Should the military dictate who you can Marry if it doesn't affect good order and disipline?

2016-05-10T14:21:38-04:00

Example: you have 2 enlisted individuals, one goes officer the Army Fraternization policy states you have to get married within a year or the relationship has to be terminated. What are your thoughts

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:23 PM

2016-05-10T14:23:11-04:00

Sucks, but it has been that way for a long time and it works. If it ain't broke, why fix it. I am sure it pisses off some very small percentage who want an exemption, but....

Response by CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:25 PM

2016-05-10T14:25:50-04:00

I dont know why they think getting married within that year is going to make any difference. People are gonna be people. And whos to say they wanna get married within a year anyway. I understand the reason behind some things the army has policies for but unfortunately you cant help who you fall in love with good bad or indifferent

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:32 PM

2016-05-10T14:32:40-04:00

Nope

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-05-10T14:36:29-04:00

Not Who, but if you should or not. Not dictate but advise.

On another note:

I was in a relationship with a SGT when I was a SPC. We dated until I commissioned. Knowing the Army Regulations and realized we had different goals in the Army, so we decided to terminate the relationship instead of getting married. So, the Army did not dictate who I should date or marry. We knew the rules and we made a decision. And if one should not agree with the Army rules and regulations, then ETS is an alternative option, or make sure no one finds out about the relationship and keep it professional. But there is always an option.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:44 PM

2016-05-10T14:44:18-04:00

Well...yes; and I'll try to explain why.

Whether or not we admit or not, the military still has the prime directive of fighting wars. Sure, we have people fulfilling every role from forklift driver to accounting in addition to "trigger pullers", but the ethos is that of a combat organization. Rank still has a pretty important role in the battlespace...we can all argue whether or not commissioned ranks are "antiquated" or not, but I think history proves the current model works more than it doesn't. In that sense, when an enlisted person puts on bars, they start a new...not "better"...but new path; one that will require a different relationship with their former enlisted peers.

For example, a snotty nosed, Butter Bar still rates things an experienced, salty E9 does not. Few of these customs...in fact, almost none of them...serve that officer as an individual over their role inside of the greater whole. There are numerous times the spouse of an officer becomes enfolded into that dynamic...and should. This could create undue awkwardness if the officer's spouse is enlisted; for the spouse, and their enlisted peers.

Then, there are the things that do directly impact an officer's life, that by all rights, should transfer to their spouse. Should an enlisted spouse of an officer get "special treatment"?

All in all, I think love conquers all...but our profession is different and has different rules; some of which, actually make sense.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made May 10 at 2016 2:55 PM

2016-05-10T14:55:40-04:00

A few thoughts:
- Fraternization by definition is detrimental to good order and discipline. It confuses the issue to have these two terms/phrases in the same sentence in a contradictory manner.
- Policy. Let's start from fact and not from one narrow example. What exactly does the DA policy state? That should be the start point of the discussion.
- Historical. The current DA policy came about in 1999 as a result of different standards among the services and was an attempt to standardize across DoD. This was/is important as we fight joint combined arms and have the services stationed and operating co located.
- Current. DA policy is DA policy. How the policy is applied always boils down to a local commander's decision. There are individual and commander ways to balance an individual's personal decision/life with DA policy. In other words, there is a lot more gray area than black and white. Ensuring the individuals are not in the same chain of command is one example of a way to balance.
- At the end of the day, service in the military is a privilege not a right. If a person can not support a regulation, policy, or standard in the military then they can self select out of the military or work within the system in a professional manner to get the regulation, policy, or standard changed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 3:32 PM

2016-05-10T15:32:53-04:00

No, the DOD and DA should not have any type of say when it comes to this. Jusy as its a "civil court" when you want to get a divorce, then it has to be "civil" decision not a military one. There are plenty of personnel that violate this daily and everyone looks the opposite way, therefore it should not exist. Just my thoughts.

Response by SGT David T. made May 12 at 2016 12:38 PM

2016-05-12T12:38:20-04:00

I always felt this policy was stupid. I can see prohibiting relationships within the direct chain, but the blanket policy serves no useful purpose. Why control people without a need to do so?

Response by CPL Jessica Martinez made Aug 7 at 2016 1:51 PM

2016-08-07T13:51:04-04:00

I completely agree. Whether you realize it or not your relationships don't affect your job performance.