RD-8160 706 FRITERNIZATION - A NIL!ITARY OFFENSE?(U) AIR co a 1 asI VSTIFF COLL MAXWELL AFD AL C L THOMPSONUM OfSRCSC-S6-2525

NCLASIFIED F/ 5/4

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEu..lllll

p.*

~

Pd' .t

.1 V1

'9...'.-t ,~ S.~ V* P

(C

*1'

.4" -

1%

p.. p

I I11111 ~ E~328 L NY~1 .4*32 menL8.. 136I-

11111 '-*11111 .'111111 "'Ia.-mliii IIIIiIki

lIIlI~11111 11111 ___________ 111111.25 _____ 1.6 j. cz

MIVRA -( I'

- . . - 6- -

...-. - N. -. . - - -.

- p.. p~. -~p

00 Jull 3

AND

STAFF COLLEGE

STUDENT REPORTFraternization-

A Military Offense?

Major Charles Thompson #86-2525

"insights into tomorrow"

*d #apub& -AA

----

Im

The views and -.document arr .,

not intendel :i:,representpolicies ofGovernment. " .access to ojf-has ernplo'ei :available .

This docu2aent "States Gover n:n',distributio t"'. Acopy of the J, .-Air UniveisL v i( A U L !L D E X , :. . i :

Defense '--c .Imust .nc

title of t f-

This docu,other re ;<:.-,:-, .cont in

any copyr g,in the rett

fo I o , npermiss;:.ColIIColege." .

:1-e t .t I

bettei ;,

be mac, ,Adoes 7.c C

fatr o r"

repro

d oc Tu

- - . - N , - .,

.. 7

'..,.."%,

REPORT NUMBER 86-2525

TITLE FRATERNIZATION - A MILITARY OFFENSE?

AUTHOR(S) MAJOR CHARLES L. THOMPSON JR., USAF

FACULTY ADVISOR MAJOR CHARLES F. HOLSEN, ACSC/EDCM

SPONSOR L'i COf, E2DWARD '4ILILER, 21ST AIR I(R'/AMCCL, I. AFI), N.. * 8 6-11

Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for graduation.

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112

*.• •o-S - S . . .. . . . .

**.. . . .. *..~-...>- * % *- . ~ J . a'o'* *

SECURITY C..ASSIFCArIOIN OF THIS PAGE -7c~

19 REPORT SIFCLR1'V CLASSIFICATION PO T)CJ[:!;:k~r1.

UNCL ASS I i' ED_____ ______

2a SECUI' CLSICATION AUTHOR POR

2b DECLASSI FCAT ION OWNG RA DINGS~Z..

4PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORIT 1 - . , < . F .r4t NMFERS

6NAME OF PERiSORMING ORGANIZA) 1ON - -* .' IZA TION

SC ADDRESS -It% State' and ZIP Co~de) - -- ... '.tI

la NAME OF F JNOINO 'SPONSORING *i < - --- -7,.'Tl it.TlON NtjMtll 11

Ek AODRESS ani u~ ~d /11' ('td,'

'i TASK WORK UNIT'.NO NO

12 PERSONAL AUTHCRIS)

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13t T.MIE - vF-* - ' - -5 PAGE COUNT

-ROM- - - -

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17111;;AT: CnnES T - - -- " '--

SEL.L) -t R F

* TO ABSTRIACT , i.,,. ,, , -

1 A

20 DtSP 'iI. . v-A 1L A6'i-,'

ON--' I

DD FORNA 1473, 83 APR ~-,c:.

............................................- %

.4

N

PREFACE

In preparing this staff analysis report, the author hadthree main goals in mind. The first goal was to document thehistory of the military custom against fraternization, thesocial association of officer and enlisted personnel whichbecomes detrimental to good order and discipline. Secondly,the author wanted to document the fact that the Air Force hadnot adequately addressed the problem of fraternization, asdemonstrated by numerous institutional practices currentlyexisting which foster opportunities for fraternization. Thisfailure to document policy in the form of written guidance ora regulation has made punishment or corrective action ex-tremely difficult and has tended to discourage commandersfrom prosecuting violators. Through the third goal, theauthor intended to provide recommendations to reduce thefraternization problem within the Air Force and provide adraft regulation governing fraternization. If approved, theregulation could be published as an official Air Force regu-lation on the subject.

The author wishes to express his appreciation to his ad-visor, Major Charles Holsen of the ACSC staff, and to MajorAl Passey, Leadership and Management Development Center,Maxwell AFB, Alabama, for his assistance in providingresearch material.

Azeso Fv de

-.- csoCNTIS .. BCRA&I [ , , I,',.

U ,,a oou, ted '0.

ByDist, ib",tio. I

Dini

iii

A I

",<-'--- "< ,. ,.:,,. ._" - - - """'-- =,-'-" ", '"-- i "" ' . .. . v . . ........ ... - . . - 2•-

p - -' - . ? . - r - - . . . .,. . y.. " - F'd°j ' F Z

Major Charles L. Thompson Jr. was born in Kingstree,South Carolina. He earned his comm "ission and a Bachelor ofScience degree in Mathematics from the University of SouthCarolina in 1971. Major Thompson spent his first elevenyears in the Air Force in the administrative career field,with assignments at Columbus AFB, Mississippi, U-TapaoAirfield, Thailand, Wilford H{all USAF Medical Center, .Lackland AFB, Texas, and Norton AFB, California. He was"selected as the Air Force Systems Command Administrationofficer of the Year, Staff Support, for 1982. In 1983 heretrained into the system acquisition career field and wasassigned to the MILSTAR/Air Force Satellite CommunicationslJoint Program office at Space Division, Los Angeles AFS,"California. During this assignment, he earned a Master's .degree in Business Administration from Chapman College..Major Thompson completed Squadron Officer School by cor-.-respondence and in residence, Air Command and Staff College ,by correspondence, and National Security Management by cor-respondence prior to attending ACSC. He draws from his ex-perience as a squadron commander in three different assign-ments, as well as his time working closely with enlisted per-sonnel in administrative jobs, in preparing this staff analy-sis project c-. fraternization.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface.iiiAbout the Author ................................. ivExecutive Summary ................................ vi

CHAPTER ONE -- INTRODUCTIONBackground of the Problem ....................... 1Significance of the Problem ..................... 3Objectives of this Study ........................ 3

CHAPTER TWO -- HISTORY OF FRATERNIZATIONEarly Officer-Enlisted Relationships ............ 5Military Necessity Prohibiting Fraternization...8Leadership and Fraternization ................... 9Review of Fraternization Court Cases ........... 11

CHAPTER THREE -- INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES WHICHFOSTER FRATERNIZATION

Regulatory/Duty Related Practices .............. 14Off Duty Activities ............................ 16

CHAPTER FOURSummary ......................................... 19

CHAPTER FIVEDefinition ...................................... 21Recommendations ................................ 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 26

APPENDIX .......................................... 31

V

W. WLWJ , .'. ,.V .U ,.,. V2 . '.. !, :.n

. . ' . " . , k , .. W .'* .. . -. : -. . ,.,. - '. - .. ." -" '

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APart of our College mission is distribution of the Astudents' problem solving products to DoD

Ssponsors and other interested agencies toenhance insight into contemporary, defense

related issues. While the College has accepted this

• product as meeting academic requirements for

graduation, the views and opinions expressed orimplied are solely those of the author and should

not be construed as carrying official sanction.

-"insights into tomorrow"

REPORT NUMBER 86-2525

AUTHOR(S) MAJOR CHARLES L. THOMPSON JR., USAF

TITLE FRATERNIZATION - A MILITARY OFFENSE?

I. Purpose: To document the history of the military customagainst fraternization, document the military necessity whichgave birth and substance to the offense of fraternization,discuss those Air Force institutional practices which fosterfraternization, and recommend solutions and a regulation toaddress the problem.

!I. Problem: There has existed within the military a longstanding custom which prohibits officers and enlisted person-nel from engaging in social associations both on and off dutywhich can be detrimental to good oidei and discipline.Although the custom has continued unchanged, tbcr demographicsof the Air Force population has changed. But as has been thecase throughout history, no adequate written guidance or reg-ulation exists to cveirn the custom which discouraoes thissocial association, o- fratcrnzat.on as ft is called.Until written guidance or a regulation is established, frat-ernization wi remain an issue within', the Air Force, andcommanders will face restric ions wunen enforcino this custom.

