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?
154K
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)
As long as there is no conflict of interest, being in sane chain of command or what have you, I don't see why they couldn't. A good solider/airman/marine should be more then able to seperate his/her professional and personal lifes. But obviously if they are in the same unit that is where I would draw the line.
(17)
(0)
It happens all the time especially since the requirement to get a request chit signed off to marry went away a long time ago. I believe the military has a lot better things to do than to chase this stuff around unless the couple rubs their nose in it.
(17)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
Well for active duty Army, it is still frown upon based on my experiences since I have been in the Army. I dated a 1LT when I was a young SGT and we were in two different Battalions and we still had to sneak around and keep things secret. It never affected our duty performance and I don’t think it should be a big deal as long as you are professional on duty at all times. There was a last chance get of jail free period where they would allow you to marry between ranks prior to a specific date and then you would be grandfathered after that point. The only other way to make it legal these days is if both service members were enlisted and married and one of them went to OCS, ROTC or WOCS, then it would be ok.
(1)
(0)
CAPT Kevin B.
I had a couple service members complain to me about someone else's marriage. In both cases I called out their apparent jealously and asked to what purpose were they trying to dump a nonissue on my plate. After a few humahumas, they skulked away. Moral of the story? Don't mess with nonexistent problems.
(3)
(0)
Should totally be allowed. As long as it doesn't affect one's performance on the job or professionalism. This is definitely a stupid rule. Preexisting relations are ok, but who cares how people meet? Not everyone abides by this rule anyway. Just saying.
(11)
(0)
Love is Love. Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot love? (Wasn't that the whole bs over the marriage thing?)
(8)
(0)
Given the current climate of change, I think this reg will fall in the near future. It takes a while for all the smaller regs to fall in line and coincide with these recent changes. If not, for shame DoD.
(8)
(0)
SGT Rick Ash
SSG JP4
I think this is already happening, sadly. I think regardless of rank it is OK for 2 service members to date as long as they are NOT in the same CoC. That changes things and the Commander will be unduly put in the middle and will not look kindly on either of you. But, Love is Blind (Or so they say) so this will happen. True Love will persevere and the marriage will be OK'd but don't be surprised if one of you gets transferred quickly out to a different command, maybe even deployed.
I think this is already happening, sadly. I think regardless of rank it is OK for 2 service members to date as long as they are NOT in the same CoC. That changes things and the Commander will be unduly put in the middle and will not look kindly on either of you. But, Love is Blind (Or so they say) so this will happen. True Love will persevere and the marriage will be OK'd but don't be surprised if one of you gets transferred quickly out to a different command, maybe even deployed.
(0)
(0)
I don't think it matters and you should be able to date/get married regardless. We are all adults..
(6)
(0)
The purpose of the Frat article is to maintain Good Order and Disciple, and to remove the Perception of Undue Influence.
If you can accomplish both of those things, there is no issue.
But keep in mind, Officers & Enlisted can already be married, as a result of pre-existing conditions. IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED.
What is generally not allowed is Officer & Enlisted "Dating" which is an entirely different argument. That's a Workplace Romance Policy, which many Civilian Corporations have as well. The Military has just defined the Workplace as much larger than our civilian counterparts.
If you can accomplish both of those things, there is no issue.
But keep in mind, Officers & Enlisted can already be married, as a result of pre-existing conditions. IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED.
What is generally not allowed is Officer & Enlisted "Dating" which is an entirely different argument. That's a Workplace Romance Policy, which many Civilian Corporations have as well. The Military has just defined the Workplace as much larger than our civilian counterparts.
(6)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
Great comment and I know it's already allowed if the marriages happened before the regulation change. Those marriages were grandfathered in. I still remember a good amount of people getting married quickly to meet the deadline. Also, if two enlisted members are married and one of them goes OCS, ROTC or WOCS, then that marriage is grandfathered too. I personally believe that anyone should be able to date anyone if the relationship stays professional while on duty.
(2)
(0)
Unless they are in the same chain, then let them get married. And if they are in the same chain, let them get married and move one of them out of the same chain.
(6)
(0)
I don't really have an opinion for or against, but I DO think the Sergeant in the picture needs to get a haircut and straighten his bowtie.
(5)
(0)
We uphold a certain standard, by simply wearing the uniform. Marriage is a "right" not a privilege. The services, although I understand their rationale crosses the boundaries when we tell individual, whom they can't marry. As military members, we are to remain professional, no matter the circumstances... consequently, I truly don't see the issue with officers and enlisted personnel being married or dating. I have seen far more disruptive behavior from people whom are not fraternizing than those who simply want to have a personal life OUTSIDE of work or duty hours. The rule is antique and needs to change.
(4)
(0)
My humble opinion is no, it shouldn't matter. Enlisted and officers are dating already "under the table". To think that they aren't is foolish.
I know several officer/enlisted couples who made it through the loopholes. One couple were both enlisted and got married before one of Soldier went to WOC. I've seen officers marry civilians who then enlisted. These people aren't detrimental to good order and discipline. Why would anyone else be?
Having said all that, I think dating ANYONE within the battalion is a mistake. I maintained that rule when I was single and dating, and I think it's the smart thing to do for anyone in order to avoid an unstable element in a professional work environment.
I know several officer/enlisted couples who made it through the loopholes. One couple were both enlisted and got married before one of Soldier went to WOC. I've seen officers marry civilians who then enlisted. These people aren't detrimental to good order and discipline. Why would anyone else be?
Having said all that, I think dating ANYONE within the battalion is a mistake. I maintained that rule when I was single and dating, and I think it's the smart thing to do for anyone in order to avoid an unstable element in a professional work environment.
(4)
(0)
My husband and I are both in the TN Army National Guard. I'm an officer and he is enlisted. JAG signed off on our marriage since we have known each other since high school and have previously dated. We are in separate MACOMs in separate branches (I'm MI and he is both Infantry and Supply). We have no issues being together, and it's nice to have a spouse that understands the ups and downs of military life. It's not for everyone, but in carefully reviewed cases, it works for both the couple and the military.
(3)
(0)
As adults I feel we should be able to choose who we marry without dated regulations. Of course keeping in mind good order and discipline. The chain of command is more than direct supervision. I do believe that in order for this to work the members would need to be of separate expertise and overall chain of command. A nurse marrying a medic I have an issue with. The CGO could potentially use their authority over other enlisted and officers in support of bedroom talk. This is not just an officer marrying enlisted issue. I have unfortunately had to deal with policies that were the result of bedroom talk between married Senior Enlisted Leaders and junior enlisted. Of course no one had an issue with their matrimony because technically they weren't in the same chain of command, but same unit where the Senior Enlisted Leader had influence with and over other SNCO's and NCO's that were in the chain of command. Just my .02
(3)
(0)
I think you should be able to date who you want regardless of rank as long as it don't interfere with work
(3)
(0)
It's a very gray area. Morally in my opinion I don't give a damn. Professionally there are those that can, have, and do abuse their rank with preference to the one they're married to and in my opinion does take away from the professionalism expected while in uniform.
Now when the two are not in the same workplace, ie. different units or branches of service, at that point it really doesn't matter because there's no conflict of interest. I say in that case allow dating and relations and marriage.
Now when the two are not in the same workplace, ie. different units or branches of service, at that point it really doesn't matter because there's no conflict of interest. I say in that case allow dating and relations and marriage.
(3)
(0)
Absolutely. I think we have moved on from Roman rule... if we expect our leaders to act better, set the example, etc. We should trust that they can be responsible in a relationship.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next