Posted on Jun 27, 2015
Do you think Officers and NCO's should be allowed to date or get married as long as they are not in the same Chain of Command?
151K
526
153
89
89
0
Responses: 98
Never agreed with it when it changed. A little too personal if you ask me, who the f*ck is the Army to tell me, or anyone for that matter, who they can fall in love with. With that said, it's a rule so I enforce it.
(59)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
The military isn't a democracy. Rules are rules. Many get out for that reason. We don't have to like the rules, just follow them. Or make things extremely difficult for both people involved.
(1)
(0)
SSG Tina Herndon
I so agree with this statement. I had an incident while deployed I became very very close friends with a Major. It was perceived that we were sleeping together, which in reality was not the case; however I was told that perception in the military is always thought to be reality. The Major ended up in trouble thankfully I did not but for the last two months of the deployment we were forbidden to even talk to one another around others. He was not in my chain of command and to this day the situation does not make sense to me. Thankfully I am no longer in the military and we are still very good friends to this day!
(1)
(0)
SSG James Behnke
Responses like this, CSM (Join to see), are what make me miss the Infantry. MI is a completely different animal in terms of acceptable verbiage and directness.
(0)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
I think personnel would be concious not to do that. But that would be funny. Same chain of command and the officer sits down and goes "I don't think this is going to work out"
I think personnel would be concious not to do that. But that would be funny. Same chain of command and the officer sits down and goes "I don't think this is going to work out"
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I asked a similar question about e5 and e4 in different units hanging out reg does not state about different units amy jag folk out there
(0)
(0)
The call for a "uniform" fraternization policy across the services in 1998, which ultimately resulted in the Army making large policy changes to match the other branches, was borne out of a desire to address the kids of sexual harassment in the workplace issues that were a hot topic at the time (remember Monica?) I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I absolutely believe that completely abolishing the regs sets up unsavory possibilities. I was involved in a 15-6 where a SFC strung along 4-5 young LTs. Two were in our company, one was the S4, two were in sister companies in our battalion. Where would you draw the line of “not within the chain of command?” My former husband, an LTC, was dating me before I joined. That means as an E-4 I was involved with an O-5, and I was still a 2LT when we married. We only had a 6 year age difference…but what if we had a 30 year age difference? He was IN and I am MI, but then when we separately deployed to Iraq, we were both under I Corps…is that the same chain of command? Before you say, no, he worked directly for the Commanding General and I got way more air time than any other 2LT out there. I was recognized for my competence, but my relationship gave me placement and access that another equally competent LT wouldn’t have had. Ultimately, when I left Active Duty, I joined the guard and we were (actually are) on DIV staff. It’s no longer an officer/enlisted issue, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say there have been tons of awkward moments. He’s in the G3 and I’m in the G2…is that the same chain of command? Again, where’s the line?
On the other hand, I have had so much of my time wasted in fraternization witch hunts that I would love to see the whole thing abolished. In practice, people tend to turn a blind eye and not want to get involved…that is, until they have an axe to grind. I heard rumor that my WO might be involved with an enlisted Soldier. I gave them both no contact orders and a natural opportunity arose to completely separate them (one to BDE, the other to the Signal Co). Problem solved. The UCMJ says, “resolve at lowest possible level.” Done and done…but no. Three years later, the enlisted Soldier was engaged in a nasty divorce of her less than 1 year old marriage. The bitter spouse heard the rumors about the WO and decided to dredge up charges. It dragged on longer than the marriage and in the end, the WO got a local GOMAR. I’d say, at least a $50,000 tax payer dollars went into that one. My battle buddy just got a GOMAR 6 months ago because her unit discovered her marriage to an E-7 via Facebook. That investigation dragged on for the better part of a year too and involved tons of brass (lots and lots of dollars spent). Who was the motivated party? A MAJ she broke up with who had been stalking her on the internet. He carried her photo in his wallet. Oh, and that guy was married. He didn’t have to answer for any of that, but by golly, they got her for fraternization. I cannot see how the Army is well-served by letting people use the UCMJ as a personal hurt-feelings weapon system.
So in summary, I don’t feel like it can just be a free-for-all. “Use your best judgment” doesn’t work as a policy. When it comes to matters of the heart, people are generally incapable of using their best judgment (and I am the poster child on that one). In the end I come to the conclusion that the reg should stay the way it is, but the wording should change from forbidding the relationships to them being ill-advised. The punishment should max out at unit transfer. I think that would allow commanders to continue to deal with relationships that threaten good order and discipline while minimizing the tattle-tale claims I described here. If your relationship flies under the radar, good for you. If it doesn’t, you might get separated.
On the other hand, I have had so much of my time wasted in fraternization witch hunts that I would love to see the whole thing abolished. In practice, people tend to turn a blind eye and not want to get involved…that is, until they have an axe to grind. I heard rumor that my WO might be involved with an enlisted Soldier. I gave them both no contact orders and a natural opportunity arose to completely separate them (one to BDE, the other to the Signal Co). Problem solved. The UCMJ says, “resolve at lowest possible level.” Done and done…but no. Three years later, the enlisted Soldier was engaged in a nasty divorce of her less than 1 year old marriage. The bitter spouse heard the rumors about the WO and decided to dredge up charges. It dragged on longer than the marriage and in the end, the WO got a local GOMAR. I’d say, at least a $50,000 tax payer dollars went into that one. My battle buddy just got a GOMAR 6 months ago because her unit discovered her marriage to an E-7 via Facebook. That investigation dragged on for the better part of a year too and involved tons of brass (lots and lots of dollars spent). Who was the motivated party? A MAJ she broke up with who had been stalking her on the internet. He carried her photo in his wallet. Oh, and that guy was married. He didn’t have to answer for any of that, but by golly, they got her for fraternization. I cannot see how the Army is well-served by letting people use the UCMJ as a personal hurt-feelings weapon system.
So in summary, I don’t feel like it can just be a free-for-all. “Use your best judgment” doesn’t work as a policy. When it comes to matters of the heart, people are generally incapable of using their best judgment (and I am the poster child on that one). In the end I come to the conclusion that the reg should stay the way it is, but the wording should change from forbidding the relationships to them being ill-advised. The punishment should max out at unit transfer. I think that would allow commanders to continue to deal with relationships that threaten good order and discipline while minimizing the tattle-tale claims I described here. If your relationship flies under the radar, good for you. If it doesn’t, you might get separated.
(38)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That's high praise, Chief! Yes, I have and no I won't. I have no problems with my past, but I'm pretty sure the civilian public would focus on the wrong things.
(4)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
Wow! Well stated CPT (Join to see) and I agree you SHOULD run for office! Good to see you on here again!
(0)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
CPT (Join to see) - I believe the incident with SMA McKinney and his escapades predated Monica and President Clinton. SMA McKinney was tried, convicted and eventually demoted to MSG before being "retired".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next