III. Data: Throughout hisry trse re has a!ways existed theseparation of the officer and eni-,sted D:,'-rs. Ear>l historysaw this as a class ~s inzt icr', as office,:s wc.,C ncrmallydrawn from nobil.Lty aii. en~ st-: fvctr the servant as.

.. ..... .. '.... ..- .... .. . .. .. . . . . . .. L.--..-...... . ,'i..m..'"

IN

"_____ _____ CONTINUED -_ _ _'_ _

However, as time passed, this gap between the make-up of theofficer and enlisted force narrowed significantly.Therefore, the opportunity for social contact between the twocorps increased. Additionally, the increasing number ofwomen in the military had a major impact on this custom.

In spite of these changes, the custom against fraterni-zation remains. The military necessity which gave birth tothis custom was the need for discipline. For an officer toorder his/her troops into a life threatening situation duringa crisis, he/she must have the respect and devotion of his/her subordinates, qualities which are prevalent in disci-plined units. Fraternization, or undue familiarity, canseverely damage this discipline.

The fraternization issue within the Air Force has beeninadequately addressed throughout Air Force history. Noaccepted definition has existed, and no law or regulation hasexisted which prohibited duty oriented or social contactamong Air Force officers and enlisted personnel. Actuallythe opposite has occurred, as many Air Force institutionalpractices foster fraternization. In spite of this, the AirForce has felt that its commanders had sufficient latitudethrough which to prosecute cases of fraternization. However,recent court rulings have limited the criminality of certainofficer and enlisted relationships and generated a definiteneed for a firm written policy.

IV. Conclusions: The Air Force has not adequately definedfraternization and has not issued adequate policy quidance toits commanders upon which to base disciplinary or correctiveaction. The need for discipline within the Air Force is asessential today as it has been throughout history, andfraternization can undermine this discipline. If the AirForce leaders intend to continue enforcement of this customagainst fraternization, then they must establish a firmpolicy, distribute it, and enforce it.

V. Recommendations: First, the Air Force must decide if thecustom against fraternization should be enforced, i.e. makeit a military offense and prosecute or correct violators. Ifso, then secondly, establish firm written guidance. Writtenguidance should include policy letters to commanders and aregulation governing fraternization. Thirdly, action must betaken to eliminate or limit those institutional practiceswhich foster fraternization.

vii

,- :.- .,- ... . .- .- .- -... ...... .-,-. •... - .

[,

[, p.

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM

I will focus on a single issue which, if leftunchecked can destroy the very core of our mili-tary structure -- the issue of fraternization--social contact between officers and enlisted per-sonnel which results in undue familiarity.

There is no law or Air Force regulation pro-hibiting social contact; however, there is a longstanding custom in the military service that offi-cers shall not fraternize or associate withenlisted personnel under circumstances which mayprejudice the discipline and good order of thearmed forces of the United States. This is not asocial class issue in any sense. It is a bedrocktraditional military value which has, at its heart,the maintenance of discipline in the force, notonly for wartime operations, but for peacetime aswell (14:2).

This statement by General Bennie L. Davis, former Commander,Strategic Air Command, in an address to the 1982 graduatingclass of the Air Force Academy demonstrates the continuingconcern of senior Air Force leaders for the impact of frat-ernization on "the respect necessary for command" (14:2).However, a key element and a fact mentioned by General Davisabove, is that this concern has not been translated into anyestablished written policy guidance or regulation for com-manders upon which they can base disciplinary or correctiveactions against those violating this custom. In fact,throughout Air Force history no law or regulation has existedwhich specifically prohibited duty oriented or social contactamong Air Force officers and enlisted personnel.

To compound the fact that no law or regulation exists,no specific accepted definition of the term fraternizationexists today. Throughout the past, numerous definitions havesurfaced; however, today we cannot find the term defined inAir Force regulations, the Air Force dictionary, or more im-portantly, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If

.,--." .:...- . "., ,./ ,' '.", ,, .. .-. . . •".. ._ ,S <> > , ,-',- ,, ..-.> - -,- -, ".-. .-->. --. ",, .> .- , --. " v "" " - ,_.-""- , m-l

we could put together all the definitions expounded today anddevelop a common definition, it might state that fraterniza-tion is a relationship between two individuals of differentrank which has a detrimental effect on the authority of thesenior individual. From this definition, we can inferofficer-enlisted, officer-officer, and enlisted-enlisted re-lationships. However, in most cases and in this project,we concern ourselves with the ban against fraternizationbetween officers and enlisted personnel only.

If we are going to enforce this custom, and this authorbelieves we should, it is time now for the Air Force commandechelon to squarely address the situation (and in a realsense it is a dilemma) and accept the fact that our command-ers and supervisors need written guidance on the subject (9:17). Times have changed. The demographics of our force haschanged -- our enlisted force is better educated, more womenare now on active duty, and more members now consider theservice more like a civilian job than a military one withmilitary rules and regulations. As stated in a recent AirForce Court of Military Review opinion, "... then 'custom ofthe service' offenses, by definition must cease their exis-tence once the long and established and accepted practicesupon which they have purportedly been based, change" (9:19).Our necessity for discipline, the basis for this ban againstfraternization, has not changed. Therefore, we need toaddress the problem and take action to eliminate it.

The recent Air Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR)and United States Court of Military Appeals (COMA) decisionsin the U.S. v. Johanns case cited the erosion of our policiesconcerning fraternization as a severe limitation on prosecu-ting cases involving officer and enlisted social associa-tions. Until this ruling, the Air Force had felt that com-manders had the legal latitude to deal with those personnelwhose relationships were detrimental to good order and dis-cipline. This erosion, coupled with the decision in theU.S. v. Johanns case, has made commanders more hesitantabout prosecuting violators, adversely affecting our abilityto enforce the custom which discourages fraternization.

Written guidance is a necessity for our commanders andsupervisors. In 1971, the COMA recognized -1e "act that nowritten guidance on fraternization impacted LC services.The court, at that time, commented, "While Jiaf-ing of anappropriate regulation might be diffcult, %e recommend it tothe responsible military services" (8:1.60). :iteen yearslater in 1985, the COMA in its review of the ;.S. v. Johannscase reenforced this comment .hen it wroe ' Ataently thissuggestion was not heeded by the AiL For e, .-;e have beencited no direction of That service whh sre< uc. 1y dealswith fraternization or with1 The -nic; >o,.,I;;<.}r :nwhichCaptain Johanns was invoL.v'cd ( : 60. F '; ! -his, we canascertain the definite neo- . .. . fratern-

. . . ... . . - . . . . . - - -

tion within the Air Force today.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PROBLEM

The significance of the fraternization problem withinthe Air Force today was best described by an Air Force seniornoncommissioned officer (NCO) at the Senior NCO Academy whenhe wrote on a fraternization survey, "How can there be anissue with no defined policy?" (12:20). The opinions offeredin the U.S. v. Johanns case demonstrate that the Air Forcehas failed to undertake any major efforts toward defining theterm, addressing the significance of the problem, and recom-mending adequate solutions. In fact, no clear cut standardon fraternization exists within the Air Force today. Inaddition, we don't have an accepted definition as notedearlier. This leads us to the point that we cannot expectto enforce a policy on a subject we cannot even define.

We, the Air Force, have delegated the enforcement offraternization standards to the commanders, thereby creatingan environment in which policies, enforcement, and punish-ment, if any, differ. The fact remains that "no one reallyunderstands the fraternization policy. Everyone has differ-ent ideas" (12:16). Most find it easier to describe frater-nization than to define it, but it still remains difficultto say who is fraternizing and identify specifically what'sbeing done. This has placed an extreme burden on commandersand has resulted in a "policy biased toward a 'second chance'Hand 'keep it out of sight'" (12:7). Our commanders clearlyneed an enforceable, visible, and written policy.

However, in spite of these difficulties, the "Air Staffposition is that the Air Force should not develop a formallegal position because of the complexity of the subject"(11:C-63). As late as September 1985, the Air Force DeputyUChief of Staff for Personnel wrote, "we have concluded thatfraternization has been properly and sufficiently addressedand no further changes in policy are required" (17:1). But,irregardless of the Air Staff opinion, unless something isdone - - a regulation is published or written guidance isdistributed, commanders will continually face reference tohthe policy erosions mentioned in the U.S. v. Johanns casewhen trying to enforce prosecution for fraternization.

OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY

As we have seen from the previous discussion, "the AirForce policy on fraternization is not believed to be clearlydefined or adequately described in current Air Force regula-tions, nor is it perceived to be fairly applied Air Forcewide" (12:30). In light of this, there exists a widespread

p'

p

S.;

need for a written policy. This staff analysis project willdevelop a meaningful definition of the term fraternization,offer possible solutions to alleviate the problem in the AirForce today, and offer a draft regulation for use Air Forcewide.

To accomplish this purpose, we will begin by reviewingthe history of fraternization. "History is replete withexamples of leaders who established a unique relationshipwith their followers" (4.63), and only through the study ofhistory can we appreciate how the custom against fraterniza-tion has evolved. Then we will examine many of the institu-tional practices which paradoxically may be fostering thefraternization the Air Force seeks to eliminate. If the AirForce intends to grasp the problem and get a firm handle onit, we have to identify these practices and take some actionto control or eliminate those prejudicial to good order anddiscipline. Lastly, we will look at a definition of fratern-ization, recommend possible solutions to the problem, andoffer a draft regulation for use by commanders today. Inthis way, we can "define it and enforce it" (12:11), anaction that we need. no'i.

ia

.%4

Chapter Two

HISTORY OF FRATERNIZATION

EARLY OFFICER-ENLISTED RELATIONSHIPS

There has existed a long standing custom in the militaryservice that officers shall not fraternize or associate withenlisted personnel. "Bans against close officer/soldierassociations are traceable back through the Code of Articlesof King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, dated 1621" (9:23).Today we see this custom emphasized in General Davis' speechto the Air Force Academy graduating class in 1982, and we seeit quoted in court cases, letters to commanders, and memoran-dums which discuss fraternization. The key word is custom."In its legal sense the word 'custom' imports something morethan a method of procedure or a mode of conduct or behaviorwhich is merely of frequent or usual occurrance. Customarises out of long established practices which by commonconsent have attained the force of law in the military orother community affected by them" (8:159). To better under-stand this fraternization issue, we need to go back inhistory and review the development of the custom againstfraternization.

In our review of history, we can find numerous examplesof relationships which existed between leaders and theirfollowers. Although such relationships have been founded onnumerous themes -- fear, respect, love, hatred, and rever-ence -- the most enduring emotion has been one fostered by atrue sense of comradeship (4:63). "Caesar, one of the mostruthless, yet compassionate, leaders in history, was genuine-ly admired by his men. Similarly, probably the single mostimportant characteristic of Caesar's military success was hiscare and concern for his soldiers" (4:63). Yet the respectand discipline endured as his soldiers always responded tolong, fatiguing marches. So even as far back as KingAdolphus of Sweden and Caesar in the Roman Empire, we witnessthe need for a relationship between the leader and follower,but one not so close as to threaten proper discipline.

Going back in history, the social system separatingofficers and enlisted probably had its roots in Europeancustom. "This custom was designed to maintain a class dis-tinction between the officer and the peasant soldier" (19:2).

5

.. ../ .-/ ... . -. ..- ... .-..i . ..i .. . . . -.. -.. . ... .- % ..-. ... - .. .. . .-. -- .- ..- .- -- .. .. . . .. .. .-- S

The early officers were gentlemen, usually from a good familywho inherited or could afford to buy the officer's commis-sion. Enlisted personnel were from the lower classes. Thegentlemen did not socialize with the lower class. This sepa-ration due to family background remained throughout earlyEngland. Since then the prohibition against fraternizationby officers with enlisted members has been based on preserv-ing military discipline, not social equality (9:13).

This division of personnel within the armed forces sur-vived the American Revolution and has continued ever since.George Washington's forces at Valley Forge were divided intoofficers and enlisted personnel, and interestingly enough,fraternization was the single greatest problem the generalencountered upon assuming command of the Continental Forces(9:23). Likewise, the Civil War continued this practice.Again in World Wars I and II we see the class distinctionbetween officers and enlisted personnel despite the largenumbers of officers who came from the enlisted ranks, the in-fusion into the enlisted ranks of men from the upper socio-economic levels, and the injection of women into the officerand enlisted ranks (1:73). During this time, "The Officer'sGuide, which served as the military encyclopedia for offi-cers, explained simply that:

Officers and enlisted men have not generally assoc-iated together in mutual social activities. Noofficer could violate this ancient custom with oneor two men of his command and convince the othersof his unswerving impartiality. The soldier doesnot need or desire the social companionship ofofficers" (1:73).

We observe from this statement and review of history throughthe world wars the division of the officer and enlistedcorps and the development of the custom against fratern-ization.

Senior U.S. military leaders' views have varied on thisissue throughout history. General John J. Pershing, theCommander of the Allied Forces ir World War I, commented onthe subject, "In the social order tn which one person isofficially subordinated to another, the superior, if he isa gentleman, never thinks of it, and the subordinate, if heis a gentleman, never forgets it" (2:140). The incorpora-tion of women into the military -4uring World War II added anew dimension to the military ..stom. Suddenly we had frat-ernization of officer and enlis td personnel of the oppositesex. General Dwight D. Fiqenhower, Commander of the AlliedForces during World War !I, commeTited cn this subject, "Iwant good sense to govern such thinqs. Social contactbetween sexes on a basis that doe; not interfere with otherofficers or enlisted persons should have the rule of decency

5T"*" - . ...- , . o

le

and deportment -- not artificial barriers" (3:403). AfterWorld War II, the Air Force became a separate service,retaining many of the Army customs. However, the first Chiefof Staff of the Air Force, General Spaatz, said of customs,"The only custom of the Air Force is to get the damn jobdone" (5:110). We can infer from these comments that theviews of our senior officers remain the same in terms of re-cognizing the issue, but differ in their stand on the issue.General Eisenhower felt that the relationships can exist solong as good sense prevails, while General Spaatz emphasizedthat the mission of the Air Force came first and customssecond. In the first chapter we saw that General Davis, acontemporary general, felt that fraternization should bediscouraged and that it could severely impact the mission ofthe Air Force through its effect on discipline.

Following World War II, the issue of officer-enlistedrelationships arose again, and Lt General James H. Doolittlechaired a six-man commission charged with studying the rela-tionship issue. This commission contained an Army lieutenantgeneral with enlisted experience, two other officers withenlisted experience, and two enlisted persons. Four of therecommendations of this commission were as follows:

(1) That all military personnel be allowed, whenoff duty, to pursue normal social patterns compa-rable to our democratic way of life.(2) That the hand salute be abandoned off Armyinstallations and off duty.(3) That all statutes, regulations, customs, andtraditions, which discourage or forbid socialassociation of soldiers of similiar likes andtastes because of military rank, be abolished.(4) That necessary steps be taken to eliminatethe terms and concepts "enlisted men" and"officers" (5:110).

In so far as the custom against fraternization is concerned,the recommendations were allowed to die (5:110). Here againwe see another example of reluctance on the part of oursenior leaders to address the fraternization issue. If theserecommendations had survived however, the enforcement of thecustom against fraternization would have died. Once offduty, military personnel would have enjoyed the freedom toassociate with whom they pleased on whatever basis theychose. Later wars saw more stringent action taken againstviolators.

The Korean and Vietnam Wars saw legal actions againstfraternization come to the forefront. The specification ina Korean War fraternization case stated that officers shallnot fraternize or associate with enlisted personnel on terms

7

of military equality (5:111). In this case, the court ruledthat an officer should not drink intoxicating liquor with en-listed personnel or fraternize with them so that familiarityis induced and good order and discipline is affected (5:110). .A Vietnam War case which involved an homosexual relationshipresulted in a recommendation by the COMA, as mentionedearlier, that "the services publish a regulation on fratern-ization to provide guidelines by which officers could regu-late their own conduct and judge that of others" (5:111).However, the respective services did not comply with therecommendation, and no regulations surfaced.

Throughout our review of the history of fraternization,the views of senior officers on the subject, and the courtcases, we have seen that "maintaining the authoritarian char-acter of military force within an aggressive democratic so-ciety has always been a problem for both parties" (5:113).It appears evident from the comments of our senior militaryleaders that we have taken the position that we don't want todeal with the issue of fraternization. The fraternizationissue has been with us throughout history and will certainlyremain with us unless we take some strong action to eliminateit. The changing mores of society, the injection of womeninto the military, and the lack of any substantial guidancehave compounded the problem since its beginning in earlyhistory. This problem of fraternization can severely impactthe good order and discipline within our military forcestoday. As we saw earlier, the early rationale for separatingofficers and enlisted personnel was a social issue, but sincethen the military necessity for discipline has given birthand substance to the offense of fraternization.

