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
I was Married to a Navy Officer for 18 years. Only problem I had was the young Lt's and Capt's in the Marine Corps trying to counsel me on Fraternization although nothing ever came of it! I should mention that we was High School Sweethearts. I had the best of both worlds in term of Housing and hanging out with my Buds!
(2)
(0)
I do not think that any entity should have the power to dictate who one can or cannot marry. While many of us have made mistakes when it has come to the rank or position this does not define who we are in terms of being technically and tactically proficient warfighter's on today's modern battlefield. So long as we know ourselves, personnel, and our Mission Essential Task List (METL) along with being proficient in our warrior tasks and battle drills while we accomplish the mission with superior results it should be encourage as being married to one's soul mate makes for happiness thus having an even stronger fighting force then what we presently do.
This is not something new while I have had the opportunity to meet multiple couples throughout the years were one was an officer and the other enlisted. So long as one spouse does not have undue influence over the other's career such should not be a problem.
let me add that we need to seriously look at present fraternization policies as there are many instances where officers and enlisted members do develop friendships. It is possible so long as policy is made clear for an officer and enlisted member to be friends. Think of it like this while today I am a medically retired SFC this does not negate that things change as we venture into ne chapters of our lives as presently while I hold zero authority my civil service grade is comparable to that of an LTC/COL whereby my first line supervisor is a SES leader. I too am striving to make it into the SES ranks while nothing will ever change that the highest grade of military rank I obtained as a Soldier was as identified and mentioned herein.
Once again rank nor position defines a person as it is deeds not words in you are gauged or in essence sized up according to what you accomplish bringing such to the table if you will. I have a little brother Marine as I affectionately call him who is a medically retired Corporal who is my peer while all that matters now is that we served and we are prod to have been able to in spite of where we are today. Marriage and fraternization do not go together and scientifically speaking attraction to another cannot be changed because of a policy as at the end of the day these folks are still going to possess feelings for one another...it is quite simply about putting such into perspective and always referring back to the common sense factor...being married to my best friend is awesome/she is the beautiful lady with me in my profile picture.
God bless!
This is not something new while I have had the opportunity to meet multiple couples throughout the years were one was an officer and the other enlisted. So long as one spouse does not have undue influence over the other's career such should not be a problem.
let me add that we need to seriously look at present fraternization policies as there are many instances where officers and enlisted members do develop friendships. It is possible so long as policy is made clear for an officer and enlisted member to be friends. Think of it like this while today I am a medically retired SFC this does not negate that things change as we venture into ne chapters of our lives as presently while I hold zero authority my civil service grade is comparable to that of an LTC/COL whereby my first line supervisor is a SES leader. I too am striving to make it into the SES ranks while nothing will ever change that the highest grade of military rank I obtained as a Soldier was as identified and mentioned herein.
Once again rank nor position defines a person as it is deeds not words in you are gauged or in essence sized up according to what you accomplish bringing such to the table if you will. I have a little brother Marine as I affectionately call him who is a medically retired Corporal who is my peer while all that matters now is that we served and we are prod to have been able to in spite of where we are today. Marriage and fraternization do not go together and scientifically speaking attraction to another cannot be changed because of a policy as at the end of the day these folks are still going to possess feelings for one another...it is quite simply about putting such into perspective and always referring back to the common sense factor...being married to my best friend is awesome/she is the beautiful lady with me in my profile picture.
God bless!
(2)
(0)
If they aren't in the same chain of command, I think they should. A rule is a rule though, and as an E-3 I follow them.
(2)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
SrA (Join to see), and an E-anything (or W-anything, O-anything) you should follow the rules regardless! LOL!!!
(1)
(0)
By blood or marriage, while on active duty, I was related to a general, 1lt, two junior enlisted, one 1sg, and a CW4. I had more problems with name recognition (good or bad) than anything else. Starting with a drill sergeant who resented some perceived slight from my father when he was his platoon sergeant and the drill was a private abd ending showing my uncle in law (the general) around as his guide when he visited a base I was tdy at.
Honestly, as the military grows more "professional" I don't see the problem being that bad in an organization as large as the army.
I'd say, at a minimum, hands off the junior enlisted and if you have the same rater or senior rater you probably shouldn't. I second the motion of informing everyone it's "ill-advised" and some counseling about the pitfalls of the situation should be given. After that, if they screw it up, they're on their own.
Honestly, as the military grows more "professional" I don't see the problem being that bad in an organization as large as the army.
I'd say, at a minimum, hands off the junior enlisted and if you have the same rater or senior rater you probably shouldn't. I second the motion of informing everyone it's "ill-advised" and some counseling about the pitfalls of the situation should be given. After that, if they screw it up, they're on their own.
(2)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
Wow, thanks for sharing. You have benefits and negative aspects to having many family members serving in the Military. As long as everyone is treated the same it shouldn't matter.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I do not because I have not seen the level of maturity needed to handle these situations. I truly think it will cause a "conflict of interest" in the workplace. Finding your "true love" at work should not be the military's' responsibility.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I agree, finding love in the work place is not desirable and maybe the maturity level isn't quite there. It's just my opinion colored by my experience. I came from CI, we tended to be older and more independent than other fields. Truth be told, absent a good "one size fits all "policy the rule shouldn't change.
(0)
(0)
Well if it's ok for queer individuals to get married, I reckon it's ok if officers marry nco's, every thing is getting more queer in this country anyway
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Homosexual Officers nor NCO will have different rules regarding fraternization. Fraternization is banned regardless of sexual orientation.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
Maj Paul R you r correct regarding fraterniztion rules; however when has that stopped any abusers with authority whether straight or queer.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
MSgt Diaz, please do not address homosexuals as queers. I agree with your point, but there is no need for the term.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
MSgt Fanny Wright if you look up the definition of the word queer, it is not a derogatory term but the proper word. I do not feel the use of correct terminology should be policed by the political correctness party in so much as it is called freedom of speech. queer/kwir/
adjective
strange; odd.
homosexual
adjective
strange; odd.
homosexual
(0)
(0)
Nope. Shouldn't matter. When I was in we had a staff sgt. married to a warrant officer in our sister unit. There were never any issues that I was aware of. The key is not being in the same chain of command, just like you said.
(2)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
I can assume that the Warrant Officer married the enlisted soldier while the Warrant Officer was still enlisted and usually those relationships don't cause any problems at work.
(0)
(0)
Absolutely. It's a pretty dumb rule as it is. As long as they're not in each other's food chain, it presents zero negative impact.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Its one Army, one Military... we are all in the "same food chain". I have been around long enough to be amazed at how small the Military is especially the Army.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You said no because you are super old Sir!JK
I know as I just couldn't help making light of such!lol
I know as I just couldn't help making light of such!lol
(2)
(0)
I say yes, no direct influence on each other. If he or she cant come stomping around their company CP and try and make shit happen then YES! especially cross branch, why in the world can I not date an Air Force Officer let alone marry her one day?
I know its an old topic but dam its gets me going every time.
I know its an old topic but dam its gets me going every time.
(1)
(0)
I think they should be able to. Just like two NCOs can date if their not in the same chain of command. The rule was made was there wouldn't be any favoritism. If they are not in the same Chain of Command, how can they really affect their parnter's career. It's no different then a E-8 being married to a E-6.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next