Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

What is Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization?

Military case law suggests that wrongful fraternization is more easily described than defined. Other criminal offenses were usually involved when officers were tried for this offense. Whatever the nature of the relationship, each case was decided on its own merits, with a searching examination of the surrounding circumstances rather than focusing on the act itself.

The legal test for describing or defining fraternization is found in United States v. Free, 14 C.M.R. 466 (N.B.R. 1953): “Because of the many situations which might arise, it would be a practical impossibility to lay down a measuring rod of particularities to determine in advance what acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline and what are not. As we have said, the surrounding circumstances have more to do with making the act prejudicial than the act itself in many cases.

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization – Maximum Punishments

Offenses committed from 1 Jan 2019 to 27 Dec 2023: DD, BCD, Dismissal, TF, 2 years.
Offenses committed after 27 Dec 2023: Category 1 Offense – Confinement from 0-12 months, DD, BCD, Dismissal, TF,

Are there defenses that can be used to challenge accusations of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization?

Defenses Against Accusations of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the Military

Fraternization in the military is considered any improper relationship between personnel of different ranks. These relationships can jeopardize the military’s core values, particularly integrity and impartiality. Having said that, when accusations of fraternization arise, several defenses can be employed to counter these charges effectively.

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization: Understanding the Nature of the Relationship

The first legal defense is clarifying the nature of the relationship. If the relationship accused of being inappropriate is purely professional or occurred during sanctioned group activities intended for team-building, this can be used as a strong defense. For instance, attending a sporting event or a social activity as part of a larger group is part of team bonding and not a personal or exclusive interaction, which should not be classified as fraternization.

Proving the Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization Accusation is False

Another defense involves challenging the validity of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization allegations. This could include proving that the accusations are based on misinformation or misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship. If officers prove that no personal gains or favoritism resulted from the relationship, they can challenge the basis of the fraternization claim.

Examples of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization:

Romantic Relationship: An officer dating an enlisted member within the same unit creates potential conflicts of interest.
Socializing Outside of Work: Frequent social gatherings between senior officers and junior enlisted members that blur professional boundaries.
Favoritism: A senior enlisted member gives preferential treatment to a junior enlisted member due to a personal friendship.
Business Ventures: A senior officer and a junior enlisted member start a private business together, violating regulations against personal financial dealings.
Living Arrangements: An officer and an enlisted member cohabited off-base, creating favoritism perceptions.
Shared Accommodations During Deployment: An officer and enlisted member share personal accommodations during deployments, undermining the chain of command.
Social Media Interactions: An officer and an enlisted member exchanging inappropriate personal messages or photos on social media.
Gift-giving: A senior officer giving expensive gifts to a junior enlisted member, raising questions about impartiality.
Unprofessional Correspondence: Inappropriate personal emails or texts between officers and enlisted members that suggest a closer relationship than appropriate.
Frequent One-on-One Meetings: A senior officer and a junior enlisted member meet privately, causing speculation of an inappropriate relationship.
Public Displays of Affection: Physical displays of affection between a senior officer and a junior enlisted member undermining respect for rank.
Joint Travel: An officer and an enlisted member frequently travel together unofficially.
Covering for Each Other: An officer and an enlisted member covering up each other’s mistakes or misconduct.
Unwarranted Career Assistance: A senior officer providing undue career advancement opportunities to a junior enlisted member due to a personal relationship.
Financial Transactions: An officer lending money to an enlisted member, creating potential financial dependency.
Attending Events Together: An officer and an enlisted member attend social events together off-duty, causing perceptions of favoritism.
Sharing Personal Information: Sharing highly personal or sensitive information between a senior officer and a junior enlisted member.
Inappropriate Joking: Engaging in unprofessional and overly familiar joking or banter between ranks.
Frequent Off-Duty Contact: Regular off-duty interactions between officers and enlisted members that exceed professional boundaries.
Unauthorized Co-Training: Conduct joint training or mentoring sessions that foster overly familiar relationships.
Covering Absences: A senior member excusing the unauthorized absences of a junior member due to a personal relationship.
Participation in Inappropriate Activities: Engaging in recreational activities such as gambling or drinking together off-duty in a way that compromises professional respect.
Shared Investments: Entering into shared investments or financial arrangements with subordinates.
Ignoring Policy Violations: Overlooking policy violations committed by a subordinate due to a personal relationship.
Professional Boundaries: Regularly engaging in behaviors that violate professional boundaries and create perceptions of an inappropriate relationship.

