NCOs playing on-line games with their Soldiers = Fraternization?

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:06:44 -0400

Current AR 600-20 prohibits personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel and gives specific examples (dating, business, gambling and etc) and for enlisted it identifies: recruiter and recruit & trainees and Soldiers as prohibited relationships.  There will be new regulatory guidance concering NCO Fraternization in an updated AR 600-20, to be released later this year. What are your thoughts? In over 13 years of war, we have a force that has deployed for extended periods, lived in very close to each other and in many cases fought shona ba shona alongside one another. In discussions (Soldier of the month competitions/NCOPDs and general talk while walking through the barracks), I've found that many NCOs have personal relationships with their Soldiers (e.g. online gaming), some of the NCOs live in the barracks and some live off post or in government housing.  Do you see this as franternization - or a relationship that could cause undue familiarity?

Response by Sgt Matthew O'Donnell made Mar 9 at 2014 2:27 PM

Sgt Matthew O'Donnell — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:27:54 -0400

I could see how it could be an issue, but at the same time it could be a good tool for NCO's to know their soldiers. It is still up to the NCO to be that roll model and keep that relationship professional. It is also the duty of the junior enlisted to respect those boundaries, and separate online gaming, work and liberty time from one another. In any new form of fraternization that comes along with technology there is going to be a grey area, and it is up to the NCO to find it, make it clear and let his/her Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen know what is appropriate.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 2:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:36:34 -0400

The only way I see it becoming fraternization would be the possibility of forming a "clan" and then competing in tournaments or events that have actual prize pools. I would consider the online gaming for fun as a form of MWR. I can play several games of pool with my soldiers but cannot participate in online games? Laughable.

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made Mar 9 at 2014 5:51 PM

SSG Roderick Smith — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:51:46 -0400

Unfortunately, CSM Uhlig, a lot of Soldiers these days would rather play video games than do anything else on their off time. That being said, I don't think its strange to liken it to Soldiers and NCOs going out and playing a friendly game of football. It has the potential to build comraderie and teamwork. Of course there's the possibility for lines to be crossed, but overall, I don't see it as an issue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 6:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:07:02 -0400

CSM,

As long as they knew where the fine line between work/business and play is, I wouldn't mind. Once they crossed the line, I would stop.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 23 at 2014 1:45 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 01:45:04 -0400

Not at all. It's video gaming. As long as all parties know it can't effect the work place I say go for it. I have even tried to meet my soldiers online to play GTA5.

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Mar 26 at 2014 3:29 AM

SFC Steven Harvey — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:29:37 -0400

CSM,

I don't have an issue with it so long as it's simply team building. It could actually be a benefit seeing as how some games take an absorbent amount of strategy to win.

It can get out if hand especially if a clan were to form with some team members not taking part or if all they talk about during duty hours is the game.

Another interesting question would be Facebook friending your soldiers. I see that all the time where they are tagging each other at the club/bar like it's the cool thing to do not knowing how horribly unprofessional it is.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 4:08 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:08:07 -0400

Hell I used to be the DD for my team leader. You take care of your soldiers they'll take care of you.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 4:25 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:25:22 -0400

I would yes it is fraternization, as it show's percieved or actual unfairness and compromises the integrity of the chain of command. As a gamer myself I've never added one of my Soldiers to play online. The only way I could see it not being fraternization is if that NCO was having a LAN party with an open invitation.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2014 3:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:41:48 -0400

CSM,

I see and recognize the points for both considering it fraternization and and not. Personally I had no issues with my junior NCOs doing that while deployed. The senior NCOs and officers then kept to ourselves. We had one system for just the LTs and CPTs and a few of the senior NCOs and officers had card games. I think as long as it does not involve pulling rank and is not disrespectful I think team and squad leaders are acceptable. Above that it gets a shade of gray.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Apr 26 at 2014 2:46 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:46:58 -0400

CMS Michael,

Fraternization came from human touch long before the internet and techno-gaming. I see no variances in the core values of the military when it comes to training, and sustaining a fighting force with the use of gaming as a tool and technique. Es sprit de corps, unit cohesiveness and interpersonal communication between the ranks, grades and fields when you are at peace or war; core values are the same.