MILITARY NECESSITY PROHIBITING FRATERNIZATION

"The demands of good order and discipline dictate aconcern on the part of the Air Force that the unofficial orsocial relationships between officers and enlisted personnelpreserve a degree of authority, respect, discipline, andmorale" (15:1). The key word here is discipline. The mili-tary necessity for discipline makes fraternization undesir-able and a punishable offense. Discipline is considered thefoundation of the military organization, and fraternizationtaken to the extreme can destroy this discipline.

Discipline is essential to morale and efficiency in anorganization. In Major James Isenhower's article on cohesionin today's Army, he discusses how a well disciplined unitwill have higher morale and espirit-de-corps, and will alwaysperform with more efficiency than a less disci lined one. Awell disciplined unit has leadeiship, direction, and motiva-tion. Disciplined individuals can operate with minimalsupervision and will react in i way that bcnefits the group's

.. . r / ? .-v.? - -.. ? . • , -, -[ .<,-.- . .. . ... .-. . . . . .,

mission; thus if everyone in a unit responds this way, wehave a more efficient group. An undisciplined grouprequires more supervision. Moreover, each individual in thegroup will respond in a manner which best satisfies his/herpersonal needs, not those of the group. Therefore, withoutdiscipline, morale goes down and the efficiency suffers, twoconsequences the Air Force cannot allow.

Fraternization tends to work against the discipline inthe unit. When a leader becomes too familiar with a subordi-nate, discipline suffers. In such a situation, a leadertends to overlook minor disciplinary infractions such as sa-luting, uniform violations, and tardiness. The leader soonbecomes just "one of the guys." Subordinates may take advan-tage of this familiarity by becoming lax in their job andlosing respect for their leader. And once one person beginsgetting away with violations, others begin to think they canalso. As a result, this undue familiarity allowed by theleader has resulted in discipline problems throughout theunit, causing reduced morale and efficiency. As is alwaysthe case, this impacts mission accomplishment. The leadermust in all cases insure that undue familiarity does notdevelop (9:16). This is especially important "in the mili-tary because of the gravity of its mission in nationaldefense and the requirements for safety and precision in em-ployment and maintenance of its weapon systems" (11:C-65).Therefore, when officer-enlisted relationships give the ap-pearance of partiality, preferential treatment, or the im-proper use of rank or positions for personal gain, and areprejudicial to good order and discipline, action must betaken against those involved.

"The basic role and purpose of the military is not ex-pected to change in the foreseeable future; the requirementsfor discipline, obedience, and objectivity will not diminishunder the guise of technological advancement" (10:7). Ourleaders must insure that their actions do not undermine thediscipline with the unit. Fraternization damages this disci-pline and causes the personnel to lose respect of theirsuperiors. All good leaders must recognize this fine linebetween knowing your people and fraternizing with them.

LEADERSHIP AND FRATERNIZATION

Throughout this review of fraternization in history andthe military necessity for discipline which bans fraterniza-tion, we have mentioned the relationship between leaders andfollowers. We shouldn't leave this portion however, withoutdiscussing the relationship between leadership and fratern-ization. In his article entitled "Leadership and Fraterniza-tion", Lt Col John H. Admire emphasizes that "leadership andfraternization are not mutually exclusive, they are inherent-

9

ly interrelated, and any attempt to separate them may jeop-ardize their intricate synergistic effect on one another"(4:63). In other words, if we consider leadership as the artof getting things done through others, we begin to see howemotional relationships may arise. In order to get people todo things for us, we must gain their respect, and that meansexhibiting a genuine concern for them and being sincere inall our actions, two accepted qualities of an effectiveleader. "In its simplicity, fraternization deals withemotional relationships that must exist between leader andfollower" (4:63). Our leaders today must know and be awareof the difference.

The military promotes the building of unity in groups.Regardless of the service and the type of organization, thegoal is to work together toward a common goal. "A sense ofbrotherhood between those who together pursue a common goalis an emotion to be shared openly. It is this emotion thatbinds units together, creates espirit, and raises commandsabove the common place" (4:64). Good leaders can build thisbond, bad leaders tend to separate the bond. The concept offraternization may cause us, as leaders, to hesitate indemonstrating concern and building this bond or brotherhood.However, on the other hand, we should not overdo it either.Too much closeness or too much concern, may breed favoritismor relaxation of standards causing dissention within theunit. Morale can be affected also if there is a perceptionwarranted or unwarranted, among the troops that a certainamount of favoritism is present due to off duty socializingby officer and enlisted personnel. So in building this bond,a leader must attempt to maintain a precise balance betweencordiality and authoritativeness.

There exists a thin line between this feeling ofbrotherhood and fraternization. Using the emotional bond tohelp someone versus using it for personal gain is the differ-ence between brotherhood and fraternization. "As a fatherand mother express their emotions without compromising theirposition or sacrificing their parental authority, so mustleaders" (4:66). The emotion must be spontaneous, not wellthought-out, and exploited. Therefore, "although fraternalcomaraderie can reflect a great strength in leadership,improperly practiced, it can destroy leadership" (4:66). Ourleaders must know the difference because oo much familiaritycan result in situations which un.crmine ti-. discipline with-in the unit. In leadership pos5 1 ns, in-:iduals must bemindful of developing such eno • .o.i lr . wlth subordinatesthat might result in a cott: s> 2.. petition or sacri-fice of their authority. if sit r.s t ch as these arise,we need the authority -o < -, i

* 4d

,ml

.........-

REVIEW OF FRATERNIZATION COURT CASES

"Historically, the armed forces have concluded that someforms of association and expression of friendship betweenmembers of different rank, specifically those between offi-cers and enlisted are punishable by court-martial" (13:22-27). This relationship, more commonly referred to as frat-ernization, has been discouraged. The first cases involvingfraternization were based on a philosophy of social superi-ority, with officers being court-martialed for hunting,fishing, or drinking with enlisted personnel (13:22-27).However, recently the shift has been toward conduct which isdetrimental to good order and discipline. Court cases whichactually mention the term fraternization in the specifica-tions are few and far between, although fraternization wasadded as an offense under Article 134 of the UCMJ in 1984.

Traditionally, the military has charged the offenseof fraternization as a violation of either Article 133 or134 of the UCMJ. These articles concern conduct unbecomingan officer and gentleman, and conduct prejudicial to goodorder and discipline and fraternization, respectively.However, in most cases, the military has found fraternizationeasier to describe than define. This, in turn, has causedtrouble in the courts. Each case must be evaluated to deter-mine whether the acts were in violation of Articles 133 or134. As we will see, court cases have not only included offi-cer-enlisted relationship, but also relationships betweenmembers of the same corps but of different ranks. Someexamples of previous cases include:

(1) U.S. v. Livingston, 1952: Case involvedofficer and enlisted man involved in a homosexualrelationship.(2) U.S. v. Free, 1953: Officer convicted ofsharing liquor with enlisted man in officer'squarters.(3) U.S. v. Conn, 1979: Army lieutenant convict-ed of fraternization for smoking marijuana offpostwith enlisted personnel.(4) U.S. v. Cooper, 1980: Officer convicted offraternizing with enlisted female not his wife byhaving sexual intercourse with her.(5) U.S. v. Graham, 1980: Officer convicted ofconduct unbecoming an officer for smoking mari-juana with enlisted members of his ship's crew.(6) U.S. v. King, 1981: Officer convicted ofconduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemanby engaging in sexual intercourse with femaleenlisted under his command.(7) U.S. v. Jolley, 1982: Army chief warrantofficer convicted of fraternization for having

P N

%enlisted fe.Ic: nude next to

her in bed, and tiri:.' .: =ersuade her to engagein sexual inercv.:........2-31).

