SFC Private RallyPoint Member 42194 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>AR 600-20 underlines the prohibitions of inapropiate relationships within our ranks. Do you think AR 600-20 allows leaders to step into someone's personal life when it comes to relationships? or is it really our problem as long as it does not hinder combat, unit, or the Army's mission?<br /><br />"All military personnel share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships. However, in any<br />relationship between Soldiers of different grade or rank, the senior member is generally in the best position to terminate or limit the extent of the relationship. Nevertheless, all members may be held accountable for relationships that violate this policy."<br /><br />(By the way, FYI; I'm not or ever been involved in any inapropiate relationships) 2014-01-22T14:01:05-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 42194

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>AR 600-20 underlines the prohibitions of inapropiate relationships within our ranks. Do you think AR 600-20 allows leaders to step into someone's personal life when it comes to relationships? or is it really our problem as long as it does not hinder combat, unit, or the Army's mission?<br /><br />"All military personnel share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships. However, in any<br />relationship between Soldiers of different grade or rank, the senior member is generally in the best position to terminate or limit the extent of the relationship. Nevertheless, all members may be held accountable for relationships that violate this policy."<br /><br />(By the way, FYI; I'm not or ever been involved in any inapropiate relationships)

2014-01-22T14:01:05-05:00 2014-01-22T14:01:05-05:00 SFC Robert Trodahl 42214

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In one way or another, it will become one. Something goes wrong and the problem will spread out like a wave.  I once had a PSG dating a CPT in support (pre-1998), when they split we could all feel the akwardness when we had to pick up supplies.  I like the current policy, if you want to date, ETS. 

2014-01-22T14:44:17-05:00 2014-01-22T14:44:17-05:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 42230

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I am just a SPC so my opinion doesn't count for much lol. However, I do not see an issue with it as long as they are in different branches or difference specialties (Intel, Medical, etc...)

2014-01-22T15:17:37-05:00 2014-01-22T15:17:37-05:00 SGT Kristin Wiley 308831

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I find the policy ridiculous. As NCOs, our responsibility is to ensure the welfare of our soldiers. As a female, this affects me more due to the perception with having male soldiers my relationship MUST be inappropriate and not professional. I should not have to second-guess all my actions in relation to my soldiers to ensure they are not perceived as inappropriate. My soldier is drunk and needs a ride home, no problem, but outside looking in who is to say that the car ride didn't have something more personal associated with it? We also have an issue with E-5s in the barracks, so will they be quartering NCOs separately, giving them BAH? I'm the only unmarried NCO under E-6 in my unit, so typically this would mean I am the ONLY NCO in my unit in the barracks. So what, I can't talk to anyone else? Play card games, video games, borrow an egg, etc. To what extent are commanders going to enforce this policy? My soldier is having depressive/suicide thoughts; yes, I am going to make sure they are okay in my personal time. If that means staying with them all night, then that is what I will do. I don't need a regulation telling me that some misperception with ensuring my soldiers are okay is going to get me in trouble. I understand some aspects of this change, but at the same time how does this affect NCOs conducting their responsibilities; especially those newly appointed. One day you can hang out with your buddies, the next day you can't. I can only imagine what this can/will do to a soldier's morale.

2014-11-03T15:23:38-05:00 2014-11-03T15:23:38-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 315914

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I honestly see this as the responsibility of the senior enlisted/officer. We all know what to avoid - even appearances. If you put yourself in that position and get bit, don't complain that the bite was unfair. I can see more leeway between senior and junior enlisted but, if you're an officer, you better know the boundaries and keep them squared away.

2014-11-07T16:19:48-05:00 2014-11-07T16:19:48-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 480802

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As NCO's it is our charge to enforce the policy even though many of us don't completely agree with it. It's like many other rules though, they exist because some dirtbag was sleeping with subordinates and deficating where they eat. My only question on the policy change is why is there a differentiation between lower enlisted/NCO's but none on the officer side. From what I gathered from the reg is that a four star in TRADOC could be hooking up with an LT in FORSCOM yet a SGT can't date an E4 in a different command. Just some food for thought.

2015-02-17T03:20:25-05:00 2015-02-17T03:20:25-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 2583523

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Im an Officer in the Guard. I met this girl when I was surfing and we ended up dating Serisouly. Well. Being around me and my friends, she decided she wanted to enlist. So she joined the Guard as a PVT. Immediatley everyone was trying to counsel me for dating an enlisted soldier. I think these lonely souls have nothing better to do and will do,all they can to level the competition.

2017-05-19T18:00:32-04:00 2017-05-19T18:00:32-04:00 2014-01-22T14:01:05-05:00