Should enlisted be allowed to date officers in another unit?

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:04:07 -0400

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 5 at 2015 5:08 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:08:46 -0400

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Sep 5 at 2015 5:16 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:16:16 -0400

In the interest of maintaining good order & discipline, NO.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 5 at 2015 6:36 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 18:36:18 -0400

I really don't know. I have heard all of the argurments against fraternization but I saw a lot of it when I was at Ft. Jackson from 1966-1968 and I only saw one instance where that was a problem. Of course both the times and the people were different then.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Sep 5 at 2015 7:50 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 19:50:33 -0400

Just curious, SMSgt Tony Barnes, What is your position on fraternization?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 5 at 2015 10:36 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 22:36:24 -0400

as long as it does not violate the chain of command, who cares? I know a Lt Col Who was married to a MSGT when I served.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Sep 5 at 2015 10:38 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 22:38:13 -0400

I know a few that have, AF Enlisted-Army Officer... No harm, no foul, translation: never got caught, deeper translation: no one told on them...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2015 12:10 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 00:10:31 -0400

Absolutely not. Officers are often social with their peers in other units. That would be vastly detrimental to good order and discipline if an officer is friends with their enlisted SO's commander/supervisor.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2015 2:25 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 02:25:54 -0400

I've read the comments here and I see the "right" answers posted over and over here. Why don't we talk about the truth? The truth is we all know it happens and most of the time leadership turns their head and looks the other direction. The deciding factor most of the time for if this is going to be a problem or not is the maturity level of the individuals involved. My observation is that there is usually more noise about it if the female out ranks the male than other other way around. To make it clear what I'm saying here is let's not stick our heads in the sand about this and pretend like it isn't going on just because we give the "right" answer.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 6 at 2015 10:44 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 10:44:21 -0400

As long as neither is in the direct line of command. I had an E-5 that was married to an O-3 Nurse. Funny, guys can date guys, girls can date girls, but dating between ranks not good?

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Sep 6 at 2015 1:15 PM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:15:35 -0400

Is it so wrong for Officers to stick to dating/marrying Officers & Enlisted sticking to the same with Enlisted? I honestly think that the reason so many people want to date across lines is simply because it's banned. I don't think that's a good enough reason to change the regs. The benefits of this ban outweigh the detriments.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2015 3:02 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 15:02:10 -0400

No. This is and always will be a form of fraternization that can have huge adverse impacts on the unit. I'm not talking about the "good-looking" Romeo and Juliets in our formations. It's more about the individuals who do not (and can not) show the maturity and fortitude to ensure that good order and discipline are always portrayed in the Army. Case in point, I was at Fort Sam Houston in 2013 when a retired CSM decided to shoot an active duty Officer on post. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 6 at 2015 5:26 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:26:45 -0400

We all know the regulatory answer by now. I am a little on the fence with this one though. It was ok when I first joined. I remember a female PFC in my unit that was dating a Major from another command. I never heard of any issues. I was not a leader at that time in the Army so I did not hear the possible multitude of issues that could come with this. With the current direction the Army is evolving into, I could see it changing back to the old rules and not much coming from it. Hard to tell.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2015 10:12 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:12:07 -0400

We had a very similar discussion last week, but no. Despite what people want to believe about the fraternization policy there is easily spillover between units and even services with conflicts of interest. Although we may not like it, the rules exist for a reason.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Sep 7 at 2015 11:53 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 11:53:12 -0400

No.

Response by SSG Michael Hathaway made Sep 8 at 2015 10:36 AM

SSG Michael Hathaway — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:36:07 -0400

While I am not specifically expressing an opinion. I can see the point SMSgt Tony Barnes is trying to make. Yes, I understand the regulations and that they are there for a reason. However, maintaining good order and discipline could also be said to be difficult if two enlisted or two officers. I have met a fair share of people who work together and then play together but when the relationship goes sour, one or both parties create an environment not condusive to productivity or professionalism. It is up to the individuals themselves, to ensure that work is not affected, power is not abused, and so on. Leadership may have to step in from time to time, just as leadership may have to step in from time to time in normal 'authorized' relationships.

