Do you think Officers and NCO's should be allowed to date or get married as long as they are not in the same Chain of Command?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:05:30 -0400

Should it matter that an NCO and a Officer wants to date or get married to one another? What if their not in the same Chain of Command and have no daily duty interaction. Separate Battalions or even separate BDE's? Does it truly matter?

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 27 at 2015 12:16 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:16:16 -0400

It happens all the time especially since the requirement to get a request chit signed off to marry went away a long time ago. I believe the military has a lot better things to do than to chase this stuff around unless the couple rubs their nose in it.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 27 at 2015 1:03 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:03:48 -0400

No.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Jun 27 at 2015 1:28 AM

SSG Daniel Deiler — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:28:07 -0400

Absolutely. It's a pretty dumb rule as it is. As long as they're not in each other's food chain, it presents zero negative impact.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 4:05 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:05:35 -0400

Unless they are in the same chain, then let them get married. And if they are in the same chain, let them get married and move one of them out of the same chain.

Response by LCpl Todd Houston made Jun 27 at 2015 5:34 AM

LCpl Todd Houston — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:34:28 -0400

Nope. Shouldn't matter. When I was in we had a staff sgt. married to a warrant officer in our sister unit. There were never any issues that I was aware of. The key is not being in the same chain of command, just like you said.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 6:25 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:25:02 -0400

Never agreed with it when it changed. A little too personal if you ask me, who the f*ck is the Army to tell me, or anyone for that matter, who they can fall in love with. With that said, it's a rule so I enforce it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 27 at 2015 8:42 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:42:37 -0400

The purpose of the Frat article is to maintain Good Order and Disciple, and to remove the Perception of Undue Influence.

If you can accomplish both of those things, there is no issue.

But keep in mind, Officers & Enlisted can already be married, as a result of pre-existing conditions. IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED.

What is generally not allowed is Officer & Enlisted "Dating" which is an entirely different argument. That's a Workplace Romance Policy, which many Civilian Corporations have as well. The Military has just defined the Workplace as much larger than our civilian counterparts.

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Jun 27 at 2015 9:39 AM

PO1 Shahida Marmol — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:39:19 -0400

I feel as long as they're in different branches of service then yes they should be able to date. If I wanted to date an Army officer, whom I will never EVER work with, I should be able to. It is not a threat to good order and discipline.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 10:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:22:31 -0400

If they're not in the same chain of command, sure, why not?

Response by SPC Robert Greenly made Jun 27 at 2015 10:30 AM

SPC Robert Greenly — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:30:05 -0400

No. Just no.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 1:46 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:46:16 -0400

The call for a "uniform" fraternization policy across the services in 1998, which ultimately resulted in the Army making large policy changes to match the other branches, was borne out of a desire to address the kids of sexual harassment in the workplace issues that were a hot topic at the time (remember Monica?) I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I absolutely believe that completely abolishing the regs sets up unsavory possibilities. I was involved in a 15-6 where a SFC strung along 4-5 young LTs. Two were in our company, one was the S4, two were in sister companies in our battalion. Where would you draw the line of “not within the chain of command?” My former husband, an LTC, was dating me before I joined. That means as an E-4 I was involved with an O-5, and I was still a 2LT when we married. We only had a 6 year age difference…but what if we had a 30 year age difference? He was IN and I am MI, but then when we separately deployed to Iraq, we were both under I Corps…is that the same chain of command? Before you say, no, he worked directly for the Commanding General and I got way more air time than any other 2LT out there. I was recognized for my competence, but my relationship gave me placement and access that another equally competent LT wouldn’t have had. Ultimately, when I left Active Duty, I joined the guard and we were (actually are) on DIV staff. It’s no longer an officer/enlisted issue, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say there have been tons of awkward moments. He’s in the G3 and I’m in the G2…is that the same chain of command? Again, where’s the line?
On the other hand, I have had so much of my time wasted in fraternization witch hunts that I would love to see the whole thing abolished. In practice, people tend to turn a blind eye and not want to get involved…that is, until they have an axe to grind. I heard rumor that my WO might be involved with an enlisted Soldier. I gave them both no contact orders and a natural opportunity arose to completely separate them (one to BDE, the other to the Signal Co). Problem solved. The UCMJ says, “resolve at lowest possible level.” Done and done…but no. Three years later, the enlisted Soldier was engaged in a nasty divorce of her less than 1 year old marriage. The bitter spouse heard the rumors about the WO and decided to dredge up charges. It dragged on longer than the marriage and in the end, the WO got a local GOMAR. I’d say, at least a $50,000 tax payer dollars went into that one. My battle buddy just got a GOMAR 6 months ago because her unit discovered her marriage to an E-7 via Facebook. That investigation dragged on for the better part of a year too and involved tons of brass (lots and lots of dollars spent). Who was the motivated party? A MAJ she broke up with who had been stalking her on the internet. He carried her photo in his wallet. Oh, and that guy was married. He didn’t have to answer for any of that, but by golly, they got her for fraternization. I cannot see how the Army is well-served by letting people use the UCMJ as a personal hurt-feelings weapon system.
So in summary, I don’t feel like it can just be a free-for-all. “Use your best judgment” doesn’t work as a policy. When it comes to matters of the heart, people are generally incapable of using their best judgment (and I am the poster child on that one). In the end I come to the conclusion that the reg should stay the way it is, but the wording should change from forbidding the relationships to them being ill-advised. The punishment should max out at unit transfer. I think that would allow commanders to continue to deal with relationships that threaten good order and discipline while minimizing the tattle-tale claims I described here. If your relationship flies under the radar, good for you. If it doesn’t, you might get separated.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jun 27 at 2015 3:38 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:38:10 -0400

