To cut cost in the military, should lower ranks not be alowed to marry until they reach say E5 or O3?

SSgt Dan Montague — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:49:28 -0500

Long ago, you had to reach a certain rank to get married and ask permission from your command. So the idea is not new. Just thinking how much money is spent on dependents these days. Whether it is medical or base housing. We have all seen a victim of a dependa. A young service member who gets talked into marriage at 19 and the dependa soaks up all the benefits. Sometimes this situation brings on much stress and many issues for the young service member. We all know that is a strain on unit readiness as well. So if the service member can not marry until a certain rank or time served, there would be a huge savings overall and less issues with the younger service members.....Opinions?????

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 28 at 2015 10:15 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:15:02 -0500

Would you also ban married married folks from joining?

Offer immediate General Discharges(Enlisted)/Separation(Officer) if they get married before the prescribed rank?

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Jan 28 at 2015 10:18 PM

SSgt Dan Montague — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:18:54 -0500

Some respond about service members getting married before via contract marriages. Yes I agree it would be a bad thing. So the rule would have to be you must be single to join. Obviously all already serving would be grandfathered in.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 10:19 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:19:17 -0500

Before I joined the Marines in 1979, there was a "tradition" that Marines has to request permission to marry. I do not know if it was regulation or just tradition.

Fast forward to the early 90s. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Mundy, set that very same policy and was flamed by Representative Pat Schroeder and President Clinton and DoD leadership told him to rescind the policy.

The policy was well intended, but a political non-starter.. With tons of deployments, high divorce rates and the increasing burden on the military budget of paying for divorcee dependents, it made sense to block "first termers" from getting married. Folks may look at that as a harsh view or policy, but if you look at today's budget issues, I'm wondering how many divorces avoided and how much money would have been saved had the policy held.

Response by CPT Alexander Grant made Feb 4 at 2015 9:10 PM

CPT Alexander Grant — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 21:10:02 -0500

Works in theory, but if you are wiling to eliminate benefits for the true front-line workers you might as well get rid of it for everyone. So just let people have families but reduce the benefits for all.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Oct 5 at 2016 3:31 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:31:30 -0400

Why not stop spending Billions of dollars on useless aircraft that never gets to the military, or research on super high tech toys that never gets to the military. Yes, the dependa, that tricks young soldiers into marriage and suck off the military are there, but what about the welfare suckers that go out and rob someone, or steal from someones house. How bout they get actually jobs! Be productive. If the dependa wasn't on the military benefits then they still would be on the government benefits! Whats the difference. Before you give me the down vote, I was on government help when I first got married out of the service. I went out found a JOB, and got off the help. It was designed to be help, not a lifestyle. If we hadn't speny trillions of dollars on the Comanche, where would the budget be now? If we hadn't spent trillions on the F-35 (that still isn't in service), where would the budget be.? Just saying.

Response by PO2 Sybil "TT" I. made Oct 5 at 2016 5:43 PM

PO2 Sybil "TT" I. — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:43:19 -0400

No. It's way to much government control, and for a number of other reasons doesnt work for me even in theory.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 8 at 2016 12:45 AM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 00:45:18 -0400

Under Commandant PX Kelley (83-87) the Marines floated the idea of not enlisting or commissioning married personnel, and forbidding marriage until five years of service. General Kelley wanted to do it because of extraordinary divorce rates, rather than as a cost cutter. The rank and file Marines were about 60% for and 40% against as I recall. The civilian world lost its collective minds and said it was cruel and unusual.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2016 6:30 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:30:27 -0400

I'm 29 with about 5 years time in grade. My points have been 798 every month for the past 13 except 1. You are saying I shouldn't have been able to marry my wife because....

Response by CAPT Dave Woodard made Oct 14 at 2016 6:33 PM

CAPT Dave Woodard — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:33:58 -0400

Don't know that it is necessarily bad idea. I can remember when there was a regulation about marrying "indigenous" personnel, including interview with the CO, base Chaplain etc. Given the op tempo that we see today, trying to adjust to a new world (the military), a extremely stressful job, and a new spouse, and a new place (think 29Palms CA, for the young spouse from Montana where they knew everyone, and the weather was not 120) it will certainly cause martial discord. One car, never home to go to the movies, go out to dinner etc. Living in an overpriced off base apartment, hard on the budget. Even those of us who were advanced rank when we got married had issues when we deployed etc. Minimally some damn good counseling of the troop and the intended.

Response by PO1 Pete Sikes made Oct 14 at 2016 7:22 PM

PO1 Pete Sikes — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:22:30 -0400

Yeah, and they should not be allowed to vote either...

Response by PO2 Seth Carron made Oct 14 at 2016 7:53 PM

PO2 Seth Carron — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:53:58 -0400

So what happens when a married E5 gets busted? Are they forced into divorce?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2016 8:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:19:27 -0400

Help me out here, but when was it a requirement for rank and permission? All I could find was a supreme Court ruling in 1922 about marriage being a liberty garunteed by the Constitution, and a reference in 1917 about the only marriage prohibitions being short a short stint in the nursing corps, and knowingly marrying a prostitute... Either way, as someone who defends the Constitution, I don't see the point in restricting the rights of others.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2016 10:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:30:12 -0400

Long ago you got promoted based off of ability to lead and not a college degree, if we enforce this how about we fix the promotions first

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 1:10 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 01:10:35 -0400

Too many variables to consider. Personnel consist of many unconditional junior enlisted and prior service officers who do not fall into this "young" category you speak of.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 4:05 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:05:51 -0400

Considering marriage is a protected right under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, no, I do not believe being a dishonorable traitor to the Constitution is a valid choice. Next issue, please.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 8:48 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:48:53 -0400

Who ever came up with this should go kill em self. Not ur fcking business when someone wants to marry u freaking Hitler.

Response by SPC Marcus DeMatos made Oct 15 at 2016 11:35 AM

SPC Marcus DeMatos — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:35:56 -0400

My Dad's generation had to get command approval. And there is a lot of validity to the fact that the post Cold War volunteer force has been flooded with single parents that are looking for a way out of their situation and feel Uncle Sugar can kick in something extra. I think the idea of making enlisted folks wait to take on dependents until they can afford to live outside the barracks (i.e. E5+) is reasonable; and on the few cases where it is in the good interest of the service to allow someone to enlist with dependents they should need a waiver. It might keep the "Profession of Arms" leaner and focused.

Response by PV2 Breann McWilliams made Oct 15 at 2016 11:42 AM

PV2 Breann McWilliams — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:42:19 -0400

Who are you to determine when I can or cannot get married? I completely disagree.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 2:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:35:52 -0400

I can see the rationale...it is no surprise that Pay & Benefits is the number one cost in the DoD Budget...however; I disagree with the idea...b/c this is another way Gov't can interfere with a persons family planning and you have to earn your way to get married ??? , if this was an actual restriction, I think it would impact recruitment in an ALL Volunteer Service... "Wars are not only fought by childless men" ...The demographics of the services today is quite different...the majority around 65% I believe are married where as in the 60's, 70s and 80's it was a single man's Army..."if the Army didn't issue you a wife son, you don't have one!" Now pack your s***, you are going to Vietnam...Today we have Family Readiness Groups, Army Community Service, Child Youth Services, Base Housing and a host of other services...etc..many of which did not exsist before Desert Storm....much more family centric today...