You may be thinking, it's more about good order and discipline, the rank structure and perception when it comes to mixing officers and enlisted. But play devil's advocate and change your perspective to see the debate from a different angle. Perhaps the ruling of fraternization may be dated and seemingly archiac in this day and age as indicated by SMSgt Tony Barnes . As mentioned by MCPO Roger Collins, today, we have same sex couples openly engaged in relationships, we have transgender personnel serving, etc. Whether you are right or left wing, you cannot deny that our society as a whole has become more open and tolerant of behaviours and choices than we were 100, 50, 20 or even 10 years ago.

While I believe that there should be no fraternization within the same unit, perhaps we could open the doors just a crack and allow it when members are from diffrent brigades or whatnot so long they are in different chains of command. Or at the very least, allow cross service relationships such as an AF officer and Army enlisted. If both parties can display appropriate conduct, professionalism and order in relationships of the same rank structure, why not with others?

Response by CAPT Michael Maselly made Sep 8 at 2015 12:29 PM

CAPT Michael Maselly — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:29:13 -0400

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Sep 8 at 2015 12:59 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:59:50 -0400

I'm a female soldier, who used to be in Air Force ROTC. I know plenty of officers who I met as cadets (Army and Air Force). I'm also an enlisted soldier with a Bachelor's degree. I would love to date someone with my education level who's somewhat close to my age. Instead I'm stuck with enlisted soldiers who act like little boys, and civilian males who will always be wondering if they actually wear the pants in the relationship. There are many service members who do not have maturity to have this sort of relationship if the fraternization policies were changed. I understand why the policies are there, but it does hurt service members who wish to pursue a relationship with their job capacity already limits them. My concern right now is why in the Army an E-4 can't date an E-5, who thought that one up?

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Sep 8 at 2015 1:15 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:15:42 -0400

Personally I could care less who is dating who, its not my business until it affects me or my personnel working under me.
I have had experiences with some of my junior, E-3, females dating more senior, E-6, males from a completely different command on the same base. One time I assigned an E-3 female to the night shift at the barracks front desk for the weekend, it was just the way the rotation worked out and her E-6 boyfriend approached me and told me that they had plans and asked if I could change the watch rotation. I told him no and to mind his own business in his own command.
So as long as nothing complicates the relationship command wise then as it said its not my business.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 8 at 2015 1:39 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:39:34 -0400

I had a Lt that dated a Spc, eventually got married.She wound up being a beeeeatch... and expected us to treat her differently because she was now a LT's wife... I think the marriage lasted 6 months???

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 2:54 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:54:09 -0400

Unless i'm mistaking they can.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 2:54 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:54:52 -0400

I'd be more worried about the Chief dating and Airman in (yes an E-2) in the same Group or Unit.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 8 at 2015 2:59 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:59:35 -0400

Why Just Officers??? why not enlisted???

Response by AB Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 3:03 PM

AB Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:03:59 -0400

As some others have commented, I don't see an issue with it if it doesn't have any negative effects on proper order and discipline in a unit. I know of a few E-O marriages where one enlisted while married to an O or visa-versa. Even though officers seem to have more of a "Power Network" as I have heard it called where they can pull strings for an enlisted member of a different CoC, I really don't see an issue with it.

Response by PO1 Javid Benson made Sep 8 at 2015 4:23 PM

PO1 Javid Benson — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:23:23 -0400

yes and yes, I did it in Japan for 3 years, no one cared, heck everyone was doing there own thing anyway under the table so it really didn't matter just don't do it in public or somebody is going to tell on you since most of the guys and women were children and taddled on you if you did something they didn't like, but I say yes, if they are not dating anyone and they like you go for it. No point your life should be miserable that no one in your paygrade like you but another paygrade shows interest in you and want to talk

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 4:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:46:57 -0400

I don't see anything wrong with it. Make sure your ADULT enough to keep rank out of your personal life. Also, make sure their in separate commands.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Sep 8 at 2015 5:04 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 17:04:40 -0400

No, I will give you a reason why. Prior to revamping of the current rule on fraternization I served with a Officer who graduated from a prestigious academy in New York, while at the Defense Language Institute became involved with a private attending a different class. They got married, he was assigned to my unit, she to hers, when they could not get joint domicile, they elected to have children so the she could get out. That is exactly happened. Now how much did we as tax payers pay for this little event? A hundred thousand dollars or more in early 1990's dollars. When I was at Fort Sill in 1986 there was a Major who dated a very attractive Dental Tech PFC. Think anyone screwed around with her? Think she got special treatment from others? Think she created a workplace that may have been hostile to others? Think the males in that unit or any other unit were happy with that. Now if you worked for that Major what would your opinion be?