These examples of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization highlight behaviors that can blur the lines of professional conduct and create perceptions of bias, favoritism, or lack of impartiality, undermining the integrity and discipline of the military hierarchy.

Evidence of Marriage as a Defense to Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

In cases where the relationship involves a legitimate, legal bond such as marriage, this can act as a robust defense. If an accused can demonstrate that any relationship with a subordinate was within the bounds of marriage, this is typically considered an exemption to fraternization policies, assuming it does not adversely affect discipline or the chain of command.

Special Exceptions to Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Additionally, the military recognizes exceptions that could serve as defenses to Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization. For example, if two enlisted members were married before one was commissioned or relationships that exist due to civilian professional interactions outside the military context. However, these are nuanced exceptions and could potentially require careful navigation to ensure that there is no perceived impact on military discipline or effectiveness.

Sure! Here are seven sample fake cases involving Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization with U.S. military service members at various military bases, including some details, possible repercussions, and career impacts:

Examples of fictional cases involving Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization with U.S. military service members

(Note: These names and details are fake. They are to show possible offenses, repercussions, and career impact of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization):

Case 1: Fort Cavazos, Texas Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Captain Emily Foster was found guilty of fraternization for engaging in a romantic relationship with a Staff Sergeant in her unit. A fellow officer who reported the behavior discovered their relationship when they were seen together off-duty.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Captain Foster faced a non-judicial punishment, resulting in a formal reprimand and losing her next promotion opportunity. The incident damaged her professional reputation and strained relationships within her unit. However, her dedication to duty and subsequent exemplary behavior helped her regain trust and continue her career, albeit with slower advancement.

Case 2: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Lieutenant Commander John Smith was caught fraternizing with an enlisted sailor from his command. They were seen dining together at a local restaurant multiple times, raising suspicion among their peers.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Smith was court-martialed and received a formal reprimand. The stress and scrutiny had a significant negative impact on his career, limiting his future leadership opportunities. As a result, his personal relationship with the sailor ended.

Case 3: Camp Pendleton, California Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Sergeant First Class Robert Davis had a close friendship with a junior enlisted female soldier in his unit. They were frequently seen socializing off-duty, leading to rumors and an investigation.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Davis received a non-judicial punishment, resulting in a formal reprimand and 30 days of extra duty. The investigation revealed no romantic involvement, but the perception of favoritism affected unit morale. Davis learned from the experience, focusing on professional boundaries and successfully continuing his career.

Case 4: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Major Lisa Collins was found to be in a romantic relationship with a junior officer in her command. They kept the relationship discreet, but it was discovered during a routine social media audit.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Collins faced a formal reprimand and temporarily suspended her command. Her potential for promotion was negatively impacted, and she was reassigned to a different unit. Despite the setback, Collins took responsibility for her actions and worked diligently to rebuild her career.

Case 5: Fort Liberty, North Carolina Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Staff Sergeant Michael Johnson was caught fraternizing with a Private First Class in his platoon. Their relationship was discovered when the Private disclosed it to a counselor during a session.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Johnson was court-martialed and received a reduction in rank to Sergeant, along with a formal reprimand. His chances for future promotion were significantly hindered, and his leadership abilities were questioned. Johnson decided to retire early due to the impact on his career.

Case 6: Yokota Air Base, Japan Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Technical Sergeant Amanda Lee was seen frequently socializing off-duty with an Airman First Class in her squadron. They were observed attending local events together, prompting an investigation.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Lee received a non-judicial punishment, resulting in a formal reprimand and 30 days of restriction to base. The fraternization incident affected her standing within the squadron. Still, she focused on regaining the trust of her peers and superiors, ultimately continuing her career with a heightened awareness of professional boundaries.

Case 7: Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Case Details: Gunnery Sergeant David Mitchell developed a close friendship with a Corporal under his supervision. They often participated in off-duty recreational activities, raising concerns among other Marines.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Mitchell was given a formal counseling statement and a written reprimand. While the investigation found no romantic involvement, the perception of favoritism required a reassignment to a different unit. Mitchell took the opportunity to mentor other Marines on the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, turning the experience into a learning moment for himself and his peers.