The single serviceman/woman do save the DoD a considerable amount vs married...when you think of the younger population of the services...the 17-25 yo group mostly are Single living in the Barracks and hardly ever go to sick call...not to mention portability...you can pack your stuff and be gone somewhere else in a matter of hourss...when I was a single soldier, lived in the barracks, had no bills, had no car(initially) and everything I owned could fit in 3 dufflebags...not only that..the Command did not have nearly any problems with female issues...why?...In Combat Arms there were no females...the barracks was much like a fraternity house...less the girls staying over night...my Commands were very careful about that....

What I miss though from the 80s Army...is if you were a Soldier and got in trouble...Sergeants protected you and helped you through the problem...they were not quick to kick you out...in fact that usually didn't happen...but may end up with some serious "Corrective Training" or at worst a Field Grade Article 15 (Captaon's Mast for you Navy folks)...today..if your insubordinate or get a DUI..You are gone...especially when the Service go through a RIF (Reduction in Force) Oooooo reminds me of 1995....baaaad...

Ok enough banter...sorry I have a tendancy to drift into second and third order effects....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 6:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:18:37 -0400

Not all E1 - E3 are young. The average age for someone joining is around 30 years of age. Are you going to tell that 30 year old, no you cannot marry. Or sorry since you have already spent 10 - 12 years before the military, you have to divorce them join, stay in for 5 years then get re-married? Some people forget that even our first Commander-in-Chief Gen. George Washington even stated," When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen; and we shall most sincerely rejoice with you in that happy hour when the establishment of American Liberty"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 7:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:05:11 -0400

This is ridicious the military already controls 95% of your life as it is now this hmmm since we are on the subject of saving money lets talk about the thousands of dollars weekly thrown away as a waste that soldiers pay for but dont get a chance to eat because of their Chain of Command....ill wait

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 7:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:05:57 -0400

This is ridicious the military already controls 95% of your life as it is now hmmm since we are on the subject of saving money lets talk about the thousands of dollars weekly thrown away as waste of money that soldiers pay for but dont get a chance to eat it because of their Chain of Command....ill wait

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2016 8:01 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:01:01 -0400

This is sad. Saying that ever wife of a soldier is a depanda... I married my husband (service member) when he was 24...aad last time I checked I am also in the service, so this theory of everyone being a dependable is ridiculous. And sometimes it doesn't matter how old a person is. I've seen 35 year Olds have more problems in their marriages then some 20 year olds. I feel like this ppot wasn't thought about very much before it was posted.

Response by PO1 Jack Howell made Oct 17 at 2016 9:50 AM

PO1 Jack Howell — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:50:29 -0400

Good luck enforcing that.

Response by GySgt Daniel Chapin made Jan 17 at 2017 10:06 AM

GySgt Daniel Chapin — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:06:17 -0500

I was a Marine Lcpl in 1972 and had to get a letter of permission from my CO before anyone in Jacksonville, NC would marry us.

Response by SPC Ryan Tamas made Jan 17 at 2017 10:28 AM

SPC Ryan Tamas — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:28:49 -0500

Why do people in the military insist on treating people by their rank rather than their age or maturity? It's one thing when it comes to authority and discipline and a complete other thing when it comes to maturity and intelligence. It was one of the most annoying things I had to deal with when I was in. You should be given respect for your rank and your discipline because that's the standard, but you shouldn't be denied respect or decency just because you're not a E5 or 03. As long as there's a point system for promotion-another terrible aspect of the army-suggesting that you should have to reach a certain rank to get married is ludicrous. A 21 year-old E5 who has never deployed with 3 1/2 years in who only has to get 170 points for sergeant should have "marriage privileges" over a 24 year-old E4 with two deployments and 600 points for sergeant? Shit like that is why good soldiers get out after their first enlistment.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 12:35 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:35:30 -0500

Good idea in a vacuum, however placing it solely on rank doesn't work in the real world.
-The promotion point and slot system can very well keep good soldiers from becoming NCOs, thus keeping the "right" soldier from getting married

-Different soldiers join at different ages, you can have a 21 year old Sergeant, and a 28 year old PFC; requiring someone who is nearly 30 not to get married will have consequences on motivation I guarantee you

-Different people have different relationship maturities; I've seen teenaged marriages succeed, and "mature" marriages crumble or turn out to become dependas. How a soldier acts in his unit, and how they treat their personal lives, can be night and day

Response by PO1 Bill Adams made Jan 17 at 2017 12:56 PM

PO1 Bill Adams — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:56:16 -0500

You can't legislate common sense. I've seen E-8s in marriages to terrible people. I hate the term "dependa", but sometimes it fits. Rather than outlawing marriage to lower ranks, take away the Dependa bait. No benifits for spouses of lower ranks, no extra pay just for being married.

That said, my Navy Wife who some probably assumed was a dependa, stayed by through 5 major deployments, gave me 2 daughters and is still by my side 42 years later. I have several old shipmates in similar marriages.

Response by MAJ Luca Luca made Jan 17 at 2017 1:47 PM

MAJ Luca Luca — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:47:51 -0500

To be fair, it won't stop the dumpster fire. I'm already divorced. There should most definitely be a fail safe. Like a family care plan, except a plan showing you have your lane ready to make that jump. This is real low on the priority list though.
That being said, the military has bigger shit to worry about than the private lives of the masses. There are combat deployable units that are unable to train in the feild. Think about that for a second.
Why worry about the divorce rate when the casualty rate is being overlooked.
Hairdos, Troops marrying strippers, whether they wear covers pumping gas. Dog gone it troops, get battle ready, this shit is ponch.
If we are worried about this, the world must be 100% then. Good job.

Response by SCPO John-florida Killin made Jan 17 at 2017 2:22 PM

SCPO John-florida Killin — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:46 -0500

Supporting military dependents is just part of the cost doing business. Just because a few youngsters get taken advantage of is no reason to implement such restrictions, and what are you going to do with those who ignore the rule and get married anyway? Dumb to even open this up for discussion because it's never going to be seriously discussed in a military environment that is going to be doing sex change operations for service members.

Response by SPC Heath Orr made Jan 17 at 2017 4:34 PM

SPC Heath Orr — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:34:35 -0500

Good idea. Let's have the few guys that screw up set the rules for everyone else. This is why mandatory two weeks extra duty on a first offense existed for missing an appointment at my old unit.

If it was ever implemented, it would have to be on a case by case basis. I've met 25+ year old privates who are grown ass men who just joined because they wanted to serve their country. Some of the best soldiers I've ever met were guys like this. On the other hand, you have young buck sergeants who joined at 17 and got their 5 at 20-21. You can't tell me the guy who doesn't know which way is up in the 'real world' deserves to get married before an older, more mature soldier who lived life a bit before joining up.

Response by Cpl Thomas Woods made Jan 17 at 2017 6:16 PM

Cpl Thomas Woods — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:16:11 -0500

I think that's a damn good idea.....19 year-olds aren't in love anyway; they're in HEAT. Thinking with their gonads about the next two hours and performing actions that will effect them for the rest of their lives is a recipe for tragedy. It has been said that the smart man learns from his mistakes and that the wise man learns from the mistakes of others......Was retired and 42 when I first took a wife....Good so far....and no deployments to fuck it up!

Response by 2ndLt Matthew Pipoly made Jan 17 at 2017 8:50 PM

2ndLt Matthew Pipoly — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:50:29 -0500

I think a "rank requirement" is probably an idea set up to fail. SJW's would rip that apart and go crying to their Senators. What we need to do is embrace the Warrior Culture and instill it in new recruits and young Officers. Wrap them in comraderie and show them that their training and their profession will keep them fulfilled until they reach a level of stability in their career to undertake another challenge.

