Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Navy Updates Fraternization Policy

Navy NewsStand has a story about how the CNO recently issued an updated "Navy Fraternization Policy" instruction. The new policy (an HTML version can be found here; the PDF file is here) has supposedly been updated to reflect the more "joint" nature of 21st century military service; apparently, the previously-issued policy hadn't been clear enough that a Navy officer can't bang an enlisted person just because they're in the Army or whatever.

While all of us think back to how we have never seen officer/enlisted gambling (especially not in the form of NCAA Basketball pools), I want to direct your attention to an example the article uses to illustrate a potentially prohibited behavior:
For example, the executive officer (XO) of the command holds a Monday Night Football party every Monday night during football season. She invites the wardroom and the chief's mess. She is guilty of fraternization because the XO is in a leadership position, and she is creating an unduly familiar relationship with members of her command. However, if she held a Super Bowl Party annually and invited the entire command, or the wardroom and the chief's mess, this would not be fraternization as it would be considered a social event, not unlike a holiday party. However, the XO cannot invite only selected enlisted members, as that constitutes disparate treatment and it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline.
So what are they saying here? To be honest, the real point flew over my head -- I personally don't see anything wrong with a weekly get together -- because I was fixated on the story using a female XO as the "guilty" party. How did this get past the Diversity Directorate at NavPers? It seems they wouldn't want to make people think that female XOs just go around breaking rules, but this article could lead one to that conclusion. Or did they decide it's more important to make people think that a female XO is completely unremarkable, and they use little stories like that to reinforce this point? The world wonders...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know of 2 individuals (both females) who are living together and are very intimate (they don't hide it). That's no big deal, but one is an Officer, the other an E-6. The kicker, the E-6 is the EEOA onboard a carrier.

5/21/2008 9:51 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So who do I notify? Both commands know and haven't done a thing. Both of the individuals actually laugh about it!!!

5/21/2008 9:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dont notify anyone, its none of your damn business. Is it affecting your eval in anyway? Is one person getting over on you? Probably not.
So let me get this straight the fact they are openly gay doesnt bother you but the fact that one is officer and the other is enlisted does? And it doesnt even sound like they are on the same ship.
Grow up.

11/01/2008 1:02 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you be the one to say grow up? The military has a strict set of rules of which service men and women SWEAR to follow. Against the rules, bottom line.

1/28/2009 8:29 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When all you see are rules, you obviously have forfeited your ability to think for yourself.

8/16/2009 7:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Navy has many rules, like the one you can only have intimacy in missionary position, do you think captains and chiefs follow this?

1/26/2010 11:34 PM

Blogger Amanda Absolutely said...

All the services prohibit personal and business relationships between officers and enlisted members, calling them prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors to be considered include whether the conduct has compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The acts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced by their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations of an officer.

12/26/2011 10:13 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see nothing wrong with a chief and a junior enlisted dating from separate commands, thoughts???

4/09/2012 7:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just found out that i got a junior sailor pregnant. She is a E-2 and i am an e-4. we were in the same command and section but they switched us when they found out we were dating. Keep i mind i have no supervisory role in section, am not in the chain of command, nor impact her eval. but upon discovery that she was pregnant my chief threatened njp/capt mast. ive done some research and we dont necessarily fall under the fraternization instuction, but its a grey area. any thoughts?

7/13/2012 3:50 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This just happened in our command. Both got busted down, both got put on restriction and both had pay docks. The baby is already born. It depends on the command but here, they nailed them to the wall. Same exact circumstance.

8/23/2012 12:46 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home