We can see from these o:{-,v<'s that individuals charged withthe same offense rece,.'.2d d.fferent convictions. Forexample, in U.S. v. Conn irc J.S. v. Graham both officerswere charged with smoking vowa7 uana with enlisted personnel.However, Conn was co!Li'' on fraternizing and Graham wasconvicted of conduct .n,"- c n an officer. In those casesin which the individual wacls convicted of fraternization, therequirement existed to insure that sufficient facts existedto show that the relatcon~h violated the long standingcustom and was prejudiLia.1! good order and discipline.This was made much cas. . e case involved a supervisor-follower relationship; .e , if the fraternization offensecould be charged under ano:her offense, it was recommendedthat it be done. From these examples we can see the diffi-culty which has ah.is,!. ;', n ?-cuting fraternization casesdue to the lack of an acz->;o.- _ definition of and writtenguidance on fraternization.

The fraternization c-, -;hich aroused a tremendousamount of interest in thie Ait Force and has severely impact-ed future prosecution )f f_, tcrnization cases was the U.S. v.Johanns case in l983-i9 , This case involved an Air Forcecaptain convicted of 'itn'V and four specifications ofconduct unbecoming r 'icr ard gentleman by having sexualrelations with threc e'~vi enlisted members, and by sharinga bed with a marr..... .ot his wife (9:1). The "conductunbecoming spec: :_.: ' 'wo-- couched in terms that theaccused captain diJ j with enlisted members" (9:1).However, the AFCM? reversed the fraternizationconviction and . , r dor unbecoming an officer andgentleman' con'. ...C-c sexual intercourse with amarried woman. :..nq in this case, and the onehaving the mcs ,.. uting cases in the Air Forcetoday, was h

As a mattr, ., the custom in the AirForce ag-:.:, n has eC'-'1me so er-odedas to ma. ui against an officerf.r en. . :,-ivate, non-deviate sted member,neither:'n, unavail-able

This rul rg r,, .. -o "' of the frat-ernization ":.. ."-.*. -... i t-'.ghtening ofthose ,,tc t " . , thin The AirForce.

" . . -'- ,-..,.... . . . . .mnnnnnmnu n

The Air Force continues to rely on a long standingcustom which has become so eroded by time and by institution-al practices which tend to breed fraternization. Unless weput some direction into our efforts to eliminate the problem,we will continually face an unsympathetic court system withinwhich to prosecute violators.

13

• -~. .. . . ........ .. . -..... ..... . . ,.. . .. . . . . ,;...

INSTITUTIONAL PCTESWHIC(_H FOSTER FRATERNIZATION

REGULATOR.Y,/ DUT £RLTDPRACTICES

Air Force regulations "eur officei-s and supervisorsto communicate freely with efla.ste( psrirn concerningcareers, assignments, performancef'~c nature of duties,and suggestions for r~po.we" 1 -edr feel ..this type of communicatirnrr e n 5' 11 ,ale, impzoves the op-erational environmenit, and Ziflu 1 1_1w-'._ 0effective, vital,and responsive military oiqa[)_Jiza-1cn5: addition, the AirForce encourages open members*,:_ arc --_ _cpation in base

*recreat ional1 ac t ivi t ies, basE: IA :i ter ser viceathletic competizion, rlrqi -os, comnmunity welfare

*projects, and youth programs. ..S is e allow thesepractices to exist without fi-im, guidance or a regula-

* tion on fraternization, opr'- Wndevelopment ofsocial associations betwecn o e n.eliisted personnelexist, and the problem will renai- -., s. The old view of"if in doubt, don't do it' fa m ~ or the old hands, butit is not realistic for our vc--- 7:Iman (6-311. We need toidentify these practices :',O'V; a! .:~ or control them.

Current regulatory aiia i-i i -fU practices provide* the opportunity for offic!e tsonnel to assoc-

iate on an informal 0r sci1 hR in its review*of the U.S. v. Johanris _caS(o i eaulations*dealing with the _s,. ~lW~od members

married to officecnc a s *-he erosion of* the custom against i'z~-~ .o. r the*housing regulat'o, -.1 ion con-

tributes to thei ai c . id, ititypolicies within t Mil itaryAirlif t Command A C, - inerai (1G)

*policies concer!,,_ -cppartuni -ties for the --a'-£ te~ a

- tion.Air Fcr::e V'.

* ~for officer - xhowever, Sxe:..vany enlistc,.'e -2 r ; t's acommissicr. ,t-................... "'-0A 0

.:1- _ 7 ,

a,

retain enlisted housing. In this case, we would have anofficer living in enlisted housing among the same people he/she had known and associated with prior to being commission-ed. Second, a commissioned officer who is separated and re-enlists or who assumes an eligible enlisted grade is permit- 4

ted to retain officer housing. The same rationale as aboveapplies here except that we have an enlisted person nowliving in officer housing. Lastly, when an officer and en-listed person are married and reside at the same base, theneither spouse is eligible for family housing. Althoughrecent policy changes discourage this practice and encouragethe individuals to reside off base, exceptions may occur.The basic Air Force housing policy clearly delineates betweenofficer and enlisted housing, but as is always the case, theexceptions "muddy the water." In all the exceptions, we haveofficers and enlisted personnel associating in a socialatmosphere that can lead to undue familiarity, or fratern-ization.

The Air Force open mess regulation allows the samesocial interaction between officers and enlisted personnel.In the case of an officer and enlisted marriage, each isallowed to join their respective club, and the noneligiblemember may use his/her spouse's mess only when accompaniedby his/her sponsor. However, the Air Force emphasizes thatthe noneligible member should not be in uniform when usingthe spouse's club. Here again, we bring back the policy of"keep it out of sight." The fact that the regulation allowsofficers and enlisted personnel to socialize in the lessstructured atmosphere of open messes does nothing to solvethe fraternization issue, but in fact, fosters it.

The fact that SAC and MAC crews, as well as IG teams,want to be identified on trips as teams on and off duty cangive rise to the development of close relationships betweenthe officers and enlisted personnel. The crews and teamstravel together, train together, eat together, and normallystay in the same base quarters or off base accomodations.Flight crews need to be housed together or in close proximityof each other to insure the ability to react to short noticedepartures, exercises, or emergencies. Due to the largeamount of work to be accomplished in a short amount of time,IG teams like to reside together to insure that they can workafter hours to review the day's inspection and review assign-ments for the next day. These crews or teams, as a generalrule, develop close relationships due to the importance ofteamwork in the success of the mission and the great amountof time spent together on tri ,s. The opportunity clearlypresents itself for fraternizing, and personnel involvedmust understand the implications that undue familiarity hason the respect and discipline required in their crew and teammissions.

i5

In additi, n 2- 1 1v It: IC,have tended --o' "in.enlisted deai~hA a I,- toaii 0~iS

such as intram-niici s." <.-'' ies, andbase sponsored y.,-c. t. - -e "'rs andenlisted persontnu 3 -inosphei e.Officers and e.'",comeinto contact :if -t-i -:I ii regula.-tions, chang"e 1:... euctional goals '_'.'i>.Ct h community.These activit ic- .~ rn 'ics andresult ir. unu tsorcededly,officers are 'no ~i or -o:1±ulct_ than en-listed personn._i -in--.xmpar' 9

12). These practic 1:t-o 4e', 'Ltesponsibilityon the shoulde- -i ms undue framil-iarity does nc._

The Air F.ehrhpandparticipatiocn ba,_ o~s The:se activities

inclde itrau. ~''~ csCommunitywelfare pr-r A~'retvc athletic-3mpetl*rin. "' stesses "it,.s also nelptul _f- oDI t Th le churches,societlos, iid -smof v- and partici-pate fully n -1 - q iborhood offers.'Base newspapcirs 7:_j - nsmiris infor-mat ion on a we'',i' a] spc i t programs,CommunlIty pros' -'s e., obase. Offi-cers and enis- gether inthese programs. -x._ ._) f~' 'icers andenlisted pe--so-.-e. ith the!same goa i i TA ':. ' ' !~T: in. Rankdisappears On ~ 'nrelatiorshins .- )rnneadmit be'rf' in r

enlisted) n-.This pr e 07r 2' VIC'

piersons .*,

sonnel "'quest ionr - :tcapabl.. a~u ..iofficer j .

gether for '

play for 4

same hotel

after the event. These circumstances allow for close rela-tionships to develop among officers and enlisted personnel.These relationships, although found acceptable in theathletic arena, become a cause for concern when they enterinto on-the-job officer-enlisted relationships.