Response by PFC Mikal Samson made Jan 17 at 2017 9:27 PM

PFC Mikal Samson — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:27:06 -0500

Fuck that shit people shoildnt be limited to that i dont agree with that one bit if you want to cut costs stop wasting money on shit thatll never be used or not used often enouph to make it worth the expense dont fuck over the service members

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 9:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:49:36 -0500

First of all we lower enlisted already don't make enough money in the first place, second of all the military already tries to control our lives enough. No one should be able to tell an adult if they're allowed to get married or not.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 17 at 2017 10:34 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:34:00 -0500

The Marine Commendant said that. Years ago. And did not go very fare.

Response by PFC Pamala (Hall) Foster made Jan 17 at 2017 10:45 PM

PFC Pamala (Hall) Foster — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:45:52 -0500

HOLD ON!!!!!! You are trying to say that marriage is needing permission? Let's see, we have hairstyle changes that are faddish, old equipment that isn't working right or parts are no longer existing, soldiers NOT performing MOS properly due to equipment age, out of date AFPT skills that aren't MOS related-and you are worried about marriage????? Yes, marriage at times is great and not so great, but stick to vital issues, like professionalism, training, mental and physical health of troops,morale. Marriage: counselling BEFORE saying I DO and units being LESS heavy handed and scaring the newly weds.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 17 at 2017 10:54 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:20 -0500

Great idea! $ Cost per rifleman s/b the basis of DOD's budget!

Response by Cpl Zach Wellborn made Jan 17 at 2017 11:12 PM

Cpl Zach Wellborn — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:12:36 -0500

Stop pampering officers will save a shit load. I was in Iraq and they were driving brand new SUVs. Brand new 60" tvs in their offices with leather couches. In Iraq, you know, a war zone. What do I know, I don't have a degree blah blah

Response by SFC George Smith made Jan 17 at 2017 11:27 PM

SFC George Smith — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:27:39 -0500

that almost as big of a Joke as BHO is... the Military cant regulate marriages and shouldn't have to...

Response by SPC Alisha Barca made Jan 17 at 2017 11:35 PM

SPC Alisha Barca — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:35:24 -0500

All circumstances are different, but I could see giving the command the ability to impose a waiting period when they see a problem. For example, privates that run out and get married a couple days after meeting. I also think both parties should be at least 18 years old.

Response by PO2 Michael Sayre made Jan 18 at 2017 1:07 AM

PO2 Michael Sayre — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:07:03 -0500

I like it. Afterall, veteran transition has become a topic. Service needs to come with more sacrifice. Let's go all in with Service before self.

Life is not a journey and it's the destination that matters. Servicemembers need only concern themselves with what's good for the country. No need to give any thought as to the aftermath of what comes after separation because life is all rainbows and kitten kisses.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 10:30 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:30:07 -0500

....... are you God?

Response by CPT Thomas Mullin made Jan 18 at 2017 10:56 AM

CPT Thomas Mullin — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:56:07 -0500

If the military wanted you to have a husband or wife, they would issue you one.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jan 18 at 2017 11:00 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:00:38 -0500

Are you some kind of idiot? Really? Thanks for reminding me why I don't ever visit this sight anymore.

Response by COL David Pelkey made Jan 18 at 2017 12:31 PM

COL David Pelkey — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:31:20 -0500

Guess this is a year old question. Even so, would add that you can't attend a service academy if you are married. If you get married while there, you get expelled

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 1:36 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:36:24 -0500

I can state that when I was in the Corps I saw a LOT of young Marines marry for the sole purpose of getting off-base housing stipends, extra pay, etc. As a counterpoint to your argument though I use myself as an example. I enlisted at the age of 27 and went to boot camp at 28. I was in a slow promoting MOS and finished out 4 years as an E-4. Do the math, I was 32. Would it have been fair to not allow me, as a 32 y/o man to not be able to get married?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 1:56 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:56:13 -0500

As a parent of two fine young men, one of which is joining the Navy next year, and as a 15 years of service SNCO in the Army, I pray that someone that would even entertain this idea is never in charge of any Soldier/Sailor/Airmen or Marine that has offered himself up to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Absolutely ludicrous thought and a definitive violation of a person's constitutionally protected rights. This is how a Congressional Civil Rights review board happens.

Response by SPC Steven Vazquez made Jan 18 at 2017 2:13 PM

SPC Steven Vazquez — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:13:26 -0500

How about we begin demanding an end to the ridiculous waste and fraud that are rampant in military procurements and spending at every level instead of chasing intangible hypotheticals? The military obsession with over-regulation is a response to an inability to properly connect and mentor the soldiers under an individual. There'll always be that guy, and no amount of councilong and regulation will change the idiots out there, but creating more regulations which in the end will prove unenforceable and more expensive to implement and enforce is hardly the proper response.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 2:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:20:23 -0500

Love is love this topic isn't relevant.

Response by SP6 Joseph Lane made Jan 18 at 2017 3:02 PM

SP6 Joseph Lane — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:02:08 -0500

Many jobs come with perks based on position. The military isn't any different.
Besides those assigned parking spots are also designed to cut down on time away from offices and meetings for senior personnel.
A side note. Unless it has changed only handicapped and general officers assigned parking is legal.
It that is still true I still wouldn't recommend parking there or arguing about it.

Response by SSG Johnny Daniels made Jan 18 at 2017 3:07 PM

SSG Johnny Daniels — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:07:31 -0500

HELL NO! Find cost cutting measures somewhere else. Why the hell do military personnel have to continue to be treated like shit, meanwhile Congress gets away unscathed?! Leave soldiers alone! Who comes up with this shit?! That's a stupid as question!

Response by SPC Marcell Gill made Jan 18 at 2017 3:49 PM

SPC Marcell Gill — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:49:03 -0500

Its really not that serious..99% of the time is spent doing busy work or bullshitting around. There's plenty of senior enlisted and brass that's remarried 11733i39393 times. But from a savings stand point, it makes sense.

Response by SPC Todd Hanson made Jan 18 at 2017 3:59 PM

SPC Todd Hanson — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:59:37 -0500

The military has no right to tell an adult they cannot get married.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 5:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:04:20 -0500

In an all-volunteer force, this wouldn't fly. We wouldn't be able to retain good personnel and who in their right mind would enlist, thus giving up the right to marriage.

Response by SSG Matt LaFramboise made Jan 18 at 2017 5:10 PM

SSG Matt LaFramboise — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:10:34 -0500

Moving on...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 5:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:30 -0500

If a spouse is not issued you can't have one......or what happens when the Military Gets in the New Models? Can one DX the older model......what happens if you lose it? ....Do you turn them back in when you retire?

BTW when I joined I was already married so what about that.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 5:21 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:21:37 -0500

Why is the SSgt more capable of handling marriage than an E-5 or below? In my experience maturity matters a lot more then rank. Seen plenty a immature SSgt (and higher) in my career. If us SNCOs are doing our jobs and mentoring the young Marines, then we can sell them on the idea of not getting married or being mature enough to handle that decision.

Response by SGT Rob Saylor made Jan 18 at 2017 5:28 PM

SGT Rob Saylor — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:28:33 -0500

I left the army due to this kind of thinking. If you want soldiers to behave like mature adults, you have to foster an environment that allows them to do so. I got so tired of the insane level of micromanagement during my time. From the pov inspections before every holiday weekend to the idea that even on those rare days when there really isn't any reason to keep everyone on duty all day but hey, we're going to make you stick around till cob anyways. Soldiers are going to make mistakes, especially young soldiers but that's life. Treating them every minute of every day like their 12 years old and mentally handicapped doesn't fix anything, it just creates frustration and resentment. Command too often forgets that trust and respect is a two way street. The way to fix the dependa issue is simple. Stop tying benefits to marital status. I disagreed with it both while I was single and married during my service. Getting married did not increase or decrease my contribution to the unit so why should I be compensated any differently based on my marital status? And don't even try to trot out that tired old argument that single soldiers are provided a barracks room and separate rats so it evens out. Bullshit! Chow hall food generally speaking sucks ass and barracks life in no way equates to having your own space where you can unwind without surprise inspections or hey you details popping up every other day.

