In 2019, why is it inappropriate for enlisted and officers to date or marry with consequence?

2019-03-13T20:45:12-04:00

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 13 at 2019 9:28 PM

2019-03-13T21:28:43-04:00

If you truly believe in the necessity of the division of commissioned and enlisted personnel, you cannot countenance such unions. Once that divide is bridged in the bedroom, it ceases to exist anywhere else. I know that there are commissioned officers who want to be "familiar" with subordinates. I've seen them and, in every case, they were ineffective leaders not only to their own detriment but also to the detriment of those they led. Command is a lonely space. Responsibility is a heavy load to bear. If you aren't up to the challenges, you should remain among the enlisted ranks.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 13 at 2019 9:59 PM

2019-03-13T21:59:01-04:00

1. We have a hard enough time about Favoritism in the service without that. 2. Exactly how many folks would put their wife/girlfriend in a shit detail (literally) or send them out on point?

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Mar 13 at 2019 10:04 PM

2019-03-13T22:04:01-04:00

Hmmm... I remember attending the wedding (1976) of Air Force Lt. X (can't remember her name) and Airman Senior Ray Garcia. Now granted, that was Air Force, but did the rules change?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2019 10:17 PM

2019-03-13T22:17:31-04:00

You're in the reserve component, you're allowed to date an officer as long as it's not from your work. If you don't understand why dating someone at your work would cause major issues, then it can't be explained

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2019 10:23 PM

2019-03-13T22:23:15-04:00

Can theoretically be married, just can't date, which essentially makes it impossible to reach "married" without having an improper relationship, other than one member of an enlisted marriage becoming an officer after the marraige.
The "why" is because it is codified in Army Command Policy, and the resulting charge could be a violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
It used to be authorized, but was again prohibited 1 March 2000, update to AR 600-20, para 4-14c(2), and remains so with the latest update.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made Mar 13 at 2019 11:28 PM

2019-03-13T23:28:01-04:00

Its complicated, but reality is that it happens.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Mar 14 at 2019 1:14 AM

2019-03-14T01:14:08-04:00

Why? Simple yet effective example.
Let's say you as a SSG are married to a Captain. The two of you are in a situation where lives depend on the decisions, the impartial, unemotional decisions that must be made. A spouse that has to order their SO to 'take the hill' so to speak knowing they could die. Not to mention the sheer fact that it would be bad for moral as favoritism would always be a lurking factor. You did not earn your stripes but got them due to the rank of your spouse and so on. This degrades not just your leadership ability but the leadership ability of your Captain spouse.

It leads to a degradation of good military order and perception.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2019 5:03 AM

2019-03-14T05:03:22-04:00

My husband was an officer before he got out. At one time he was active and I was reserve. We had known each ither and were married while I was in college shortly after he graduated. Then he got off active and were both reserves. Most of the time we were separate units. His last unit was the same as mine but he was ops and I was maintenance so not the same chain of command. It happens quite a bit in the guard or reserves. We actually work at the same place in our civilian careers now but again, not the same department or area of expertise. Its nice to have “lunch date” every day.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Mar 14 at 2019 7:23 AM

2019-03-14T07:23:39-04:00

Whether it is 1819 or 2019 is irrelevant. Officers and enlisted don't play with each other. Just like lower enlisted and senior enlisted don't. There is supposed to be a separation, which allows for military order and discipline. Even when not in the direct CoC, the potential to influence a career exists.
In the way way back, I had a drinking buddy who was CID. He would stop by the unit approx three times a year, flash his badge, and take me away from the unit for an afternoon to go shoot the shit. Looking back, this was EXTREMELY wrong, but at the time it was awesome to get out of an afternoon of mowing grass or cleaning weapons. An Officer has the potential for a similar type activity, even with a different CoC. MAJ Jones comes in and talks to CO or 1SG "hey, need to borrow SSG Smith for the afternoon." CO will likely agree, and now SSG Smith is not doing the job because MAJ Jones wants to have some together time.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Mar 14 at 2019 8:54 AM

2019-03-14T08:54:40-04:00

If policy’s are followed a relationship would not have developed in the first place. However, there are circumstances where it is appropriate, such as the relationship preexisted military service, and a few others. The bottom line is that such relationships are very awkward often calling into question integrity and decision making. There are many more examples, but as I said unless orexisting a relationship should not develop making both parties wrong.

