Is dismissal from service because of fraternization the right thing to do?

Fraternization of officers with enlisted personnel such as senior personnel with their juniors (the usual description of 'fraternization' in a military context) describes associations which are implied to be irregular, unprofessional, improper or imprudent in ways that negatively affect the members and goals of the armed forces. Within armed forces, officers and members of enlisted ranks are typically prohibited from personally associating outside of their professional duties and orders. Excessively familiar relationships between officers of different ranks may also be considered fraternization, especially when between officers in the same chain of command. The reasons for anti-fraternization policies within modern militaries often include the maintenance of discipline and chain of command.

Perhaps most famously, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, chief commander of the Allied forces in Europe in the Second World War and future president of the United States, carried on a romantic relationship with his secretary, Kay Summersby, throughout the war. Of course he wasn’t relieved of his duties because he was the best man to lead the Allied forces against Germany and Italy.

In the United States military, fraternization is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It falls under a subparagraph of Article 134, and is defined by the Manual for Courts-martial (MCM). According to the MCM, the "elements of proof" for the offense of fraternization are:

(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;
(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;
(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);
(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused's service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The MCM goes on to offer further explanation of the offense: The gist of this offense is a violation of the custom of the armed forces against fraternization. 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.

Regulations, directives, and orders may also govern conduct between 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 92.

Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems using the UCMJ/MCM as a basis of charges. First and foremost, the UCMJ/MCM only makes fraternization a crime for commissioned and warrant officers. Under the provisions of article 134, 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."

Additionally, the explanation of what is and is not allowed is not specifically spelled out in the MCM/UCMJ.

In July 1998, 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. 3, 1999. All of the new policies have been implemented in the respective service regulations. Now, while each of the services still has 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.

Canada has similar restrictions with respect to fraternization although the wording is different. Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAODs) states;

Fraternization can have detrimental effects on unit operation effectiveness due to potential threats to the security, morale, cohesion and discipline of a unit. Task force commanders shall issue orders and guidance on fraternization appropriate to the situation in their area of operations.

Administrative action shall be taken to separate Canadian Forces (CF) members who are involved in an adverse personal relationship.

If an adverse personal relationship cannot be changed within the applicable unit/sub-unit for the CF members in a supervisor/subordinate relationship, the CF members shall be separated by attached posting, posting, change in work assignments or other action.

Such a separation is not punitive in nature, nor shall there be a negative stigma or career implication towards the CF members.

CF members who are known to be, or have declared themselves to be involved, in a personal relationship shall normally not be posted to the same unit. If the unit is of sufficient size that posting the CF members involved is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the security, cohesion, discipline or morale of the unit, they may be posted to same unit, but not the same sub-unit.

CF members who form a personal relationship shall normally complete current postings, provided the work relationship does not have a negative effect on the security, cohesion, discipline or morale of the unit.

According to the Canadian armed forces Instructor Standardization Training manual, fraternization means any relationship between a CF member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CF members are deployed.

Personal relationship means an emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two CF members, or a CF member and a DND employee or contractor, or member of an allied force.

The directive on Personal Relations and Fraternization says that the Canadian Forces are committed to respecting the inherent right of CF members to form personal relationships of their choosing. However, so long as the relationship doesn’t involve a commanding officer and a subordinate and is reported through the chain of command, most couples are allowed to proceed with their relationship.

Should the relationship interfere with the “security, cohesion, discipline and morale” of a given military unit, a commanding officer can reassign one or both people to new postings. That is what happened to Brig.-Gen. Ménard and Master-Corporal Langlois who were both serving in Afghanistan.

First of all, they were both shipped out of Afghanistan and returned to Canada. This meant that Menard was removed as Task Force Commander in charge of the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan and given a desk job in Canada. Menard had been named to lead a critical NATO campaign against the Taliban in Kandahar when the allegations surfaced.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), which is the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, has concluded its investigation relating to allegations of inappropriate conduct and has laid charges against Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard and Master-Corporal Bianka Langlois.
Brig.-Gen. Ménard was charged with:

• two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act (NDA), related to alleged inappropriate conduct as outlined in the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives;

• one count of obstructing justice contrary to section 130 of the NDA, pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and

• one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the NDA, laid in the alternative to the obstructing justice charge.

A conviction for violating good order and discipline carries a maximum punishment of “dismissal with disgrace” from the Canadian Forces, Poulin said. The obstruction charge carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
Master-Corporal Langlois was charged with:

• one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act, related to alleged inappropriate conduct as outlined in the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives.

The charges were laid following allegations made in May 2010 while Brig.-Gen. Ménard was the Task Force Commander in Afghanistan.

What makes the relationship between these two really odious is that they are both married. In fact, Menard’s wife serves in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Langlois has served with the Canadian Forces for eight years and was most recently working as a resource management clerk in the headquarters of the joint task force in Afghanistan. Menard isn’t the only senior officer who has been removed from his posting because of fraternization with someone of a lower position.

For the second time in six weeks, a senior Canadian military officer has been relieved of command and his foreign tour has been cut short amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship. Colonel Bernard Ouellette, the senior ranking officer of 10 Canadians serving the United Nations mission in Haiti, has been removed from his position and is the subject of a probe by military investigators. The army colonel was widely praised earlier this year for helping co-ordinate relief efforts after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti in January. He is also chief of staff to the multinational U.N. mission.

His ouster came just a month and a half after Canadian Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard was relieved of command for troops in southern Afghanistan over allegations he was fraternizing with a fellow soldier in a war zone. However Ouellette’s ouster wasn’t soley because of his relationship with a civilian. He was removed because some members of his team in Haiti had complained about a breakdown of morale in the 10-Canadian military mission that he stewarded.

Canadian soldiers are forbidden from engaging in sexual relations during their tour in Haiti, just as they are in Afghanistan. The circumstances of the alleged relationship were different in Haiti. Col. Ouellette is not accused of inappropriate liaison with a Canadian soldier under his command or even a Canadian, but a relationship with a civilian United Nations staffer who is a foreigner to Haiti.

The real issue is whether or not a senior officer should be dismissed from the armed forces if he fraternizes with someone who is a subordinate who is directly responsible to him. For example, should a general be dismissed if he fraternizes with a colonel who is a member of the opposite sex?

Let me say right from the start that I think the senior officer in such a relationship should be dismissed from the armed services or alternatively, be given the opportunity to resign his commission.

No subordinate should ever be placed in a position of having to be a sexual partner to his or her boss. If that happened in a civilian corporation, the senior person would be fired. Such an intimate relationship would put the business part of the relationship at risk.

Suppose the senior officer who has had a torrid sexual encounter with a subordinate gives an order the subordinate doesn’t like. Would the subordinate then refuse to follow the order on the threat that if he or she has to obey the order, there will be no more sex between them? It would place the senior officer is a very awkward position.

Imagine if you will, a sergeant refusing to send a corporal on a dangerous assignment because he or she fears that the corporal he or she has had sex with may be killed.

Examples must be given that shows the men and women who serve in our armed forces that fraternization that involves sexual conduct between those who are superior to others in rank and position cannot be tolerated. I do not offer any sympathy to those of inferior ranks who submit to the sexual desires of those superior to them in rank because they have the right to refuse the overtures of those superior to them in rank and instead, they choose to participate in the sexual encounter with someone superior to them. They too should be dismissed from the armed services. They too should be set as an example.

This does not mean that personnel from various ranks can mingle and be friendly with one another. It simply means that the relationship should go no further.