Fraternization, dating, and sex in your unit: How close is too close?

As many Military Service Members know, relationships with your teammates are a key measure of performance. Close relationships defined by loyalty and shared values (often called “cohesion”) help teams communicate, stay motivated, and perform well.

But relationships that are “too close”—including any that are prioritized over the mission—can hurt morale and overall performance. Any relationship that risks readiness or safety can be a problem. While “too close” relationships can occur anywhere, you might be at even greater risk if you're deployed, especially if you’re living in close quarters or isolated areas.

So how close is too close? The answer might depend on your branch’s policy. Take a look at some different scenarios that help explore the issue.

Fraternization

As it’s described in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 134 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), “fraternization” is a relationship that either compromises the chain of command, results in favoritism, reduces impartiality or undermines order and morale. Typically, it applies to unprofessional relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, but it can extend beyond rank too.

Fraternization is often considered in the context of romantic relationships across the officer-enlisted spread, but the policy includes much more than that. Fraternization can apply to close friendships, business relationships, or even certain financial exchanges between Military Service Members of different ranks, regardless of gender.

Since the context of the relationship is so important, it can be hard to know sometimes if fraternization is occurring. It’s important to remember fraternization isn’t about whether there’s a personal relationship between 2 people or between an officer and someone who’s enlisted. It’s ultimately about maintaining order and whether or not your relationship disrupts the standards for military functioning.

Dating

Even if you’re the same rank and not violating DoD regulations, romantic relationships with fellow Military Service Members can be tricky. Working with someone you’re romantically involved with can distract you from your duties. You could end up spending less time developing your relationships with other teammates as you focus on your love life, which can hurt team unity. Your relationship also can negatively affect the morale of those around you, especially those who are likely separated from their loved ones during deployment. And there’s always a risk that your relationship might end on bad terms, which could impact your ability to effectively work together afterwards.

Sexual relationships

Another consideration is the effect of having a sexual relationship with someone in your unit or even at your installation. While consensual sex in theater isn’t prohibited, it can lead to potentially negative effects on readiness or morale. Extramarital sexual conduct and sexual misconduct are all potentially serious offenses outlined in Article 134 of the MCM as well. In some cases, these types of relationships among unit members have the potential to “sexualize” the work environment, making it difficult to stay mission-focused.

It’s also important to consider the effect of pregnancy on readiness. The rate of unintended pregnancy among active-duty women is almost 50% greater than their civilian counterparts. And once a woman becomes pregnant, she must be evacuated from theater immediately and remain non-deployed for the rest of her pregnancy plus a minimum of 6 months after pregnancy ends. A teammate’s absence can affect unit readiness and morale.

Bottom line

A close bond with your unit members can build cohesion, make your team stronger, and optimize your performance. It’s natural that people working together closely might develop personal or even romantic connections. But if a connection (or its consequence) starts to affect order and readiness, you might need to reevaluate the relationship.

Learn more about the different branch policies:


CHAMP wants to know:

Did this information help change your opinion or perspective?

References

Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2007). The nature and consequences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19(1), 9–25. doi:10.1080/08995600701323277

Castro, C. A., Kintzle, S., Schuyler, A. C., Lucas, C. L., & Warner, C. H. (2015). Sexual assault in the military. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17(7). doi:10.1007/s11920-015-0596-7

Cox III, W. T. (2007). Consensual sex crimes in the armed forces: A primer for the uninformed. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14(2), 791–813. Retrieved 29 September 2020 from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djglp/vol14/iss2/3

Harrell, M. C., & Miller, L. L. (1997). New opportunities for military women: Effects upon readiness, cohesion, and morale. Retrieved 29 September 2020 from Santa Monica, CA: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA332893.pdf

Manual for Courts-Martial, 2019. Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. Retrieved 29 September 2020 from https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610

Rabie, N. Z., & Magann, E. F. (2013). Unintended pregnancies among US active-duty women. Women's Health, 9(3), 229–231. doi:10.2217/whe.13.21

Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T. (2009). Can high group cohesion be harmful? Small Group Research, 40(4), 421–435. doi:10.1177/1046496409334359

Wise, S. (2014). Can a team have too much cohesion? The dark side to network density. European Management Journal, 32(5), 703–711. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.005

Wong, L., Kolditz, T. A., Millen, R. A., & Potter, T. M. (2003). Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq War. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Retrieved 29 Septemner 2020 from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416596.pdf