Big Army tells Army aviators that they have to serve another three years

| May 1, 2023

Many Army aviators were making plans for what they thought was going to be the end of the military chapter of their lives. They looked forward to the new chapter in their lives with positive anticipation. However, after the Army reviewed some “technicalities” involving these contracts, they concluded that having aviators serve the additional three years concurrently with their original contract years was not how things were supposed be done. The Army argued that these additional three years were supposed to be served separately.

From NBC News:

As part of a program known as BRADSO, cadets commissioning from the U.S. Military Academy or Army Cadet Command from 2008 and 2020 were able to request a branch of their choice, including aviation, by agreeing to serve an additional three years on active duty.

For years, the Army allowed some aviation officers to serve those three years concurrently, and not consecutively, along with their roughly contracted seven or eight years of service.

In a phone call with reporters Thursday, Army officials admitted “errors” in the system, which they noticed a few months ago, led to the discrepancy.

“We are fixing those errors, and we are in communication with the unit leadership and impacted officers,” said Lt. Gen. Douglas Stitt, deputy chief of staff of G-1, which is in charge of policy and personnel.

“Our overall goal to correct this issue is to provide predictability and stability for our soldiers while maintaining readiness across our force,” Stitt added.

In letters the Army sent this month to the affected aviators as well as to members of Congress, which were obtained by NBC News, the branch said it “realized” after conducting a “legal review of this policy” that the three-year BRADSO requirement has to be served separately.

“This is not a new policy, but we are correcting oversights in recordkeeping that led some officers with an applied BRADSO to separate from the U.S. Army before they were eligible,” the letter said.

Thursday’s media roundtable came after more than 140 aviation officers banded together to demand answers after learning one by one that they were being denied discharges due to outstanding BRADSO obligations beginning last fall.

More than 60 of them signed a letter to Congress outlining how they had been misled by the Army for years about the exact length of their service contract.

“It has been this unanimous uprising of emotions and frustrations,” said another Army aviation captain, who is newly married and wanted to begin having children.

NBC News has additional information on the story.

Category: Army, Army News, Big Army

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In a morale patch:
comment image


Heh, You fucked up. You trusted us.


So will they recall those recently released to correct any further “mistakes”.


I wouldn’t bet against it.


like this

Anna Puma

And morale heads for the Challenger Deep


The Military can’t compete in today’s job market?

Release the lawyers!


It’s an amazing coincidence that just happened to figure it out right when there was major pilot shortage. Isn’t that lucky?


In addition to addressing their recent increased aviation mishap rate, it sounds like Army Aviation should also be asking itself some difficult questions as to why it now needs to force Army aviators to remain on active duty.

  • Reduced/inadequate flight hours?
  • Maintenance issues?
  • Supply issues?
  • Morale issues?
  • Too much tangential/irrelevant “social” training?

Whatever is happening within Army Aviation, it’s never a good indicator when aircrews need to be forced to continue flying.


I seem to recall service record Page 13 entries going back years volunteering for Duty Involving Flight. I could pull those pages at any time. This bullshit?

Doc, can’t seem to clear my ears. Those letters on the eye chart are getting real fuzzy, too. Back hurts a lot these days and the migraines…


Yup; we could always “turn in our Wings” at any time in Naval Aviation. Actually (unbelievably) saw a couple of guys do it over the years.

Not sure if Army aviators have the same latitude re: volunteering to remain on flight status?

Maine Highlander

I remember in the original Top Gun movie Cougar turned his wings in because he “lost the edge.”

I didn’t know that can actually be done in the Navy.


It’s hazardous duty. I also had the prerogative to refuse to jump from my helo. My ass going into the ocean, right?
Only heard of it being invoked once, when a swimmer refused to jump for a corpse.


Yes, you can voluntarily withdraw from flight status in Naval Aviation (Navy and Marine Corps).

