The Air Force and Army currently require at least 10 years' service after UPT graduation. The Navy/Marine Corps remain at 8 years. My question is what is the legal basis for the Army and Air Force increasing theirs to 10, which is above the statutory minimum of 8 (and I'm setting aside helos/navigators/NFO for the sake of discussion even though that's only 6)?
10 U.S.C. sec. 653 states:
(a)Pilots.—
The minimum service obligation of any member who successfully completes training in the armed forces as a pilot shall be 8 years, if the member is trained to fly fixed-wing jet aircraft, or 6 years, if the member is trained to fly any other type of aircraft.
(c)Definition.—In this section, the term “service obligation” means the period of active duty or, in the case of a member of a reserve component who completed flight training in an active duty for training status as a member of a reserve component, the period of service in an active status in the Selected Reserve required to be served after—
(1) completion of undergraduate pilot training, in the case of training as a pilot
The statute seems clear and unambiguous to me, to wit: "shall be 8 years." It does not say, "shall be at least 8 years." Thus, the way I read it is that once you graduate UPT, you owe 8 years, and then you may choose to continue beyond that by mutual agreement with the service. What it doesn't mean is, "it's 8 years, but the service can unilaterally make it more at their whim." If that were the intent, then it would say, "shall be at least 8 years." Moreover, I'm dubious that a military service can point to a contract requiring more than 8 because that contract would be void ab initio as purporting to require something beyond what federal law allows.
That said, I'm not an expert in military law, and I don't know if this has ever been challenged in an Article III court. But if it hasn't, my sense (29 years' legal experience, mostly in federal courts) is that particularly now, with Chevron deference under increasing scrutiny, issues like this are vulnerable to be litigated.
Anyone here with particularized knowledge on the subject?
10 U.S.C. sec. 653 states:
(a)Pilots.—
The minimum service obligation of any member who successfully completes training in the armed forces as a pilot shall be 8 years, if the member is trained to fly fixed-wing jet aircraft, or 6 years, if the member is trained to fly any other type of aircraft.
(c)Definition.—In this section, the term “service obligation” means the period of active duty or, in the case of a member of a reserve component who completed flight training in an active duty for training status as a member of a reserve component, the period of service in an active status in the Selected Reserve required to be served after—
(1) completion of undergraduate pilot training, in the case of training as a pilot
The statute seems clear and unambiguous to me, to wit: "shall be 8 years." It does not say, "shall be at least 8 years." Thus, the way I read it is that once you graduate UPT, you owe 8 years, and then you may choose to continue beyond that by mutual agreement with the service. What it doesn't mean is, "it's 8 years, but the service can unilaterally make it more at their whim." If that were the intent, then it would say, "shall be at least 8 years." Moreover, I'm dubious that a military service can point to a contract requiring more than 8 because that contract would be void ab initio as purporting to require something beyond what federal law allows.
That said, I'm not an expert in military law, and I don't know if this has ever been challenged in an Article III court. But if it hasn't, my sense (29 years' legal experience, mostly in federal courts) is that particularly now, with Chevron deference under increasing scrutiny, issues like this are vulnerable to be litigated.
Anyone here with particularized knowledge on the subject?