Absolutely. I think we have moved on from Roman rule... if we expect our leaders to act better, set the example, etc. We should trust that they can be responsible in a relationship.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 27 at 2015 3:39 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:39:21 -0400

Given the current climate of change, I think this reg will fall in the near future. It takes a while for all the smaller regs to fall in line and coincide with these recent changes. If not, for shame DoD.

Response by HN Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 3:51 PM

HN Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:51:25 -0400

I don't think it matters and you should be able to date/get married regardless. We are all adults..

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jun 27 at 2015 9:26 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:26:21 -0400

Well if it's ok for queer individuals to get married, I reckon it's ok if officers marry nco's, every thing is getting more queer in this country anyway

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 12:51 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:51:25 -0400

No big deal here. We can all be professional about it. However, something must of happened in the past for this to be considered. Because like a majority of situations there must be a solution (regulation).

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 1:07 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 01:07:47 -0400

By blood or marriage, while on active duty, I was related to a general, 1lt, two junior enlisted, one 1sg, and a CW4. I had more problems with name recognition (good or bad) than anything else. Starting with a drill sergeant who resented some perceived slight from my father when he was his platoon sergeant and the drill was a private abd ending showing my uncle in law (the general) around as his guide when he visited a base I was tdy at.
Honestly, as the military grows more "professional" I don't see the problem being that bad in an organization as large as the army.
I'd say, at a minimum, hands off the junior enlisted and if you have the same rater or senior rater you probably shouldn't. I second the motion of informing everyone it's "ill-advised" and some counseling about the pitfalls of the situation should be given. After that, if they screw it up, they're on their own.

Response by SSgt Zachary Hunter made Jun 28 at 2015 2:59 AM

SSgt Zachary Hunter — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:59:34 -0400

Love is Love. Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot love? (Wasn't that the whole bs over the marriage thing?)

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 6:16 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:16:10 -0400

Should totally be allowed. As long as it doesn't affect one's performance on the job or professionalism. This is definitely a stupid rule. Preexisting relations are ok, but who cares how people meet? Not everyone abides by this rule anyway. Just saying.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 7:24 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 07:24:46 -0400

As long as there is no conflict of interest, being in sane chain of command or what have you, I don't see why they couldn't. A good solider/airman/marine should be more then able to seperate his/her professional and personal lifes. But obviously if they are in the same unit that is where I would draw the line.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 10:38 AM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:38:36 -0400

It's a very gray area. Morally in my opinion I don't give a damn. Professionally there are those that can, have, and do abuse their rank with preference to the one they're married to and in my opinion does take away from the professionalism expected while in uniform.

Now when the two are not in the same workplace, ie. different units or branches of service, at that point it really doesn't matter because there's no conflict of interest. I say in that case allow dating and relations and marriage.

Response by SSG Kristell Lee made Jun 28 at 2015 7:33 PM

SSG Kristell Lee — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:33:15 -0400

Chief, I believe the regulation should change. The army makes ppl take rushed decisions and then in return there's a ton of divorces, soldier's minds are somewhere else, and the unit morale can get affected. With the new reg that came out saying NCOs could not date or hang out with enlisted, do you know how many ppl had to make a rush decision to get married. I know a couple of my fellow NCOs that had to make that decision. As long as the officer is not in the enlisted chain of command I don't see why it would be an issue. I think they could be in the same brigade as long as the officer is not directly in charge of the enlisted and they are in separate companies, etc.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 11:12 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:12:13 -0400

Everyone and everything else can now, "thanks" to the SCOTUS. Why not military personnel? Or will that need to go through the judicial system, too???

