Posted on Jan 2, 2015
Fraternization and the Reserves - Where is the line?
81.2K
1.09K
93
16
16
0
This question may very well apply to Active Duty as well, as it leads to some larger ones of, "What actually constitutes fraternization / what is the intent?"
However, I address the larger issue to the Reserve components. When a Reserve Servicemember is only "on duty" one weekend a month, can you expect the same fraternization policies? More specifically, what if two people share a civilian work relationship, but also a military reservist one? Our TPU Soldiers call each other by first names, or "Mister", when not at Drill, often regardless of rank. That even includes one LTC, because during the week he is "Mister so-and-so the UA" not "LTC So-and-so." Thus, can he really be told he can't socialize with his coworkers because they, too, happen to be Reservists? Or, should there be more relaxed standards in the Reserves, so long as it doesn't disrupt order and discipline?
However, I address the larger issue to the Reserve components. When a Reserve Servicemember is only "on duty" one weekend a month, can you expect the same fraternization policies? More specifically, what if two people share a civilian work relationship, but also a military reservist one? Our TPU Soldiers call each other by first names, or "Mister", when not at Drill, often regardless of rank. That even includes one LTC, because during the week he is "Mister so-and-so the UA" not "LTC So-and-so." Thus, can he really be told he can't socialize with his coworkers because they, too, happen to be Reservists? Or, should there be more relaxed standards in the Reserves, so long as it doesn't disrupt order and discipline?
Posted in these groups: 
Fraternization
Ethics
Fraternization Ethics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 54
67
67
0
So, I'm going to make three brief statements.
First, the ACTUAL regs governing fraternization-type situations for reserve component folks not on active duty have a GREAT DEAL of grey, especially compared to the active duty regs. This acknowledges that reservists are in fact in between two worlds.
Second, perception is reality, or close enough to it. Even if you color between the lines, you can find yourself in hot water.
Third, Admiral Akbar was right.
First, the ACTUAL regs governing fraternization-type situations for reserve component folks not on active duty have a GREAT DEAL of grey, especially compared to the active duty regs. This acknowledges that reservists are in fact in between two worlds.
Second, perception is reality, or close enough to it. Even if you color between the lines, you can find yourself in hot water.
Third, Admiral Akbar was right.
(67)
(0)
According to the formal policy, AR 600-20, 4-14 c. (2) (d) fraternization rules do not apply to:
(d) Personal relationships between members of the RA and members of the National Guard or Army Reserve when the relationship primarily exists due to civilian association and the RC member is not on AD (other than AT), on FTNGD (other than AT), or serving as a dual status military technician.
Therefore, relationships by those in the civilian workplace due to a natural work environment are not counted, at least for the Army Reserve Component. I view this to mean that two people that have to work closely in their civilian environment (for example as business partners), are not violating fraternization for the reserve component.
I think that is a fair exception, else what would you do if a key business member of a team in your company decides to join the reserves? You may not be able to work together anymore, which would be rather destructive to the RC citizen-soldier concept.
This exception does not make sense in the active component, if an officer and an NCO for example decide to open a weekend business together.
(d) Personal relationships between members of the RA and members of the National Guard or Army Reserve when the relationship primarily exists due to civilian association and the RC member is not on AD (other than AT), on FTNGD (other than AT), or serving as a dual status military technician.
Therefore, relationships by those in the civilian workplace due to a natural work environment are not counted, at least for the Army Reserve Component. I view this to mean that two people that have to work closely in their civilian environment (for example as business partners), are not violating fraternization for the reserve component.
I think that is a fair exception, else what would you do if a key business member of a team in your company decides to join the reserves? You may not be able to work together anymore, which would be rather destructive to the RC citizen-soldier concept.
This exception does not make sense in the active component, if an officer and an NCO for example decide to open a weekend business together.
(31)
(0)
SPC Randall Eichelberger
CPT (Join to see) - But wouldn't the clause that waives it for relationships began before both were on active duty?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I have seen this happen with a Guard Aviation unit in which the Company commander was dating one of his own NCO's (in a civilian context). Issues arose when the company was mobilized and sent to Afghanistan and more issues arose when the Company Commander was thrown under the bus by his 'girlfriend' NCO once she caught him cheating with another pilot (Warrant Officer) in an adjacent unit. Suffice to say, he was reprimanded and the NCO went from an E-5 to an E-1 (because of this and a laundry list of other disciplinary issues). Moral of the story: Fraternization in the reserve components can quickly escalate to serious problems when operational circumstances are factored in.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SPC Randall Eichelberger, Nooooo!!! It doesn't "waive" anything in that context (reread the original reg cited).
(1)
(0)
CSM Thomas McGarry
Thanks for this Sir! I remember many years ago when I was in the National Guard we had an officer who in his civilian employ was supervised by one of our NCOs. We never saw a problem as I guess both realized what boundaries etc were in place in the civilian and military setting.
(1)
(0)
28
28
0
I do have an opinion on this. Deals with maturity. If you are going to step into a relationship (romantic or friendship-as in straight and not sexual in any way) that relationship comes with issues. You have to be mature enough to deal with that.
I absolutely know some who are unable to keep the careers separate. I.E. work with so and so Monday-Friday, show up for Drill and cannot handle calling by rank, answering yes Sir, or taking a butt chewing. Have to be able to go back and forth between the careers. Can be difficult.
Those issues can throw one or both careers off track. Romantic relationships in guard/reserves can be more problematic, because there is no PCS. Think carefully before starting one......
I absolutely know some who are unable to keep the careers separate. I.E. work with so and so Monday-Friday, show up for Drill and cannot handle calling by rank, answering yes Sir, or taking a butt chewing. Have to be able to go back and forth between the careers. Can be difficult.
Those issues can throw one or both careers off track. Romantic relationships in guard/reserves can be more problematic, because there is no PCS. Think carefully before starting one......
(28)
(0)
1SG Tom Conner
Exactly, maturity. Being cognizant of your environment at all times. One example is only discussing sensitive compartmented information in an approved facility with people cleared for that information by the special security officer.
When on active duty I was in a Bible study led my a naval officer. In that group off duty we used first names. If we saw each other at work, we used our ranks. An NCO of another service made the mistake of habitually confusing the two, and had to be corrected for being too familiar on duty.
When on active duty I was in a Bible study led my a naval officer. In that group off duty we used first names. If we saw each other at work, we used our ranks. An NCO of another service made the mistake of habitually confusing the two, and had to be corrected for being too familiar on duty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google