Is the new Fraternization policy nothing more than a force shaping tool?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:56:18 -0500

According to the new Fraternization policy, an NCO of any rank cannot have a personal relationship with anyone of the Jr. Enslited ranks (E4 and below), to include cross-branches. Please help me to understand how it is okay for a Sergeant Major (E9) to date a Sergeant (E5) from seperate Commands or Branches, but a Sergeant (E5) is not allowed to date a Specialist or E4> from seperate Commands or Branches?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 28 at 2014 4:27 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:27:36 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I doubt it is 'nothing more than a force shaping tool'. Likely it is another example of good intentions gone awry. An E9 in a relationship with an E5 would certainly not be ok in the Corps. Another wrinkle added by "cross branch" is that the Marines consider our E4 Corporals NCOs.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 4:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:37:29 -0500

I agree with Capt Richard I P. I cannot wait for people agreeable to the Armed Forces gets back in.

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Nov 28 at 2014 8:21 PM

SFC Steven Harvey — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:21:51 -0500

I'll be frank.

The one thing that will make me go ape shit is having an NCO have a relationship with their Soldiers or be one of those high speeds that constantly go party with their Soldiers or other Soldiers in the company. I simply cannot stand it, if it was an option I would Field Grade anyone who got caught and crush them.

That being said, if the Soldier is outside of the unit (even another company within the BN) I'm fine with it. This is in regards to relationships not drinking, I am not going to wish punishment on NCOs who party with Soldiers in other units.

However I find the practice extremely unprofessional.

I will never hang out with Soldiers unless it is a unit event or team building event and even then I will not drink.

If a SPC became an NCO and had a relationship with one of their peers at the time, that NCO needs to be moved out of the company. They can still continue the relationship and that NCO will not be in charge of Soldiers he once hung out with.

It's not always possible but a move needs to be made either to another platoon or another unit.

In regards to the Army and NCOs hanging out with Senior NCOs I've always looked at it like this;

E1-E4
E5-E6
E7-E8
E9

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Nov 28 at 2014 10:20 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:20:09 -0500

I knew of a Male General Officer married to a Female MSgt (E-7), a Male Lt Col married to Female MSgt, all in separate units; a Male CMSgt (E-9) married to a Female SRA (E-4)-they were in same unit. Those are just a few of uncountable that I know of........

When it comes to Guard and Reserve, I don't have an issue with it, when in different commands, because the work population tends to be older and what tends to happen is that military life and civilian life seem to blend more. Also, it must be remembered that in the Guard and Reserves, you may have people in a unit for 30 years...

This may seem hard to understand, and quite frankly 25 years ago when I was on active duty, I would not have understood it myself.

Where it becomes an issue with me is when NCOs/SNCOs start trying to date "troops"/junior enlisted that fall in their chain of command. Or, if the Senior NCO meets the junior troop in uniform or official capacity, to me there is a possibility of that rank having some kind of influence...

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 29 at 2014 5:00 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:00:40 -0500

Can you post or reference this new policy? I have not seen it.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 8:04 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:04:08 -0500

I indeed hope you find the correct answer on this as I can only give the Air Force side of this. From what I read in your policy it does indeed seem vague on the topic of SNCO/NCO relationships. I imagine by then the Army has felt that it has built leaders that rise above that sort of thinking though I don't know how you wouldn't naturally favor your significant other.

It may in fact be a way to move some people out though honestly, if you aren't sure after a year of being in a relationship, you probably have your answer where it is going.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 10:39 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:39:27 -0500

Ah, rules. They don't have to make sense to all of us. I think the Army is trying to clarify its caste system. I can't say I disagree.

Prior to this policy change, my personal rule was "two grades", so long as the individuals were not in each others CoC. If you were two grades or more different, we would have a talk about the behavior, the fact that it is visible enough to come to my attention, the value of discretion, and the pitfalls of dating within a unit. If they failed to adhere to that counsel, one or both of them will transfer from my unit. If the problem was particularly egregious, I would recommend that the senior Soldier involved be relieved of the burden of being two grades higher via reduction, and then sent packing.

Fraternization is just about the most destructive thing to order and discipline you can have, and needs to be dealt with decisively.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 1:15 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:15:49 -0500

Sounds like you are referring to a particular situation within your location that you find unprofessional, but is being overlooked due to the fact he/she is a SGM/CSM.

Main reason, regardless of branch or command is the potential for the subordinate to abuse the authority the senior ranking official has at the expense of others, just to get their way.