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 12:37 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:37:02 -0400

No. My opinion is absolutely not. No one should look or find spouses within the military without leaving the military. It is not a dating pool. No matter what orientation. If you want a relationship you both leave.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 3:56 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:56:37 -0400

As long as it does not deter from morale and unit effectiveness. Airmen both enlisted and officers have many commonality. Even what use to separate us, a 4 year degree, is no longer the case with junior enlisted working on master degrees. Relationships will be built and humans are sexual creatures.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 29 at 2015 10:23 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:23:29 -0400

Yes!

Response by TSgt Mark Reed made Jun 29 at 2015 1:05 PM

TSgt Mark Reed — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:05:14 -0400

I think it should be allowed. As long they're not in the same chain of command.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 4:18 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:18:13 -0400

I don't think it should matter as long as they're not in the same battalion

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 4:28 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:28:41 -0400

As long as they can avoid the appearance of an unprofessional relationship... IMO, it should be treated no differently than any other relationship involving different ranks.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 6:11 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:11:40 -0400

Why not, everything else has changed. I think we should be able to grow facial hair and have ponytails if we want also. Sad what the military has become.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 7:20 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:20:28 -0400

I believe they should be able to date or marry...big military should not be allowed to tell you who you can and cannot be allowed to date/marry as long as it's professional when at work.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 7:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:40:57 -0400

I dont see a problem with it. I have known several such couple. As long as its outside the chain and they are professional in dealing with it. especially reserve components where most of their lives is spend outside the military.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 29 at 2015 9:09 PM

SGT Richard H. — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:09:34 -0400

I don't really have an opinion for or against, but I DO think the Sergeant in the picture needs to get a haircut and straighten his bowtie.

Response by PO2 David Witt made Jun 29 at 2015 9:39 PM

PO2 David Witt — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:39:37 -0400

that is already allowed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 1:28 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:28:53 -0400

The fact that officers and enlisted soldiers are not allowed to marry while both are on active duty is utterly ridiculous. What is the difference if they are allowed to enlist together or separately as a couple or being married while on active duty? The bottom line is this, the relationship between an officer and an enlisted soldier still exist. The military needs to butt out of people's relationship. I remember being a young SGT in March 2000 when couples were rushing to get married to meet the military's suspense.

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Jun 30 at 2015 4:17 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:17:43 -0400

I have seen it once. It isn't an issue if they aren't in the same COC and if they are geographically separated, it would be even better.

Response by Sgt Morgan Morgan made Jun 30 at 2015 6:08 AM

Sgt Morgan Morgan — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:08:46 -0400

No way

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 10:06 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:06:41 -0400

If they aren't in the same chain of command, I think they should. A rule is a rule though, and as an E-3 I follow them.

Response by SrA Molly Carlson made Jun 30 at 2015 12:48 PM

SrA Molly Carlson — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:48:03 -0400

I have never seen the problem as long as both parties are mature enough to separate home life from work. There are people dating/ married in the same shop among enlisted and it's basically the same principle. i know the difference- I'm just saying.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 4:22 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:22:49 -0400

IMO, I think that the Fraternization Policy should be updated alongside the updates of DADT, Transgender, and any other 'lifestyle' conflictions that are currently being looked at. The history of Fraternization evolved from a caste system that was later updated to the policy of keeping good order and discipline. The reason why there is a similarity to why Fraternization should be reviewed along side DADT and other lifestyle policies is the same reason why there was a separation of genders, and why same sex sexual interests had policies against them, to the core they all have to do with good order and behavior. I know its not as simple to combine these areas, however to make my point quick, I will use just that standard of 'keeping good order and discipline'. The military is currently undergoing an extreme update when it comes to lifestyles and military traditions be it women in ranger school, DADT repealed, Same-sex benefits, and now the question if transgender will be accepted. All of these in a sense can cause a disruption to a good order and result into negative discipline. However we are the U.S Military, and when we are face with a brick in the wall, we find a policy to go around that brick and accomplish the mission! The Same Sex laws were passed due to Marriage equality, why should there be a prejudice of rank, when we have long moved passed race, and now gender? Some say because of unfavorable preference between the Chain of Command. To offer an advisement to that notion, if we are able to over come same sex sexual interests in same sex dormitories for training, and deployed locations, that would easily effect the good order and discipline, then why cant we come together to put the correct verbiage on an up to date policy on unprofessional relationships. How about, it is ill-advised for relationships within the members Chain of Command, however the Members Unit will handle at the lowest level on disciplinary actions if misconduct arises. Or something similar within rank, mil-to-mil marriages. As for personnel with joint spouse for an 'O' and 'E' marriage, maintain the highest ranking individual drives the assignment. There are currently 'O' and 'E' marriages in the military due to the grandfather policy, AFPC still makes it work with assignments to those individuals. Also speaking on the fact there is already mixed rank marriages, you do not see that causing a disruption to the good order and discipline of the military. Perseverance and being adaptable is what we need to be our cornerstone with all of these lifestyle changes.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 4:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:51:26 -0400