Response by SP5 Michael Chambers made Jan 18 at 2017 5:39 PM

SP5 Michael Chambers — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:39:34 -0500

The military is fundamentally based on the concept of "follow me"; where leadership sets the example. Simply put. If the argument fits that private snuffy should not be allowed to marry for readiness reasons then the same argument applies All the way up the chain of command. The Army has u derstood this simple concept for over two hundred years. We have only to walk into a chow hall and see a private sitting next to a general. If the argument is made regarding dollar costs it becomes laughable when you see that payroll and benefits are a pittance of the overall budget. What's more, how many of you would be willing to accept that you should give up All family related benefits such as health care for your children due to budget cuts. Lastly, in case you are not aware. The military has had to take steps to ensure being able to fill military positions. Yes, recruiting has gotten harder. Part of these measures was to open up combat positions to women. That alone should impress upon you the necessity of finding enough recruits. Adopting a No/Deferred Marriage policy would adversely and severely affected morale and Manning; ultimately degrading mission readiness.
Just my two cents. I look forward to hearing what you all think.
SGT C

Response by Cpl James Cassarino made Jan 18 at 2017 6:40 PM

Cpl James Cassarino — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:40:26 -0500

While the abuse of the marriage benefits within the military is certainly egregious I don't think this is a viable solution, it's popularity would be abysmal both inside and outside the military, it further restricts the rights of a population that already has fewer rights than anyone else aside from the incarcerated. If the question is would this measure save the DoD money, then yes absolutely, but this is a political grenade that no one would touch so it's like wishing that the barbershop was dead on a Sunday, ain't gonna happen. That doesn't mean this issue can't be addressed though, it'll just take a bit more finesse, I saw some interesting tweaks to your suggestion in the comments that might make it a bit more palatable.

Response by MSG James Strickland made Jan 18 at 2017 7:31 PM

MSG James Strickland — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:31:32 -0500

Trying to keep this old procedure is ridiculous! Times have changed and to request permission from a commanding officer to marry is giving an individual permission into a union where they have none. To deny a junior Enlisted or Officer the right to marry who they want when they want would be to discriminate against those individuals.

Response by SSgt John Berry made Jan 18 at 2017 7:48 PM

SSgt John Berry — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:48:51 -0500

Hell when I got out in 78 there were so damn many civilian workers on the base doing the same work for double sometimes triple the pay and benefits that GI's were no wonder the military is going broke. Do the same rules about marriage apply to them?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 7:59 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:59:02 -0500

you must be very unedjucated to believe lower enlisted and commisioned are the only victims.

Response by A1C Elizabeth Adams made Jan 18 at 2017 8:02 PM

A1C Elizabeth Adams — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:02:06 -0500

I don't agree. I am an E-3 and by no means ready for marriage but I'm also among the youngest in my peer group, I'm about to turn 20 in a week. I came in right out of high school. But then theres my boyfriend who I also an E-3 but he's 23 and went to college and worked as a firefighter before he joined. We've only been together 6 months right now but should we not be allowed to marry just because of our rank if we so choose to sometime within the next 4 years we have to wait to make E-5? That's not right. And it's not fair. A lot of people that join the military and get married right away are 2,3,4+ years into a relationship and marriage is the only way they can stay together. Also he's halfway through his 4 year enlistment and plans to reenlist, I'm just over a year into a 6 year enlistment. If we're still together a year and a half from now when it comes time for him to PCS, if we don't get married at that point that means we'd have to break up. So no. I don't support a required rank to get married. The military already controls so many other parts of our lives and who and when we get married should not be controlled by the military.

Response by MSG Tim Gray made Jan 18 at 2017 8:18 PM

MSG Tim Gray — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:18:03 -0500

Bad idea, servicemembers are handcuffed in respect to freedom of speech to uphold democracy. Any other prohibitions on exercising their ability to life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness would effectively demoralize large populations within the ranks. Not all young soldiers are dumb, and they certainly shouldn't be restricted to the same liberties others enjoy. Maybe more drones?

Response by Cpl Doug Christiansen made Jan 18 at 2017 8:33 PM

Cpl Doug Christiansen — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:33:43 -0500

Except that young service member can still be required to pay for health insurance and child support for an out of wedlock child: That is going to cause even more hardship if s/he does not have access to military dependent health care. How about child care for the single enlisted parent? The language of dependa betrays the author most likely picked poorly and now is assuming all military spouses are bad.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 18 at 2017 8:33 PM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:33:47 -0500

The military complex can only impose so much on the rank and file before the rank and file head for the discharge line. Your points here are valid and years ago I was asked my opinion on a young American serviceman getting married so he could take his new bride to a European assignment. I told him point blank it was a stupid idea. when pressed for details I told him I wanted 24 to get my data and again reply. I then showed showed him where as an E-3 he would not be getting base housing, COL on local economy was going to take XX% of his take home, etc. There is the added costs of operating a POV and insurance requirements. At the end of the month he might have enough left to go splurge at McDonald's.

I advised against the move until he had at least one more stripe and another year in service. All was ignored and 18 months later he shipped his bride back home and moved into the barracks until the completion of his unaccompanied, accompanied tour.

The old adage a hard d*** knows no conscience is to be considered here. Place restrictions of minimal TIS and TIG of say E-4 over 3 AND ability to show financial stability. If you don't, many of these young troops will marry the first girl that turns him on...and that will be trouble down the road.

Response by MSgt Eric Roseberry made Jan 18 at 2017 8:33 PM

MSgt Eric Roseberry — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:33:55 -0500

Long aago junior enlisted were conscripts. Today we rely on a volunteer force. To maintain this force it is necessary to treat service members as adults. This is also the reason physical violence isn't an acceptable method to enforce discipline.

Response by CW3 Doyle Frost made Jan 18 at 2017 9:38 PM

CW3 Doyle Frost — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:38:25 -0500

I asked, and received permission, from my squadron commander, at 19 years of age, and as a lowly E-3. Wife and I are still married, after a military career of over 23 years, and a length of marriage of over 52 years. I remember my squadron commander on the America, back in the sixties talking about O-3 and below should not marry, O-4 and 5 could marry, and O-6 must marry to gain advancement in the service.
(Reason for the disparity in the profile picture is I left the navy because of my daughter being born while I was down at the southern tip of South America, on my way back fro the Tonkin Gulf. I joined the army to continue my military service, and retired eventually from same.)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 9:44 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:44:24 -0500

Hell at the rate housing in the military is going, at least at ft hood, they would tank. Gotta have those young guys that are just starting out, give up their bah to live in substandard housing.

Response by SGT Mark Patrick made Jan 18 at 2017 9:48 PM

SGT Mark Patrick — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:48:54 -0500

SSG with all due respect to your rank you are a fucking moron

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 9:55 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:55:10 -0500

... Are you for real? You don't get paid "more" for getting married. You just see the BAH/BAS that used to get docked from your pay. It's more, in the sense that you see that money, right before it pays rent and groceries.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 10:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:14:21 -0500

The reason people marry so young in the military is simply because when youre in a relationship and want further it by say living said individual, there is no way to do this because soldiers are stuck in the barracks and they run off and get married because there is no other way to

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 10:29 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:29:55 -0500

As an E4, who enlisted in my late twenties, already married before enlisting, I completely agree. I was married when I was 21 (young, dumb, and full of cum), and I wasn't ready but thought I was. My marriage has had its ups and downs. Being in the military, be it only one weekend a month, it has added extra strain on an already hurt situation.
I'm constantly telling the younger soldier I train with and my young marine friends to wait before any ring goes on any finger.
There is a difference between love and lust.