Ex. COL Murphy, a single male installation headquarters staff officer, has been a widower for 3 years. At a hail and farewell, he met CPT Brennan, a single female officer in the headquarters. She does not work under his supervision. They have dated for the past 3 months. Last weekend was a special one for them, the first free weekend COL Murphy and CPT Brennan had enjoyed since they met. They rented separate cottages at the beach. Unfortunately, due to another officer's sudden illness, CPT Brennan found she was the weekend duty officer at the last minute. COL Murphy called his friend, the Secretary of the General Staff (SGS), and prevailed upon his friendship to find another officer to replace CPT Brennan. COL Murphy and CPT Brennan then spent the weekend relaxing and having serious discussions about their future.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Dec 18 at 2014 8:06 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:06:41 -0500

I would really like to know what was going on in the minds of the individuals that formed this policy. To my knowledge there are minimal restrictions between officers dating one another, so why do we need to limit enlisted dating one another? As long as this personal relationship involved individuals with completely different units/chains of command/services, I see no issue with them dating. I don't see any reason why an E4 shouldn't be allowed to date an E5 from a different command. If we are trying to influence junior service members to leave the service during the personnel drawdown these new policies are doing one hell of a job. I foresee the Armed Forces having too many chiefs and not enough indians in the coming years.

On a professional development level, when these ranks are from different services, which service policy applies? I can't date an E4 in the Marines, but an E4 in the Marines can date me? Look out folks, you may soon have to know all the other service's fraternization policies or risk the consequences. Let's just start IDing everyone we want to date now...

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 8:32 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:32:56 -0500

Good thing that I'm already married, if not I would have to find a soldier with my same rank and age. I think it would be easier to find an unicorn...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 10:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 22:05:03 -0400

Ha or an E-7 and E-5 in the same unit .....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 10:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 22:19:20 -0400

SFC Stephens, this is one that has bugged me for awhile now AND even while I was in. Since I've been out, I do know of a situation between a SGT from one Battalion and a Specialist from a different Battalion (and different state) who were introduced by her sister, (also a Specialist in the NCO's Company). Both married 24 days after the AR deadline passed due to many issue's. BUT, both checked with SJA to see if they would be in ANY violation of UCMJ of AR Regulations BEFORE they got married. SJA told both of them NO. Both Soldiers notified their CoC's of intentions of getting married and nothing was said to them about it. Jumping ahead, the Specialist was given a Company Grade Article 15, Under UCMJ. This has soured both Soldiers to the core due to fact SJA would not stand and fight for the Specialist. Again a Sergeant (E5), is not allowed to marry a Specialist (E4) from a separate Command/Battalion.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2016 1:16 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:16:14 -0400

Real question is where are these potential dateable co-workers you speak of anyway? And for why? Lol

Response by SFC Antonio Nieto made Apr 10 at 2016 5:41 AM

SFC Antonio Nieto — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 05:41:01 -0400

There should be no relationships between lower enlisted and NCO's period, if for some reason an NCO feels the need to have a girlfriend with acu's he or she should carry an extra pair and have the significant other wear it, is bad for discipline and moral, why are we even discussing this matter, I was told this on PLDC

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 6:40 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:40:08 -0400

let me throw a curve ball into this, army resevers medical most of us work professionaaly in civillian life together, both are reserves, one is officer the other enlisted they fall in love civillian, then what, tricky question, i've lived it and have seen it

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2016 8:00 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:00:25 -0400

Fraternization will destroy units inside out.

If the current rule set does not make sense what rule set should replace it?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2016 10:22 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 May 2016 10:22:35 -0400

It is a very hard situation. Most of those soldiers have been together for many years, they are like a family away from home. So how can you tell your best friend, the one who has been there for all your problems, that you can't hang out together any more because you are a SGT now?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2019 4:54 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 04:54:00 -0500

How about if you suspect there is an E7 dating an E5? Same unit, separate sections.

Response by SrA Cecelia Eareckson made Apr 8 at 2024 5:12 PM

SrA Cecelia Eareckson — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:12:41 -0400

Micromanagement is never a good thing. (She said almost a decade later..)

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Apr 9 at 2024 11:45 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 23:45:25 -0400

The Army, "You cannot have a personal relationship with juniors." Also the Army, "You must know everything about your soldiers." I went out shooting with one of my E4s and can tell you where he officially kept his weapon, where he probably kept his weapon, and that he was safe. We were not buddy buddy and I let him shoot my M1 Garand and I can could tell you more about my soldiers than most of the hard asses on here.