Posted on Jan 2, 2015
Fraternization and the Reserves - Where is the line?
87.8K
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 11 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)
18
18
0
From a purely legal standpoint, as a reserve commander I have zero jurisdiction as to what two Soldiers do on their own time away from battle assembly. Be it to enforce doing additional training or having inappropriate relationships. Zero jurisdiction. So long as people that are together and in uniform and on-duty they are professional, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do in that situation other than ask them to keep it private and professional. If two reservists meet outside of duty and then learned that they are also reservists, the command also has no jurisdiction or authority to prevent the relationship
(18)
(0)
16
16
0
As long as you maintain the good order and discipline, you get that with consistency.
(16)
(0)
11
11
0
CPT (Join to see), you keep saying you are never going to fall for one of your Joes, but how do you know that? Just because you might not have anyone you are interested in today, who knows what the future holds ;)
As for inappropriate friendships, I use my actual friends as a guide. My peers can come to my place fairly unannounced, help themselves to stuff in my fridge, and sit down on my sofa. They can call at ridiculous hours to talk about their personal problems...or nothing. They might take my daughter to the mall or my son to the park and I might watch their baby while they have a date night. A relationship with an enlisted Soldier should never look like this at all. Coming over for a BBQ where everyone was invited? Sure. Going to the same church, school, etc is no issue as long as you are careful not to set up a potentially inappropriate situation (e.g., if you need a tutor, find someone else). No matter what, there will be some Soldiers you know or click with better than others. The fraternization reg is not trying to address this.
As for inappropriate friendships, I use my actual friends as a guide. My peers can come to my place fairly unannounced, help themselves to stuff in my fridge, and sit down on my sofa. They can call at ridiculous hours to talk about their personal problems...or nothing. They might take my daughter to the mall or my son to the park and I might watch their baby while they have a date night. A relationship with an enlisted Soldier should never look like this at all. Coming over for a BBQ where everyone was invited? Sure. Going to the same church, school, etc is no issue as long as you are careful not to set up a potentially inappropriate situation (e.g., if you need a tutor, find someone else). No matter what, there will be some Soldiers you know or click with better than others. The fraternization reg is not trying to address this.
(11)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Totally agreed. And for fun, we can talk about the civilian professional as well as one-step removed relationships....
The O4 who is the sales rep who buys the E5 office manager lunches. The E7 insurance agent who writes the policies on the O3's car and boat.... Then there is the wide, wide world of (legal) MLM businesses that seem to be beloved of reservists of all stripes and ranks.
And then it gets complicated. As a very simple example, my wife was running our FRG and as such got to know a fair number of my Soldiers while I was in command. I came home one day to find her and "Jessica" happily chatting away and doing some craft-type stuff for an upcoming event. So there I am with "SPC Jones" hanging out in my house. The same SPC that I am trying hard to retain despite some issues. None of us was in any way in a military status, so "good to go?" Now, am I trying to retain her because we are friends and hang out? If I were one of the Soldiers that the CDR WASN'T trying to retain, I would certainly have my doubts. (For the record, I had known that the event was going to happen, but they changed from the unit to my home at the last minute without my knowledge.)
Similar scenario, my wife is a graphic designer. On of my SFCs has his own electrician business. I wants to update his logo. He ends up offering the work to my wife. A very rational, arm's length transaction. It is a service he needs. It is a service she is in the business of providing. Totally allowed. Or is he buying favor with the CDR? But wait, we happen to need some electrical work done on the house? How about a barter? The latter part was promptly squashed by me, though it resulted in some long discussions with my wife, since she has worked on a barter basis both before and since.
Since I've been out of command for almost a year, and in an entirely different organization, I might well consider hiring that SFC now.
Again, I think perception as reality needs to be uppermost in mind when it comes to this issue.
The O4 who is the sales rep who buys the E5 office manager lunches. The E7 insurance agent who writes the policies on the O3's car and boat.... Then there is the wide, wide world of (legal) MLM businesses that seem to be beloved of reservists of all stripes and ranks.
And then it gets complicated. As a very simple example, my wife was running our FRG and as such got to know a fair number of my Soldiers while I was in command. I came home one day to find her and "Jessica" happily chatting away and doing some craft-type stuff for an upcoming event. So there I am with "SPC Jones" hanging out in my house. The same SPC that I am trying hard to retain despite some issues. None of us was in any way in a military status, so "good to go?" Now, am I trying to retain her because we are friends and hang out? If I were one of the Soldiers that the CDR WASN'T trying to retain, I would certainly have my doubts. (For the record, I had known that the event was going to happen, but they changed from the unit to my home at the last minute without my knowledge.)
Similar scenario, my wife is a graphic designer. On of my SFCs has his own electrician business. I wants to update his logo. He ends up offering the work to my wife. A very rational, arm's length transaction. It is a service he needs. It is a service she is in the business of providing. Totally allowed. Or is he buying favor with the CDR? But wait, we happen to need some electrical work done on the house? How about a barter? The latter part was promptly squashed by me, though it resulted in some long discussions with my wife, since she has worked on a barter basis both before and since.
Since I've been out of command for almost a year, and in an entirely different organization, I might well consider hiring that SFC now.