Thank you for your service.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Mar 14 at 2019 8:57 AM

2019-03-14T08:57:16-04:00

My apologies for part of my first post. I faile to see the R. In either case it can be very awkward and restrictive of future assignments, even tempering promotions.

Response by COL David Turk made Mar 14 at 2019 2:28 PM

2019-03-14T14:28:55-04:00

All good answers preceding this. One other example (of why not) not previously mentioned.
So the married (or long term dating) didn’t work out and now there’s separation and/or divorce. And it’s not amicable. It’s bad enough that the two couldn’t live together at night. How are they going to live together during the day?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 14 at 2019 7:26 PM

2019-03-14T19:26:05-04:00

I suppose I could say because those in charge of believed to be true and needed but that’s not really a discussion.
So instead I would suggest you
Read the regulation understand why it’s deemed inappropriate and tell us why you think those things are no longer valid

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Mar 14 at 2019 8:59 PM

2019-03-14T20:59:39-04:00

Because in 2019 there is no compelling reason to toss all rules and regulations just because the end of the year ends in a 9.

Response by MSG Frank Kapaun made Mar 14 at 2019 11:20 PM

2019-03-14T23:20:56-04:00

Because dogs don’t $hit where they eat.

Response by LTC James McElreath made Mar 14 at 2019 11:32 PM

2019-03-14T23:32:41-04:00

Rovenia,
Unless it has changed since my retirement, it was an offense not to be over looked. I kind of understand to an extent why fraternization has been deemed as inappropriate. If your spouse were to interfere with your orders, position on things, or refuse to follow orders there could be dire consequences come of it. That rule was even enforced in the USAR as well. At one point it was required for one or the other to ETS from the service. I am not sure if that has changed or not.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2019 10:38 AM

2019-03-15T10:38:21-04:00

Same reasons its bad for supervisors in the civilian world to date employees. Perception of impropriety and favorite treatment. Also its just better common sense not to date in your work pool if possible. There can also be accusations that someone is only in the relationship because they pressured into it ..with the disparity in money/authority.

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Mar 17 at 2019 8:33 AM

2019-03-17T08:33:31-04:00

Best move in this matter. Remove yourself from the socialistic military lifestyle. Become a productive American citizen. Date and marry whomever you wish. Even better! You do not have to remain among hourly employees. You can marry the Dept manager just work in a different department. Productive civilian employment pays little attention to hourly (enlisted) salaried(officer) interrelationships. If one cannot separate their personal life from their employment one will find themselves at the unemployment office. Difference between military/civilian leadership. One is convinced they are members of the aristocracy. Never allowing themselves to associate with common labor. This type of management can only exist by fear. The other requires true management skills. The ability to motivate or lead a free will employee to perform at their best (at any level of employment.) So the corporation may continue in maintaining a profit. This is a twenty four hour, seven day a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year challenge. For the competition is working just as hard to put your employer out of business. Thus, returning to the original comment. Civilian management cares less than a tinker's damn about whom one is dating or marrying. Military leadership????? has nothing but time on their hands writing manuals on whom/what a mare enlisted may or may not date/ marry. The choice is yours to make. Best of luck on a long and happy married life.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Jul 9 at 2020 5:12 PM

2020-07-09T17:12:40-04:00

No one has mentioned different social classes of people.

Response by PO1 Robert Wikert made Nov 23 at 2021 5:21 PM

2021-11-23T17:21:08-05:00

All great answers, I recall many years ago when I was stationed in Gitmo, being a Navy photographer, I took a LTJG Nurse's Bupers photos. I was a single E4 and she a single 0-2 I had asked her to take some model type photos and she agreed, while doing those images, we discovered that we had many things in common and were roughly the same age. At the time, 1971, there were no females, except for Navy nurses, stationed on Gitmo. We discussed dating, and might have pursued that course of action if stationed anywhere in the states or elsewhere overseas. Gitmo was a much too closed, and close, community to even attempt it. So even knowing the consequences sometimes over-rides common sense.