I do not think that any entity should have the power to dictate who one can or cannot marry. While many of us have made mistakes when it has come to the rank or position this does not define who we are in terms of being technically and tactically proficient warfighter's on today's modern battlefield. So long as we know ourselves, personnel, and our Mission Essential Task List (METL) along with being proficient in our warrior tasks and battle drills while we accomplish the mission with superior results it should be encourage as being married to one's soul mate makes for happiness thus having an even stronger fighting force then what we presently do.

This is not something new while I have had the opportunity to meet multiple couples throughout the years were one was an officer and the other enlisted. So long as one spouse does not have undue influence over the other's career such should not be a problem.

let me add that we need to seriously look at present fraternization policies as there are many instances where officers and enlisted members do develop friendships. It is possible so long as policy is made clear for an officer and enlisted member to be friends. Think of it like this while today I am a medically retired SFC this does not negate that things change as we venture into ne chapters of our lives as presently while I hold zero authority my civil service grade is comparable to that of an LTC/COL whereby my first line supervisor is a SES leader. I too am striving to make it into the SES ranks while nothing will ever change that the highest grade of military rank I obtained as a Soldier was as identified and mentioned herein.

Once again rank nor position defines a person as it is deeds not words in you are gauged or in essence sized up according to what you accomplish bringing such to the table if you will. I have a little brother Marine as I affectionately call him who is a medically retired Corporal who is my peer while all that matters now is that we served and we are prod to have been able to in spite of where we are today. Marriage and fraternization do not go together and scientifically speaking attraction to another cannot be changed because of a policy as at the end of the day these folks are still going to possess feelings for one another...it is quite simply about putting such into perspective and always referring back to the common sense factor...being married to my best friend is awesome/she is the beautiful lady with me in my profile picture.

God bless!

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Jun 30 at 2015 4:58 PM

SSgt Tim Ricci — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:58:43 -0400

I was Married to a Navy Officer for 18 years. Only problem I had was the young Lt's and Capt's in the Marine Corps trying to counsel me on Fraternization although nothing ever came of it! I should mention that we was High School Sweethearts. I had the best of both worlds in term of Housing and hanging out with my Buds!

Response by MSgt Jhonathan Knuth made Jun 30 at 2015 4:59 PM

MSgt Jhonathan Knuth — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:59:47 -0400

Yes as long as it's not a conflict of interest

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 8:22 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:22:00 -0400

IMO, I think that the Fraternization Policy should be updated alongside the updates of DADT, Transgender, and any other 'lifestyle' conflictions that are currently being looked at. The history of Fraternization evolved from a caste system that was later updated to the policy of keeping good order and discipline. The reason why there is a similarity to why Fraternization should be reviewed alongside DADT and other lifestyle policies is the same reason why there was a separation of genders, and why same sex sexual interests had policies against them, to the core they all have to do with good order and behavior. I know it's not as simple to combine these areas, however to make my point quick, I will use just that standard of 'keeping good order and discipline'. The military is currently undergoing an extreme update when it comes to lifestyles and military traditions be it women in ranger school, DADT repealed, Same-sex benefits, and now the question if transgender will be accepted. All of these in a sense can cause a disruption to a good order and result into negative discipline. However we are the U.S Military, and when we are face with a brick in the wall, we find a policy to go around that brick and accomplish the mission! The Same Sex laws were passed due to Marriage equality, why should there be a prejudice of rank, when we have long moved passed race, and now gender? Some say because of unfavorable preference between the Chain of Command. To offer an advisement to that notion, if we are able to overcome same sex sexual interests in same sex dormitories for training, and deployed locations, that would easily effect the good order and discipline, then why can't we come together to put the correct verbiage on an up to date policy on unprofessional relationships. How about, it is ill-advised for relationships within the member's Chain of Command; however the Members Unit will handle at the lowest level on disciplinary actions if misconduct arises, or something similar within rank, mil-to-mil marriages. As for personnel with joint spouse for an 'O' and 'E' marriage, maintain the highest ranking individual drives the assignment. There are currently 'O' and 'E' marriages in the military due to the grandfather policy; AFPC still makes it work with assignments to those individuals. Also speaking on the fact there is already mixed rank marriages, you do not see that causing a disruption to the good order and discipline of the military. Perseverance and being adaptable is what we need to be our cornerstone with all of these lifestyle changes.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 1 at 2015 11:03 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:03:10 -0400

