Charges can only be brought against an officer if the following conditions are present:. If the incidence of fraternization was minor and had little effect on the chain of command, the accused may receive a verbal or written reprimand. Other penalties can include the following:. If the case is more severe or flagrant, it may lead to a court-martial.
The process is the same as with any other court-martial process, and the accused has access to counsel, the right to confront evidence and witnesses, and the right to appeal. If found guilty, the accused can face dismissal, confinement for two years, or forfeiture of pay.
As in a civilian court, the accused is presumed innocent until guilty. This means that they have recourse to defend themselves against fraternization charges by using any number of legal strategies.
Many good military defense attorneys will focus on undermining the case that the prosecution is making, either by poking holes in their story or by using expert testimony to provide reasons that the accusation is false. While most military defense attorneys are well-qualified for their work, they can also operate with a heavy caseload. This can impede their ability to provide you with the strong defense you need, and you might want to consider hiring a civilian attorney specializing in military law as well.
This lawyer can work together with your military attorney to provide you with the best defense possible. You Toped that one TOP. SSG Stephen Arnold 4 mo. Best response! LTC Join to see. Because we're an organization of the least common denominator. Are there people who can wholly maintain good order and discipline while dating someone of a significantly different rank?
When I entered service, it was entirely okay. But enough people can't, and so we make rules based on those failures instead of addressing the individual failures.
It happens across our policies -- women can't wear nail polish and have a specific nail length proscribed because too many of them were wearing outlandish colors and distractingly long lengths; men and women are so tatt'ed up that one spends more time reading their necks, ears, hands, and legs than actually attending to what they are saying; etc. If it does, then it should be ended and without whining. Quite frankly, CPT Smith and SPC Snuffy might be pretty close in age and with as well-educated as our enlisted are, they might actually have things in common But that's not our organization -- decision-making by band-aid or amputation, nothing in between.
SGT Join to see 4 y. I personally think that the main reason as to why the organization we are in creates policies that run across the board and penalize everyone is because it is smart to do so. Why do I say that? Because if we allowed each individual issue to be take no care of as an individual issue, the. We would face a new set of issues. Being given the ability to manage different issues in different respects allows more room for personal bias to be an influence many situations.
We can blame leadership for not upholding integrity, sure, but that problem won't go away. Just like the discrimination issue, the more bias that is applied, the more people will play toward people they care about in the unit, which completely shatters unit cohesion. And, 3. When one unit deals with such issues differently than another unit, or when one state deals with such relationship issues differently than another state or post or fort, etc.
This will create a strange upset in unit movement. I'm personally usually pretty annoyed when they make these kinds of basic red phase style across the board policies just because some snuffy messed up in the past, but I do understand why such rules are made. Believe it or not, they do actually help. COL Alan Nalbandian 4 y. I couldn't have said it better. PFC Bradley Frye 2 y. Doesn't just apply to romantic relationships either.
When i got to my first unit, my buddy and I got in trouble just for going to a club with an E-5 in our section. I had not in my wildest dreams thought that was a bad idea and no one had told me that it was, but when it was explained to me it made sense. I was in service at the time the Fraternization Policy changed, and remember it quite well.
Regulations, directives, and orders may also govern conduct between an officer and enlisted personnel on both a service-wide and a local basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different ranks, or between officers of different ranks may be similarly covered.
Violations of such regulations, directives, or orders may be punishable under Article Under the provisions of article , enlisted members could not be charged with this crime. While they could be charged under service regulations, each of the services had different and wide-ranging policies and definitions as to what constituted an "inappropriate relationship.
In July , Defense Secretary William Cohen directed the services to "adopt uniform, clear and readily understandable" fraternization policies. Cohen stated that the current separate policies were "corrosive to morale particularly as we move toward an increasingly joint environment.
The services submitted policy changes to Cohen that he approved Feb. All of the new policies have been implemented in the respective service regulations. Now, while each of the services still have individual policies, they all share common standards with respect to relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, recruiters and potential recruits and trainers and trainees.
The Army fraternization policy required many changes and the most toughening. Navy and Air Force policies required little change.
Marine Corps policy required no change. All the services prohibit personal and business relationships between officers and enlisted members, calling them prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Personal relationships include dating, cohabitation, and any sexual relationship. Business relationships include loaning and borrowing money and business partnerships.
0コメント