However, if you do, don’t expect the Navy or Marine Corps to give a damn about your wants/desires when they reassign you and send you to the first available shithole that they can find for you to work off your remaining service commitment.


Looks like they don’t really give a damn now either..

“However, if you do, don’t expect the Navy or Marine Corps to give a damn about your wants/desires”


From the link;

“But the vast majority handle administrative work and no longer fly, which had been a major perk of their job.”


Tell me your military is turning to sh!t without telling me your military is turning to sh!t…


Become a helo pilot…11 FOOKEN YEARS.

Yeah, I can see recruitment not going too well.


“We simply fixed the glitch!”

The Bobs were hired by Army Aviation.


May the Bobs catch up to Lumbergh also.

sic semper billis.gif

Fine print has consequences.


The “little-known, seldom-used reserve activation clause” (of Star Trek: The Motion Picture fame) strikes again.
comment image

Last edited 11 months ago by Anonymous
NR Pax

In the Real World, the company would be forced to honor the original contract and change things going forward.


Government slave masters will move any goal post they desire, unless the Great Pushback Calculus Matrix spits out an answer why their immoral act is now not in ‘the best interest of the party people’.

jeff LPH 3 63-66

So they signed their names and became a star driving a jet plane and that ain’t all. Close to the lead in to The All American Boy by Bill Parsons.


predictability and stability

If by that they mean, the Big Green Weenie is gonna get you, then they are absolutely doing that.
I can’t imagine this will have any impact on retention, right?

Green Thumb

The Big Green Weenie.


So…they miss their recruiting quotas BIG TIME and now they’re forcing officers to stay in 3 more years?

This is what happens when you put Wokesters and petulant children in charge.


How can you serve three additional years of active duty concurrently? If you sign on for three additional years active duty that’s what it should be, three more fucking years!


That contradiction occurred to ol’ Poe as well… 🤔 

And if you can accrue such time, could you claim it counts towards pay and promotion? 😜 

Last edited 11 months ago by Poetrooper

Interesting. Serve an additional 10 years concurrently, retire at 20 years in only 10 years real time; enlist at age twenty, retire at age 30 with full benefits. Sign me up!

Makes me think of “The Forever War” by Joe Haldeman.


It does seem rather obvious, doesn’t it? Then again, people have a pretty amazing ability to hear (or read) what they want to hear–not what was actually said (or written).


“My recruiter promised… “


Yeah, a military service obligation isn’t prison time. You shouldn’t get to have concurrent obligations. What’s next? West Point graduates getting four years knocked off for time served?

Veritas Omnia Vincit

Meanwhile the Pentagon remains stumped regarding retention and recruitment within the various branches.

Green Thumb

Creative stop-loss option.

A Proud Infidel®™

The Big Green Weenie strikes yet again!


“Our overall goal to correct this issue is to provide predictability and stability for our soldiers…”

Uh, no. It is opposite day I guess. Where all things said are really the reverse of what is spoken.

Lt. Gen. Stitt, JUST one letter of from, well, you know.


The CSA is an aviator also. Getting bent over stings just a little bit more. Yep, FTA, man.


Think I now much better understand why a lot of folks refer to that place as ‘the Five Sided Puzzle Palace’..


Seems like this little contract dispute only involves officers. My initial reaction is “Tough shit!, read your contract.” I wonder how many of those ossifers have pulled the same kind of BS on their EM.

Not that I dislike ossifers, I just don’t like ossifers.

Veritas Omnia Vincit

I guess the flip side to that is this; if they started fucking officers as well as enlisted it’s a relatively strong signal they have no idea how to fix the mess they created with recruiting and retaining skilled personnel…

When inflation runs at 8% and the senior brass and politicians are touting a 4.6% increase as anything other than a net 3% loss the words “out of touch” really start to hit home.


“if they started fucking officers as well as enlisted i…”

There is an old saying-“misery loves company”.

Forest Bondurant

In other words,

“Get fucked!” – Cordially yours, The US Army.