These cases illustrate the range of consequences for fraternization under Article 134 UCMJ, from formal reprimands to career-altering punishments. They highlight the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and how such violations can impact unit cohesion and individual careers.

Hiring a Military Defense Lawyer for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization Allegations

The accused must provide clear, convincing evidence and arguments to defend against Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization accusations. Each case may have unique aspects that need tailored defense strategies. When facing such serious allegations, consulting with an experienced military attorney is advisable to ensure that the rights of the involved parties are fully protected and the best possible outcome is achieved.

What are the penalties for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the military?

Fraternization in the military is taken seriously, and the penalties for such conduct can be severe, impacting both officers and enlisted members. While criminal charges are possible, they do not always escalate to a court-martial; however, they are more likely when an officer is involved.

Key Points of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization Policy:

Responsibility of Officers in Fraternization: Officers are held to high standards and expected not to engage in relationships of military equality with enlisted members. This is rooted in maintaining the discipline and order necessary within military ranks.

Nature of the Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization Offense:

The individual in question must be a commissioned or warrant officer.
The officer has engaged in actions socially or professionally that place them on equal footing with one or more enlisted members.
The officer was aware that the individual(s) they were fraternizing with were enlisted members.
Such actions breach the established customs of an officer’s specific service branch regarding interactions with enlisted personnel.
The behavior must either compromise the good order and discipline of the service or bring disrepute upon the armed forces.

Potential Consequences of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization:

Non-Judicial Punishment: This can include formal reprimands or restrictions.
Memoranda of Reprimands: Typically issued by a general officer, these can jeopardize an officer’s career.
Administrative Measures: These might lead to involuntary separation or affect future promotions.
Types of Discharge: Depending on the severity and circumstances, this could range from an honorable discharge to a general or Other-Than-Honorable (OTH) discharge, affecting future veteran benefits.

Understanding these guidelines and consequences is crucial for all service members to maintain the integrity and discipline essential to military service.

Examples of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the military refers to inappropriate relationships between personnel of different ranks. This can include both romantic and platonic relationships. The policies primarily concern relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, which can undermine the chain of command and disrupt good order and discipline.

For instance, while two non-commissioned officers, like Staff Sergeants, might be permitted to socialize outside of work, an interaction between a Staff Sergeant and a lower-ranking Specialist (E-4) could be seen as a breach of fraternization policies due to the risk of perceived preferential treatment. The military explicitly designates which rank combinations are inappropriate to ensure clarity and maintain integrity within the forces.

What ranks are considered in violation of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization policies in the military?

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the military refers to inappropriate relationships between personnel of different ranks. This can include both romantic and platonic relationships. The policies primarily concern relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, which can undermine the chain of command and disrupt good order and discipline.

For instance, while two non-commissioned officers, like Staff Sergeants, might be permitted to socialize outside of work, an interaction between a Staff Sergeant and a lower-ranking Specialist (E-4) could be seen as a breach of fraternization policies due to the risk of perceived preferential treatment. The military explicitly designates which rank combinations are inappropriate to ensure clarity and maintain integrity within the forces.

What is Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization, and how is it defined in the military?

Understanding Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the Military

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the military is a term used to describe unauthorized personal relationships between service members of different ranks. These regulations are vital as they help maintain discipline, uphold the chain of command, and preserve the integrity of military teams.

Key Aspects of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Nature of Relationships: Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization can relate to romantic and platonic relationships. Whether it involves dating, business partnerships, or other personal interactions outside official duties, any relationship that could lead to perceived or actual preferential treatment is covered under these rules.
Impact on the Military: The primary concern with fraternization is its effect on order and discipline within the unit. The appearance of favoritism can undermine authority and affect unit morale and cohesion, which are crucial for operational effectiveness.
Regulatory Details: The military defines which interactions cross the line into Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization. For instance, attendance at social events like sports games or gatherings among soldiers of different ranks might be scrutinized depending on the context. A gathering considered part of team-building might be permissible, whereas the same event attended only by certain individuals could be seen as fraternization.
Policy on Relationships Between Ranks: There are clear rules regarding relationships between different ranks. For example, relationships between non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the same rank are typically acceptable, whereas a relationship between an NCO and a lower-ranked enlisted personnel might be prohibited.
Exceptions to the Rule: The policy does recognize exceptions. For instance, pre-existing relationships before service or changes in rank are often exempt, provided they do not disrupt the unit’s discipline or cohesion.

