Now, Mr.  Hoelderlin's letter:

In December 2008 I was forced to leave Korea because of Contract Command of Korea's (CCK) refusal to renew my Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) status. Since then I have been looking at other job prospects, but if that does not pan out I might take an early retirement. Luckily, I had taken my own advice and saved money for the unexpected, which was the same advice I gave to many people who visited me at the offices of USA Federal Credit Union on Camp Henry and Camp Carroll. But every day I wonder why I am in the states and not still working in Korea.
Before I left, I remember the people who visited the Camp Henry credit union branch and told me they don't know what they will do if CCK forces them to leave Korea and probably lose their jobs. I saw the anxiety in their faces, something that CCK did not. There was woman who needed her job to help pay off debts, barely living paycheck per paycheck. There was a man who faced moving his entire family and feared he didn't have enough money to even pay for the move. During the last six months probably similar situations played out on other military bases in South Korea. You possibly know or knew one of these people.
I found out in mid-October 2008 that CCK denied my SOFA status through an indirect email addressed to the credit union liaison officer, Captain Stecher. Captain Stecher was obviously distressed in giving me the bad news. I read the two written lines in the email: 'Mr. Hoelderlin is denied Invited Contractor Status. He entered Korea on an E-2 stamp before he was hired by the Credit Union.'
After I found out how this would affect me, I was convinced that I was not at fault and I decided put up a fight.
Before I was forced to leave Korea, I called CCK to find out why they denied my SOFA status and how they could help me fix the problem that they created. I thought those were reasonable questions considering the life altering effect it would have for me and many other contractors.
The first telephone call to CCK gave me no clear information. On the second telephone call a Mr. Scott Bonner answered and stated, "Oh, you're the credit union guy." I knew from talking with others that Mr. Bonner was not a decision maker and I asked him to connect me to the responsible officer, Captain Wodochek. After reaching Captain Wodochek, I hoped that I would get a clearer understanding of why I needed to leave Korea and also what I could do to return. Again, I thought the questions were reasonable considering his CCK predecessors (who lost their jobs due to failing an audit in May 2008) were supposedly responsible, according to current CCK staff, for myself and many other contractors now forced to depart Korea or face arrest by the Korean government.
I was told by Captain Wodochek that it "states in the SOFA" the reason for their actions, although Captain Wodochek failed to tell me the specific passage or where I could find it in the SOFA. Many affected contractors have written that they could not find this "mystery" passage in the SOFA. Concerning the audit, I asked what happened to the members at CCK after the audit and Captain Wodochek stated that some were "fired".
When I asked how long I would need to be back in the states before returning to Korea in order to satisfy CCK, Captain Wodochek said "not one day, not one month, not two months". I wondered whether this vague answer was advice or a means of telling me that no amount of time would be acceptable?
He asked in a general way who was going to pay for the Korean taxes, and I did not know what he meant. I did not know that I owed any taxes to Korea. The Korean government did not contact me about paying taxes. I did not get a bill in the mail and no money was taken out of my paycheck. If an employee does not have the correct amount of taxes taken out of their salary, is that the fault of the employee, the company or the government? Should I be worried that the Korean government will want back taxes, or should CCK be worried that the US government will be responsible because of their mistakes? I visited the Daegu Immigration Office several times and after looking at my passport they never questioned me on having an E-2 visa or that I owed them taxes. All they wanted to see was if I got a stamped approval by CCK on the 700-19 form for an A-3 visa.
I asked if I or the credit union did anything wrong and he said, "No". I then asked who is responsible for interpreting the SOFA and he stated, "CCK". The responsibility of interpreting the SOFA also requires that CCK is responsible for giving guidance to the contractors and contracting companies on proper hiring procedures. Since establishing that CCK is responsible for interpreting the SOFA by Captain Wodochek's admittance, a person might argue that CCK failed to honor the contracts to the companies and their affected employees.