If gaming creates this behavior, then review your capacity to sustain the mission, according to core values and competencies. You decide to keep this behavior or to change it.

My opinion is that AR 600-20 is a guide. Commanders have the authority to enforce it, find a fit, or to grant exceptions. If you want to keep good people in the service, you may have to fight for them. In peace time, that is a whole new game or concept that this generation of SMs are going to have to learn...to survive.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Sep 1 at 2014 3:54 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:54:10 -0400

CSM,
When I was a SPC I had a squad leader that I actually hung out with. He would invite us all out to do stuff all the time. Grabbing dinner, drinking etc.... We even played on Xbox Live sometimes. We all knew the fine line between at work and not at work. Never had any issues. Then again, this was a QRF/PSD platoon. We didn't have any privates or people who had not deployed before.

As for me when I became a leader, I wasn't too fond of hanging out with my soldiers. They were all quite a bit younger then me, and one of them was for sure too immature for that kind of thing. I did go to one my soldiers 21st B-Day's though. Bought him a drink, and paid for his taxi home.

Was it the "right" thing to do? Technically no, but I believe the bonds we established from voluntarily hanging out together really helped take care of platoon cohesion during deployment.

I honestly think that a unit that eats together, drinks together, laughs together, and suffers together, is truly the closest thing to a family there is aside from a biological one.

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Jan 3 at 2015 2:02 PM

SGT Justin Singleton — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:02:42 -0500

In some ways, online gaming can enhance the soldiers fighting skills: shoot, move, communicate, kill all plays out with the ability to respawn. Unfortunately, most games don't allow for enough of a "punishment" for dying making it often wise to simply run out into the middle of a firefight to draw fire or capture a point not worrying if you die because you will simply respawn in a few moments.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Jan 4 at 2015 2:24 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 02:24:03 -0500

CSM Michael J. Uhlig I started an online gaming community in late 2002 whilst an NCO. No thought was given to who could participate, because the nature of such an organisation is virtual and anonymous unless someone chooses to identify themselves. I started it with a couple of fellow NCOs and a SPC(P) that I knew, but none of us ever thought about fraternisation with regards to the SPC -- online, we used each other's callsigns.

I got out two years after starting the group and served as its leader for over twelve years. In that time, we didn't have a single incident where fraternisation led to real-world implications, problems, charges, UCMJ, etc. We did, however, have two cases of verified Stolen Valor that were duly reported.

That organisation still exists to this day, with ~2k members when I departed in June 2014 and over 10K past and present members total. This was for online gaming. The opportunities in this community to network, get advice from service members, and to build bonds was on par with Rallypoint, albeit oriented towards video games. Over 50% of our members were active duty, retired, or prior service, and not just from America either. We even had a genuine Iraqi Republican Guard soldier (Desert Storm era) who came over to the US after the war. That organisation had members from all branches, from new recruits (military recruits, not gamers) all the way up to full-birds. We had a German general for a few months but time zone issues led to him departing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 8:26 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:26:31 -0500

IAW updated AR 600-20 it is considered "Improper Relationship"

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Feb 23 at 2015 8:40 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:40:19 -0500

I don't do any online gaming, but my child does. The thing I noticed and made sure of was she did not have to show her real identity, age, or gender, just gamer's name, so I think unless they are sitting side by side or tell one another who they really are, what's the problem. Breaks up long hours of being bored or lonely.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 12:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:35:22 -0500

Retrieved from: http://www.army.mil/article/138222/Army_updates_reg_defining_inappropriate_relationships

Gossip -- arguably a favorite "sport" in our society -- ranks right up there with football and basketball for things we like to talk about. And, even better, it's never out of season.

