Posted on Mar 9, 2014
NCOs playing on-line games with their Soldiers = Fraternization?
98.9K
84
29
7
7
0
<p>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?</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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?</p>
Fraternization
AR 600-20
Video Games
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 22
14
14
0
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.
(14)
(0)
10
10
0
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Jim Wolverton
Is this Soldier active duty? If he is and you are a traditional reservist, I don't see a conflict, as long as you two aren't in the same chain.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google