Hello. Are you trying to think of the term AWOL? Absent without leave.

If you’re in, you’re in, and can only get out for a few reasons.

I didn't mean it to sound like a person being AWOL. I meant as in, for example, if I were in the military and my term was up this month according to my contract, and I was not allowed to leave. I must also say that this doesn't directly affect me, but will one of my friends who has been in Iraq for a long time now.

been involuntarily 'extended.' Further, this govt. has been recalling from retirement and from those whose enlistments have run out.

This is called 'Convenience of the Govt.'

The small print most GI's never see gives the gooberment the right to use you body and soul for years after the GI thinks their service is complete , During the first gulf war I was put on "ready Stand-by" It was a scary thought for a newly married father , I can't even imagine the fear and dread that these brave men and women face with this unjust war of greed !

It's awful that they are breaching their contracts w/ the soldiers. We have a friend who is in his early 40's, was finished w/ 2 tours over there. They decided to "test" him, well he tested positive & for punishment he is going back to Iraq for 1 year. Remember they used to kick you out if you tested positive for anything?

Part of the contract you sign when you enlist (or get drafted) includes giving the government the right to keep you beyond the contract limit for "reasons of national security". This was recently upheld by the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=95184

May 13, 2005 — SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. military has the right to keep soldiers in the service beyond their original contracted time by issuing so-called emergency stop-loss orders, a U.S. appeals court said on Friday.

The U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals said the military acted within its rights when it ordered Emiliano Santiago, an Army National Guard sergeant, to remain in the service beyond the time of his eight-year contract as his unit was being mobilized for active duty.

Santiago had argued stop-loss orders could only apply to reserve units on active duty.

The San Francisco-based court disagreed, backing the "plain language" of federal law authorizing the executive branch to "implement a stop-loss policy in order to prevent retirement or separation of reserve members who are essential to national security."