Military Defense Lawyers for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Military policies on fraternization are rigorously enforced to protect the structural integrity of the armed forces. While the rules might seem strict, they are essential for maintaining the professional boundaries that ensure a disciplined and effective military unit. Personal relationships within the military are not forbidden, but they are carefully regulated to avoid conflicts of interest and preserve impartiality within the chain of command.

What charges can be brought against individuals for fraternization violations?

“Violations may be punished under Article 92, UCMJ, as a violation of a lawful general regulation.” Article 92 addresses the failure to follow direct orders or regulations, including maintaining professional boundaries within the chain of command in fraternization. Personal relationships that conflict with these boundaries are seen as direct violations of established military regulations and can undermine the discipline essential to military cohesion.

Also, charges can be brought under UCMJ Article 134, which pertains to actions “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.” Article 134 is often applied in fraternization cases to address situations where the conduct has compromised the integrity of the military environment. This could include instances where personal relationships within a unit lead to perceptions of favoritism or preferential treatment, thereby degrading trust and morale among other unit members.

There is also a specific UCMJ article for fraternization, Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization, which applies to all crimes

In practice, commanders might also issue no-contact orders when there is a suspicion of inappropriate relationships. If such an order is violated, it provides grounds for further disciplinary action under Article 92, without the need for concrete proof of the relationship itself. This procedural approach allows for the maintenance of discipline while the investigation into the alleged fraternization continues.

This comprehensive understanding of Articles 92 and 134 of the UCMJ underscores the multiple legal avenues through which fraternization can be addressed, ensuring the maintenance of professional conduct and discipline within the military ranks.

Military case law on Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Suffice it to say that each case must be determined individually. Where it is shown that the acts and circumstances are such as to lead a reasonably prudent person, experienced in the problems of military leadership, to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces have been prejudiced by the compromising of an enlisted person’s respect for the integrity and gentlemanly obligations of an officer, there has been an offense under Article 134.

The Manual for Courts-Martial specifically includes fraternization between an officer and enlisted personnel as an offense under UCMJ art. 134. The elements of the offense are:

That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;
That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;
That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);
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
Under these 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 discredit the armed forces. MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 83b.

AR 600-20, paras. 4-14 and 4-15 (11 February 2009) define improper superior-subordinate relationships as several specified prohibited relationships. The regulation is punitive, so violations may be punished under Article 92 UCMJ.

Case law and regulatory guidance can assist in developing a template for determining improper superior-subordinate relationships or wrongful fraternization. Additional scrutiny should be given to relationships involving (1) direct command/supervisory authority or (2) power to influence personnel or disciplinary actions. “[A]uthority or influence . . . is central to any discussion of the propriety of a particular relationship.” DA Pam 600-35 (21 February 2000). These relationships are most likely to generate adverse effects.

Charging Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization.

Enlisted fraternization may be charged as a violation of UCMJ art. 134. In addition to AR 600-20, many commands have published regulations and policy letters concerning fraternization. Violations of regulations or policy letters are punishable under Article 92. The regulation or policy letter specifically regulates individual conduct without being vague or overbroad.

Knowledge of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Service members are presumed to know lawful general regulations if properly published. Knowledge of regulations or policy letters issued by brigade-size or smaller organizations must be proven.

Options Available to Commanders in Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization Cases.

Counsel the individuals involved.
Pursue other non-punitive measures (e.g., reassignment, oral or written warnings or
Reprimands
Adverse OER/EER
Bar to reenlistment
Relief
Administrative elimination
Court martial

Consider nonjudicial or punitive action for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

If the offense amounts to a social relationship between an officer and an enlisted person and violates good order and discipline, it may be charged under UCMJ art. 134.
If the relationship violates other offenses such as adultery, sodomy, indecent acts, maltreatment, etc., the conduct should be alleged as such.
Other articles may be charged depending on the specific facts of the case.
The conduct may violate a regulation or order and charge under Art 92.