Response by Sgt Bob Towell made Jan 18 at 2017 10:31 PM

Sgt Bob Towell — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:31:32 -0500

Yes and no. Require 6 months of relationship counseling and financial literacy classes before granting dependant benefits. That would thin out a lot of the herd that ends in divorce. And step children aren't given dependant status until adopted.

Response by MAJ Eric G Troup made Jan 18 at 2017 11:38 PM

MAJ Eric G Troup — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:38:37 -0500

Before this gets sorted out, robots will begin replacing soldiers in many roles. By 2030 most here will not recognize the military - it will be a completely different world.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 18 at 2017 11:55 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:55:12 -0500

Our VFW Post invests a lot of time and money assisting young enlisted families at Camp Pendleton. We donated more than 95,000 diapers last year and it still wasn't enough. Desperate mother's were forced to reuse disposable diapers (let that sink in). We deliver thousands of pounds of food every week. These young Marines aren't the exception. Few teens have been properly prepared for the responsibility of marriage and we need to accept the responsibility inasmuch as we stand in loco parentis. When I served we were told"If you need a wife, the Army will issue you one." Well, it seems we may need to revisit that advice. That E1, 2, or 3 (even 4 or 5, or O1) paycheck may look like a small fortune to a teen but we know better, don't we?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2017 12:53 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:53:42 -0500

It would be better to stop giving extra benefits to soldiers with dependents. Base housing should be fairly similar in style. An unmarried soldier gets a one bedroom apartment. A married soldier with no kids get a one bedroom apartment. One kid two bedrooms etc etc. No additional BAH (which should be cut back anyway all families should be on base) No more separation pay and dependent medical should be more like an insurance policy through other jobs.

Response by Cpl Thomas Woods made Jan 19 at 2017 1:43 AM

Cpl Thomas Woods — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:43:18 -0500

Forgot on my last post........Many's the story of a young Marine or Sailor in a decadent Asian port of call, who gets his first piece of ass, and says he wants to marry her......Yeah, you've heard that one too?!?!...Immediately restricted to the ship for the duration of the port call......My $.02 more...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2017 3:36 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:36:19 -0500

I don't know how "long ago" you mean. I've been in the military for 23 years and that has never been the policy. Are we taking back in the 40's? The fact is that we can't stop folks from getting married. What we can do, as leaders, is ensure our Soldiers know all of the effects, or consequences, of marriage. And it's pretty insulting to categorize dependents that way. They are not these benefit-seeking moochers who would be on welfare of they didn't marry a service member. I'm sure there are those exceptions, there always are. But my biggest problem has always been those single Soldiers in the barracks who get married to each other so they can move out of the B's and draw a big BAH. Stop fraud, waste, and abuse. That's how you save money. Not by punishing the ones who legitimately want to start a family.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Jan 19 at 2017 10:10 AM

SSG Wally Lawver — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:10:02 -0500

YES, would of saved me a divorce or two:)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2017 11:32 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:32:07 -0500

Not only wait until a certain rank but also multiple counseling sessions through chaplains, financial counselors, and family advocates to ensure the servicemember has a plan in place and understands the huge responsibility that is involved in a marriage.

Response by CPO Robert Harpel made Jan 19 at 2017 1:53 PM

CPO Robert Harpel — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:53:56 -0500

I don't believe military members should be restricted on when they can get married. I do believe that a married member should not get more pay just for being married (increased BAH, family separation pay etc...) If a person got a pay increase just for being married in the civilian sector it would be an immediate law suit.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Jan 19 at 2017 1:58 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:58:23 -0500

NO. It's that soldier's fault if they can't manage money. All children should be taught that as part of high school. There are leeches out there and people fall for 'fake words and fake feelings' quite often. That 'relationship' is already doomed if the dependent is doing this.

Response by MSgt Gerald Orvis made Jan 19 at 2017 2:28 PM

MSgt Gerald Orvis — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:28:23 -0500

In 1972, I was a young Marine Sgt on Embassy Duty, and I had to get written permission from my Company CO to get married at the end of my tour of duty. The amount of counselling I had to receive (in addition to formally requesting permission), plus the background investigation my local national fiancée had to undergo, really made me think about it and be sure it was really love and not just a case of falling in lust. I could see it as a tool for the CO to use to ensure his troops were not getting hitched to disreputable people after a one night stand. Back in the late '60s, I was told by my SNCOs that I couldn't afford to get married until I was at least a Sgt. Back in the days when I was a $108/mo LCpl, I guess that was true. Although it is no longer true that troops must request permission to marry, I can see how this used to be used as a control tool by the command. Despite the changes in the military (they have become more social welfare agencies for families and troops than they were when I was a young troop), and despite what some of the more egalitarian commenters on this forum have said, control is still the name of the game in the military. Troops getting married is still a command leadership issue. Nowadays, since all cases are different, it is essential that military leaders KNOW their troops and give them sound advise as to whether they are emotionally mature enough and financially solvent enough to be able to support a marriage in the service and live off-base, or if they are eligible for on-base quarters. When I got hitched and moved on to my next duty station, my new spouse was suddenly separated from all her friends and kin, and had a hard time with it. I was working long hours as a guard NCO, so we encountered a lot of problems and she threatened to leave me. We worked it out, but it was a caution to me. Nowadays, I imagine there is counselling available for spouses and troops in case of such difficulties. Troops need to know the temptations they'll face overseas that'll cause marital problems, and that Jody is still around back home. I could go on...

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2017 6:50 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:50:29 -0500

Absolutely not. The old saying that if the military wanted you to have a family they would have issued you one should be just that-- a saying, not a reality.

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made Jan 19 at 2017 7:02 PM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:02:51 -0500

How is this even a question now days? And what happens if they are married before hand?

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made Jan 19 at 2017 7:58 PM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:58:43 -0500

Because it runs into a civil rights issue.

Response by MAJ Vance Fleming made Jan 19 at 2017 11:21 PM

MAJ Vance Fleming — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:21:27 -0500

No offense but this is probably the most irrelevant question ever. Think of this from a recruiting standpoint; your proposal would eliminate a large portion of an already limited recruiting pool. There are few people in the 18-25 age group (the target range for recruiting) who meet the recruiting standards. an even smaller portion of those want to join the military. It is simply unrealistic to further limit that recruiting pool by not allowing married people to enter the military. As far as officers, you would be asking an all volunteer force to wait until possibly the age of 26 or later to get married??? These are adult soldiers, not minions. There is only so much control to be permitted.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 20 at 2017 8:16 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:16:32 -0500

Better talk to the retention folks first. Believe they have statistics that show married troops are more apt to make the military a career. Costs much less to retain someone than to recruit and train a replacement.
To flip your question, to improve retention in the military should lower ranks be encouraged to marry before reaching E5 or O3?

