Is the new Fraternization policy nothing more than a force shaping tool?

Micromanagement is never a good thing. (She said almost a decade later..)

There should be no relationships between lower enlisted and NCO's period, if for some reason an NCO feels the need to have a girlfriend with acu's he or she should carry an extra pair and have the significant other wear it, is bad for discipline and moral, why are we even discussing this matter, I was told this on PLDC

Sounds like you are referring to a particular situation within your location that you find unprofessional, but is being overlooked due to the fact he/she is a SGM/CSM.

Main reason, regardless of branch or command is the potential for the subordinate to abuse the authority the senior ranking official has at the expense of others, just to get their way.

Ex. COL Murphy, a single male installation headquarters staff officer, has been a widower for 3 years. At a hail and farewell, he met CPT Brennan, a single female officer in the headquarters. She does not work under his supervision. They have dated for the past 3 months. Last weekend was a special one for them, the first free weekend COL Murphy and CPT Brennan had enjoyed since they met. They rented separate cottages at the beach. Unfortunately, due to another officer's sudden illness, CPT Brennan found she was the weekend duty officer at the last minute. COL Murphy called his friend, the Secretary of the General Staff (SGS), and prevailed upon his friendship to find another officer to replace CPT Brennan. COL Murphy and CPT Brennan then spent the weekend relaxing and having serious discussions about their future.

I indeed hope you find the correct answer on this as I can only give the Air Force side of this. From what I read in your policy it does indeed seem vague on the topic of SNCO/NCO relationships. I imagine by then the Army has felt that it has built leaders that rise above that sort of thinking though I don't know how you wouldn't naturally favor your significant other.

It may in fact be a way to move some people out though honestly, if you aren't sure after a year of being in a relationship, you probably have your answer where it is going.

Can you post or reference this new policy? I have not seen it.

I agree with Capt Richard I P. I cannot wait for people agreeable to the Armed Forces gets back in.

I think the policy is a millennia outdated! My case for instance, I came in at 30 yo. So for any relationship as an E-1, my pool is 18-21 year olds??? And most people in my age group were E5-E7 or Majors. The 18-21 year olds did not want to hang out with the old man, and people my age were not allowed to hang out with me. I still have very few relationships and pretty much a loner now due to these policies...so I was SOL due to these stupid rules!!

The new directive is about as clear as milk and leaves open misinterpretation. There are problems enough with favoritism, and the usual interactions between enlisted ranks. Add to that officer enlisted interactions and officer to officer interaction and the Milk becomes clabbered. Being old school, and after becoming a Chief Petty Officer, I interacted with other enlisted and officer personnel only at official social functions. Counseling and such interaction was never done alone especially if the counselee was female. Too many dangers out there for relationships misunderstanding and complaints to be made.

they want to give the appearance of addressing the problem without addressing the problem. it has been well known for some time that senior ranked officials Prey Upon the lower ranked soldiers. when I was in one of the senior instructors at the chemical School was an ex drill sergeant who married one of his soldiers from basic

STILL?? We were laughing at crotch control in 1972. So THIS is why a certain demographic loses their minds over everyone else's sexuality. An inability to be a citizen. Then again, when we're active, we don't even get jury trials.