Dating policy military
Commanders have a wide range of responses available including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative action or adverse action. 4-15 outlines the final category of prohibited relationships, which are focused on Initial Entry Training Soldiers and potential recruits.
Any relationship between permanent party personnel and IET Soldiers not required by the training mission is prohibited.
What is the main difference between a military couple, a military married couple, and a couple who are guilty of fraternization?
The big distinction is NOT IN THE SAME CHAIN OF COMMAND. In fact, for instance, within the Army, the Married Army Couples Program (MACP) was established in the 1980s to help couples within the military handle their career and keep them at least together in the same state if possible, but avoid the same chain of command.
Fraternization is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
It falls under a subparagraph of Article 134, and is defined by the Manual For Courts-martial (MCM).
So, even if there is nothing wrong occurring, the simple perception among others makes these relationships inappropriate.
-- You are a sergeant who calls select Soldiers by their first names.
-- You are a Soldier who enjoys working on computers, so you help out the battalion command sergeant major with his home computer during your free time.
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.
If any of these criteria are met, the parties involved may be subject to Uniformed Code of Military Justice action under Article 92 as a violation of a lawful general regulation.