An aerial photo of Naval Station Rota, Spain in 2022. A recent agreement with Spain allows U.S. military dependents in the country to work remotely for American companies while maintaining Status of Forces Agreement treaty protections. Advocates say the agreement needs added details. (Nathan Carpenter/U.S. Navy)

NAPLES, Italy — A recent agreement allowing U.S. military dependents in Spain to work remotely for American companies while maintaining important treaty protections requires more detail to assure employers, advocates say.

The pact, reached in June, lacks specificity on legal, tax and other obligations that U.S. companies need to hire family members and others living with U.S. military service members or Defense Department civilians serving overseas, they say.

This agreement “appears to be in the spirit of providing clarity; however, it’s lacking in critical details that would actually deliver that clarity,” said Beth Conlin, who chairs the board of the Military Spouse Chamber of Commerce and serves as a Blue Star Families adviser.

The document allows dependents of American military service members and DOD civilian workers to work remotely for U.S. companies without affecting protections afforded them through the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

Those protections include entry and departure, driving privileges, housing and other benefits while living in a host nation.

The same accommodation would be made for dependents accompanying Spanish forces in the U.S., according to an undated letter sent by the U.S. Embassy in Madrid to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation.

U.S. officials say the agreement expands employment opportunities and advances a priority of President Joe Biden’s administration to recruit, hire and retain military-connected spouses.

“It answers a long-standing call of the nearly 7,000 service members and their families posted in Spain,” the U.S. Embassy in Madrid said Monday.

But ambiguity is leaving some military spouses, such as Kate Jordan, holding the bag when it comes to keeping their jobs or getting hired by a U.S. company.

Initially, Jordan’s multinational American employer was keen to keep the mom of two working when her active-duty husband received orders to Naval Station Rota earlier this year.

But company officials reviewed the agreement and subsequently determined that Jordan wouldn’t be able to stay on the payroll while the family was living overseas.

The company’s structure required that Jordan be reassigned to its office in Spain, a change not addressed by the agreement, she said.

“I’m starting from scratch yet again,” said Jordan, who ultimately quit her job in August. “And I didn’t want to do that because I thought that I had established something. I thought I’d be able to just keep doing my job and that would be that.”

Many military spouses living overseas quit their jobs or choose not to pursue telework opportunities in the U.S., fearing unintended consequences from giving up their SOFA status to seek or maintain employment.

That means losing income that often substantially contributes to families’ well-being, pushing some to the brink of poverty, a Stars and Stripes investigation last year found.

In Germany, spouses can work remotely for their American employers in most cases. Bahrain, Japan and South Korea also allow telework.

But other countries, such as Belgium, prohibit spouses from obtaining employment other than jobs at their overseas bases unless they give up their SOFA status.

Last year, an agreement between the U.S. and Italy reversed more than a decade of policy that forced thousands of spouses of military personnel, Defense Department civilians and Pentagon contractors in Italy to choose between continuing their careers or giving up their SOFA rights and protections.

“The ‘exchanging of letters’ that happened with Italy is still the (gold) standard of the type of clarity that we and private-sector employers need,” Conlin said.

Deborah Braddy thought she’d have to give up her remote job when her husband received orders for NS Rota in January but was hopeful she could keep working for a DOD contractor as a result of the agreement.

Since then, her employer determined that vagueness in the document about labor laws and tax implications makes direct employment inadvisable, she said.

The company suggested she could work for them through another business that specializes in filling remote jobs for employers. Braddy is going through that process now and is confident she eventually will be successful in getting back to work.

Despite the hurdles, Jordan and Braddy are grateful for the agreement and its implications for military spouses who have long struggled with the career and financial impacts of frequent moves.

“You feel seen and you feel heard and that you’re not alone,” Braddy said.