Sexual activity & Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

United States v. Froehlke, 390 F. Supp. 503 (D.D.C. 1975). Upheld the conviction of the warrant officer for undressing and bathing an enlisted woman (not his wife) with whom he had been drinking. The offense of unlawful fraternization held not unconstitutionally vague.
United States v. Hoard, 12 M.J. 563 (A.C.M.R. 1981). “[W]rongfully socializing, drinking, and engaging in sexual intercourse with female trainees in violation of cadre-trainee regulation.”
United States v. Lowery, 21 M.J. 998 (A.C.M.R. 1986), aff’d, 24 M.J. 347 (C.M.A. 1987). The conviction was upheld when the accused officer had sexual intercourse with an enlisted female formerly under his command. The female would not have gone to the accused’s office to make an appointment for the superior-subordinate relationship.
United States v. Tedder, 24 M.J. 176 (C.M.A. 1987). Charges of unbecoming conduct based on the officer having a sexual relationship with an enlisted woman Marine and seeking to have subordinates arrange dates for him with another subordinate Marine were not impermissibly vague.
United States v. Parrillo, 31 M.J. 886 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990), aff’d 34 M.J. 112 (C.M.A. 1992) Sexual relations with enlisted members under the accused officer’s supervision violated an Air Force custom against fraternization.

Homosexual conduct & Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

United States v. Lovejoy, 42 C.M.R. 210 (C.M.A. 1970). Accused and convicted of sodomy and fraternization with an enlisted member of the submarine crew. Sodomy occurred at the accused’s onshore apartment, which he had invited an enlisted sailor to share.
United States v. Pitasi, 44 C.M.R. 31 (C.M.A. 1971). Charges of sodomy were set aside on appeal as unproven, but a conviction for fraternization based on the same relationship was upheld.
United States v. Free, 14 C.M.R. 466 (N.B.R. 1953). The accused was convicted of sharing liquor with an enlisted sailor in his quarters; the sailor testified that after accepting an invitation to spend the night in the accused’s quarters, he was awakened in the night by the accused getting into bed with him.
Article 134 UCMJ & Drugs and Other Illegal Activities
United States v. Graham, 9 M.J. 556 (N.C.M.R. 1980). A navy lieutenant was convicted under Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer for smoking marijuana onshore with his ship’s crew members.
United States v. Chesterfield, 31 M.J. 942 (A.C.M.R. 1990). Drinking and smoking hashish with subordinates constituted fraternization.

Article 134 UCMJ & Excessive Socializing

United States v. Arthur, 32 M.J. 541 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990). The accused officer’s romantic relationship with an enlisted co-worker did not constitute fraternization.
United States v. McCreight, 43 M.J. 483 (C.A.A.F. 1996). A conviction for fraternization was sustained when 1LT showed partiality and preferential treatment to a senior airman; associated with an airman on a first-name basis at work and during numerous social contacts, including drinking and gambling; repeatedly allowed the same airman to stay in his apartment; and on one occasion drank with the same airman under circumstances where the accused was the “designated drunk,” and the airman was the designated driver. No sexual aspect is alleged or proven. Fraternization does not require sexual conduct.

Article 134 UCMJ & Proof of custom and other facts

United States v. Wales, 31 M.J. 301 (C.M.A. 1990). The accused’s conviction for fraternization was reversed because the judge did not instruct that the members must find that the accused (an Air Force officer) was the supervisor of the enlisted member at the time of the alleged fraternization and because the government did not prove that the accused’s conduct violated a custom of the Service. To prove a custom of the military service, proof must be offered by a knowledgeable witness- -subject to cross-examination–about that custom.

IMPROPER SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS & FRATERNIZATION

Legal References for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Dep’t of Army, Reg. 600-20, Personnel–General: Army Command Policy (18 March 2008). (Rapid Action Revision (R.A.R.) Issue Date: 27 April 2010)
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States [hereinafter MCM].
Dep’t of Army, Pam. 600-35, Personnel–General: Relationships Between Soldiers of Different Rank (21 February 2000). [This document is currently only available in draft format from the Army G-1.]
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force References.
OPNAVINST 5370.2C, Navy Fraternization Policy (26 Apr 2007).
Marine Corps Manual 1100.4 (as amended by H.Q.M.C., ALMAR 185/96, 130800Z May 96, subject: Marine Corps Manual (MCM) Change 3) and MARCORMAN 1100.4 (13 May 96).
Department of Air Force Instruction 36-2909, Personnel: Professional and Unprofessional Relationships (1 May 1999).
The Current Army Policy under AR 600-20.

