By It looks like 2017 is the date that USFK can no longer be a place for people to hide out from deployments down range:
The U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) will start deploying some of its troops to other parts of the region in 2017 under the U.S. Army’s broad transformation worldwide, according to officials at Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Combined Forces Command (CFC) Thursday.
The move is in line with the planned relocation of U.S. bases and facilities to Pyeongtaek in Gyeonggi Province and the stabilization of the USFK’s longer, family-accompanied “tour normalization” plan by that time, the officials said.
It is the first time that the timeline for the so-called strategic flexibility of U.S. forces has been unveiled.
The transformation process officially began on June 16 when the 8th Army was designated as a field army construct, said a CFC official.
“The plan is part of the 8th Army’s larger transformation into a forward-deployed warfighting headquarters that would not only be responsible for the defense of South Korea but responsible for contingencies off the peninsula,” the official said, asking not to be named.
U.S. soldiers could be deployed on a rotational basis and come back to South Korea where their family members are stationed, he noted. [Korea Times]
You can read the rest at the link, but like with any big changes in Korea it is best to wait and see if this actually happens or not.
10:50 am on August 28th, 2010 1
USFK and the ROK are having trouble figuring out how to let dependents keep their SOFA status now while their husbands are getting tagged for individual augmentee taskers to deploy to Iraq/Afghanistan right now. Until they figure that out, this is a great idea that probably won't go anywhere
11:51 am on August 28th, 2010 2
It's the carrot on a stick for people in Washington to keep supporting USFK.
11:48 am on August 29th, 2010 3
The SOFA status problem is huge. When all those 2ID guys deployed for the first time, all their spouses and dependents lost their SOFA status and all hell broke loose. So yeah, until they fix that problem there won't be any mass deployments.
1:26 pm on August 29th, 2010 4
Are people really going to Korea to hide from deployments? Seems like quite a generalization……I went there, and am returning there, for many other reasons…
3:17 pm on August 29th, 2010 5
Well its a big "it depends". Most people just get assigned here due to the short tour length and constant turn-over. The local command also wants people to stay longer tours, its logistically expensive / difficult to constantly have people cycling in / out of South Korea. This place was once (still technically is)" considered a hardship tour, you go for one year without your family then return, you even get bonus pay of $50/month.
So now back stateside you have large amounts of people deploying to the sand box, get back only to transfer to another unit three months later that is about to go out again. Soldiers spending upwards of 70~80% of their time being in the sand box. Compared to that Korea looks like the land of milk and honey. So someone gets assigned to South Korea, gets here, see's that its really not bad and the local command even has this special program that will pay you $300~$400 extra a month to stay longer. And on top of it rarely does someone get "deployed" out of South Korea, all the units that were gonna go have already gone.
So stay in South Korea for another 12 or 24 months while getting paid extra and you don't have to worry about going to the sand box. Or go back to the USA and get sent to the sand box almost immediately. Most sane people will choose option 1 and only leave when its time to move their career forward. For this reason EUSA implemented a policy regarding tour lengths for people if they haven't been deployed in the past couple years. Kinda turned South Korea into a rest and recuperation / stabilization / family assignment.
6:34 pm on August 29th, 2010 6
#1,3 The US has a SOFA with Germany. It's not like it has never been done before or is insurmountable.
7:37 pm on August 29th, 2010 7
Leon, you would think that after the debacle that occurred with the brigade from 2ID leaving that they would have figured it out, but we have people in our unit that are going through it right now. I tried to leave my korean wife here while I deployed on a MiTT with the intent of returning right back here and the SOFA was a major obstacle that kept me from doing it (in 2007). It's not insurmountable IF you have the will to do it. Right now, I don't think the command has that will (ironic, since DA came up with the great idea of "tasking" people to leave their families here and deploy in a TCS status). I hope they figure it out soon…I'm almost to my DEROS and I plan on doing a MiTT again…and leaving my family here this time.
12:50 am on August 30th, 2010 8
I do not get what is so difficult about doing this. We already do it out of Germany, Italy, and the Marines do it out of Okinawa. I am a little green on the details of why making units deployable from the ROK is so difficult. Somebody please fill me in.
1:49 am on August 30th, 2010 9
The U.S. And Korea have an agreed-upon allied troop strength against an enemy force. The ROKs don't want the U.S. to deploy forces in a way that would lessen that strength. It was also a big thing Roh that troops couldn't deploy from Korea to Formosa or some such place to fight the Chinese.