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Sep 8 at 2015 9:50 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:50:08 -0400

I would say No.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2016 5:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:14:58 -0400

I know this was posted long ago, but I feel Different BGD yes, I feel different Branch hell yes!

Response by 1LT John Heddens made Jun 21 at 2016 10:29 PM

1LT John Heddens — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:29:28 -0400

I knew a female E-4 who thought she was hot shit because she was dating an O-4. She and the rest of her sect of the E-4 mafia shammed even more than usual SPCs, under the veiled underscore of her boyfriend would get them out of stuff. Granted this doesn't mean too much, cuz she'd probably have been a pain in the ass regardless of her supposedly dating a field grade. It may mean though that on a macro level an overall subversion of the ranking system. Overall though I have no opinion.

Response by Sgt Dan Catlin made May 16 at 2019 1:32 AM

Sgt Dan Catlin — Thu, 16 May 2019 01:32:54 -0400

Fraternization can cause a breakdown in morale and discipline, even if it is between different branches. You're an NCO responsible to lead, to assign duties and develope personnel into a cohesive unit. But everyone knows that one person is rubbing shoulders with brass regularly while dating an officer. You have a problem, because there will be a perception of favoritism and more opportunities for that person. And things won't go back to normal when the relationship ends.

Not a dating situation, but I was with one unit where we had a MSgt who was an alcoholic. He had a few non-rates and Cpls that he regularly had over to his house to binge drink. There was some favoritism at work, but the perception was much worse than the actual problem. It tore the unit apart until the situation was finally corrected. I don't think there should even be fraternization between grades. Non rates with non rates, NCO's with other NCO's, and Staff and above with other staff. When I was in, even the clubs were segregated like that. And the ONLY time I saw inside an O Club was on a work detail long before it opened!

Response by Maj John Bell made Jan 9 at 2020 1:24 AM

Maj John Bell — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 01:24:22 -0500

No.

Response by SGT Gary Sokol made Jan 9 at 2020 6:39 AM

SGT Gary Sokol — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 06:39:24 -0500

funny story...passing through one day and I saw a young female 0-2 lean in and kiss an E-6. Not sure how to react as she is walking toward me, until she smiles and says, "he's my dad."

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Jan 9 at 2020 8:57 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:57:51 -0500

Yes, maybe this will help. When this occurs between officers and enlisted service members or between some other hierarchical pairing, as between a commander and an officer or enlisted soldier in her command, it can potentially undermine the chain of command, order, and discipline. Not all contact between enlisted persons and officers or subordinates and superiors is prohibited, just contact that would compromise (or have the appearance of compromising) order, discipline, and the chain of command. JMTC

Response by CPO Nate S. made Jan 9 at 2020 1:25 PM

CPO Nate S. — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:25:47 -0500

SMSgt Tony Barnes I frankly don't care who people date or marry or why as long as they are consenting and of age and maturity to know the expectations with their eyes wide open. Two MATURE people should know their limits within the bounds of the UCMJ and common sense.

This said, the integrity of the CoC and Unit Cohesion is always at the core of these issues. I have been retired > 20 yrs now and that time and distance has allowed me perspective. Just like when you work in the civilian world and some one works for you, but their spouse, etc. is higher up in the same or a different organization, but that "person" has influence that ultimately trickles down to interfere with your processes, just because who that person is married to can exert influence, the CoC cannot tolerate interference say in whether or not say 25 or 50 push-ups are done. This is an oversimplification example, I know. But, when someone who does not know the context of a situation engages there influence just because their spouse says so without that same senior person recognizing the obvious then compromises to unit mission and unit integrity this can be and often is a grave issue, especially when emotions vs "good order and discipline" are substituted.

