Help With Writing a Memo Forum

[ironjohn929]

Greetings all!

I realize this is my first post, however, I am hoping you many aid me in writing a memo.

I am to write a memo objecting to the Army's practice of using a 2009 directive to decide a dispute that was based on a 2007 directive, as it applies to the following scenario:

In March 2007, the soldier, a Chief Warrant Officer, in an effort to prepare for his separation from the Army in January 2008, conferred with his administrative office as to the proper procedure. At this time, he was told he would not be able to separate because of a recent directive called Stop-Loss/Stop-Move that prohibited soldiers from separating due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This directive essentially stated the following:

(1) If the soldier's separation date fell within 90 days of his or her unit deploying, the Stop-Loss would apply, and would not be able to separate until 90 days after the return from deployment.

(2) If the soldier is scheduled to deploy at any time past 90 days, and scheduled to separate while deployed, the Stop-Loss/Stop-Move would apply on the day of that separation, and would not be able to separate until 90 days after return from deployment.

Falling with the guidelines of paragraph two, the soldier completed his deployment, and separated after the 90 day stipulation under conventional Army policy on January 14, 2009.

However, In October of 2009, nearly 9 months after separation, the Army issued a new directive labeled Retroactive Stop Loss Pay (RSLP). Under this directive, the Army would retroactively pay soldiers $500/month for the time they were in the Stop-Loss/Stop-Pay program. When this soldier applied for this program he was denied approval because RSLP directive stipulates that in order for a soldier to take part in this program, he or she must show that he was denied separation orders. The Army is therefore using the October 2009 directive to deny this soldier's ability to take part in the RSLP, although at the time of his Stop-Loss period, he was bound to the 2007 directive.

The position I am attempting to take in this memo is that the Army is using inequitable measures to deny this soldier of the benefits of the RSLP. The problem to which I face is that I cannot find precedent or case law, or anything else to support my position.

Perhaps you may be able to help me out.

Thank you!

IJ

[harborleaguemvp]

I hope your legal writing teacher doesn't have a TLS account or you're in a world of trouble

[dougroberts]

The position I am attempting to take in this memo is that the Army is using inequitable measures to deny this soldier of the benefits of the RSLP. The problem to which I face is that I cannot find precedent or case law, or anything else to support my position.

Well, if you cannot find anything to support your proposition, then you may be wrong in your proposition. Coupled with the fact that you asked TLS to write a memo for you, most likely your proposition IS wrong. HTH.

[Heartford]

WTF is this? What are you asking for? Just do some legal research. Nobody here is going to do it for you.

[truevines]

Greetings all!

I realize this is my first post, however, I am hoping you many aid me in writing a memo.

I am to write a memo objecting to the Army's practice of using a 2009 directive to decide a dispute that was based on a 2007 directive, as it applies to the following scenario:

In March 2007, the soldier, a Chief Warrant Officer, in an effort to prepare for his separation from the Army in January 2008, conferred with his administrative office as to the proper procedure. At this time, he was told he would not be able to separate because of a recent directive called Stop-Loss/Stop-Move that prohibited soldiers from separating due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This directive essentially stated the following:

(1) If the soldier's separation date fell within 90 days of his or her unit deploying, the Stop-Loss would apply, and would not be able to separate until 90 days after the return from deployment.

(2) If the soldier is scheduled to deploy at any time past 90 days, and scheduled to separate while deployed, the Stop-Loss/Stop-Move would apply on the day of that separation, and would not be able to separate until 90 days after return from deployment.

Falling with the guidelines of paragraph two, the soldier completed his deployment, and separated after the 90 day stipulation under conventional Army policy on January 14, 2009.

However, In October of 2009, nearly 9 months after separation, the Army issued a new directive labeled Retroactive Stop Loss Pay (RSLP). Under this directive, the Army would retroactively pay soldiers $500/month for the time they were in the Stop-Loss/Stop-Pay program. When this soldier applied for this program he was denied approval because RSLP directive stipulates that in order for a soldier to take part in this program, he or she must show that he was denied separation orders. The Army is therefore using the October 2009 directive to deny this soldier's ability to take part in the RSLP, although at the time of his Stop-Loss period, he was bound to the 2007 directive.

The position I am attempting to take in this memo is that the Army is using inequitable measures to deny this soldier of the benefits of the RSLP. The problem to which I face is that I cannot find precedent or case law, or anything else to support my position.

Perhaps you may be able to help me out.

Thank you!

IJ

If this is one of you LRW assignments, you're probably screwed.
The TLS members are from every law school in this country.
I am sure one of them who recognize the fact patterns will forward this post to his/her LRW professor.

[SilverE2]

this should be interesting

[DreamsInDigital]

this should be interesting

[seatown12]

I am sure one of them who recognize the fact patterns will forward this post to his/her LRW professor.

anyone who would do this is an irredeemable cocksucker

[gdane]

I am sure one of them who recognize the fact patterns will forward this post to his/her LRW professor.

anyone who would do this is an irredeemable cocksucker

Agreed.

However, op please do your own work. This isn't cool.

[Emma.]

[Naked Dude]

At my school it is definitely not kosher to discuss LRW assignments with non-students (specifically other 1Ls). Dunno about here though. Hopefully OP knows his/her rules.

[goodolgil]

They're making you find your own caselaw already? Geez.

EDIT: Is this even a LRW memo? From my tired, cursory glance the fact pattern looks a little complicated for a 1L assignment in August.

[traydeuce]

What... kind of law does this even fall under? Inequitable measures? What is this? Where would you look? This isn't really a contract problem; it's not immediately obvious that it's a constitutional one. I guess the idea would be some kind of... procedural due process/notice thing? Maybe?

[Heartford]

My theory is that OP isn't even a law student and there is no memo- he's the soldier in his scenario and he's not only looking for free legal advice- he's looking for someone to actually research his issue for him.

[Gamecubesupreme]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't been closed yet.

[random5483]

My theory is that OP isn't even a law student and there is no memo- he's the soldier in his scenario and he's not only looking for free legal advice- he's looking for someone to actually research his issue for him.

+1.

Your comment made me read the question and it does not sound like a 1L memo question, let alone an August of 1L memo (don't think I had anything assigned 1-2 weeks in last year).

[YourCaptain]

Highly doubtful that's a memo prompt; that seems highly complex and if you actually needed research help you could just ask a school librarian to help you term the search. They would already have been told about the memo and would be ready to help.

I'm not sure what you're after but you're not a law student writing a memo.

[spleenworship]

Contact a former JAG. /thread

also, while I am pretty sure this isn't an actual memo request, FYI- my school would consider this a violation of honor code and bust your ass back to private, metaphorically speaking.

[Renzo]

My theory is that OP isn't even a law student and there is no memo- he's the soldier in his scenario and he's not only looking for free legal advice- he's looking for someone to actually research his issue for him.

+1.

Your comment made me read the question and it does not sound like a 1L memo question, let alone an August of 1L memo (don't think I had anything assigned 1-2 weeks in last year).

Yeah, this is a request for legal advice, not a request for cheating help.