A federal judge ruled yesterday that the military can ship an Arkansas soldier back to the front lines in Iraq this weekend, despite the serviceman's objection that the military forced him to extend his tour after tricking him into believing he was enlisting for just one year.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the Army recruiter may have stressed to David W. Qualls, 35, that he was enlisting for a one-year hitch, but the contract he signed spelled out that his duty could be extended against his wishes in time of national emergency or war.
Qualls's attorneys had sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from forcing him to return to Iraq, accusing recruiters of "bait-and-switch" tactics to enlist Qualls and others for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"The whole point is that it was only supposed to be for one year," said Qualls's lawyer, Jules Lobel. "They better tell people this clearly and not put it in the fine print."
Lamberth disagreed. "This wasn't in the fine print," he said. "It's only a two-page contract."
In July 2003, Qualls enlisted in the Army National Guard's "Try One" program, which is designed for veterans who wanted to try another year of service or earn a chance for a promotion. Though his tour of duty was to expire in July 2004, the Army notified him in October 2003 that it would be extended for at least two more years, and he was shipped out with his Guard unit to Taji, Iraq, in March 2004.
There Qualls remained until Nov. 22, when he was granted leave to visit his family for Thanksgiving.
Qualls and seven other U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and Kuwait filed a lawsuit this week in federal court challenging the U.S. military's so-called "stop-loss" policy, which allows President Bush to force soldiers to serve beyond their enlistment contracts.
Matthew Lepore, a Justice Department attorney representing the Pentagon, said Qualls had not proved a pattern of deceit by the military -- in his own case or systemwide.
"I will concede there's great risk on the lines," Lepore said. " I will even concede there's hardship for families. But this case is about whether his enlistment can be extended . . . and it can."