"A contract is a contract." I've heard that phrase since I was a little boy. It meant something to me when I signed my enlistment papers in the US Navy. I fulfilled that contract and when I retired I received my honorable discharge. If during my time in the military I had disgraced myself, I would not have received an 'honorable' discharge. A person might argue that an organization that fails to fulfill its contract could be considered untrustworthy and lacks honor. It seems that many companies who have workers facing this problem with CCK are willing to ignore CCK's failure to live up to these contracts and placate CCK in order to ensure future contracts. One might argue if CCK were able to get away with this, what will stop them from similar dishonorable actions in the future.
I asked Captain Wodochek one final question, "What if back in March 2005 I had flown back to the states and had been hired at the credit union headquarters in San Diego, would that have been acceptable?" and Captain Wodochek stated that would have been acceptable. I think any reasonable person would wonder why an incompetent organization that gave poor guidance can now absolve itself from any mistakes it made in the past. It seems we must take CCK's word that they are now correctly interpreting the SOFA.
I was amazed by CCK's lack of help and obtuse manner. If I had treated a member at the credit union the same way I would have been fired or reprimanded. A reasonable person might ask why would USFK and CCK act in such a callous way? Is there an ulterior motive - something to hide?
The audit mentions failure to properly supervise contracts which resulted in taxpayer money overpayment.
Having an E-2 visa on a passport is not reason for denial, but CCK had determined that I was hired improperly because I was not hired in the states.
Some contractors have thought that CCK is just a pawn. Some have thought, why would CCK risk facing the same fate as their predecessors on a future audit by basing their decisions on a vague document such as the SOFA. Someone might think that they were acting on orders. This could explain their actions. Some contractors believed that CCK's refusal to grandfather this matter was used to open up jobs for dependent spouses. One might conclude that is possible concerning the prior USA Federal Credit Union manager at the Osan branch. He was forced to leave South Korea and lost his job to very similar reasons to mine. In fact, he was hired years before I was and given SOFA status by CCK probably two or more times. CCK did not consider that he had an E-2 visa or any other type of visa on his passport. One might also wonder if it was a coincidence that he was replaced by a dependent wife?
CCK will probably state that they are not forcing anyone from leaving South Korea. Okay, but without a stamped approval from CCK on the 700-19 form for an A-3 visa, the Korean immigration office will refuse.
Affected contractors and their companies have been afraid of USFK and CCK from the beginning. The affected contractors started a blog to get ideas passed around. But because of their fear of CCK, they kept anonymous. The affected contractors thought that if they anger CCK, then CCK would use retribution against them by dreaming up an excuse to deny SOFA status. The contracting companies (possibly the credit union included) are afraid that if they stood up to CCK, then CCK could arbitrarily deny their contract and then all employees could be out of work. Before I left Korea, I decided that the only way to fight this injustice was bring it into the open and I agreed to an interview with the Stars and Stripes newspaper. I knew it was risking my return and job, but I wanted to fight what I thought was a great injustice of power.
A lot of power for an organization that not in the distant past has been proven by an audit to be inept and or corrupt. One might question the qualifications of the current personnel at USFK and CCK. I exhausted all avenues of fighting this injustice while in Korea (submitting a complaint through the Camp Henry Inspector Generals Office and also talking to base legal). On the same week of my return to the states I put together documentation for a request for congressional inquiry to the offices of Nevada Senators Reid and Ensign. But this is not the best time to look for help in saving the jobs of a couple hundred people, while Congress is trying to avoid GM and Chrysler from laying off two or three million people. But my letters were accepted. My documentation and a cover letter provided by a representative of Senator Reid was forwarded to the Department of Defense. Senator Ensign's office accepted my letter, but never got back to me.
I hope Congress does not fail to act in a responsible manner to correct this injustice USFK and CCK is committing. But if Congress lets the affected contractors down, then I hope a day in court will help bring justice to myself and the others.
I was told by my boss that I would not win. I got an email from a friend saying he was disappointed in me by standing up to USFK and CCK and he told me I would lose my job and not return. I will not return to Korea because the credit union dropped their support probably because of my accepting the interview with the Stars and Stripes and subsequent published article of February 10, 2009. But I don't regret that interview and I commend and thank Stars and Stripes and their newspaper reporter, Mr. Erik Slavin. But without fighting this matter and bringing it out in the open, I believed USFK and CCK will continue to destroy peoples lives by sending them back to the states seeking jobs in a jobless society.