One of the most common gossip topics in the Army concerns the perception of proper and improper relationships.

Soldiers and leaders often discuss terms such as fraternization, inappropriate relationships and prohibited relationships interchangeably; causing plenty of confusion.

The Army has recently released an update to Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, which better defines these issues for leaders and Soldiers.

The changes took effect on Nov. 6, so commanders and Soldiers need to be aware of the new elements in the regulation to ensure compliance and to limit confusion.

AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14, defines relationships between Soldiers of different ranks and seeks to clarify proper personal and professional relationships within the Army.

The standard for what constitutes an inappropriate leader-subordinate relationship hasn't changed in the new AR 600-20 4-14b which states, relationships, (both opposite-gender and same-gender) are prohibited if they: -- Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command; -- Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; -- Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain; -- Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature; -- Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

If any of these criteria are met, the parties involved may be subject to Uniformed Code of Military Justice action under Article 92 as a violation of a lawful general regulation.

None of these relationships require any element of a sexual nature; they simply have to cause an actual or perceived situation, which negatively impacts a unit's good order and discipline. A couple of scenarios to consider are:

--You are an officer who regularly hangs out with some of your subordinates to watch the game.

-- You are a sergeant who calls select Soldiers by their first names.

-- You are a Soldier who enjoys working on computers, so you help out the battalion command sergeant major with his home computer during your free time.

Any of these situations could cause a problem within a unit if other Soldiers or leaders perceiving favoritism or personal gain between the parties involved.

So, even if there is nothing wrong occurring, the simple perception among others makes these relationships inappropriate.

Any relationship between Soldiers of different ranks, which is too personal in nature, will cause problems in a unit -- it's simply a matter of time.

This is why the Army expressly prohibits relationships that meet any of the five criteria.

The Army also prohibits relationships between certain categories of Soldiers, regardless of any command or unit affiliation. Previously, certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel were prohibited in writing, while long standing military tradition proscribed personal relationships between NCOs and junior enlisted personnel.

In a significant change to AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14c, now codifies the customary prohibition of personal or intimate relationships between NCOs (corporal through command sergeant major) and junior enlisted service members (private through specialist).

The prohibited relationships, which apply to both opposite-gender and same-gender relationships include:

--Ongoing business relationships.

-- Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships.

-- Gambling.

AR 600-20, para. 4-14c, goes on to clarify certain situations in which business relationship prohibitions would not immediately apply.

That same paragraph also addresses when prohibitions on personal/intimate relationships between officers and enlisted Soldiers or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers do not apply.

Commanders should provide leadership and guidance to NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers who are in violation of this time honored but previously unwritten policy.

Commanders have a wide range of responses available including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action or adverse action.

Para. 4-15 outlines the final category of prohibited relationships, which are focused on Initial Entry Training Soldiers and potential recruits.

Any relationship between permanent party personnel and IET Soldiers not required by the training mission is prohibited.

This prohibition applies to permanent party personnel without regard to the installation of assignment of the permanent party member or the Soldier in Training.

Recruiters and permanent party personnel assigned or attached to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command or National Guard recruiting program are also prohibited from establishing personal relationships with potential prospects, applicants, members of the Delayed Entry Program or members of the Delayed Training Program not required by the recruiting mission is prohibited

The intent of the existing regulation and the changes is to ensure good order and discipline throughout the force by limiting or prohibiting relationships between leaders and subordinates, which could damage the fabric of unit cohesion.

As with most things in the Army, if a Soldier is unsure of the rules or their application, he/she should ask the question before risking action.

Soldiers can always speak to their chain of command, the Staff Judge Advocate Legal Assistance Team or the Inspector General to get clarification.

Army updates reg defining inappropriate relationships

Gossip -- arguably a favorite "sport" in our society -- ranks right up there with football and basketball for things we like to talk about. And, even better, it's never out of season.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 12:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:26:21 -0500

Interesting topic.