What is Fraternization in the Army?

Relationships that compromise or appear to compromise the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command;
Relationships that cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness;
Relationships that involve or appear to involve the improper use of rank or position for personal gain;
Relationships that are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive; and
Relationships that cause an actual or predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

Prohibited relationships include:

Ongoing business relationships (including borrowing or lending money, commercial solicitations, and any other ongoing financial or business relationships), except Landlord/tenant, and One-time transactions (such as car or home sales).
All ongoing business relationships existing on the effective date of this prohibition that were otherwise in compliance with the former policy were not prohibited until 1 March 00 (“grace period”).
This prohibition does not apply to USAR / ARNG Soldiers when the ongoing business relationship is due to the Soldiers’ civilian occupation or employment.
Personal relationships, such as dating, shared living accommodations (other than as directed by operational requirements), and intimate or sexual relationships. This prohibition does not affect marriages (change as of 13 May 2002)
Otherwise prohibited relationships (dating, shared living accommodations [other than directed by operational requirements] and intimate or sexual relationships), existing on the effective date of this prohibition, that were not prohibited under prior policy, were not prohibited until 1 March 00.
Relationships otherwise in compliance with this policy are prohibited solely because of a change in status of one party to the relationship (such as commissioning). The couple has one year to either terminate the relationship or marry within one year of the actual start date of the program or before the change in status occurs, whichever is later.
Reserve Component (R.C.)/R.C. exclusion when the personal relationship is primarily due to civilian acquaintanceship, unless on active duty (A.D.) or full-time National Guard duty (F.T.N.G.D.) other than annual training (A T).
AD/RC exclusion when the personal relationship is primarily due to civilian association, unless on A.D. or F.T.N.G.D. or other than AT.

Gambling. There are NO Exceptions

An NCAA basketball pool with a monetary buy-in is prohibited when a mix of officer and enlisted personnel participants is mixed. There is no prohibition against gambling between officers.
An NCAA bracket competition with a certificate or trophy to the winner even with an officer and enlisted personnel participants.
Joint Ethics Regulation (J.E.R.), § 2-302 also addresses gambling. While it may not be prohibited under AR 600-20, it may violate the J.E.R.
These prohibitions are not intended to preclude normal team-building associations between Soldiers, which occur in community organizations, religious activities, family gatherings, unit social functions, or athletic teams or events.
All Soldiers are responsible for maintaining appropriate relationships between military members. The senior military member is usually in the best position to terminate or limit relationships that may violate this paragraph, but all Soldiers involved may be held accountable for relationships that violate this paragraph.

Other Prohibited Relationships.

Trainee / Soldier.

Any relationship between I.E.T. trainees and permanent party Soldiers (not defined) not required by the training mission is prohibited. This prohibition applies regardless of the unit of assignment of the permanent party Soldier or the trainee.

Recruit / Recruiter relations may be covered by Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Any relationship between a permanent party Soldier assigned or attached to U.S.A.R.E.C. and potential prospects, applicants, Delayed Entry Program members, or Delayed Training Program members not required by the recruiting mission is prohibited. The prohibition applies regardless of the assignment unit or attachment of the parties involved.

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

The President has forbidden officers from fraternizing on terms of military equality with enlisted personnel. MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 83b.

Elements of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

The accused:

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

AR 600-20 FRATERNIZATION (EXTRACT)

Rapid Action Revision (R.A.R.) Issue Date: 27 April 2010

Relationships between Soldiers of different rank

The term “officer,” as used in this paragraph, includes commissioned and warrant officers unless otherwise stated. The provisions of this paragraph apply to both relationships between Army personnel (to include dual-status military technicians in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard) and between Army personnel and personnel of other military services. This policy is effective immediately, except where noted below, and applies to different, same-gender relationships.

