Brown 2007-07-14 12:50 |
| #6 Same reason they haven't passed the Flat Tax, slashed social program spending, and done a thousand other obviously beneficial things: what's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the Congresscritter who would like to retain his cushy public sector job. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2007-07-14 12:11 |
| #5 You need a STANDING army. The cutback in the 90's was not a good idea considering we knew the need was increasing. Why has congress not increased the army by now? why? |
| Posted by: newc 2007-07-14 11:23 |
| #4 Someone at DA-MILPERCEN and the Guard bureau has their head up their 4th point of contact. This clearly calls for an exemption for the good of the service. This guy will stay guard if they let him - and he will have great input with Sikorsky on the very things he did in combat, and on the flip side, he can bring knowledge to his unit from Sikorsky to make his unit better. And int he long run, the Guard and Army will probably get a hell of a good officer if this guy goes that way once he completes his degree. 3.9 GPA in engineering is damn good. Combine that with his combat experience, and you have the makings of a someone the Guard and Army will need as it retools over the next 5 years. On top of that he has served enough combat tours. IVM is supposed to be used only in dire situations. I cannot see where they can't find another helicopter maint NCO. Go down to Ft Rucker and grab a spare E-6 that has probably done just one. I think someone at a desk in DC is screwing this up. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-07-14 11:01 |
| #3 While I'm happy to sign on to Procopius's idea of "deploying" Congresscritters, the buck on this issue has to stop at G-Dub's desk. In the days after 9-11, I was expecting to hear him call for, if not a full national mobilization, at least an end-strength increase sufficient to recoup the manpower losses resulting from the fact that Billy Jeff's budget surpluses came largely out of DoD's hide. Instead, what we got was "Go Shopping, Or the Terrorists Win". |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-07-14 10:32 |
| #2 Thinking about it more, I believe its time to bring back the old Roman practice of sending pols out with the legions. When a legion got munched in the field, so did the pols. Big motivation to make sure the troops were well trained, equipped, and had good tactical leadership. Rotation every four months, five reps and two Senators. Billeted no higher than battalion with at least two trips out on patrols. Any wimps automatically forfeit their seats and are banned from federal offices, elected or appointed, for twenty years. Time to put quality assurance into the process. "Do you know who I am?" "Yeah, dead weight if you piss off those kids trying to keep you alive, so you can posture when you get home." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-07-14 09:21 |
| #1 Talk to your Donk Congress. They, along with their brethren across the aisle, cut the active duty Army from 750,000 to 480,000 in the 90s. Peace dividend for all sorts of |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-07-14 09:12 |