The same is true of base activities such as religiousservices, base youth programs, and base community projects.Officers and enlisted both attend the same religious servicesof their particular denomination and participate together inchurch activities. Youth programs bring the families '-together, often resulting in involvement as coaches, assis-tant coaches, or just spectators. Moreover, as the childrenget closer, so do the parents. Joint participation in basesponsored community projects tend to foster close relation-ships. Events such as clothes drives for the needy, clean-up campaigns, and rennovation projects solicit the supportof the base community. These activities, although legitimateand very important to fostering community relationships,frequently bring about the kind of relationship between offi-cers and enlisted personnel that breeds undue familiarity orfraternization.

Another activity which has become very popular through-out the Air Force is "bosses night", or some variation ofthis, at NCO clubs. This activity allows NCOs to bring theirsupervisor, normally officers, to the NCO club for drinks,dinner, and other activities. This allows the NCOs and theirbosses to relax in the club atmosphere and discuss subjectsof mutual interest with the intent of getting to know eachother better. By removing the stuctured atmosphere of theoffice, NCOs are encouraged to speak with the superior, some-times on subjects not normally discussed. This might includeimprovements in the office, or perhaps the personal prefer-ences of the superior or other officers. Situations likethis place a great demand on an officer to maintain theproper decorum and insure that his/her status as an officerand supervisor always remains known to those with whom he/sheassociates. Although these activities are great moralebooster, the officer cannot allow them to result in a compro-mise of his/her authority.

Other factors affecting officer-enlisted associationsneed consideration, too. The Air Force has undergone manychanges in its enlisted force which impact the custom againstfraternization. For example, the majority of our enlistedpersonnel have high school degrees, their pay has increasedsignificantly, and regulations now allow many more personnelto reside off base. These changes have resulted in theopportunity for our officers and enlisted personnel to assoc-iate in the civilian community more easily.

With more enlisted personnel having high school degrees,the numbers who desire to attend off duty college classeshave increased. In addition, more are motivated and are

17

7 . .

interested in taking cn ~ ~ - ~ i Forco Jobskills. This increases !:he cu otyfor ofiesand en-listed personnel to attend ti.....'-e ourses or otheroutside related courses Ttc Ia y --esuscitation

*training or real estate sales ..C&d to joint studysessions, socializing af ter c1 nd : ()rsistentz contactafter duty. A great responsib] ty rl e rr the officerto insure that improper: rn rs~ -I- not develop in thesesituations.

The increase in pay for oui mi.' '1 ay personnel and theincrease in the number ot eois I c,_q.),-,i allowed toreside off base enhances rho or f, ofier anenlisted to associate in a -oc.- I om n'r. officers andenlisted now reside .-n the sa-e 1 lcl(' -c eas or apart-ment complexes, often-times as j, I n addition, theincreased numbers living off as"'"'-- rtitich greateropportunity for chance rneeti: at reS7caurdfltS, lounges, andentertainment events than sevc , -1 Fact thatofficers and enlisted me-e': 1_n ent ertainmentsettings increases the: )pc;>iu- i levelopment ofcloser relationships tht m arry over t othe job environment.

These practices ther. irJ, . > -he enlisted changein status brought on by in'rnand pay, impactthe custom against fraternizrr iir i n-:e t~o a large extentproliferated the opportun:i.% f Lhe Air Force canno longer pay "lip servi-C-" cof fraterniza-tion. Although we cannot Jc:( L -Ai uactices suchas religious activitieF-, V mmud , anid wherepeople live in the civiiilin >-scda firm policyestablished and made k-ncwr t,- c-. Krilisted per-sonnel. These prac ti(es w:. -.1..w need to ed-ucate our people ab()ut tl\c;- rriV~trnization inthe Air Force. 1f , ._rilic u'trate-niza-tion, they need todr- , n-h wr-Lttenand enforceable, ashe ,'e I' I~wl beconsidered acotai a ' now andin the future- :.h-i- Lm'... ~tpractions.

Chapter Four

SUMMARY

The existence of the custom in U.S. military service forofficers not to fraternize or associate with enlisted person-nel under circumstances which prejudice the good order anddiscipline can be traced throughout history. Since its es-tablishment as a separate service, the Air Force has failedto establish firm policy on this custom against fraterniza-tion and stand behind it. This has resulted in "an adverseinfluence on our ability to prosecute certain aspects ofcases involving fraternization" (18:1). The lack of an ac-cepted definition, written guidance, and a regulation severe-ly limit Air Force commanders' ability to enforce the custom.

This custom has a historical basis. The separationbetween officers and enlisted and the ban on associationbetween the two have their roots in the early 17th century.We have seen the custom influenced by the incorporation ofwomen into the forces, changes in officer corps, civiliancourt rulings on fraternization, and varied opinions of thesenior leadership throughout history. The Air Force contin-ued the custom from the Army after its separation and hasalways felt its commanders had sufficient latitude to enforcethe ban on fraternization and prosecute individuals who hadviolated the custom. However, the U.S. v. Johanns case hadsome very important implications for Air Force policy con-cerning the traditional value of military customs assoc-iated with these officer-enlisted relations (18:1). Thecourt in this case ruled that Air Force custom againstfraternization, if it ever existed, was so eroded by manage-ment, housing, personnel, club policies that UCMJ action wasnot available against an officer for the conduct charged(9:5). Although fraternization was actually the issue, theconduct charged in this case was recreational sex withenlisted females. This case caused the Air Force to revisitits current policies and procedures to determine if actionwas necessary. However, no major action, such as writtenguidance or a regulation, was taken.

Nevertheless Air Force institutional practices, thechanges in the financial and education status of our forces,and the lack of written guidance on the subject of fratern-ization provide an environment in the Air Force today thatfosters fraternization. The Air Force must determine now

19

7"' '" " "- -- -"'. " "" -'" " - - . " .' : -' '" ' ""

"" " ' " " "." ." " "" -" ". '' " '" "" "

'

whether to ignore the custo7! 7. . :~. I we elect topursue enforcement, then stepsz ow- e taken to includedefining the term and publishi-.,irton uidance and a regu-lation to enable commanders v ~>x'~~ i(_lators. The IJohanns case will constarbt lv "'," r~u_- heads" unlesssomething is done now. As .-,ne tioSenior NCO stated,"Let's get back to a reali Ar Force ard real military. Wehave lost something over +-he yas 2i)

o

.-

Chapter Five

RECOMMENDATIONS

DEFINITION

The time has come for the Air Force to step up andaddress the fraternization issue and take action to controlit. Throughout this staff analysis project we have discussedthe need for an accepted definition, for control of thoseinstitutional practices which foster fraternization, and forwritten policy and a regulation to provide guidance to com-manders and supervisors to deal with the problem. Thischapter will discuss these areas in an effort to eliminatesome of the "uncertainty that exists as to the proper para-meters of social contacts between officers and enlistedpersons" (16:2). Hopefully, by doing so, we will highlightand reaffirm the military custom against fraternization.First, we will develop a usable definition of fraternization.

Throughout our review of the history of fraternizationand our review of earlier court cases, we have been exposedto many definitions of the term. As we discussed earlier, nodefinition of the term exists within the Air Force diction-ary, the UCMJ, or any Air Force publication. In fact, inmost cases, fraternization is described, not defined. Butuntil we establish an acceptable definition of the term, wecannot expect to have established policy and uniform enforce-ment of this custom against fraternization.

Throughout the research, many descriptions of fratern-ization emerged but not many actual definitions. Lt Col JohnE. Admire in his article on "Leadership and Fraternization"defines the term as a relationship based upon real or per-ceived common interests or purposes among those who associatein a fraternal way. In an Army newspaper, fraternization wasdefined as social relationships between soldiers of unequalrank (7:2). Most other definitions specify the officer-en-listed relationship, not the relationships between male-female or individuals of different rank in the same corps.Three other definitions include: (1) personal relationshipsbetween officers and enlisted personnel; (2) undue familiar-ity between officers and enlisted men; and (3) social contactbetween officers and enlisted men. These definitions areextremely general in nature and leave much to the commander

21

. . . , .. . . . - , , . . . . . - , . . . - . - - . " - , . . - . - . . - - , - . , - - ,- . , ,- - - .

to determine. , i . : z';. V good orderand discipline theatenec. '., . .t ma41le-female relation-ships in the military? T)- .. : 'A hi7 type causeproblems in the I'st,

How can we define f : Throughout historythere has been this long i K: ju:,om against fraterniza-tion. "Custom can help dc' reationships betweenofficers and enlisted pc_:- - '-:159).However, customs differ am.O For example,at one time th. Navy al -e ., hi e Air Force nowallows the use ii'br i , -Y lies in es-tablishing a -ifiii.tion I...ll services.Webster's dicts .- defi'. . ri .s "to associateor mingle as boto."ei-s oL s'o ms. We can expandupon this to develop a rnc. )f fraternization basedupon military terms. FraoI P-1, be detined as asocial relationship, "based1 -.- . perceived commoninterests or purooses" .-,: between two mili-tary members of iff, ". it i: merital to goodorder and discipline. -h . '. ,.:: ]d include officer-officer, officer-enlisted,. stec1, and male-femalerelationships, and also wi .. .y eception forpersons not in the chain o e superior.