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member I don't think about it, as AR 600-20 says no way... So that is law of the land. I was in the Army when this latest version was floated, and it seemed over the top. That said, I don't see the issue, if they are not in the same organization.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 4:39 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:39:46 -0400

In my opinion, it shouldn't matter if they are not in the same chain of command. No one should be able to dictate who one can and cannot date or marry. Love is love.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 5:03 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:03:31 -0400

No, they should definitely be allowed to date.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 5:53 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:53:33 -0400

If they can keep their personal life from their work separate then it should be okay. We already have NCOs marrying each other and I don't see any conflicts going on since they keep reminding each "when im at work, im not your hubby."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 6:18 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:18:02 -0400

I believe as long as they are not in the same chain of command officers and enlisted should be able to date. It might even help us get to know "the other side" better.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 6:23 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:23:37 -0400

Different jobs, different units, who cares. That's like saying the VP of marketing and the Mail room supervisor of a large corporation get married and it will cause problems. You simply have to have the skill set and resume to move up. Our resume is our ERB and our skill set is our Rank in which we earn. So who does it really effect? Nobody.

Response by SrA Ricardo Montoya made Jul 2 at 2015 8:16 PM

SrA Ricardo Montoya — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:16:17 -0400

Yes

Response by MSgt Alan H made Jul 3 at 2015 1:01 AM

MSgt Alan H — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 01:01:29 -0400

No, if they want to date or marry, one needs to separate from service

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 12:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:07:34 -0400

Yes.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 7:29 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:29:16 -0400

No problem

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 12:47 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 00:47:46 -0400

My humble opinion is no, it shouldn't matter. Enlisted and officers are dating already "under the table". To think that they aren't is foolish.

I know several officer/enlisted couples who made it through the loopholes. One couple were both enlisted and got married before one of Soldier went to WOC. I've seen officers marry civilians who then enlisted. These people aren't detrimental to good order and discipline. Why would anyone else be?

Having said all that, I think dating ANYONE within the battalion is a mistake. I maintained that rule when I was single and dating, and I think it's the smart thing to do for anyone in order to avoid an unstable element in a professional work environment.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 7:51 AM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:51:03 -0400

As longs at they don't have an influence on each others careers it shouldn't matter

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 2:53 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 14:53:10 -0400

They should be allowed to marry.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 4 at 2015 3:14 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:14:00 -0400

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member, I thought I had commented on this earlier but going through the comments I guess I didn't. Maybe I replied to a similar thread.

Anyway, after careful consideration I have changed my opinion on this matter. My opinion used to be "no way."

Now my opinion is this: If not in the same Chain of Command, or stationed at the same command (which is actually a rule in the Navy's fraternization policy when it comes to E7-E9 dating E6 and below), no problem. There would be issues to be worked out of course when it comes time for the members to PCS. Their respective detailers would have to work together to ensure the members would never go to the same command (I think this should be a rule if the fraternization policy between Officers and Enlisted changes). Also, if the members are in different branches (Army to Air Force as mentioned by one member for example) it also should not be an issue.

I could also go over the reasons why I changed my opinion, but they're the same as everyone else who has changed their minds here.

The only time I personally have seen cases of Officer and Enlisted dating it WAS an issue because in both cases the Officer and Enlisted were in the same chain of command. In the second case, the enlisted person got discharged and the officer got a Letter of Intent or Letter of Reprimand, whatever it's called for an Officer, meaning that his career was immediately over.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 5:54 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:54:04 -0400

I think it should not matter

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 3:35 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 03:35:42 -0400

Absolutely! I have no idea why the difference between officer and enlisted even exists anymore. Incredibly antiquitated. Most the NCOs I work with have college degrees or more. Why does the officer ranks exists anymore? Combine it into a rank system not based upon a caste system our nation was not founded upon, and against, anyway?

