Posted on Aug 4, 2021
What regulation addresses if one service member in a dual-military couple can directly supervise the other?
6.85K
3
4
1
1
0
I have a question about dual military Soldiers working together. I work with a couple, one SFC one SSG. The SFC is assigned as my supervisor as the Logistics/RM section NCOIC and the SSG is the budget-procurement analyst and is supposed to report to him. They are both outstanding NCOs and are highly trustworthy, but I can't help but think this this kind of structure is prohibited in the regulations somewhere. The SFC asked me help do some research regarding this. We've scoured AR 600-20 and DA PAM 600-35, but can't find anything that's kind of close to this situation. Are there other regulations we should be checking? Thank you all, in advance.
Dual Military
Fraternization
AR 600-20
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
Found this on the Army.mil site and the phrase "appears to" makes their relationship illegal.
AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14, defines relationships between Soldiers of different ranks and seeks to clarify proper personal and professional relationships within the Army.
The standard for what constitutes an inappropriate leader-subordinate relationship hasn't changed in the new AR 600-20 4-14b which states, relationships, (both opposite-gender and same-gender) are prohibited if they: -- Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command; -- Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; -- Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain; -- Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature; -- Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.
https://www.army.mil/article/138222/army_updates_reg_defining_inappropriate_relationships
AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14, defines relationships between Soldiers of different ranks and seeks to clarify proper personal and professional relationships within the Army.
The standard for what constitutes an inappropriate leader-subordinate relationship hasn't changed in the new AR 600-20 4-14b which states, relationships, (both opposite-gender and same-gender) are prohibited if they: -- Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command; -- Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; -- Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain; -- Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature; -- Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.
https://www.army.mil/article/138222/army_updates_reg_defining_inappropriate_relationships
Army updates reg defining inappropriate relationships
Gossip -- arguably a favorite
(0)
(0)
SSG Keith Evans
I did see that. I was hoping for something a little more on-the-nose. I do appreciate your efforts. Thank you.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Keith Evans - I think the reg is open enough to make sure it can be used against any situation that seems inappropriate. Yours certainly falls under that umbrella.
I would recommend against any situation were the "involved parties" have professional associations linked that the Sr's influence can impact the Jr's outcome regardless of their direct professional association. Such as a situation where the Jr isn't directly supervised by the Sr, but the Sr has influence over the Jr's rating chain. Being a direct supervisor of the Jr is about worst case as it can get.
Now being married they are protected in such a way the relationship cannot be put to a stop, but the chain of command needs to act on it. In fact, I could see that the chain of command get bound up on this because administratively they have to know, because well their association will have been spelled out in the DA5960 for their BAH. Then that professional association will be spelled out on the UMR.
On paper, the command team knows they are married via the DA5960
On paper the command team knows the husband is the wife's rater via the Unit Manning Report and assigned billets.
I can't think of any worse documented situation for the command team if JAG/IG comes pouncing down.
In fact, the command team is also exposed to some random bent out of shape PV1/E1 that brings this to light to JAG/IG. That I think is the biggest administrative risk.
I would recommend against any situation were the "involved parties" have professional associations linked that the Sr's influence can impact the Jr's outcome regardless of their direct professional association. Such as a situation where the Jr isn't directly supervised by the Sr, but the Sr has influence over the Jr's rating chain. Being a direct supervisor of the Jr is about worst case as it can get.
Now being married they are protected in such a way the relationship cannot be put to a stop, but the chain of command needs to act on it. In fact, I could see that the chain of command get bound up on this because administratively they have to know, because well their association will have been spelled out in the DA5960 for their BAH. Then that professional association will be spelled out on the UMR.
On paper, the command team knows they are married via the DA5960
On paper the command team knows the husband is the wife's rater via the Unit Manning Report and assigned billets.
I can't think of any worse documented situation for the command team if JAG/IG comes pouncing down.
In fact, the command team is also exposed to some random bent out of shape PV1/E1 that brings this to light to JAG/IG. That I think is the biggest administrative risk.
(1)
(0)
SSG Keith Evans
CPT (Join to see) Sir, thank you. I think you and I are on the same page, but I like your explanation much better than what I was thinking of. I appreciate the feedback!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google