Posted on Feb 5, 2019
Would it be considered fraternization for a SGT to date a SPC, even though if in different sections of the same battalion?
3.34K
9
14
0
0
0
I was recently promoted to E5 in the guard. I had been talking to a female SPC medic in the same battalion prior to the promotion. We are different MOSs. Would it be considered fraternization to date even though we are in different sections of the same battalion?
Posted in these groups: 
Fraternization
Fraternization
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see)
AR 600-20 Para 4-14 and 4-16. DA PAM 600-35 Para 2-4 and 2-5. Yes this would be fraternization. All compos, full stop.
AR 600-20 Para 4-14 and 4-16. DA PAM 600-35 Para 2-4 and 2-5. Yes this would be fraternization. All compos, full stop.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It seems though that according to the AR that it is not fraternization if we know each other from outside the military, which we do. Is that true?
(1)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SGT (Join to see) - you need to read para 4-14, all of it, not just cherry picking it
the burden would be on you to prove that to a Commander's satisfaction. This was not included in the question. I still think you'll be on the ragged edge of this. It also says that if two enlisted soldiers have a relationship and the other commissions, becomes a warrant or NCO they have to either cut it off or get married. It does not specify where they met.
"(2) Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers. This prohibition does not apply to the following:
(a) When evidence of fraternization between an officer and enlisted member or an NCO and a junior enlisted Soldier prior to their marriage exists, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization. Commanders have a wide range of responses available including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action, or adverse action. Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is appropriate. Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied.
(b) Situations in which a relationship that complies with this policy would move into noncompliance due to a change in status of one of the members (for instance, a case where two junior enlisted members are dating and one is subsequently commissioned or selected to be a WO, commissioned officer, or NCO). In relationships where one of the enlisted members has entered into a program intended to result in a change in his or her status from enlisted to officer or junior enlisted Soldier to NCO, the couple must terminate the relationship permanently or marry within one year of the date of the appointment or the change in status occurs.
(c) Personal relationships between members of the National Guard or Army Reserve, when the relationship prima- rily exists due to civilian acquaintanceships, unless the individuals are on AD (other than AT), on FTNGD (other than AT), or serving as a dual status military technician."
The amplification in 600-35 knocks this down off the fence. NCO dating an enlisted soldier is in the PAM.
Question: is your Specialist Acquaintance anywhere close to promotion? If she gets promoted, non issue. Unless this situation is mushroomed into a full blown thing, your command team may just counsel you to lock and clear your weapon and put it on the stake and that be it (Commanders discretion in sub para (a) , counseling is an administrative action). You would not have been the first SPC to date another SPC, then one of you makes SGT.
the burden would be on you to prove that to a Commander's satisfaction. This was not included in the question. I still think you'll be on the ragged edge of this. It also says that if two enlisted soldiers have a relationship and the other commissions, becomes a warrant or NCO they have to either cut it off or get married. It does not specify where they met.
"(2) Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers. This prohibition does not apply to the following:
(a) When evidence of fraternization between an officer and enlisted member or an NCO and a junior enlisted Soldier prior to their marriage exists, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization. Commanders have a wide range of responses available including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action, or adverse action. Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is appropriate. Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied.
(b) Situations in which a relationship that complies with this policy would move into noncompliance due to a change in status of one of the members (for instance, a case where two junior enlisted members are dating and one is subsequently commissioned or selected to be a WO, commissioned officer, or NCO). In relationships where one of the enlisted members has entered into a program intended to result in a change in his or her status from enlisted to officer or junior enlisted Soldier to NCO, the couple must terminate the relationship permanently or marry within one year of the date of the appointment or the change in status occurs.
(c) Personal relationships between members of the National Guard or Army Reserve, when the relationship prima- rily exists due to civilian acquaintanceships, unless the individuals are on AD (other than AT), on FTNGD (other than AT), or serving as a dual status military technician."
The amplification in 600-35 knocks this down off the fence. NCO dating an enlisted soldier is in the PAM.
Question: is your Specialist Acquaintance anywhere close to promotion? If she gets promoted, non issue. Unless this situation is mushroomed into a full blown thing, your command team may just counsel you to lock and clear your weapon and put it on the stake and that be it (Commanders discretion in sub para (a) , counseling is an administrative action). You would not have been the first SPC to date another SPC, then one of you makes SGT.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC Jason Mackay
I absolutely understand. There’s a lot of gray area it seems. I see it as in the fact she is not my direct subordinate and there would not be any perceived favoritism or anything. As I am in an S shop and she is a line medic. It appears that the perception that becomes the issue according to the PAM. That is just the way I am reading it sir.
I absolutely understand. There’s a lot of gray area it seems. I see it as in the fact she is not my direct subordinate and there would not be any perceived favoritism or anything. As I am in an S shop and she is a line medic. It appears that the perception that becomes the issue according to the PAM. That is just the way I am reading it sir.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
From my experience in the Reserves, usually as long as the person isn’t in your chain of command then it’s not an issue as long as you keep your working relationship professional. However, you’d need to check with your commander and 1sg to make sure.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
AR 600-20 prohibited relationships: b. Relationships between Soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they— (1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command. (2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness. (3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain. (4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature. (5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.
There are several other specific examples for trainees and officer/enlisted. So the reality is it is your commander's call. IMO an E5 and an E4 not in the same company does not cause partiality or unfairness. It would be difficult to show how someone could perceive unfairness as an E5 typically doesn't have enough authority to create unfairness outside their team. If you were the supply sergeant I could possibly see this, but generally not.
If you decide to cohabitate or have an open sexual relationship that will change this.
There are several other specific examples for trainees and officer/enlisted. So the reality is it is your commander's call. IMO an E5 and an E4 not in the same company does not cause partiality or unfairness. It would be difficult to show how someone could perceive unfairness as an E5 typically doesn't have enough authority to create unfairness outside their team. If you were the supply sergeant I could possibly see this, but generally not.
If you decide to cohabitate or have an open sexual relationship that will change this.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google