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 12:58 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:58:45 -0400

I am an E5 married to an O3 and it creates no problems for us.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 3:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 15:00:07 -0400

Rank should not matter in a couple...marriage should be a private matter

Response by SPC Arlene Calixto-Campbell made Jul 5 at 2015 5:29 PM

SPC Arlene Calixto-Campbell — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:29:22 -0400

I absolutely think it should be OK!

Response by MSgt Heidi Wootres made Jul 5 at 2015 6:07 PM

MSgt Heidi Wootres — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 18:07:31 -0400

Unless something has changed recently officers and enlisted have always been allowed to marry just not date. It's a loophole in the reg's but one that has been used over the years.

Response by TSgt Mark Rische made Jul 5 at 2015 10:15 PM

TSgt Mark Rische — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:15:34 -0400

I think it should be ok for officers and enlisted to date and even marry as long as they are not in each others chain of command.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 9:08 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:08:57 -0400

As much as I'd like to accept it. I see too much potential for an abuse of authority, and favoritism. Just like within civilian businesses.

Seen it happen all too often.

Response by TSgt Marcus Ayala made Jul 6 at 2015 10:28 AM

TSgt Marcus Ayala — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:28:46 -0400

I agree with the majority when they say it shouldn't be an issue as long as they don't share a chain of command. We are all consenting adults, and I am of the mind set that if I can serve my country, I should be able to date and marry anyone I want.

But to play devil's advocate, let's say the reg is abolished and there is a free-for-all with dating. All is great if love prevails and marriage is in the future, but what if things go sour in that relationship? How many have experienced the drama of a bad break up, whether it be first-hand or seeing it unfold by others?

It is one thing to see 2 NCOS (or 2 Officers) go at it. These things happen. But what if there is that tension between an Officer and an enlisted member after a nasty break up? Kind of puts the whole "respect all officers appointed over me" part into jeopardy.

I know a level of professionalism is expected of all of us, but unfortunately, this isn't always so. So I can see why there is hesitation to make the reg go away altogether.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:40 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:40:35 -0400

Understandably so, if not in the same chain of command then it doesn't seem to hurt anybody. Although, and this is just based on my perception so don't bash me, officers know each other very very well and throughout many units, so there's a chance that some sort of influence might find its way into the other's chain of command... Although that seems relatively unlikely. But hell, I say why not?

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jul 6 at 2015 1:48 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:48:37 -0400

I think I'm in the minority. But I say no. But if you're wife became an officer after you were married. Then this all would be moot.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 2:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:07:45 -0400

Of course. The are people first, then soldiers.

Response by SPC Candace Leach made Jul 7 at 2015 2:31 PM

SPC Candace Leach — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:31:30 -0400

I say it should be allowed as long they are not in the same chain of command and no conflicts of interest.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 3:11 PM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:11:45 -0400

Yes it matters. This is straight forward and simple. Unduly familiar relationships between officers and enlisted service members of any branch of service is contrary to good order and discipline.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 4:47 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:47:43 -0400

I have had this in 3 different units and Office married to enlisted and in each one after discussion with the Commander one was transferred. I have also had it that two officers were married one Lt and Lt Col the Lt was Transferred. I spoke with the Lt Col and explained that the chain of command would be affected not because he would have curried favor for the Lt but because the presumption of the possibility was there plus it would allow the Lt to mature into the real officer that they were without the security blanket of a silver Oak Leaf. I also feel the same way about enlisted.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 5:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:53:04 -0400

I think largely the original rules go back to when officers and enlisted were in different social classes, which is definitely not the case any longer. However, it does create a whole new level of complication the military and military personnel system are not prepared to deal with right now. Additionally, it does create the possibility for a conflict of interests, as does dating outside your rank in general. With the personnel management system where it is right now, I could definitely see a conflict. The only real way to prevent it would be to ensure both different MOS/AOC/branch and different geographic locations. Or just not allow it. Personally, while some aspects of life, social activities, might be easier had I dated and married military, other aspects of my life would be far more complicated. Nothing against dual military couples, more power to them, I couldn't do it and have a family, but with only 1% of the U.S. population in the military you have options, look outside.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 5:57 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:57:08 -0400

I think you should be able to date who you want regardless of rank as long as it don't interfere with work

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 6:05 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:05:13 -0400

That is not an easy question to answer.
As long as they are not in the same chain of command and do not have interactions with each other's units, then there is probably no problem.

