How do you deal with fraternization in the unit between NCO and subordinate?

2014-09-25T20:25:07-04:00

I've read over DA PAM 600-35, but I'm curious about how common fraternization between a NCO and his subordinate is across the Army. Should it be allowed, not allowed, or depend on the situation? How would you personally handle it at your unit?

We have a PFC fresh out of high school who despite hardly being at work: hardly gets tasked out, gets regular work days off so he can study for CLEP exams or "work on his warrant officer packet," and got moved to a fire team leader position despite the lack of knowledge and inability to perform the job over others. While this had bothered me in the past, it frustrates me more as a very young SPC team leader because I see how negatively it affects the morale of my team. What is the right way to handle the situation?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2014 8:29 PM

2014-09-25T20:29:10-04:00

Holy Cow! You mean they don't have an Army Reg for this one? Look, if the soldier is in the same unit - bad news. If the soldier is in the same COC - bad news! If you're senior to this individual - fix it. If you're NOT in the COC or senior - go up. This can only end badly.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 25 at 2014 8:44 PM

2014-09-25T20:44:09-04:00

Well first, NCO's and their subordinates cannot "fraternize". That term is specifically reserved for Officers.

That said, what you are talking about is professional/unprofessional relationships which are enforceable to enlisted members. On the AF side of the house, we have an entire AFI dedicated to it. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2909/afi36-2909.pdf

The AF Defines an Unprofessional relationship pretty clearly:

"Any personal relationship, whether pursued on or off-duty, that detracts from the authority of superiors or result in, or reasonably create the appearance of, favoritism, misuse of office or position, or the abandonment of organizational goals for personal interests"

Below is a great ppt (you know us Flyboy's love ppt) on the subject and outlines the appropriate COA's

http://web.usf.edu/airforce/AS300/SLD21_Professional_Unprofessional_Relationships.ppt

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 3:53 AM

2014-12-31T03:53:05-05:00

SPC S., hate to put it so bluntly. But sometimes it's not what you know but............ There's another old saying that still holds water and it is; fk up, move up.

Now I'm not saying all that advance in position or rank are putting parts of their face on parts of other peoples bodies or screwing up and benefiting from the 'good ol' boy' syndrome. Maybe his leaders see something in him and they're grooming him. Or it could be one of the afore mentioned scenario(s).

All I do know is; try to worry about what's inside your range fans that you can control and let everything else work itself out. Lead your team/squad the best you can and take care of them, they'll take care of you in the long run.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 4:27 AM

2014-12-31T04:27:22-05:00

The Army does cover this per AR 600-20 Army Command Policy - 6 November 2014

4–14. Relationships between Soldiers of different grade

b. Soldiers of different grades must be cognizant that their interactions do not create an actual or clearly predictable
perception of undue familiarity between an officer and an enlisted Soldier, or between an NCO and a junior-enlisted
Soldier. Examples of familiarity between Soldiers that may become “undue” can include repeated visits to bars,
nightclubs, eating establishments, or homes between an officer and an enlisted Soldier, or an NCO and a junior-enlisted
Soldier, except for social gatherings, that involve an entire unit, office, or work section. All relationships between
Soldiers of different grade are prohibited if they—
(1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.
(2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.
(3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of grade or position for personal gain.
(4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature.
(5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the
command to accomplish its mission.

4–16. Fraternization
Violations of paragraphs 4–14b, 4–14c, and 4–15 may be punished under UCMJ, Art. 92 as a violation of a lawful
general regulation.

Response by CPL Wilfred Roberge made Apr 28 at 2016 2:40 PM

2016-04-28T14:40:24-04:00

I don't know if this is fraternization per say, but it sounds to me like favortism or at least is percieved favortism.

Response by SSG Bryan McDougal made Feb 16 at 2018 6:36 PM

2018-02-16T18:36:34-05:00

First, as a former NCO, you are already going about it the right way. You question it, but discreetly and professionally. Next, gently probe to see if the time off is in fact being devoted to said activity. This one is harder to prove especially if fratinazition is truly occurring. If, and I mean IF, that is the case; then and only then do you take this higher. Reputation is hard to earn, destroying it only takes an accusation. Don't be that asshole who brings discredit to the unit over a personal vendetta. It is unbecoming of a soldier.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Feb 16 at 2018 7:55 PM

2018-02-16T19:55:49-05:00

Ok, what I have seen here as you have written it does not give me an indication of fraternization. Not enough here to even make a complaint about for Frat, now talking to the 1SG about why this guy was chosen over others, with more experience is open for debate and should be discussed.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2020 10:37 AM

2020-01-08T10:37:00-05:00

So if both the NCO and the soldier get caught fratnerzation, should both of them get ucmj? Because I know a NCO who was investigate by CID found no evidence and beat SHARP. But the commander gave the NCO article 15. And the soldier didn’t get any. Can they do that? I thought both parties can get in trouble not just one.