Posted on Nov 28, 2014
Is the new Fraternization policy nothing more than a force shaping tool?
78.8K
122
67
29
29
0
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?
AR 600-20
Fraternization
Army
Military Industry
Morale
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 30
21
21
0
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
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
(21)
(0)
SPC Paul Gooch
There's a lot to be learned from younger people to. That's probably why I was the commanders driver. 814th engineer co. River rats
(0)
(0)
SSG Richard Bladl
Personally I see nothing wrong with military members of any rank having a relationship with another of any rank as long as they are not in the same battalion. That said, I have friends Major female nurse married a CSM, also enlisted ranks where one E4 is in the Air Force and the other E7 in the army, nothing wrong with that. Sounds like some
nin-com-poop in DC had nothing better to do.
nin-com-poop in DC had nothing better to do.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
Things were a little different in the USCG. Most of my units had fewer than 30 total, officers and enlisted. My next to last unit, I was XPO of a 10 man shop. Our O-in-C was a SCPO (E-8), I was a PO-1 (E-6). The eight men that worked under me were all PO-3 or PO-2, (E-4 or E-5). Of necessity there was a lot of fraternization, but it was also clear that when we put the leaders hat back on, it was time for business.
I was at only one unit where there were more than one or two senior Patty Officers, that was the cutter I was on. We had about 10 PO-1s, and had our own berthing, and a small lounge/office area. We also had a reserved table on the Mess Deck, though most of us who had men under them usually ate with our men as it gave us an opportunity to talk informally. (Most of us were Leading Petty Officers or LPOs, that is to say were were in charge of a department and reported directly to a junior officer assigned to learn the ropes. In my case as Electronics LPO, I also meet with the Ops DIVO about once a week, he just wanted to hear from his LPOs, as he considered us his subject mater experts.
I imagine some of the larger training commands, HQ Units, and the few major port units may have been different, but I was only at training commands as a student, and the only time I was technically attached to a HQ unit, I was in a small and remote independent facility.
I was at only one unit where there were more than one or two senior Patty Officers, that was the cutter I was on. We had about 10 PO-1s, and had our own berthing, and a small lounge/office area. We also had a reserved table on the Mess Deck, though most of us who had men under them usually ate with our men as it gave us an opportunity to talk informally. (Most of us were Leading Petty Officers or LPOs, that is to say were were in charge of a department and reported directly to a junior officer assigned to learn the ropes. In my case as Electronics LPO, I also meet with the Ops DIVO about once a week, he just wanted to hear from his LPOs, as he considered us his subject mater experts.
I imagine some of the larger training commands, HQ Units, and the few major port units may have been different, but I was only at training commands as a student, and the only time I was technically attached to a HQ unit, I was in a small and remote independent facility.
(1)
(0)
CPL Toriano Bullock
Dude... I BANGED so many officers and senior enlisted ladies as an E-4 it wasn't even funny.
These policies only really applied to you nerds.
Some of us were simply ROCK STARS and NOT victims.
These policies only really applied to you nerds.
Some of us were simply ROCK STARS and NOT victims.
(0)
(0)
18
18
0
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...
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...
(18)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
Completely agree. The similarities between E1-E6 are more likely to be greater than the other ranks. Especially factoring in the amount of time it takes to be promoted in the lower ranks compared those higher.
(1)
(0)
CSM Carl Cunningham
SGT Kristin Wiley , I even ID people that I talk to in civilian clothes no matter what age they look. You can't be too careful these days. With that said, when I was a young NCO I would have never considered compromising myself as a leader by having a relationship with a junior Soldier. I have always been a leader 24/7 and that is what is lacking in the NCO Corps today. NCO's think this is a 9/5 job.
(0)
(0)
PO1 David Kingsley
if I remember correctly, it was a question of the Senior partner, could
a) grant favors to their partner, so they would never be in danger of getting injured.
b) the question of "Extorting Sexual Favors" from the junior partner, is/was still there.
Following along with the Familiarity Breeds Contempt philosophy, if there was favored special duties or particularly onerous duties, the junior partner could take advantage of their relationship, to get/get out of special duties.
Most definitions of Fraternizations I'd heard of, was between officer and enlisted.
It may be a simple experience, but to those Not a part of a Relationship, will only think of how it looks to them, and that someone may be getting special favors, just because of their partner's rank.
a) grant favors to their partner, so they would never be in danger of getting injured.
b) the question of "Extorting Sexual Favors" from the junior partner, is/was still there.
Following along with the Familiarity Breeds Contempt philosophy, if there was favored special duties or particularly onerous duties, the junior partner could take advantage of their relationship, to get/get out of special duties.
Most definitions of Fraternizations I'd heard of, was between officer and enlisted.
It may be a simple experience, but to those Not a part of a Relationship, will only think of how it looks to them, and that someone may be getting special favors, just because of their partner's rank.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Thank you SSG Peter Muse. That was a very nice compliment.
Here and I thought I was avant garde.
Here and I thought I was avant garde.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I joined a decade too late. (The way people behave these days makes me shake my head.)
(0)
(0)
CSM Carl Cunningham
And this is why the policy was made. There are too many leaders out there with "Personal Rules"
(0)
(0)
MSG Raymond Davis
When I look at the senior leadership today I cringe. From the SEC DEF, SEC Army, Chairman of JCS I am embarrassed by their leadership skills or lack of them. We have a Two Admiral Retired John Kirby that would not speak the truth under any conditions. I could go on and on, but I know you all see and hear what I do.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google