Response by CPO Richard Goldthwaite made Jan 20 at 2017 11:50 AM

CPO Richard Goldthwaite — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:50:23 -0500

You're absolutely correct, the notion is not new nor a very good one. The argument here regarding cost and value cannot be realistically made as you are stipulating that cost of a servicemen's primary support system in his career has a dollar value. What should each child be worth? What about the spouse? Do we have a coupon system in place? The notion that any human capital in any branch of service has a cost because he is married or has children is significantly flawed. If the new leadership wants to evaluate cost, it shouldn't be very hard to peak down the hall and look at acquisitions, uniforms, and contractor assistance. The real question people should be asking is how contractors outnumber active duty personnel and why does an aluminum ship that cant handle wave heights over 5 feet without speed restrictions and major repairs have any purpose in a fleet that engages enemies OTH.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2017 8:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:22:30 -0500

SSgt Dan Montague the military cannot interfere with marriage. They can advise but ultimately they cannot legally prevent marriage. It would be immediately criticized and repealed. What is needed is to counsel young and older military members of what signs to look out for when it comes to BAH hunters.

Response by PO3 Sharon Hunt made Jan 21 at 2017 10:28 AM

PO3 Sharon Hunt — Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:28:46 -0500

It's not up to the military to decide if you should be married or not. That said, I have seen lots of new, young sailors and soldiers, who have no clue what they are in for, get married -just out of boot camp or 'A' school, only to get divorce soon afterwards when they or their spouse realizes that this new 'military' life is far different than their civilian life. And not like '' An Officer and A Gentleman' or 'Top Gun'.
Maybe the military should offer premarital classes and educate newlyweds or engaged couple on what military life will be like...Could prevent a few divorces. I would strongly encourage it for anyone just out of boot camp , school., or prior to first deployment who is considering marriage, or newly married. Not everyone can handle being a military spouse, it is hard work too. Maybe this will help servicemembers from getting into marriages of convenience , or out of loneliness or other than true love.
Marriage is and should be viewed as a true, lifelong commitment, not just a relationship of convenience , for the extra money, or 'green card'.

Response by MSgt Tim Fennema made Jan 24 at 2017 8:33 AM

MSgt Tim Fennema — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:33:21 -0500

Just my two cents. There are other areas where you could save a whole lot more money than dependents. They are an easy target because most people see them every day. The military could save a lot more money by cutting staff positions at the top. Go back to no-one being in past 30. Cut General Officer positions that don't really require a 4 or 3 star to do them (and their staffs). We have way too much rank because people are not being pushed out the door. That means there has to be positions for them and the ones coming up who still have to be promoted. Do that as step one and you will be well on your way to saving enough to make up for married lower ranking personnel.

Response by PO2 Etheridge Xenia Jennifer made Jan 24 at 2017 9:20 AM

PO2 Etheridge Xenia Jennifer — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:20:44 -0500

That's rediculous. I was married coming into the military and I was a mom. I was 23 /24. So you would tell me I'm not allowed to serve because I got married. Well my (ex) husband served himself. He was army got out and then I went into the Navy. I have seen some of the kids who got married young stay together until now. Alot of them didnt. What we do need to get away with is the support that can be enforced through the command when a spouse decides to cheat, divorce and request alimony or any other financial support as long as there are no kids involved.

Response by CW5 John Vassar made Jan 24 at 2017 9:38 AM

CW5 John Vassar — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:38:22 -0500

If we are going to restrict marriage for junior-level people, we should consider age of the servicemember. In our current situation, there are numerous variables and unknowns that folks "back-in-the-day" did not have to deal-with. "O Brave New World" ........ ;-)

Response by SPC L Rodgers made Jan 24 at 2017 9:38 AM

SPC L Rodgers — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:38:23 -0500

Yes we have all had the unique displeasure of watching a true dependa slowly suck the life from our brother or sister in arms. However, are we really going to suggest we allow the excruciating existence of dependas fuck over the good supportive spouses? Are we really going to suggest that because those fart bags abused our people and our system, the rest of your soldiers' children will now be without healthcare and food. Half of them already have food stamps, you're going to take their benefits, and then pretend like you're going to have a functioning military when half of it is too stressed and worried because they can't clothe and feed their kids. FUCK. Are we also going to have permission for what kind of vehicle we want or house we are going to buy? Should I ask about that tattoo I'm going to get even if it's within regs? Military may own you, but it shouldn't have to be your Mommy. Young men and women are going to screw up, let's be glad it's a sack of shit they can divorce and not like their motorcycle wrapped around a tree. For fucks sake.

Response by SSgt Glenn Diaz made Jan 24 at 2017 9:54 AM

SSgt Glenn Diaz — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:54:00 -0500

How about, instead of just going out and getting hitched... you turn in a req (I know it sounds more awful than it is... but hey! It's the military). Upon request, you and the potential spouse are signed up for proper marriage counseling. Many of these young soldiers/airmen/seamen have no understanding, note their partners as to the requirements foisted upon them when a family is involved. Stresses are increased, many families decided because of deployments and insecurities.
Perhaps, a proactive approach would be more prudent?

Response by MAJ Seth Goldstein made Jan 24 at 2017 9:54 AM

MAJ Seth Goldstein — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:54:29 -0500

You can’t limit service member’s right to marry in order for the government to save money.

Response by Cpl Mark Stroker Burnett made Jan 24 at 2017 10:19 AM

Cpl Mark Stroker Burnett — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:19:02 -0500

Are you really that stupid,this is the USA .how about you can't get married till you reach 22.I would think you would take that to court, there would be riots in the streets.oh but there military it will be fine.what's bad is that defend your right to think and say that

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 10:25 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:25:19 -0500

God no! Why would you take that right away from someone?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 10:27 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:27:25 -0500

For starters, I'm 27. I may only be a PFC currently, but I'm damn near 30. I'd prefer not to lose the right to marry the woman I love over money

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 12:39 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:39:08 -0500

I like it. It would have have saved me 5 years of misery!!!!

Response by PFC Aaron Cox made Jan 25 at 2017 11:03 PM

PFC Aaron Cox — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:03:42 -0500

Personally, I don't think it matters what rank they are. I was told from the get go if the Marines wanted me to have a family they would have issued it to me with my weapons and boots. I think that should apply to all ranks. By the way...the s-4 never got back to me on that requisition form. Family can be both an asset and liability to any rank depending on who they marry.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 27 at 2017 4:49 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:49:48 -0500

Sp4 Byron Back in the dark ages of the Army if you wanted to get married you had to have permission for at least a Battalion Commander. Conscripted soldiers were generally not married but a few from small towns and draft boards which had few men to meet their quota drafted a few married men or undergraduate college students. The reason was quite simple most of the under E-5's were deployable to Vietnam. Believe it or not there were young ladies out there who wanted to marry a deploying soldier for the Insurance if he got killed. I know that doesn't happen anymore!

Response by SGT Jason Hartnett made Jan 31 at 2017 9:42 AM

SGT Jason Hartnett — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:42:05 -0500

What if the Service member is already married when they come in?

Response by Cpl Wally Gervas made Feb 8 at 2017 8:14 AM

Cpl Wally Gervas — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:14:13 -0500

This is bullshit. For one maybe he's an older private, seen them. To save money get rid of the contractors and give the jobs back to the services. We had cooks in the rear and in the field.

Response by Ron Strayer made Feb 8 at 2017 8:43 PM

Ron Strayer — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:43:41 -0500

I do feel that you need to be an E5 or higher. This show's responsibility and commitment for most of the service members.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Feb 28 at 2017 8:40 AM

MSG Floyd Williams — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:40:56 -0500

It is the members responsibility to honor their commitment of marriage, there shouldn't be a certain minimal pay grade to get married. But I would suggest for couples to have at least two to three counseling sessions before their vows, I seen couples in higher ranks have failed marriages.

