Fraternization

A HQDA memorandum for DCSPER (HQDA Ltr 600-84-2), dated 23 Nov 84, subject

"Fraternization and Regulatory Policy Regarding Relationships Between Members of

Different Ranks," explained:

"When the senior member has direct command or supervisory authority over

the lower ranking member or has the capacity to influence personnel or

disciplinary actions, assignments, or other benefits or privileges, there

is the strongest justification for exercising restraint on social,

commercial, or duty assignments.

At the same time, when the senior does

not have direct command or supervisory authority over or the capacity to

exercise

official

influence

regarding

the

lower

ranking

member,

relationships between soldiers are not inherently improper.

Commanders

should advise service members, however, that even these relationships can

lead to perceptions of favoritism and exploitation."

This regulatory prohibition is not limited to officer-enlisted relationships.

It applies to "service members of different ranks." This includes officers, NCOs,

etc.

QUESTION:

DOES THE REGULATORY

POLICY

PROHIBIT

ONLY

ACTUAL

FAVORITISM

AND

PARTIALITY?

ANSWER:

NO.

THE APPEARANCE THEREOF IS ALSO CONSIDERED TO BE IMPROPER.

STATED

DIFFERENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR DISASTER TO STRIKE; RATHER, WE CAN

ACT TO AVERT IT.

THE RELATIONSHIP CAN BE DEALT WITH WHEN IT CAN

"REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UNDERMINE DISCIPLINE AUTHORITY OR MORALE."

Known as the "Elton Letter," the guidance

form HQDA DSCPER refers to "an

actual or clearly predictable adverse impact

upon discipline, authority, or

morale."

An adverse action "must address the

behavior that results form the

relationship, or the actual or clearly predictable

results of the relationship, and

not merely the relationship itself."

QUESTION:

DO SOME RELATIONSHIPS HAVE A GREATER POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE THAN OTHERS?

ANSWER:

SURE.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THOSE IN THE RATING CHAIN ARE AN EXAMPLE.

The Army policy "is one of tolerance," and not a per se prohibition.

The problem

is to watch for "the possibility for exploitation and favoritism."

The Elton letter set out various factual situations

which

illustrate

the

application of the Army's policy. A few are as follows:

QUESTION:

LTC X, A SINGLE MALE BATTALION COMMANDER, IDENTIFIED 2LT Y, A JUNIOR

SINGLE FEMALE ON HIS STAFF, AS AN UP AND COMING OFFICER. HE TOOK PAINS

TO INDIVIDUALLY COUNSEL HER ON HER CAREER PROGRESSION, ASSIGNED HER

SEPARATE SIGNIFICANT TASKS, AND ADVISED HER RATER THAT

MP1018

1-10