| Was the promise of being stationed in Japan a reason you signed the enlistment contract? Or, better yet, is being stationed in Japan a written promise on your enlistment contract? If so, then you may have a case.
Act now or forever hold your peace. I don't have the regulation at hand to quote from, but it generally requires that if the military breaches an enlistment contract, you must take action "within 30 days of becoming informed of the breach or within 30 days of when the breach should have become obvious" (or language to that effect). What this means is that as soon as you have reason to believe the Army is not going to honor its enlistment contract you have to object, or you will be presumed to have "acquiesced" to the Army's decision. Object -- in writing. To begin with I'd submit a special request chit (or Army equivalent) to your chain-of-command, stating that you believe the Army is reneging on its contract promise and that you either want the promise kept or you want to be discharged. [ When I get time I'll get the precise regulation number for you. I think the Army also has a special "request for personnel action" form. ].
The above method, using the normal military process, is the vastly preferred method of dealing with these problems. Normally your objection should be routed to the proper office in D.C. so the legal/orders people can make a determination of whether your contract does indeed promise what you said, or if you can make a case that you've been defrauded, etc. If the Army refuses to correct the problem (or claims one does not exist), you can file a petition for habeus corpus with the district federal court. Basically it is a matter of proof. If you can prove you were lied to or defrauded, the court will terminate the contract/enlistment. People are often surprised to hear that this even includes promises that are not written on the contract. Some federal courts have held that the "merger clause" in the enlistment contract is not binding in cases of fraud, etc. and that "parol evidence" can be used. Wading through the legal concepts, it means the court will consider evidence other than just what is written on the contract, despite the fact that the contract explicitly says "No promises other than what is written on this contract, no matter what you were told..." etc. However, the court will often want a good deal of proof. And if your recruiter lied to get you to sign up, don't hold your breath waiting for him/her to admit to a court that they did so. If it is just "you say/they say" the court will not be interested in getting involved.
Bottom line: If you want to be discharged rather than have the Army break its promise, then you have to act. The Army may well tell you that you either have to take other orders or accept a discharge, usually no court will order "specific performance" [ i.e. order the military to send you to Japan ] of the military in this situation. | 
04-19-2006, 07:20 AM
Linear Mode