Response by CW2 Fred Baker made Feb 28 at 2017 10:59 AM

CW2 Fred Baker — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:59:51 -0500

I would much rather see the military go forward rather than backward. Marriage, sexual preferences and other social mores should not be part of the governance of our troops. Further, our troops are asked to do things no civilian organization can or should ask. The peace everyone enjoys through the defense of our country is often kept by the blood of the military. When I served, even medical was cost free to the military and their dependents. Not everyone will risk their lives in service of their nation. The military is not just another j-o-b and everyone should not only be thankful, but they should also take a knee and thank God that such people exist.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Feb 28 at 2017 11:01 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:01:30 -0500

Not sure how such a program would be implemented!!

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Mar 1 at 2017 1:43 AM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:43:03 -0500

Well Uncle Sam sure didn't care about my being married at age 19, when they sent me a draft notice -- lots of us country boys received drafted during the Vietnam War. Of course, I was smart enough to get myself to the area recruiting office and volunteer. After basic training in 1966, we had to pay the cost for moving our limited furniture halfway across the US. We could never live in base housing. (I was lucky, after basic and tech school everyone shipped out to Vietnam but 2 people. One went to Greenland and I wnt to Kansas for a couple yrs.) Back then all housing went to higher ranks. My pay as an E1 was $72/ mo and a housing allowance of $105. This did not even come close to the cost of rent. And during the war, people didn't like to rent to military. My wife went to work and earned $300 a month and paid our apartment rent and utilities. My pay & allowances helped cover food & expenses. Motivated me to work hard and hopefully to be promoted. And as an aside, back them, until we turned 21, we couldn't legally drink or vote.

I said all this to say that in today's modern voluntary military, that if they want you they should pay and they shouldn't interfere in a person's decision to commit yourself to another in marriage unless your in one of the specialties were you can not be married: e.g, Guards at the Tomb of the Unknown or Marines guards providing security for an Embassy overseas. DOD has always complained about costs including the cost to medical if you survived and burial if you died and the cost of retirements.

Response by SGT Rafael Morales made Mar 1 at 2017 12:42 PM

SGT Rafael Morales — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:42:06 -0500

In the old days you could get married and live off post. Your dependent had all privileges. However, the military would not pay for your PCS move until you were E-4 over 4. I don't know how going back to those regulations would impact recruitment. The draft brought people in. No more

Response by SFC Robert Teribury made Mar 7 at 2017 9:14 PM

SFC Robert Teribury — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 21:14:05 -0500

How about instead of paying a married service member more (just because they have dependents) you pay everyone the same. As an example, E-5 married guy gets a higher housing allowance than E-5 Single guy, how is this fair? E-5 single guy does the exact same job as E-5 Married guy and often has to cover for the E-5 Married guy because "He has to pick up his kids / Take his wife to an appointment / Stay home because his wife can't" etc. So single E-5 ends up doing MORE work. The housing allowance should be based on rank and time in service, NOT marital status. It would be expected that there would be a happy medium between the dependent and non-dependent rate, but you could still save a lot by making it less than the average housing allowance. That's my feeling on it, and this would negate ANY need to regulate who could get married or when.

Response by SSgt Richard Rutledge made Mar 11 at 2017 4:29 PM

SSgt Richard Rutledge — Sat, 11 Mar 2017 16:29:34 -0500

OH the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT spends too much so LETS CUT THE MILITARY!!!! NO, HERE is what should happen, across the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. There should be set a pay scale whereby the President is the highest paid, and is capped out at $200k/ year--to include any and all "perks" (tdy, hotel / travel allowances, etc). Everyone else should be below that. The military needs to cap the highest paid General / Admiral at about $120k a year and the pay scale adjusted downward so that the E-1s make the lowest, but actually get a pay INCREASE from where they are today. TECHNICALLY the same thing needs to happen in the private sector too... but if you think getting the Feds to agree to that is tough--try convincing IBM, or INTEL, or MICRON, or Firestone, or Bridgestone, or Corning that they need to do this too...

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Mar 20 at 2017 12:07 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:07:09 -0400

I suspect that a very small percentage of military spending is on personnel. You'd probably save a lot more money avoiding costs associated with drinking, smoking, etc... and most of the married guys didn't spend all weekend getting drunk and sometimes wrapping their car around a tree.

Response by Isaiah Martinez made Apr 20 at 2017 1:00 AM

Isaiah Martinez — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 01:00:51 -0400

No i say that they should marry

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2017 2:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:18:42 -0400

There will always be a bad apple in the bunch that gets married for the wrong reasons. However....you can't punish everyone because a young, stupid private gets married to the wrong person or for the wrong reasons. In this day and age, this is never going to become a rule and will never happen.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Sep 23 at 2017 7:56 AM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 07:56:04 -0400

HOW ABOUT NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2017 9:12 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 09:12:18 -0400

Soldiers who are willing to risk their lives and die for their country should be able to marry if they wish to. They should not be treated as children. I do believe that with a mixed gender combat structure that all sexual contact between Service members should be barred for the sake of order, unit morale and military bearing. Soldiers regardless of rank should have the right to marry.

Response by PO1 Richard Cormier made Nov 10 at 2017 2:43 PM

PO1 Richard Cormier — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:43:24 -0500

I was a 17 year old E3 when I married in 1977. Got permission with a "Special Request Chit". Still married to that wonderful woman. Life has definitely had its bumps and bruises. Saw many "peers" go through multiple divorces.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Nov 10 at 2017 3:42 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:42:00 -0500

As long as civilians are not allowed to marry until they are the same age. Yeah that's how silly this sounds.

Response by SCPO William Akin made Nov 10 at 2017 8:12 PM

SCPO William Akin — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:12:00 -0500

I was an 18 yr old E-3 when we married (without the Navy's blessing) That was almost 57 years ago, still not sure if its gonna work out...

Response by MSgt Neil Greenfield made Nov 11 at 2017 7:37 PM

MSgt Neil Greenfield — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:37:50 -0500

I remember back in 1980-82 when I was in the Army and stationed in West Berlin, some of my fellow unit members entered into, shall we say, business relationships, where the got “married” just to get off base, and additional money. Yea, it’s fraud, but a lot of people did it. I remember one couple did this, and the guy decided that they were really married. Well, the gal was, shall we say, lesbian? Needless to say, that put the cabosh on that relationship. I also knew some that developed into real marriage. I only bring this up because people get married for different reasons. I work in a corporation with a lot of ethnic cultures. There are a lot of them that are in arranged marriages. And they have some of the strongest marriages. Some of them don’t, but that’s the way it goes.
When my Dad met my Mom while stationed in the Panama Canal Zone in the late 40’s (Ft Clayton) he had to ask permission to get married. At that time life was different, soldiers, sailors, marines were paid VERY little money. There used to be a saying "If the Army wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one." That’s no longer relevant these days. There are a lot of servicemen and women that are more mature at a younger age than those at older ages. Look at all the recent stories about senior officers getting caught in, shall we say, inappropriate behavior. The bottom line is this, the military has no business telling someone who and who can’t get married.
At the same time, those desiring to get married know (or should know) what military service entails and that the mission of the armed forces has a mission to perform. Family life is secondary.
Having said all this, I’d suggest that everyone getting married while IN the military should be counseled on what they’re getting into while in the military.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Nov 11 at 2017 8:09 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:09:29 -0500