I have been playing a play-by-post fantasy role playing game for several years. The person running the game is in a leadership position within that particular environment. I have never met him and the only communicate regarding game-related topics. About 3 years ago, he enlisted. Now he is a Spc (p). I continue to accept his position of leadership because within the confines of that microcosm any military relationship simply does not exist. The only time military comes up is to explain a break in posting due to heavy task load or mission. (No OPSEC concerns, just generic "got something and won't be posting for a few weeks").

The game master recently PCSd to the base where I do drills. I have been debating meeting him because I don't want to change the relationship.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Aug 14 at 2015 9:09 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:09:47 -0400

That's... a very nice barn door...

Anyone remember "America's Army"? Online game developed by the Army back in 2002? It's got 40 some-odd variants now. One of them requires you to be able to use an IFAK, and you can qualify to use the CROWS system. There's also some squad/team play.

How about the Engagement Skills Trainer for the squad training scenarios? There's a new one, the EST-3000, that can be set up pretty much anywhere, and multiple ESTs can be linked to add weapons slots. No crew served weapons yet...

How about Virtual Battle Space? Downloadable from the MilGaming website, it's fully accredited by the Army for training. It's fully networkable up to company/platoon level.

https://milgaming.army.mil

Is it just me, or are we about to send mixed messages again?

Response by SGT Jose Perdelia-Torres made Dec 16 at 2015 12:38 AM

SGT Jose Perdelia-Torres — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:38:08 -0500

Soldiers are far more intelligent than what we give them credit for. We look at lower enlisted as our Children or children in general. Part of that is due to our responsibility as their mentors and Leaders.

As long as the guidelines are established (Soldiers know when to be professional and when they can be relaxed), than there is nothing to worry about. NCOs need to understand that once you relax the standards it can/may go the wrong route. You can't get worked up as an NCO if your Soldiers are joking on you a bit, there's a line between joking and being disrespectful.

But to further answer the question, I feel that it isn't an issue as long as Soldiers know when to be professional and when to relax.

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Dec 16 at 2015 1:53 AM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 01:53:52 -0500

We are all adults and; if an Officer bonds and has a relationship with an NCO (dating) then, those two must understand their limits. The Army is no judge for such personal matters and should neither accept or reject them; this matter is private and personal. The Army can prevent adultery and it can deter undue command influence or conflict of interest through rules and regulations. If the Army interferes in personal and private matters then, personnel will engage each other behind the curtains (in hiding) and violate the regulation.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 16 at 2015 2:49 AM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:49:24 -0500

I actually have mixed feelings about fraternization in general. It was not unusual when I was in and rarely caused any problems. People tended to group together more by age, background, education and career plans than by rank. You simply had to be mature enough to know that on base you had to follow protocol and respect the chain of command. The idea that familiarity breeds contempt assumes that if you really get to know your leaders you won't have respect for them. That would seem to be saying that the leaders are worthy of contempt.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Aug 29 at 2021 8:55 PM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Sun, 29 Aug 2021 20:55:13 -0400

If I remember correctly, fraternization hinges on actual or perceived favoritism or preferential treatment as a consequence of the personal relationship. Unless playing video games together has demonstrated this crucial piece of the puzzle, there is no basis for characterizing it as fraternization.

Response by Berlin Tokyo made Jan 11 at 2022 2:36 AM

Berlin Tokyo — Tue, 11 Jan 2022 02:36:16 -0500

nice post

Response by Berlin Tokyo made Jan 11 at 2022 2:41 AM

Berlin Tokyo — Tue, 11 Jan 2022 02:41:26 -0500

Just one a single click <a href="https://google.com">google</a> this is nice post

a%3E

Response by Berlin Tokyo made Jan 11 at 2022 2:41 AM

Berlin Tokyo — Tue, 11 Jan 2022 02:41:56 -0500

I am sure [url=http://google.com]google[/url] follow the some steps