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?

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.

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.

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.

I am an E5 married to an O3 and it creates no problems for us.

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.

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.

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

I think you should be able to date who you want regardless of rank as long as it don't interfere with work

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.

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.

I find that there is always a postive and negitive to each sceniero. While i believe that people should be able to love, date, and marry whomever they want the boundiries to which need to be set will always be grey. All it takes is for one perosn to mess it up for everyone. It is a rule and so, being apart of a professional orginization, one must present themselves in an orginized fashion. Persoanlly i have no problem with it as long as it does not interferre in the work place, they are not directly in you chain of command, or direct line of influence. It can be argued one way or the other, i have no issue with it, but it is a rule that must be followed. Also, one must consider how others precieve the relationship. Fair or Unfair? Personal and professioanl life overlaps need to be kept to a minimum and rules must be followed until it changes. Sucks but that is the way it is and, as of right now, will be for the forseeiable future

The tighter regulations are made the more disgruntled people become. You have a group of armed forces that are some of the best in the world. When you make changes and do things like this fraternization order you change the forces as a whole completely even if you don't see it immediately. If two people are not in the same chain of command that should not even be a question of allowing it. The only question would be if they are in the same chain of command. They may either be separated or have close scrutiny based on their work performance.

So the army can adapt to same sex marriage but yet this is still an issue. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Simply put YES!

I understand the need for a married couple not to be in the same chain of command, but I believe this rule has should have been better written from the get go. It is ridiculous how inconsistently this rule is enforced, and on top of that why do you want to legislate this vs any other categories of people and their relarionship choices....

Army regulation says "no," and I don't see this changing any time soon. The military is very fluid and it would not be absolutely impossible to find oneself in the same unit as one's partner some time in the future. Being in a relationship where one can potentially have undue influence (either positive or negative) over one's partner in the future sets up potential failure for everyone involved (the couple, the unit, etc.). That being said, it does happen. I have seen it, and it has occasionally even worked. Just my thoughts--I could be wrong :)

That is not an easy question to answer.
As long as they are not in the same chain of command and do not have interactions with each other's units, then there is probably no problem.

The problem is that just because they aren't in the same chain of command now does not mean they might not be at some time in the future.

I was in a USAR GSU in the early 2000s. We had a female Commander (LTC), and her husband was the Motor Officer (CW4). Not only were they in the same chain of command, but she was his immediate superior. Whether or not she actually did anything improper the appearance was there. Especially if someone saw them off duty. I saw them a couple times in the restaurant I worked at. The husband was totally dominant. He chose her food, what she drank, and if someone greeted her first you could see how irritated it made him. With that kind of dominant personality off duty there were always questions in the unit about how she would deal with situations where the motor pool failed in some task or another.

Unit morale suffered during her tenure as commander.

This wasn't even a situation that meets the criteria of the original question, but if two officers can cause this kind of problem it would be just as bad if one was enlisted.

I say it should be allowed as long they are not in the same chain of command and no conflicts of interest.

Of course. The are people first, then soldiers.

Understandably so, if not in the same chain of command then it doesn't seem to hurt anybody. Although, and this is just based on my perception so don't bash me, officers know each other very very well and throughout many units, so there's a chance that some sort of influence might find its way into the other's chain of command... Although that seems relatively unlikely. But hell, I say why not?

IMO, I think that the Fraternization Policy should be updated alongside the updates of DADT, Transgender, and any other 'lifestyle' conflictions that are currently being looked at. The history of Fraternization evolved from a caste system that was later updated to the policy of keeping good order and discipline. The reason why there is a similarity to why Fraternization should be reviewed alongside DADT and other lifestyle policies is the same reason why there was a separation of genders, and why same sex sexual interests had policies against them, to the core they all have to do with good order and behavior. I know it's not as simple to combine these areas, however to make my point quick, I will use just that standard of 'keeping good order and discipline'. The military is currently undergoing an extreme update when it comes to lifestyles and military traditions be it women in ranger school, DADT repealed, Same-sex benefits, and now the question if transgender will be accepted. All of these in a sense can cause a disruption to a good order and result into negative discipline. However we are the U.S Military, and when we are face with a brick in the wall, we find a policy to go around that brick and accomplish the mission! The Same Sex laws were passed due to Marriage equality, why should there be a prejudice of rank, when we have long moved passed race, and now gender? Some say because of unfavorable preference between the Chain of Command. To offer an advisement to that notion, if we are able to overcome same sex sexual interests in same sex dormitories for training, and deployed locations, that would easily effect the good order and discipline, then why can't we come together to put the correct verbiage on an up to date policy on unprofessional relationships. How about, it is ill-advised for relationships within the member's Chain of Command; however the Members Unit will handle at the lowest level on disciplinary actions if misconduct arises, or something similar within rank, mil-to-mil marriages. As for personnel with joint spouse for an 'O' and 'E' marriage, maintain the highest ranking individual drives the assignment. There are currently 'O' and 'E' marriages in the military due to the grandfather policy; AFPC still makes it work with assignments to those individuals. Also speaking on the fact there is already mixed rank marriages, you do not see that causing a disruption to the good order and discipline of the military. Perseverance and being adaptable is what we need to be our cornerstone with all of these lifestyle changes.