Again, I think perception as reality needs to be uppermost in mind when it comes to this issue.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, it is also hard with kids when they get older. At JBLM in the summer, the program for older kids is fairly unstructured. I came home one afternoon to find that my daughter had invited two new friends to our on post home. Both were kids of very junior enlisted Soldiers, and when I called their parents, both were a bit shocked when they heard my name and rank and I immediately felt like we were in an awkward position. None of the kids were life-long Army brats. They all, like my daughter, had a parent join late in their childhood and couldn't really understand why their dads were not super excited about my daughter potentially coming to their houses.
It is complicated, but it does need to be managed and I don't think it can just be left up to individual discretion. I am glad to have RP where you can ask what real service members think *before* you get in trouble.
Oh yes, the MLM thing kills me!
It is complicated, but it does need to be managed and I don't think it can just be left up to individual discretion. I am glad to have RP where you can ask what real service members think *before* you get in trouble.
Oh yes, the MLM thing kills me!
(3)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
CPT (Join to see) - If spouses are frowned on for wearing their spouse's rank, then why would your daughter be penalized due to your ran? I consider this one a case of not bringing work home. Your kids are not part of your command structure.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PO3 Sherry Thornburg - I know it is not satisfactory - but these relationships can get very complicated in a military setting. It is not a matter of actual conflict of interest but perceived conflict of interest where officers are responsible for enlisted assignments etc. In an ideal world things would be different - in an ideal world. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
10
10
0
Post-script, I am referring primarily to fraternization of the "non-romantic" variety, despite the image.
I've never understood why the phrase for "to make a brother of" was applied to mean the romantic type. When I date a woman I most certainly don't want to "make a brother" out of her...
I've never understood why the phrase for "to make a brother of" was applied to mean the romantic type. When I date a woman I most certainly don't want to "make a brother" out of her...
(10)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Touche.
Though it was tough to find a good image for fraternization that was appropriate. I don't recommend googling that phrase.... very NSFW.
Though it was tough to find a good image for fraternization that was appropriate. I don't recommend googling that phrase.... very NSFW.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
I had a relationship as a 1LT with a Specialist while stationed in Germany. It was legal back then because I was an Artillery Officer and she was a Signal Corps soldier so we were not in the same chain of command. I see no issue unless your in the same unit and have influence in their careers.
(7)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
LTC Steve Summy There you go again Colonel, taking a sensible approach!
Those are for seasoned individuals, they too, can fail in relationships!
Those are for seasoned individuals, they too, can fail in relationships!
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
If we are truley a professional organization and our soldiers are expected to act like professionals and not a bunch of frat partying college kids, then the regulations should support professionals not become so restrictive that we professionals are not allowed to demonstrate our professionalism. In basic training you have very strict walk a fine line rules and regulations in order to keep in check the civilians you are trying to turn into professional soldiers. In permanent party, if you cant act like grown adults and know where to draw the line between frat initiation and professional behavior then you need to go back to being a civilian. Why does the military continue to boast about the professionals serving our military forces, yet continue to bind our ability to act as such with over the top regulations?
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
Fraternization policies are intended to improve combat efficacy, they must be obeyed in view of their extreme and ultimate possible consequences. Could your relationship with an individual alter your choice to risk his or her life compared to a peer? Then that relationship is wrong.
When it comes to the National Guard I like to ask: "What would Captain Isaac Davis do?"
Hint: (Real Quote) "I have not a man that is afraid to go." Followed by his own death leading his company advancing on the bridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Davis_(soldier)
When it comes to the National Guard I like to ask: "What would Captain Isaac Davis do?"
Hint: (Real Quote) "I have not a man that is afraid to go." Followed by his own death leading his company advancing on the bridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Davis_(soldier)
Isaac Davis (soldier) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaac Davis (February 23, 1745 – April 19, 1775) was a gunsmith and a militia officer who commanded a company of Minutemen from Acton, Massachusetts, during the first battle of the American Revolutionary War. In the months leading up to the Revolution, Davis set unusually high standards for his company in terms of equipment, training, and preparedness. His company was selected to lead the advance on the British Regulars during the Battle of...
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sometimes, Sir, it is my friends that I am MOST willing to risk :)
Joking aside, you make an excellent point, and use what I believe is the bottom line - order, discipline, and fairness.
Way to bring up a hero though :) Perhaps we can make you a WWCIDD bracelet.
Joking aside, you make an excellent point, and use what I believe is the bottom line - order, discipline, and fairness.
Way to bring up a hero though :) Perhaps we can make you a WWCIDD bracelet.
(3)
(0)
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That's good :) At first it looks like "What would CID do?" which is what I tend to ask MYself....
(2)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
My husband and I were in the same command structure when we were dating. We were in different areas, but under the same CO. What you do on your time off is your own business, as I was told, but you would be held responsible if you brought it to work.
This is a UCMJ issue right? Per all service structures. Not different from Army to Navy etc? The only times I've seen these things get out of hand was when there was a major difference in rank (enlisted and officer) or as in one A**, he bragged about his situation like he was above it all and got turned in. One minute he was running his mouth and then next he was disappeared with rumors of being busted from Chief to E-1 and transferred.
This is a UCMJ issue right? Per all service structures. Not different from Army to Navy etc? The only times I've seen these things get out of hand was when there was a major difference in rank (enlisted and officer) or as in one A**, he bragged about his situation like he was above it all and got turned in. One minute he was running his mouth and then next he was disappeared with rumors of being busted from Chief to E-1 and transferred.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google