Relationships between Soldiers of different ranks are prohibited if they:

1. Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.
2. Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.
3. Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain.
4. Are or are perceived to be exploitative or coercive.
5. Create an actual or predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

Certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel are prohibited. Prohibited relationships include:

Ongoing business relationships between officers and enlisted personnel. This prohibition does not apply to landlord/tenant relationships or one-time transactions such as an automobile or house sale. Still, it does apply to borrowing or lending money, commercial solicitation, and any other type of ongoing financial or business relationship. Business relationships authorized under previously existing rules and regulations are exempt until 1 March 2000. In the Army National Guard or United States Army Reserve personnel, this prohibition does not apply to relationships that exist due to their civilian occupation or employment.
Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel.

This Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization prohibition does not apply to:

Marriages & Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

When evidence of Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization between an officer and an enlisted member exists before their marriage, their marriage does not preclude appropriate command action based on the prior fraternization. Commanders have various responses available, including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, administrative, or adverse action.

Commanders must carefully consider all the facts and circumstances for appropriate disposition in Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization cases. Generally, the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of good order and discipline are satisfied.

Situations in which a relationship that complies with this policy would move into non-compliance due to a change in the status of one of the members (for instance, a case where two enlisted members are dating and one is subsequently commissioned or selected as a warrant officer).

In relationships where one of the enlisted members has entered into a program intended to result in a change in their status from enlisted to officer, the couple must terminate the relationship permanently or marry within either one year of the actual start date of the program, before the change in status occurs, or within one year of the publication date of this regulation, whichever occurs later.

Personal relationships between members of the National Guard or Army Reserve, when the relationship primarily exists due to civilian acquaintanceships, unless the individuals are on active duty (other than annual training), on full-time National Guard duty (other than annual training), or serving as a dual-status military technician.

Personal relationships between members of the Regular Army and members of the National Guard or Army Reserve when the relationship primarily exists due to civilian association and the Reserve component member is not on active duty (other than annual training), on full-time National Guard duty (other than annual training), or serving as a dual-status military technician.

Prohibited relationships involving dual-status military technicians, which were not prohibited under previously existing rules and regulations, are exempt until one year of the publication date of this regulation.

Soldiers and leaders share responsibility for ensuring that these relationships do not interfere with good order and discipline. Commanders will ensure that personal relationships between Soldiers of different ranks emanating from their civilian careers will not influence training, readiness, or personnel actions.

Gambling between officers and enlisted personnel.

These Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization prohibitions are not intended to preclude normal team-building associations in the context of community organizations, religious activities, Family gatherings, unit-based social functions, or athletic teams or events.

All military personnel share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships. However, in any relationship between Soldiers of different grades or ranks, the senior member is generally in the best position to terminate or limit the extent of the relationship. Nevertheless, all members may be held accountable for relationships that violate Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization.

Commanders should seek to prevent inappropriate or unprofessional relationships through proper training and leadership by example. Should inappropriate relationships occur, commanders have a wide range of responses available. These responses may include counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, or adverse action.

Potential adverse action for Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization may include official reprimand, adverse evaluation report(s), nonjudicial punishment, separation, bar to reenlistment, promotion denial, demotion, and Court-martial. Commanders must carefully consider all the facts and circumstances to reach a warranted, appropriate, and fair disposition.

Other prohibited Relationships Under Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Trainee and Soldier Relationships and Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Any relationship between permanent party personnel and initial entry training (I.E.T.) trainees not required by the training mission is prohibited under Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization. This prohibition applies to permanent party personnel without regard to the installation or assignment of the permanent party member or the trainee.

Recruiter and recruit relationships and Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Any relationship between permanent party personnel assigned or attached to the United States Army Recruiting Command and potential prospects, applicants, members of the Delayed Entry Program (D.E.P.), or members of the Delayed Training Program (D.T.P.) not required by the recruiting mission is prohibited. This prohibition applies to United States Army Recruiting Command Personnel without regard to the unit of assignment of the permanent party member and the potential prospects, applicants, D.E.P. members, or D.T.P. members.

Training commands and Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization

Training commands and the United States Army Recruiting Command are authorized to publish supplemental regulations, further detailing proscribed conduct within their respective commands.

Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization in the Military

Violations may be punished under Article 134 UCMJ Fraternization as a violation of a lawful general regulation.