3:46 am on August 30th, 2010 10
Makes sense…but have NK get froggy with your dependents in-range with you in the sandbox is not very pleasant to contemplate
10:34 am on August 30th, 2010 11
I do not get what is so difficult about doing this. We already do it out of Germany, Italy, and the Marines do it out of Okinawa. I am a little green on the details of why making units deployable from the ROK is so difficult. Somebody please fill me in.
There is no provision in the current SOFA for it. Your not supposed to bring family to Korea, and your not supposed to be deployed out of Korea. Germany and other countries have different SOFAs geared for forward deployment. To do the same here in the ROK they would have to ~renegotiate~ the SOFA and that is a huge can of worms to open. Korea would almost immediately start making demands and changes to it, especially if its anywhere near election season (to look tough on the invader migooks). Right now the US Army is just screwing the soldiers without the benefit of a reach-around, reminds me why I decided to toss the hat in.
10:37 am on August 30th, 2010 12
Ok this is getting stupid, how the hell do I edit a comment or is that even possible? Was trying to put quotes on the above comment but it screwed up.
8:36 pm on August 30th, 2010 13
USFK J-1 had already drafted a policy to take care of those who were deployed off-pen as far back as 2004. Of course, so many S-1/G-1 sections can't really handle day to day actions- that one would have been a bridge too far.
I was very fortunate when I deployed that our S-1 had his crap in one sock, and my family remained on command sponsored status.
Same for reservists who work as contractors and civil service guys- if you are called up, your family is supposed to go on a temporary command sponsorship status, which covers you until 30 days after you are inactivated.
BTW- to find all this out- I had to contact USFK IG. They were a great help. J1 had already anticipated this problem.
9:01 pm on August 30th, 2010 14
Like most things in the Army, it depends on who you are. I know of several field-grade officers who have deployed, and their dependents remain in housing, ration cards intact, kids still in DoDDS schools, etc. I also know of several enlisted Soldiers who have deployed and gotten nothing but the runaround and non-assistance every step of the way, losing housing privileges, ration cards for dependents, etc. So, as usual, as long as you've got the 'golden key to the executive washroom, you're good to go. Otherwise, good luck – you're on your own…
9:29 pm on August 30th, 2010 15
No- it just means your organization sucks and your leaders don't care.
Take it to the IG team- I did- before it became a problem. I knew that were might be a problem because none of our 1 shop guys had a clue. So instead of waiting on The Man to take care of me, I went and asked The Man.
You can be damn sure that I would have taken it to 60 Minutes, A Current Affair, and a CONGRINT if my family- or any of my peoples' families- were going to get left out in the cold due to someone leaving Korea for a REAL deployment.
Then again, I have seen some of the sh!tty leadership in some of the units over here. I'd hang myself if I was stuck in several outfits I have seen.
10:07 am on August 31st, 2010 16
Vince #15:
FACT – I was told directly by the deputy G-1's office here in EUSA that it was 'EUSA policy' that there were no more TCS deployments from the Korean theater. DA was willing to send people, but the G-1 said if they were to do it, it would be without benefit of command sponsorship – no ration cards, no DoDDS schools, etc. Had nothing to do with any S-1 shop – that is always a dead end – came right from the personnel managers. The two Soldiers that were attempting to do this PCSed to other duty stations from which they deployed. One Soldier's (Korean) wife is living here since she has no family or other support at the new duty station, Schofield. She lives somewhere in the outskirts of Seoul (yes, getting single-rate OHA, but not the same benefit as CS) with no ration card – J1 says she can't get one since the sponsor isn't stationed here. They don't have kids, so DoDDS isn't a big deal.
FACT – a certain LTC I am familiar with deployed out of here to Southwest Asia about 90 days ago. His family has retained the quarters they were living in on South Post. They have ration cards and their kids are in DoDDS schools.