A long while back when I was in, Iwas an A1C at the time.. I had crossed from Reserve to Active because I meant criteria
I had my 5 level, I’d been 1st Cook.. at different times when the regular 1st Cook was off shift(days off). I’d also completed some other additional classes.. U couldn’t get promoted, not enough active time in Service.. So they had me take a proficiency pay test ($30 more pay a month). One catch; I had to move to a different duty section(I went to Flight kitchen). I ran one shift and another
Sgt. Ran the other shift. It was heck.. the two days he was off, I worked 9 hr. Shifts
He did same when. I was off(we ea. Worked 2 12 hr. And 2 9 hr shift) I didn’t have time to get in trouble.. too busy! When off I was too tired.. we had other Airmen and A1Cs working .. I got orders overseas.. from the frying pan into the fire! I appreciated the top APRs and lived up to them.. I took one more test before I left. I was drawing the pro pay 3 months and the Cmdr. allied me in, “I’m not supposed to do this.. I looked at when You joined the Reserves and you had earned A1C out of basic. You had accumulated extra drill time.. enough of it to have more time in grade .. you had 6 extra drills , that’s 36 hrs a drill .. 6x36=216 Days, you also accumulated another 4 extra weeks of drill time : 2 weeks in Germany =14 days, 2 single weeks, another 14 days .. 244 additional days in grade. I know that was Reserve time . I will get back with you.. go to lunch.. He got back and s’one
Allowed him to promote me to Sgt. Using that overage. I just got to put the Stripes on earlier. I was told then to keep it close to my heart like a card hand.. he knew about it, A MSG in Personnel knew.. and another SSG knew.. that was back in ‘72.
I tested for SSG 3 months early. and made it . Some bean-counter was crunching numbers.... said if they delayed
200 promotions another month they would make budget. I wouldn’t be putting on Staff before I left.. Cmdr was
P.o.’d was putting it lightly....He went to base legal and discussed it.. He wanted me wearing that SSGT to my new Base.
He looked through regulations .. I’d go as a Brevit SSGT. He enclosed a letter about the pay discrepancy... about the base’s screw up.. My new Cmdr in Thailand cut
Through and The Base in Thailand paid me that months back pay.. I found out they made my old base reimburse my Thailand base that month’s pay, plus the back pay of 30 others that the Thai base covered. I know I got off the initial story .. but it All came together.. All because of that 244 days..

Response by SFC Christopher Taggart made Nov 12 at 2017 12:35 AM

SFC Christopher Taggart — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:35:29 -0500

As a former NCO and Chaplain’s Assistant, I used to counsel, or at least discuss their reasons as to why they wanted to get married. A lower Enlisted soldier would come in to see the Chaplain about getting married. I would do a pre-screening. I brought up the topic of “commitment.” This soldier wanted to leave the military to get married to his girlfriend back home. I would ask him, “how long does he think his marriage will last.” I would eventually reply, “if you can’t complete the commitment you made to the Army, why would you think your marriage is going to last any longer?” I would discuss financial expenses, housing, food, clothing; what about the baby that’ll be next. Being a parent, is not a choice for the faint of heart. Children will suck the life out of you, you wife will put demands on you, and the military WILL want YOUR attention too. You will feel like you want to run…a lot of young men and women do run from their responsibilities. I say wait until you get some rank and maturity under your belt. If she loves you, she’ll still be there in 3 years…and please keep the pants zip up!

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2017 1:33 AM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:33:01 -0500

SSGT, respectfully, perhaps you needed better premarital counselling to prepare you and your bride for the stresses that would come as a soldier. Mandating such would be a better solution than the one you've outlined. I've been married for 24 years, and recently commissioned as a 1LT. Uncle Sam is happy to care for my dependents as I care for his soldiers.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 10 at 2018 10:24 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 22:24:08 -0400

You have to remember as of about 5 yrs ago almost 50% of the folks coming in were married, so how does that cut costs?

Response by CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2019 11:17 AM

CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:17:30 -0400

You should be able to get married, that’s a right, but BAH is a privilege. If you were required to stay in base housing until you were 0-3 or E-5, I wonder how many would still take the plunge.

Response by A1C Ronald Harris made Apr 28 at 2019 11:53 AM

A1C Ronald Harris — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:53:00 -0400

Lol.. That is all.

Response by SPC Patricia K. (Williams) Elliott made Apr 28 at 2019 12:06 PM

SPC Patricia K. (Williams) Elliott — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:06:50 -0400

My response probably isn't printable!!

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Apr 28 at 2019 12:18 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:18:25 -0400

Agreed

Response by Cpl Earl Armstrong made Apr 28 at 2019 12:41 PM

Cpl Earl Armstrong — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:41:24 -0400

As someone who has seen how a bad marriage interferes with service members I can see the need for control but I’ve also seen how good marriages help service members. So rather than basing it off of rank alone I think it would be wiser to require permission from the service member’s company commander

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2019 3:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 15:51:43 -0400

It’s not an order, but a recommendation. I joined at 27. Went to one of the most dangerous points in eastern Afghanistan (Kunar-Korengal-Pech). Was with her for six years. Found out she was cheating the whole time. As a soldier, you’re simply ‘not ready’ for marriage at an early age with your obligations. Suck-it up, buttercup.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Apr 28 at 2019 4:53 PM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 16:53:39 -0400

You’d be tied up in court, and you’d lose that fight. He’s an adult.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2019 5:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 17:10:45 -0400

This is stupid and I’m not even married

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2019 8:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 20:33:55 -0400

This is absolutely ridiculous... I'm not even giving an explanation, because it's that ridiculous...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2019 12:02 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:02:06 -0400

I get how you may think that would work but it would actually drive a lot of potential recruits away. The number of recruits are already in the trash and then adding onto it telling them they can't marry is not going to help. The fact is most people join to take care of their families and it's easy to say this kind of stuff at that rank because it would automatically not apply in your situation but what about e-3? e-4? Sometimes promotions cannot happen because a slot is not open. My unit has a hell ton of e-4s ranging from 18-19 to 25-30 should they not be allowed to marry? You cannot say that it's ok to tell a lower rank nope even though you've been with us for years and been on deployments but you can't marry cause your not Sgt or Captain. Personal example my father is an O-1 just got commissioned and he's 42-43 years old should he not be allowed to marry? This is the stuff that you have to take in consideration.

Response by COL William Oseles made Apr 29 at 2019 2:37 AM

COL William Oseles — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 02:37:27 -0400

SSgt Montague, I think the long time ago you were looking for was : Life in the British Army. "A Subaltern may not marry, captains might marry, majors should marry, and lieutenant-colonels must marry.". Young junior officers were discouraged from marrying as it was felt that it could ruin them financially when the cost was added to the initial outlay for commission, uniforms, equipment, subscriptions and the mess.
Have things changed since then? Yes, I believe the 'permission to marry' was taken out of the regs around WW2.
Cadets in a service academy may not marry and there are very few exceptions to officers and Enlisted marrying.

A Marriage can be good or bad for a soldier/sailor/marine/air person's career.
In the initial phases of a Career the individual is learning their profession and trying to also learn how marriage works in between long duty hours, field training and deployments that adds to the stress and distractions.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2019 10:37 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:37:14 -0400

So many people join at different ages and different walks of life that it's hard to make that decision because I know a 32 year old A1C that joined late in life that has a kid and wife who is doing really well. Im married to an amazing woman who helps me out so that financial strain isn't a thing for us so next best thing without stepping on junior enlisted necks would be have briefings on how to avoid dependas lol. If people want junior enlisted to quit acting like a bunch of high schoolers you have to trust us to make adult decisions about our personal lives otherwise the mindset will be I'm treated like a child so I might as well act like one. Someone can join at 17 and make E5 by the time they're 21 and still have the maturity of a 17 year old and make poor decisions.