Trust me my wife and I were married on AD and she was junior to me (E-6) and we were both Enlisted. Only (3) times were we in the same command, and only once in the exact same CoC, which was when we were both E4's.

I worked for a Master Chief as as a Chief whom I once challenged knowing what he was saying was not consistent with other Master Chiefs I had worked with and for. What I did not initially realize was that that "so called" Master Chief (E9 at best) used my wife, who was in his direct CoC because of her job, when he was not able to answer my questions about issues, as others at his level had either been able to do successfully, to get at me. When someone attempts to use your spouse against you to defend a position they know they cannot defend, but makes your spouse's life difficult you don't tend to see "professionalism" in the same light! Fortunately, I married a strong women who knew the deal!

I wish I could tell you all would fine and people should be able to handle things maturely dealing squarely and on the level with each other; but, this is simply NOT the case all the time! People cannot and should not be made to fall in love or out of love because of someone else's beliefs; however, if we are going openly allow this, it must always be with the understood that the professionalism must always be apparent. Even my wife when I had the occasion in the commands we were stationed at together that telling her "I love you" and keeping my PDA (Public Display of Affection) in check was something she enforced, even if it was a quick kiss on the forehead. We, of course, made up for that later (off duty), but she enforced those rules as she preferred to, as innocent as a "peck on the forehead would have been." The issue, is not everyone understands professional decorum is not some you switch on and off to suite you. It is "consistency" that is required.

Let me be very clear, it is bad enough when some JO's spouse is running their mouth when others are standing in line and a Sr O's wife walks up to her and explains that they are the Base CO's spouse and that if they can stand in line and wait patiently, that JO's spouse can. Of course the Sr O's spouse is now armed with information that reflects on those in their spouses command that, shall we say "Needs a little coaching..." on roles and responsibilities. It is funny when you observe the behaviors next time of such people, who are often not the member, but believe they are!

All of this said, the simple unassailable word is - PROFESSIONALISM!!!

- How is this word understood at every level of he CoC?

- What are the conditions and subsequent consequences that contribute to a compromise; AND, what happens when the compromise creeps in impact unit cohesion and morale in terms being prepared to accomplish the mission?

- How does every know that the standards of behaviors are being adhered to regardless of rank, gender/sex, ethnicity, etc.?

If the standard is (....what you say it is....) then any breach of that standard is a violation of not only the UMCJ if such an article is used, but sends the message of "in consistency" that then sends ripples through a command that can be crippling because - general TRUST has been breached!!!

In closing, people are both human beings with feelings and at the same time are professionals whose ethical or unethical behaviors have more impact than can be known. But, when the PROFESSIONAL rises to the occasion to be HUMAN without compromising their PROFESSIONALISM, that is a very interesting evolution!

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Nov 9 at 2021 2:25 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 09 Nov 2021 14:25:49 -0500

Well the answer for me is IT DEPENDS on the situation and the context
1.) If they are married and one goes to OTS then its ok as long as they are never in the same chain of command.
2.) If they 'Hook up" in the same unit and get married...foul.
3.) If there is a chance they would ever serve inthe same unit like a loadmaster and a pilot or navigator...not a good idea.
4.) If they get married and one gets out of the service then ok.
Overall, probably not a good idea but if they do they need to know and accept all the consequences like geo separation, deployments etc...I know personnel center does not advocate for join spouse for Enl/Off as a matter of fact they will not work it unless it is a priority for both with command sponsorship...IMHO you can't stop it but they definitely cannot be in the same unit or local chain of command.

Response by Maj Gail Lofdahl made Dec 12 at 2021 9:02 PM

Maj Gail Lofdahl — Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:02:50 -0500

Thirty years ago, a Black female AF lieutenant was called on the carpet by her commander because she was dating a SSGT (also Black). As she explained to the commander, there were no unmarried Black officers on the installation, and if she wanted to date someone of her own race, he would have to be enlisted. (They married shortly thereafter, which solved the problem, because the commander could hardly order her to divorce her spouse.) They both eventually left the air force. Edit: they weren't in the same unit.