The lack of an acce-t:. >. f fraternizationmakes the enforcement of c-he c<t- -"xtremely difficult.Numerous definitions have ,: oughout history, butnone have adequately .iddres- ... e sb:Pct. Although theterm can be easily descr..beo , ,] difficulty lies indefining it to the commande's r.J, sops. Therefore, we needa definition, and ie hopefut : .piesented a valid anduseful one above. Now th . n - ition, we canbegin to off-,-i z_ ..I.

Colonel i in Fli, T ):ticle on "Fraterniza-tion" offers i- .]o.: . mt the enforcement of

the custom f I t- ' ,:!10 '-Stom is notsupported by . i ,. es, what would be

the basis ., :cept the pcsisonalpreference o C Thc 'IOut; navechastised us; - I -,;,, duc to f-he insti-tutional p _,: n .,.,. • ,"e lack~~of written oc- ' . Ii,". ,nae the harder

the problen r, - . . . . if,'-ent up tocommanders;;:. ',, .. " cni sh-ment for vi-' . , .. .. , to ust%ignore the " ' .'.'t hingto solve h,'r j4

%I-

iV --'- ". ----.'. . "9 " - " " ' '". .. .".. ... " . . . " " ' "" " " " '" " " " " " .. .U

* h. .--

.V

Ignoring the custom within the Air Force is not a legit-imate avenue for solving the problem. The impact on disci-pline in the Air Force makes this unrealistic. If we wentthis way, we would return to the recommendations offered bythe Doolittle commission after World War II, which basicallydeleted the salutes off duty and the terms "officer" and"enlisted", and sought to allow military personnel to do andassociate as they pleased on off duty time. Officers and en-listed would be free, in this case, to associate socially offduty with whom they desired, leading possibly to undue famil-iarity and intense personal relationships. Such conditionswould place greater demands on commanders and supervisors inenforcing discipline within the unit. Being realistic, itwould be extremely hard to order an individual with whoma close relationship had developed to do an unpleasant ordangerous task. As we discussed earlier, the foundation ofthe military organization is discipline, and this lesseningof discipline would be "viewed by many as another step in thelong march toward being just another amorphous governmentagency which cannot fulfill its reason for existence" (5:115). Ignoring the custom does not solve the problem, butonly exacerbates it.

If the Air Force chooses not to ignore the problem, thenit must meet this custom "head-on" and act to enforce it. Todo this, a written policy must be established, a regulationmust be published and distributed, and control over thoseinstitutional practices which foster fraternization must beestablished. This will require the commitment on the part ofall levels of command from the Chief of Staff downward.

The first step entails establishing written policy andpublishing it. This can be in the form of policy lettersfrom the Chief of Staff or Major Command commanders. Thiswritten policy will establish the basis upon which commanderscan inform personnel of the Air Force concern and makedecisions on the proper enforcement of the custom. Thesepolicy letters should become a part of the curriculum at thevarious professional military education courses for both of-ficers and enlisted, officer training school, basic militarytraining, the Air Force Academy, and the Reserve OfficerTraining Corps programs at universities. In this manner, allAir Force personnel will know the Air Force position on theissue and will be well aware that they face disciplinaryaction should they violate the custom. Indiviuals tend toreact to written guidance much better than guidance spreadby word of mouth.

Written guidance should also be in the form of an AirForce regulation. Military personnel are required to complywith the intent stated in regulations, and violations ofregulations constitute grounds for corrective or disciplinaryaction. The regulation should spell out the definition offraternization, the custom against fraternization, the need

23

* . . * . .

for discipline, and ~h~&..~ofthe ban against fraternizaz.:, -t-_v, military per-sonnel would know whethe r t ,-, :--r were violatingthe regulation, and cornma-.:.d-! o c lat itude tocorrect them. A proposed. 'Ic i raine in theappendix. This regulation w.aF aincdo'cctly from AirTraining Command Requiatici- 10-4 Requl~tion 600-20.It clearly defines the>'......... r delineatesthose actions on the part enli'icrsted personnelwhich violate the 7ustom auain. ' ,i-''a--ion. A writtenregulation will enhance cur ab'2 0-trL3 t-his issuewithin the Air Forcec today.

The written pol;c~y dicre(-: si- e-:ulishment of aregulation governirg hetr!.ai ~I[nlp eliminate someof the institutional:z practices f~h oster fraternization.We must identify those pr-ties in i u policies whichreduce the potential for developr,-,i1n cf close relationships.Earlier, we had discussed thce u mc" _in h-us-Lnq pcliciesand some off duty practice-; V "''r h pportunitiesfor development of closer .-jhi(-''' 'llh could becarried over to the job., i.,m- - -t!ese practicesand discuss some possible -o 1u,_ 10 D

First, make the opc'!n-s c5n po-licies moreexplicit and specific to '' V-) c.:obiems mentionedearlier. one initiative t'-jat ccrnld sclve the open messproblem and a part of the lhonisil--, jr'onem would require oneof the partners in an of e l'lli(- marire7:e to separate.The Air Force, up to now, a.)%;- m '" i.embel's to remain onactive duty, requiring dJ'L( t '.>ions.- In open messes,the partners in an ofi~r-:aeshould not beallowed to use the other'- ~1 ji- a': ssent-ialeating facility or rhc -c........~r5VIb Thoseshould be the Dri1'; ~s,? _q i - i a trc nd a clIubwhich he/she is noc> o(r .L ~ ,h olstill retain "v"e -:' ;*2rspectiveclub. In the housr !11 1.. ' o)f fJccrenlisted marriag?,'f , , U S i. -I ~-u~,:under any -icj-av : .. . . .n(13 formilitary members m t na te r swould be authoriz#- :;41 rr~r (BAQ)when residing off : -i acis ingwho are separ~ j tovacate off'Lice-r 1-, -_I. Thesame pr ec dur- i. .,:Ir~ I Ssioned. Th-................... - force,would go a "-q . ... '-

officer-enli_;rr ' ld-be incorpo :i-.-c :

* ~~separation,.>..- . .. .

SecondcLv,* ~~al prac-ticer > --. .

controlled. Although legislation impeding military personnelfrom associating at such places as religious services,community events, athletic events, residential areas, orcollege classes, is not possible, firm written policies cancertainly influence the behavior of individuals coming incontact at these events. For example, the practice ofcalling personnel participating in athletic events by theirfirst name, or listing individuals without rank in the sportssection of the base newspaper needs change. Individuals mustaddress their superiors by their appropriate grade atathletic events. Likewise, base newspapers must be requiredto print rank along with the names. This author has partici-pated in athletic events with superior officers but has neverfound calling them by their rank to be a detriment to theoverall game. This policy would not damage the intent ofintramural sports, or interservice athletic events. It wouldonly serve to eliminate the potential for development ofclose relationships which could carry over to the dutysection.

Finally, activities at the clubs such as "bosses night"should be discouraged. Officers should only attend officialfunctions at enlisted clubs, such as commander's calls ordining ins/outs. They should not attend purely social func-tions which may unintentionally lead to undue familiaritybetween the officers and enlisted personnel. These have thepotential to lead to associations which may influence thework environment.

Firmly written and published fraternization policieswhich all military personnel are required to obey, not onlyinfluences their actions on base, but also their actions offbase. Most individuals recognize and accept that theirresponsibilities as officers and NCOs or airmen do not endat the base gate. If we can inspire our personnel to followthese policies while on base, they should take them intotheir homes and social life off base. If not, and the Com-mander becomes aware of violations, he/she should takeaction. We currently take action against individuals foroffenses off base such as driving while intoxicated, theft,and drug involvement. We have firm regulations governingthese violations, our personnel know it, and we enforce it.we can do the same for fraternization.