Thank you,
Charles L. Hoelderlin 

From all of us, thank you Mr. Hoelderlin for being a voice that needs to be heard.

Please log in and post if your Elected Officials are working on this. We want to give them kudos for acknowledging the ongoing crisis that is causing a loss of skills and readiness on the Korean Pennisula, for no other reason than ....well, we dont understand the reason actually. The ROK has no issues with the people already in place, why should they? All this is eventually going to cost them money in support fees. They would prefer to keep the people that want to be in the ROK and understand the people of the ROK. New comers may not have the same love for the ROK and its people. We all have to admit, its a great country to be in, but it takes a certain person to want to live and work here, and they are already here.

If you have only written them, just post or email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with the State and officials name. We would like to see the letter you sent in, no names necesary, so we can help others draft a letter of their own. Thats all we need. Thanks, and lets keep this rolling. - Ed

What is goin on with the guys that rotate out of the country for 3 months out of the year for mission commitments? We heard they will be ineligible for SOPFA for those three months. No ID cards, school, ration cards, deregister vehicles, P.O. boxes and everything else for their families that will still be in the ROK, until they come back for another 9 months. Thats insane. Lets hope that gets straightened out quick.

When are the definitions and rules going to standardize? When the time is right, we see another "re-interpretation". And we doubt it will be for the benefit of the Contractors. We just want the loss of talent and experience to stop. 

**We must state once again that we are 100% behind the Military and its actions and commitments in the ROK. We always have been. We believe in our Commmanders without question, but when we see a preventable, devestating trend in regards to Mission Readiness that they may not be aware of, we must speak up.**

**This site does not, and should not be assumed to, have any connection with USFK or the SOFA in any shape or form, or the Military, we have no connection with them either. None, nothing at all, these are purely our own ideas with links to articles and regs. ***

And cheers to www.ROKDrop.com for keeping all those great threads running about all the things going on in Korea. 

"If there be no faith in our words, of what use are they?"

This is interesting. Veterans preference seems to be going the way of veterans health care. We care about out dependents dearly. We do, but it seems that because Korea is going from a 1 year to a three year tour, and dependents "need" jobs, other things may be in store. All people that passed the original SOFA test at least once should be able to retain their jobs, and not be (in the mighty words of Keith Boeck from the first Stars and Stripes article) "Kicked to the curb."

The only viable solution is to institute a Grandfather Clause as soon as possible to prevent further loss.

We do not wish to see qualified personnel forfeit their careers due to this bureaucratic nightmare. People are being fired, and fired is the correct term, as their companies were approved for SOFA, and do not have a branch set up on the economy in Korea. No SOFA = No Job. Most of these folks jobs do not translate well into the regular job sector. 

Read the articles to the top left of this page.

This memo came out in January 2008, with a RESPONSE DUE DATE: 4/1/2008  titled "Support of Families: Lack of Job Opportunities for Spouses - Memorandum of Agreement" Did you get the Memo? Click it to read it.

Again, the ROK has no issues with anyone that was granted an A-3 visa in the past, they reviewed everyones passport before granting the A-3 stamp. If you have the stamp, you have no problem with the Korean Governement, and no problem with the SOFA requirements. There is an underlying reason for the ongoing actions, and enforcement of ROK law is not one of them. Ask ROK Law. They will state that your passport is their approval. It is their word that you are legitimate. When did we ever get to the point where the Military is against the Military? Arent we on the same team? We sure do have the same goal.

"One team, one fight", "Kat Shi Kap Shi Da, (We go together)", "Ready to fight tonight" Are they just rhetoric? No, they mean something. Not just the Active Duty folks, but ALL of us here that support the mission. Give people the right to fight.

Erik Slaven is Clark Kent - http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=60591

Now, read about the Audit and a few other things.

We were recently informed that the Audit that is stated time and time again may NOT be the one that was referenced in Stars and Stripes. The one mentioned does not contain any reference to SOFA, or the contractors that it applies to. Certainly not U.S. Citizens as individuals and their visa status. Companies have contracts, hence influence, individuals do not.  Why are the hard working men and women that make up the contracting core that help defend the ROK in chorus with the military having to pay the price because of an "interpretation" of a pre-defined phrase which hasnt been an issue since 1966? There are no checks and balances, a limited appeal process that is handled by the same agency, which grants an impossible restricted time to allow you produce records to support the individuals case. Some people need more that weeks to get documents from 10+ years ago. If it is even possible. More on that soon.

We are looking into a piece on the dreaded "ordinarily resident" soon. By the definitions in the applicable agreement and regulations, the black and white defininition is 1 year. Any "intrepetation" of "intent" should be made for those that are in Korea AFTER 1 year. The benefit of the doubt should go to the U.S. Citizen after that time frame. Thats when the "ordinary resident" no longer has a hard definition. Again, the ROK has no problem with any person here under current SOFA at all. Go to any Immigration or Government Office and they will tell you the same.

Where does the law end? When did it become just an idea or guideline?

"Interpretation" by U.S. standards, takes over after the defined word, which was established by some very wise men years ago.