Fraternization, should it be overhauled with DADT repealed and the transgender cause underway?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:05:38 -0400

This came up as a topic of conversation with my CPT the other day. We were talking about something and I made the comment "how is it in 2015 women are going to Ranger school with plans on forced SOF integration and same sex couples can marry but an NCO still can't date an officer?" Am I the only one who sees this a bit draconian? Especially since PFC Manning is sticking the Army with the bill for their treatment, thoughts?

http://www.defense.gov/specials/fraternization/#ARMY

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 11:19 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:19:03 -0400

I don't really understand the issue outside of favoritism, or the perception of. The current issues that the military is dealing w/ as far as identity go don't change to rules that are on the book. It simply says to not have an inappropriate relationship w/ your subordinate, be they enlisted, NCO, officer. I would think that applies no matter how one identifies oneself, right?

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 11 at 2015 11:28 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:28:10 -0400

To me, it would be a chain of command issue. If an officer and enlisted are within the same chain of command, of course that would be fraternization. Otherwise, I believe officers and enlisted should be able to date. Integrity would also play a key role when it comes to PCS, PCA as they should disclose the relationship if they are being transferred within the chain of command.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 11 at 2015 12:02 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 11 May 2015 12:02:45 -0400

What's there to change? Everything is covered as is regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made May 11 at 2015 1:22 PM

MSG Greg Kelly — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:22:19 -0400

If something is not broke don't fix it. This transgender issue is no issue relationships between personnel needs to be kept an eye on. The military in general has enough problems with adding more. Maybe at some point things will change enough were people can be trusted not to abuse these issues but not right now.

Response by CSM David Heidke made May 11 at 2015 1:25 PM

CSM David Heidke — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:25:35 -0400

The rules of fraternization have changed multiple times over the years.

Overhaul? no...

If you want to change it, or anything else, be prepared to accept the risks inherent in those changes.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made May 11 at 2015 3:32 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 11 May 2015 15:32:33 -0400

I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. Fraternization is a senior-subordinate relationship that has the potential to impact the mission, show favoritism, impact morale, etc.

I am not a fan of the social experimentation the liberals force on the military, without regard to impact. I just don't see that as having anything to do with the fraternization issue, unless you are saying that we might as well go ahead and let anything go.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made May 11 at 2015 4:56 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 11 May 2015 16:56:30 -0400

I have friends that won't like this. But I see it damaging the CoC.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 3:43 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:43:52 -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 LTC Kevin B. made Jun 30 at 2015 4:48 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:48:59 -0400

I don't see how these issues are related. In my opinion, fraternization is based on rank and position, not gender.