Posted on Mar 25, 2014
Why can’t an enlisted soldier date an officer?
170K
1.11K
244
38
38
0
With all the changes DoD is making to placate the minoritygroups (i.e. DADT repeal, grooming for certain groups) why has no one looked atthe officer/enlisted relationship issue. I totally get that is should not
happen within the unit (which should apply to enlisted/enlisted and officer/officer
as well) but if a enlisted troop happens
to meet a officer in a different command and neither could affect the others career,
then why is it still and issue? Not trying to change policy, just looking for
feedback.
happen within the unit (which should apply to enlisted/enlisted and officer/officer
as well) but if a enlisted troop happens
to meet a officer in a different command and neither could affect the others career,
then why is it still and issue? Not trying to change policy, just looking for
feedback.
Officers
Enlisted
Regulation
Relationships
Dating
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 91
13
12
1
SFC, I say this with all due respect to seniors but I believe part of it is the jealousy of some officers who see a SFC or SSG dating a young, pretty 1LT/2LT who wants nothing to do with that senior. While it may not be the most prevalent reason, I do know it exists since I saw it firsthand while I was stationed in Okinawa. Won't go into details but it didn't involve me. Just a friend of mine.
Personally, I could give a flip who dates whom. If the individuals are in two different units, and they are mature enough to handle situations when they arise, then who cares. Yes, I know rules are rules right now but that doesn't make it right.
Personally, I could give a flip who dates whom. If the individuals are in two different units, and they are mature enough to handle situations when they arise, then who cares. Yes, I know rules are rules right now but that doesn't make it right.
(13)
(1)
(2)
(0)
MAJ Mark Delaplane
Later in our respective careers, in the Army Reserve, it wasn't an issue. We were in different units.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I have seen only once instance of a male officer married to a female NCO. There are probably more but I would bet the majority of officer/enlisted relationships are female officer and male NCO, which I HAVE seen quite a bit.
Regards to the senior officer comment, I apologize. I should have clarified with a quantifier. It's SINGLE senior officers I was referring to because truly in essence the NCO has removed a potential date out of the pool for the single officers. Sorry, sir, but I have seen this first hand.
Regards to the senior officer comment, I apologize. I should have clarified with a quantifier. It's SINGLE senior officers I was referring to because truly in essence the NCO has removed a potential date out of the pool for the single officers. Sorry, sir, but I have seen this first hand.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
(1)
(0)
SP6 Michael Timeless
The question I have to ask is simple. If we care, so much, for good order and discipline, then why are our soldiers committing suicide at such a high rate? This isn't Vietnam where they can simply wander into the next village and "date." Sometimes the only people our soldiers can relate to are their fellow soldiers.
While I respect the chain of command, I can see no reason for soldiers in different units to be subjected to such strict guidelines. As many have said, this isn't the same military of fifty years ago. Soldiers are better educated, better trained and better led. Are we still allowing perception of a potential problem, to become a problem. Look to the mental health of our troops who are still in their teens/early twenties that spend a year or more overseas. Do we want to add even more of a burden to them?
My wife was a 24 year old 1LT pilot with a degree in physiological psychology from Stanford. I was a twenty-five year old with a nursing degree from UNC. During our military careers our paths never crossed. We met, in all places, at a roller rink, not in combat. Had we been subjected to the rules as they now apply both would have quit and our children probably would not have served. We need to make sure the rules are being applied on a case by case basis, not a blanket endorsement.
While I respect the chain of command, I can see no reason for soldiers in different units to be subjected to such strict guidelines. As many have said, this isn't the same military of fifty years ago. Soldiers are better educated, better trained and better led. Are we still allowing perception of a potential problem, to become a problem. Look to the mental health of our troops who are still in their teens/early twenties that spend a year or more overseas. Do we want to add even more of a burden to them?
My wife was a 24 year old 1LT pilot with a degree in physiological psychology from Stanford. I was a twenty-five year old with a nursing degree from UNC. During our military careers our paths never crossed. We met, in all places, at a roller rink, not in combat. Had we been subjected to the rules as they now apply both would have quit and our children probably would not have served. We need to make sure the rules are being applied on a case by case basis, not a blanket endorsement.
(5)
(0)
8
8
0
When the involved parties are not on active duty, different standards apply. <br><br>14 years ago, active duty officers and enlisted could date (in the Army at least). <br><br>I really don't think this is comparable to DADT or grooming standards. <br><br>The officer/enlisted class system was deliberately established in order to foster discipline and respect for authority. I think the segregation is an effective method of psychologically insulating our officers from the impact their decisions may have on their subordinates. It is easier to order the under class into danger than it is your peers. It is easier to stomach a peon's death than a brother's. It's not a happy truth, but this is not a happy profession. <br><br>I don't think organizational separation is sufficient. All officers need to view all enlisted as a different species.<br>
(8)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT B., well said. We are ALL human beings. None of us are any better or worse than the other. Yes, you are a CPT and I am a SSG but we are still human nonetheless and I bet we'd both cover for the other if it came to it in a situation.
(3)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SSG Redondo, I could not succeed at my job without many like you, but I'm sure you would get along fine if you never saw me.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, roger that. I know we would both survive. I have to partially disagree though because I do believe we need great officers and great NCOs to help propel the unit in the right direction. Officers need the guidance and support of their NCOs just as the NCOs need the guidance and support of their Officers. Both have differing yet important roles in the structure of the military.
