Cases: Military stop-loss isn’t breach of contract

A serviceman who challenged the military’s stop-loss regulation, which unilaterally changed the term of his contract, has no contract claim, says the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff Emiliano Santiago enlisted in the Army National Guard in June 1996 for eight years.  In June 2004, while attending what he thought was his last weekend training session, he learned that he was being mobilized for active duty in Afghanistan.

Under the contract claim, Santiago argued that the enlistment contract clearly stated his end date, which could not be changed without certain exceptions like declared war.  He argued that forcing him to continue service clearly violated the terms of the contract.  The court disagreed, noting that a clause in the contract allowed the government to change the existing terms, even if they were contradictory to the terms he agreed to.  Since the new stop-loss regulation was enacted after the formation of his contract, and since it did not violate the terms of his contract, Santiago was bound by it.

Santiago v. Rumsfeld, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8461 (9th Cir. May 13, 2005).