The problem is that just because they aren't in the same chain of command now does not mean they might not be at some time in the future.

I was in a USAR GSU in the early 2000s. We had a female Commander (LTC), and her husband was the Motor Officer (CW4). Not only were they in the same chain of command, but she was his immediate superior. Whether or not she actually did anything improper the appearance was there. Especially if someone saw them off duty. I saw them a couple times in the restaurant I worked at. The husband was totally dominant. He chose her food, what she drank, and if someone greeted her first you could see how irritated it made him. With that kind of dominant personality off duty there were always questions in the unit about how she would deal with situations where the motor pool failed in some task or another.

Unit morale suffered during her tenure as commander.

This wasn't even a situation that meets the criteria of the original question, but if two officers can cause this kind of problem it would be just as bad if one was enlisted.

Response by COL Thom Brooks made Jul 7 at 2015 6:05 PM

COL Thom Brooks — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:05:37 -0400

Army regulation says "no," and I don't see this changing any time soon. The military is very fluid and it would not be absolutely impossible to find oneself in the same unit as one's partner some time in the future. Being in a relationship where one can potentially have undue influence (either positive or negative) over one's partner in the future sets up potential failure for everyone involved (the couple, the unit, etc.). That being said, it does happen. I have seen it, and it has occasionally even worked. Just my thoughts--I could be wrong :)

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 6:24 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:24:38 -0400

As adults I feel we should be able to choose who we marry without dated regulations. Of course keeping in mind good order and discipline. The chain of command is more than direct supervision. I do believe that in order for this to work the members would need to be of separate expertise and overall chain of command. A nurse marrying a medic I have an issue with. The CGO could potentially use their authority over other enlisted and officers in support of bedroom talk. This is not just an officer marrying enlisted issue. I have unfortunately had to deal with policies that were the result of bedroom talk between married Senior Enlisted Leaders and junior enlisted. Of course no one had an issue with their matrimony because technically they weren't in the same chain of command, but same unit where the Senior Enlisted Leader had influence with and over other SNCO's and NCO's that were in the chain of command. Just my .02

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 6:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:50:25 -0400

Simply put YES!

I understand the need for a married couple not to be in the same chain of command, but I believe this rule has should have been better written from the get go. It is ridiculous how inconsistently this rule is enforced, and on top of that why do you want to legislate this vs any other categories of people and their relarionship choices....

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 7:16 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 19:16:17 -0400

I've always thought that anyone should be able to date whomever regardless of rank but not everyone can handle that their lower ranking significant other gets yelled at or punished by their chain of command without stepping in. If you're at different commands I don't see the issue. Within the same command but different departments it won't work. Especially with the E7-E9 community, that is a very small and tight community and it seems like everyone knows each other or knows someone who knows them. Things will happen and then it goes bad.

Response by SFC Robert Miller made Jul 7 at 2015 7:25 PM

SFC Robert Miller — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 19:25:58 -0400

There is no difference in my opinion on the subject of dual military families when it comes to rank. If it's a NCO with enlisted or Officer with NCO or enlisted. If the highest ranking family member can't separate home from work and makes decisions based not on facts or truths, that individual leader should be reprimanded or punished. If two Soldiers of the same rank are married one will usually progress faster then the other. So who's to say if they are not going to show favoritism.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 8:20 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:20:06 -0400

So the army can adapt to same sex marriage but yet this is still an issue. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 9:14 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:14:52 -0400

My husband and I are both in the TN Army National Guard. I'm an officer and he is enlisted. JAG signed off on our marriage since we have known each other since high school and have previously dated. We are in separate MACOMs in separate branches (I'm MI and he is both Infantry and Supply). We have no issues being together, and it's nice to have a spouse that understands the ups and downs of military life. It's not for everyone, but in carefully reviewed cases, it works for both the couple and the military.

Response by SSG Randy D. made Jul 7 at 2015 10:45 PM

SSG Randy D. — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 22:45:25 -0400

I think they should be able to. No different than them them getting married prior to joining. I currently have a Junior enlisted Soldier who's wife is currently in OCS. Does that mean he should get out? Or should she not be allowed to get her commission?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 11:12 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:12:14 -0400

A RESOUNDING YES !!! and NEVER be in the same chain of command

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 11:18 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:18:24 -0400

We uphold a certain standard, by simply wearing the uniform. Marriage is a "right" not a privilege. The services, although I understand their rationale crosses the boundaries when we tell individual, whom they can't marry. As military members, we are to remain professional, no matter the circumstances... consequently, I truly don't see the issue with officers and enlisted personnel being married or dating. I have seen far more disruptive behavior from people whom are not fraternizing than those who simply want to have a personal life OUTSIDE of work or duty hours. The rule is antique and needs to change.