As a supply sergeant, it's necessary for me to have strong support from primarily the Commander then the XO then the 1SG. On the other side, the Commander needs to know his supply sergeant backs him up in maintaining control of the unit's logistics.
As a supply sergeant, it's necessary for me to have strong support from primarily the Commander then the XO then the 1SG. On the other side, the Commander needs to know his supply sergeant backs him up in maintaining control of the unit's logistics.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Larry Georgiana
This does complicate things in an age where the enlisted may very well be just as formally educated as the officer class, opposed to the past where the enlisted were far less educated traditionally and viewed as of lower stock. But I guess there's always OCS, right? That said, I was proud to be among the enlisted ranks.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
Incredibly antiquated regulation born from an ancient caste system. If you don’t know what the caste system is in reference to, please look it up for context. As militaries of the world modernized throughout history, the caste system stayed in place. As a result, fraternization rules of old evolved in to the modern day, Good Order and Discipline spin off which is the lineage to the current fraternization regulation. So if you think about it, it’s more of a social issue than it is something that was birthed into the military construct. Roman officers were forbidden to even have a drink or consider one of their soldiers a friend. Never mind the thought of a woman being in the equation. The social classes of societies had a huge role to play in the current fraternization regulation. It was a social taboo for upper class socialites and royalty that dominated the officer and command structures of most standing militaries to socialize with lower class folks that derived the enlisted ranks of most standing armies. That way of thinking doesn’t hold true today. In a modern world where humans are smarter than in any other time in recorded history and where social change is happening every day to keep up with modernization, I think the military fraternization rules needs to be done away with. At the very least redefined further to take into account the professionalism that folks can exhibit when dating. Punish only those that cannot adhere to good order and discipline and succumb to or offer undue influence stemming from relationships. Separate the Officer and NCO into different units if they are dating and or wanting to get married so this can’t occur. Stop casting a wide net and pushing the easy button when it comes to this issue. It happens every day and has always happened throughout history, even when the caste system was prevalent in the military. We would be naive to think that people will let rules like this stop them from following their heart’s desire. It’s like trying to fight the internet. You can’t stop it. Hell, it’s a known fact now that Thomas Jefferson had a relationship with one of his servants and was more than likely in love with her. This is just one example of the caste system not working even at the highest of levels. The military will always have to deal with this situation and spend countless amounts of time, money, and valuable man-hours adjudicating infractions committed against this rule until it is done away with. It is my belief that the majority of folks in the military hate this rule and don’t believe in its validity given how professional our modern-day military has become. We only follow like sheep or try to follow and adhere to it because of our sense of duty. It’s hard to follow and support such a stupid regulation!
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
I dated two officers, a 1st LT, and a Cpt. We had a blast, and I saluted them both in the morning...
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
I was enlisted and married an officer...Although we both worked at Wilford Hall, we were not in the same chain of command...he was medical and I was in tip toe alley under admin.....for a few years no one had a problem with it till General Chong got to Wilford Hall medical center...he gave my husband a letter of reprimand and told me to move out...it was the most ridiculous thing ever....I put in for early discharge under the Graham Ruddman act and got out...
We never flaunted our relationship...as a matter of fact most people didn't even know. Except for a few in my office and some in his staff in the ER...we kept it quiet and hush hush...we didn't ride to work together...we didn't meet up in the hospital...during duty hours we kept apart. My CO and commander were ok with it...and the previous Generals in command of Wilford Hall knew and were ok with it too....General Anderson and General Ball...and one more General...can't remember his name...something like Vandenburg or something....
I had gone to school...had two associates degrees and was taking night classes at UTSA...is having a degree or not having a decree enough to set you apart...like some CAST system?
We never flaunted our relationship...as a matter of fact most people didn't even know. Except for a few in my office and some in his staff in the ER...we kept it quiet and hush hush...we didn't ride to work together...we didn't meet up in the hospital...during duty hours we kept apart. My CO and commander were ok with it...and the previous Generals in command of Wilford Hall knew and were ok with it too....General Anderson and General Ball...and one more General...can't remember his name...something like Vandenburg or something....
I had gone to school...had two associates degrees and was taking night classes at UTSA...is having a degree or not having a decree enough to set you apart...like some CAST system?
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
I know a few enlisted who married officers but they were outside each others Chenin of command. I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't affect good order and discipline
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
They can date. They just need to be prepared for the of, if any. My wife was an AF Captain when I met her, I was a TSgt. Notice that my rank stayed the same from six years before I retired. That was my consequence. My wife didn't have any lasting effects. What God brought together, no man put asunder.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
Within the same unit can be a problem but I had a Gunny who was married to a Naval Officer and my father a 1SG was married to an Air Force Capt.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
This has only been policy since 3/1/2000. I (O6) met my wife (E7), both retired, in 1997. At the time I was an O5 and she was an E6 in different Reserve Divisions. It was totally legal until a the new policy went into effect. In MAR 1999 anyone in a relationship was given three choices. 1. Get out, 2. Break up, 3. Get married. I was a Bde Cdr and received a number of calls from the ADC. We were married in Feb 2000, best thing that ever happened. Will never believe our relationship was anything but good for the Army. We understood each other's responsibilities and were able to provide advice from a different perspective
(5)
(0)
CW5 Sam R. Baker
HOOAH, great situation and to be honest sir, I would think that it would not be as forbidden in the COMPO 2/3 realm, but we are one force, however the Active would in my mind frown on it more than the others. You, however have a much better perspective having lived it and been there.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google