Military discharge in Themiclesia
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
Military discharge in Themiclesia is the process by which a member of the armed forces leaves service.
History
Prior to 1947, military discharge primarily differed not by branch but by whether a serviceperson was conscripted/pressed or volunteered/contracted. A 25-year service in the Colonial Army had promised a sizeable tract of land in Themiclesia's colonies and perpetual freedom from taxation. The Navy also recruited professional crew since the 14th century, for a fixed salary and bounty at the end of a six-year service; marines followed the same pay schedule, but term of service was 20 years. Militias at home, which formed the backbone of the Themiclesian Army, relied on a completely different system, requiring a number of days of service set by the legislature each year. This service was nominally unpaid, but the government granted tax rebates or extra agricultural land while the militiaman remained committed to annual musters and subsequent duty. For the "fixed term" services, which from 1920 included the Air Force, discharge simply meant completing the term stipulated in the contract, while in the militias service only ended at the age of 65.
The Liberals have introduced many reforms to the armed forces. The most important was the official adoption of contracts for "fixed term" services, which was considered to simplify government finance, by defining a total outlay per capita, and increase accountability, through defining mutual obligations. Unlike the traditional system, however, the Liberals conceived of contractual service no differently from contractual employment—injuries or death arising from service were the fault of the soldier, and the government was blameless. In fact, the soldier would be sued for damages for being unable to continue service. Conservatives in opposition thought this system was unsound and turned the state into a business venture. While similar contracts were not uncommon in the business sphere, to impose the same for soldiers was considered harsh; moreover, Conservatives argued that if soldiers knew they would lose their livelihoods if they were injured in battle, they could not be expected to fight for their country. It would be, as they said, "against human nature to do so." Liberals responded failing to fight would also expose the soldier to recovery of damages, which could be deterred through a punitive clause, that is, "anyone can be made to anything with an appropriate contract." While Conservatives objected stringently, the system went into force in 1851 for sailors and marines. When the Conservatives regained power in 1859, the law was amended to require the government to provide medical attention to all "involuntary or justified" injures sustained in service.
This has been stated in the standard contract that the Liberal government imposed in 1885, who sought to redefine the relationship between the state and soldier to be the same as contractual employment, which at the time did not include mandatory vocational insurance. Since the government recruited volunteers for the South Expeditionary Force in unprecedented numbers, domestically criticism arose for the government abandoning volunteer soldiers once they were discharged for injuries.
A volunteer soldier was bound to a certain number of years in service stipulated in contract. In most professional infantry regiments, this was six years. Sailors generally expected four years of service.
A conscripted person was entitled to government care if he was discharged for injury or death, but a volunteer was not, on the principle that he willingly accepted the professional risks of a military career.
WIP