I disagree From the article “In letters the Army sent this month to the affected aviators as well as to members of Congress, which were obtained by NBC News, it said it “realized” after conducting a “legal review of this policy” that the three-year BRADSO requirement has to be served separately.” I don’t think they knew. I would put money on the fact that, when they signed up, they asked if this commitment would be concurrent and I would put money on the fact that some personnel NCOs said yes. How many times have you talked to someone at MPF and gotten a confidently wrong answer from someone and gone with it only to find out later that the info was incorrect? I can give you multiple examples of personnel inconsistencies When I was awarded a Nav slot in 1994, the commitment had changed from 5 to 6 years. I had to cross out every 5 in my contract, change it to a 6 and initial it. One of my friends was at a Det that didn’t do that. Guess what? She got out at the 5 year mark. My kid was told in Jan 2021 that he could commission into the ANG from ROTC in 2021 under the Bow Wave program. Everyone was on board, he found a unit and got hired…then in April 2021 A1 ended the program and didn’t tell anyone…not the gaining state recruiters, not the ROTC det, not the unit. They did all the paperwork to submit in May only for AFPC to say “sorry, that program is over, the moose out front should have told you.” I could go on and on. So to make a blanket sweeping generalization that every single one of these aviators read a contract that apparently the entire Army didn’t even understand and they all need to man up? It’s another case of the member getting screwed and the incompetent bureaucrats run free. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums