Posted on May 9, 2018
Soldier has a child with another soldier of the same rank, same unit, not the same platoon. Is this okay?
24.4K
30
19
2
2
0
Soldier has never been married to this individual but has had a child with him. She is currently in the same unit but not the same platoon. Is this against the regulation AR 600-35 Fraternization? Or somewhere in another regulation?
Just curious, because it doesn't seem that this would be authorized to maybe not have a direct relationship together but having a child together and being in the same unit would go hand in hand, due to possible issues between the individuals and possibly causing issues at work with other individuals.
Just curious, because it doesn't seem that this would be authorized to maybe not have a direct relationship together but having a child together and being in the same unit would go hand in hand, due to possible issues between the individuals and possibly causing issues at work with other individuals.
Regulation
Fraternization
Relationships
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
8
8
0
5
5
0
There is nothing wrong with this situation unless they let it become an issue. I have had husband and wife in the same unit and never had a problem. I recommend you do not look for problems where they do not exist.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you for your service.
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree to not look for problems where there are none. Just a topic we are discussing currently in my BLC and we are have a in class argument that I wanted to get information from other personnel in the Army from different locations. Thank you Sergeant Major.
(1)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
No issue. Keep in mind that we often add to policy when we think we know best. While local commands can add to policy and not take away from them, it is usually unnecessary. Do well in school. Thank you for your service.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Often you can find better explanations in the "preface" section of any regulation and also in the first chapter than in all the legalease of the regulation itself.
First note: you say AR 600-35. Did you perhaps mean DA Pamphlet 600-35?
Second note:: I only have access to DA Pamphlet 600-35 which is a draft version. Apparently it has not been finalized. It still gives good advice.
"The custom regarding fraternization has always been primarily directed at officer-enlisted relationships". So, in your example it would not apply as they are the same rank.
Reading further, it states that it is difficult to predict which relationships ... Can create adverse affects. And the bottom line being that the key is whether they can maintain a professional relationship during duty hours.
First note: you say AR 600-35. Did you perhaps mean DA Pamphlet 600-35?
Second note:: I only have access to DA Pamphlet 600-35 which is a draft version. Apparently it has not been finalized. It still gives good advice.
"The custom regarding fraternization has always been primarily directed at officer-enlisted relationships". So, in your example it would not apply as they are the same rank.
Reading further, it states that it is difficult to predict which relationships ... Can create adverse affects. And the bottom line being that the key is whether they can maintain a professional relationship during duty hours.
2
2
0
They clearly didn't use the best judgement, but based off of my understanding of the regulation, no. They're not violating any ARs or UCMJ Articles. If one of them were to get promoted, one of them may have to be moved to another company though because that's where you can start to tread in those waters.
(2)
(0)
SSG Lyle O'Rorke
It’s not an issue via the regs or UCMJ. Hell I married a PFC when I was a SSG in the same company. Given the company was 1300 strong and we were in different shops with different O6 division heads. (HHC USFK).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
NO it is ok- 1st off, She has a child- is the Sm supporting this child?. If they are in the same unit- then what happens during deployments- real screws up a Family plan. Read the reg- frat is not authorized in same unit- and they would be in the same Company- ergo Same unit!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No, it does not. As they are the same rank, different platoons it is not an issue because even if one of them was promoted neither would be in the others chain of command. It was not the best in thinking but these things happen.
We had a situation similar to this in my unit, in that case there was a rank disparity but they were in separate platoons within the same company. Not a problem. They were married and had a child together.
We had a situation similar to this in my unit, in that case there was a rank disparity but they were in separate platoons within the same company. Not a problem. They were married and had a child together.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
nope - as long as neither is direct leadership of the other - and define unit - is it the same company or is it the same battalion? if its the same company - then when the first gets promoted to NCO - I would move to another company - not because they are not mature or professional, but the appearance of preferred treatment might have some Soldiers who want to cause trouble file complaints and cause unnecessary grief and drama. if its the same battalion - then absolutely no issue about it and if someone said something about to me I would reply not your business
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It is the same battalion, they used to be in the same company but have since then been moved accordingly. And all of it makes sense. Thank you
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I am not really seeing the issue in this situation. The only place I know of fraternization being discussed is AR 600-20. DA PAM 600-35 is no more than scenarios to help chains of command understand 600-20. It is not regulatory and merely tries to clarify 600-20. Not knowing the background of the situation it appears you may need looking for an issue where on does not currently exist.
(0)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
In fact it almost seems as you are implying that children born out of wedlock should be against army regulation. Do you really want soldiers denying their parental responsibility to avoid UCMJ? Doesn't sound really wise.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Not at all what I was implying, It was an arguement in my class that I was getting clarification on because I've never been in a situation that was this way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Relationships are tricky sometimes. As of what you said, they don’t violate any UCMJ. That doesn’t mean that things can’t get complicated and involve UCMJ, but as a few others have already confirmed there is no violation here.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google