The elimination or control of these institutional prac-tices must occur if we are to control the fraternizationproblem in the Air Force today. Regulatory policies in-volving open messes and housing, and nonregulatory practicesinvolving athletics, community projects, and off base socialcontacts, foster fraternization and pose a problem for res-olution. We need to formulate written guidance in the formof policy letters to the commanders and a regulation, anddistribute them to the field. Commanders need this guidancenow so that they have a basis upon which to establish actionto control fraternization and discipline violators.

25

I.Holm, Jeanrffl . ':.2 :~

Press

2. aii 2, T A;c Iv c~ jj2 . o

3.1 sr

4. Adni r-z .: Q~i1 Jo , , 2j(,j~ t LcOH

FlIat t 01 Cr . .

6. Hoj ,..

'. We st 2 V . . . .

CONTINUEDUnpublished Materials

10. Arnemann, Frank B., Major, USAF. "Straight Talk AboutOfficer-Enlisted Fraternization." Research studyprepared at the Air Command and Staff College, AirUniversity, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1984.

11. ATC Commander's Conference. Minutes of conference,24-25 May 1982.

12. Canter, Carl W., Lt Col, USAF. "Fraternization: APerceptual Analysis." Research study prepared atthe Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AirForce Base, Alabama, 1984.

13. Criminal Law Division, TJAGSA. "Criminal Law, Crimesand Defense." Research product prepared at TheJudge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army,Charlottesville, Virginia, January 1983.

14. Davis, Bennie L., General, USAF. "Fraternization."Speech given at the USAF Academy, Colorado Springs,Colorado, 12 April 1982.

Other Sources

15. U.S. Department of the Air Force: United States AirForce (JAC). "Air Force Standards," letter.Washington, DC, 22 April 1983.

16. U.S. Department of the Air Force: United States AirForce (JACM). "Fraternization," letter.Washington, DC, 25 July 1985.

17. U.S. Department of the Air Force: United States AirForce (MP). "Fraternization and Professional Rela-tionships," letter. Washington, DC,10 September 1985.

18. U.S. Department of the Air Force: United States AirForce (MPX). "Fraternization and Professional Rela-tionships," letter. Washington, DC,3 September 1985.

27-".-

., . . o . . .5'. .. . . . . . ,,.. ,.. °

4 a1 . f r-i

TT h

-3L:-. s-

0 YrN

11f 9,

'S.

_______ CONTINUED

Milton, Gen (Ret) T.R. "Discipline Means Survival." AirForce Times, Times Magazine Supplement, April 1981,p. 84.

Official Documents

Headquarters Air Training Command. ATC Regulation 30-4:Personnel, Professional Conduct and Relationships.Randolph AFB, TX: HQ ATC/DPAT, 30 August 1984.

Headquarters Department of the Army. AR 600-20: ArmyCommand Policy and Procedures. Washington, DC:MILPERCEN, 15 October 1980.

Headquarters US Air Force. AFP 35-49: Military Personnel,Air Force Leadership. Washington, DC: HQ USAF/MPXHL,1 September 1985.

Headquarters US Air Force. AFR 30-1: Personnel, Air ForceStandards. Washington, DC: HQ USAF/MPCYCP, 4 May 1983.

Headquarters US Air Force. AFR 36-20: Officer Personnel,Officer Assignments. Washington, DC: HQ AFMPC/MPCRPP,25 October 1985.

Headquarters US Air Force. AFR 90-1: Housing, Assignment ofFamily Housing. Washington, DC: HQ USAF/PREN,19 December 1977.

Headquarters US Air Force. AFR 215-11: Morale, Welfare, andRecreation, Air Force Open Mess Program. Washington, DC:HQ AFMPC/MPCSM, 20 June 1985.

Unpublished Materials

U.S. Department of the Air Force: United States Air Force(MPXHL). "USAF Fraternization Policy," talking paper.Washington, DC, 9 September 1985.

29

7:.- ," V

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

,( ) .?

U , , Neb(askI. C )

U.S. Dep,trocn :J ::/,., .,j c~' F- ce

U R 7 )rn . ... 0 . . .... ro..

U q e avt~fl , ,1.... F,,rce.-

r I°

S.71 A

• " " ... . ... " " ' " ' " " " . .. ""' ":-: -:'::":::: :ii-a.~

APPENDIX __

31

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR F'P( - 7 ',C.ATION 35-XX

Headquarters US Air Fot,,Washington DC 20330

This reguletijon appitt ' ia UnitedStates Alir Forc eS ;Crt Guard

(ANG) memb-!is ,and il -t1 instaila-tions while in the c.uz -i ,:.r except Depart-ment of De 'nse p/ sonnc1 whoviolate 1), sccii p a 2 ,-of thisregulati en zrlfl. b e T:cc,, ' -e T 1%f Of il-tary Jus~i c. -

1. Policy. A long stand3i c;e within themilitary whi.Jch prohibits -< .jir -nrsonnel fromengaging in sociLal assocjhati L-. 1- off Wuty whichcan be detrimental cc good ) clL.' 74-Ivlifl'. The termwhich refers to tnis saci-a! L1:e-Itionship isfraternization. P ro()f e ss] r p, are essentialtoday in fulfilling the r~v The conduct ofAir Fo rce military cc ria C'n ir-;V, mus tuphold tJl-Ase profess -ioa a ate mis it:_success. Offi']cet san iv, - e,-'siirr thattheir p.-erconai rellat~c >1ac ,_csiperviseor arc- ji pOitO 7! - l'± s offavoriti.si-, precfezeit& )i-i. - 10the ap'-a u

2. PJI> r) 7, inc (grouptrainiri. dcvel i- L: 12 properconduct. ur0 -I 1

proper_., -<.en tc t heextreme " zpenlisted p )c 0

ships, -11)'r

t olllow i nga . cu or'- 1 I e al

orp-ri-

ta-V.*o*.--a*-~-*~'-*~~* ~ -.. J

b

P,

between two military members of different rank which is det-rimental to good order and discipline. In fraternizing, anofficer relinquishes his officer status and meets the enlist-ed person, male or female, on equal status.

b. Officer. A commissioned officer. rc. Enlisted. A military member who does not hold rank

either by commission or warrant; personnel in the grade of rairman basic thru chief master sergeant.d. Commander. An officer who occupies a position of com-

mand; anyone who commands and leads.e. On duty. The hours a person is actually at work as

required by assignment.f. Off duty. Pertaining to the period of time away from

duty.

4. Prohibitions. Fraternization will not be condonedbetween officers and enlisted members within the Air Force.The prohibitions specifically include but are not limited tothe following:a. Officers. Except when authorized by their commander,

no officer will directly, indirectly, personally, or throughother persons:

(1) Establish a common household, i.e. share anapartment, house, or other dwelling, with an enlisted person.

(2) Establish a business partnership with an enlistedperson.

(3) Act as agent or intermediary in any gift, finan-cial, or barter transactions between an enlisted person andany other person, corporation, firm, or agency.

(4) Attempt to develop a personal relationship:(a) Socially date an enlisted person.(b) Use rank or position, threats, pressure, or

promise of return favors or favorable treatment in an attemptto gain sexual favors from an enlisted person.

(c) Make sexual advances toward, seek, or acceptadvances from enlisted persons.

b. Enlisted. Except when authorized by their commander,no enlisted person will directly, indirectly, personally, orthrough other persons:

(1) Establish a common household, i.e. share an apart-ment, house, or other dwelling, with an officer.

(2) Establish a business partnership with an officer.(3) Act as agent or intermediary in any gift, finan-

cial, or barter transactions between an officer and any otherperson, corporation, firm, or agency.

(4) Attempt to develop a personal relationship:(a) Socially date an officer.(b) Use rank or position, threats, pressure, or

promise of return favors or favorable treatment in an attemptto gain sexual favors from an officer.

33I

:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

.- K-7-77:7

CtC!- r! acceptadvances from officers.

S. Notification. C"mran(drwa. All personnel are infc,.- rc ,quirements of

this regulation.b. All personnel are v r : -n the require-

ments of this reguiatio i.c. A copy of nhisrcu-<x on all unit

bulletin boards.

P.',

R

bU

"% .- ',.' , -_' ' ,' -' '".-".; " ' .'-.t " ' ' ,.', " | N = = l I d u n n u

4- IF - .

L

let