Response by TSgt David Blakley made Jul 7 at 2015 11:59 PM

TSgt David Blakley — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:59:31 -0400

Yes, I agree that they should be allowed this right, but the problem then arises - How much time will they actually be able to serve at the same location together? Say, a SSgt (male) meets a Captain (female) and they are in different fields and she goes to Hawaii and he goes to Germany. This would not only stress the relationship, but their finances as well. Just a thought.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 5:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 05:38:00 -0400

Sure, why not?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 8:40 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 08:40:18 -0400

No they shouldn't. There are readons for not allowing it. This could stem from a breakdown i saw happening while I was in. If you're a Sgt that goes beyond your chain of command. I was a Sgt of the MC. So even though I wasn't directly above a certain LCpl, in his shop, Im still above him as a Sgt. My point is officers are privy to info that isn't meant for enlisted ears and we wouldn't want a bunch of rumors getting spread around before it actually happens. An officer is still an officer no matter the CoC. Fraternization is not allowed for a reason

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 9:12 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:12:44 -0400

If you want to retain good people, it should not matter so much. If there is a draw down on end strength it may also present a justification to force the issue.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 9:27 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:27:29 -0400

I agree with some of the other responses I've seen here. If your duties do not overlap at all, and you are not in the same chain of command, I do not see an issue with it. As long as both parties can take the rank off when they get home from work, which would be a personal issue at that point anyway, I can't think of a good reason against it. It's like friends that join the military and one ends up a commissioned officer and the other an NCO, should that friendship be banned if they aren't in the same CoC? Why apply any different policy towards dating and marriage. In the civilian sector, a VP of a company can date and marry anyone that he/she wants, regardless of their status in an organization. If it's the same company, there can be a conflict of interest, but if its a different company or organization, it has no bearing or effect on each parties professional life.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 11:20 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 11:20:39 -0400

Who cares, as long they are not in the same limit or chain of command , as long they not in the same platoon or company , love is love ..

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 10:26 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:26:24 -0400

The tighter regulations are made the more disgruntled people become. You have a group of armed forces that are some of the best in the world. When you make changes and do things like this fraternization order you change the forces as a whole completely even if you don't see it immediately. If two people are not in the same chain of command that should not even be a question of allowing it. The only question would be if they are in the same chain of command. They may either be separated or have close scrutiny based on their work performance.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 2:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:15:34 -0400

I find that there is always a postive and negitive to each sceniero. While i believe that people should be able to love, date, and marry whomever they want the boundiries to which need to be set will always be grey. All it takes is for one perosn to mess it up for everyone. It is a rule and so, being apart of a professional orginization, one must present themselves in an orginized fashion. Persoanlly i have no problem with it as long as it does not interferre in the work place, they are not directly in you chain of command, or direct line of influence. It can be argued one way or the other, i have no issue with it, but it is a rule that must be followed. Also, one must consider how others precieve the relationship. Fair or Unfair? Personal and professioanl life overlaps need to be kept to a minimum and rules must be followed until it changes. Sucks but that is the way it is and, as of right now, will be for the forseeiable future

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 2:51 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:51:11 -0400

I think they should be able to. Just like two NCOs can date if their not in the same chain of command. The rule was made was there wouldn't be any favoritism. If they are not in the same Chain of Command, how can they really affect their parnter's career. It's no different then a E-8 being married to a E-6.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 2:47 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 14:47:40 -0500

Of course it could be a problem from 3 standpoints. 1. the officer tried to use his/her authority in their private life or 2. Favoritism was granted because of the relationship and 3. others believed this was happening.

In reality it can and does work and those I know who have been in marriage have been very careful to assure that the marriage did not influence the work place.

For those saying it should not be, where do you draw the line? An E-2 can not marry an E-1? How about and E-8 and E-9? etc etc.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 6:16 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 06:16:21 -0400

I say yes, no direct influence on each other. If he or she cant come stomping around their company CP and try and make shit happen then YES! especially cross branch, why in the world can I not date an Air Force Officer let alone marry her one day?

I know its an old topic but dam its gets me going every time.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2016 12:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:05:00 -0400

If guy female officers and a guy female enlisted soldier can get married without consequences a straight officer and an enlisted should be able as well.