Could the IG do something about this disparity? Perhaps, but to get them to act and open up a 60-minutes-style investigation takes time and resources; things that most people don't have when they're under the gun of a time-line where they have to make a decision quickly when stuff comes down from DA. Nobody's gonna extend your DEROS for the reason of "fighting the 'man to keep CS status". Plus, who does the IG work for? The command. Would the command bend the rules to make sure a field-grade officer got their deployment in so they could make O-6? Damn right they would. Now I'm not saying that the Soldier's wife I mentioned above is 'suffering' over here – she's got a job and I'm sure the OHA makes things a bit more comfortable, so she can scrape by without a ration card. But it's still a principle-thing to me. If one group can work the system and retain command sponsorship, then why not everyone else? The answer is as stated before – it depends on who you are and who you know. It's nothing I haven't seen in my last 25 years in the Army, so basically this is business as usual…
1:17 pm on August 31st, 2010 17
Jinro Dukkohbi, I personally know an 04 and 05 who were told their families could not retain SOFA status or remain in Korea for WIAS tasksers. Keep hating officers and please call 60 minutes, if they spend 10 minutes actually investigating I think they will find that it is a mixed boatload of problems.
7:31 pm on August 31st, 2010 18
Wow. That is FUUUHHHCKED up. This needs to get to the GO level- now. It is a real troop welfare issue.
The reserve guys who get deployed who are already over here accompanied in their civil service jobs seemed to have been covered.
Contact me off – line at vinson.parkhill AT gmail.com with more details. This needs to be fixed, and if we get the normal gheyness from nutless leaders, then we need to get political. Congrints and press CAN be F'in' magic.
8:29 pm on August 31st, 2010 19
Hamilton – your observation just shows that those two guys you know didn't have the right hook-up. Other who did have benefited from it. As far as being a 'hater', I could go on for paragraphs, but I don't think GI wants this thread to devolve into enlisted vs. officers – that'll have to happen in another place. In defense of what I've said here however, I think I've been here long enough, been in the Army long enough, and observed enough to stand by my comments.
Vince – while I'd very much like to champion this cause, I'll let you know now that I've gone as far as I'm willing to go with it. In fact, I've probably already said more than I should have. I was hesitant to submit the second post, but it's out there now so what's done is done. Let's just say I've been burned from being a whistle-blower before, so I'm not so eager to dig in any more. For personal reasons that involve my family, I'm not willing to take this any further. I have friends who read this blog regularly, some of them in the 'affected' category, so I'll see if one of them would like to get in contact with you.
I'm sure all the flamers are out there, ready to tag me as a wuss, or worse, so go ahead – have at it. I've made my decision and I'm sticking with it.
8:55 pm on August 31st, 2010 20
Jinro Dukkohbi,
I, for one, understand your situation.
The System, like every lasting system, evolves to give everyone the minimal amount of ownership required to keep them from upsetting the System by exposing the problems… but not enough ownership to change the System for the better.
At least you are saying something. That's where change starts… with people recognizing a problem and talking about it in a large enough group that it becomes fashionable to declare it to be a problem by everyone… and, at some point, those enabling the problem are grudgingly forced to solve it with a fake smile and bold words about redoubling their efforts and such.
The real wusses are those who know there is a problem yet say nothing… nor do they make any effort to expose the problem subtly even when it is no risk to them.
The "worse" are the ones who deny there is a problem, defend the worst aspects of the System and then personally attack those who pointed the problem out while ignoring the actual problem.
There are a lot of wusses here… and there are more than a few "worst".
Don't worry.
If they dare to open their fag-pleasers, they will get the smackdown.
10:29 pm on August 31st, 2010 21
Let anyone call you a wuss for speaking out– Smackdown indeed. This is about taking care of troops and families- when said troop is off dodging IEDs and shooting stinky goat rapers in the face. Those guys and their families deserve nothing but the BEST support we can muster for them.
We have to take care of our own- because there are times when all we really have is each other. If we can't do that we are doomed.
I don't need specific names, just specifics on the soldier's situation (accompanied, returning to Korea, kids in school here when he deploys, etc). More details the better- if we can get the right people at J1 and IG to see what is going on, there should be regs and orders to cover this soldier's situation. If the leadership wants to be officious d!ckheads about this, then there are other avenues we can take.
Two words which make me taste vomit are "Hook Up". If we have a system which works, no hook ups are required. That a hook up of any kind is being done means that either the system is broke or that those involved in said hook up are doing something which is illegal- and more than that, they may be taking advantage of someone else, using undue influence, and so on. Neither are acceptable.
Please encourage your friend to contact me- they can use a bogus email account. Just need the situation specifics. Who is having the problem is immaterial at this point.
12:14 am on September 1st, 2010 22
Put that issue on the USFK Facebook page for all to see. Watch people move. The IG does not report to the command it supports.