Posted on Sep 5, 2015
Should enlisted be allowed to date officers in another unit?
87.7K
239
112
20
20
0
Fraternization
Officers
Enlisted
UCMJ
Dating
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 36
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT Michael Glenn
SMSgt Tony Barnes - Lol...I was being facetious good sir, you posted why cant Officers and i was saying why cant enlisted date officers... some always start out their comments with it all being about officers and us poor enlisted always come last.LOL
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
PO1 Javid Benson
I still say yes, hell in bagram it was all over the place, I seen it all and no one cared, if you get shot at you can date who you want to date that's my opinion
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
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!
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!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I know this was posted long ago, but I feel Different BGD yes, I feel different Branch hell yes!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google