Fraternization in the Army

January 25, 2025

Fraternization in the Army is defined by Article 134 of the UCMJ. The elements of the offense are as follows:

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
That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was either: (i) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces; (ii) was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; or (iii) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces

This means that only an Officer can be guilty of fraternization in the Army. It is important to distinguish between fraternization in the Army, and inappropriate relationships in the Army, which are governed by AR 600-32.

Article 134 goes on to define fraternization in the Army with the following definition:

"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 facts 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."

Basically, fraternization in the Army is judged on a case by case basis and is based on the perception of a reasonable military person concluding that the good order and discipline has been (or reasonably could be) prejudiced by the conduct in question.

Fraternization in the Army is typically investigated through the AR 15-6 investigation process. If the allegations are substantiated, typical adverse actions include a letter of concern, GOMOR, Article 15, referred/relief for cause OER, and/or the initiation of elimination.

Again, fraternization in the Army only applies to Officers; however, enlisted members (and Officers) can be guilty of having an inappropriate relationship, or the perception of an inappropriate relationship, in accordance with AR 600-32. Inappropriate relationships are also typically investigated through the AR 15-6 investigation process and can result in adverse actions such as letters of concern, GOMORs, Article 15s, referred/relief for cause NCOERs/OERs, and/or the initiation of elimination (Officers) and separation (enlisted).

Any Officer facing an investigation or adverse action relating to fraternization in the Army should immediately consult with an experienced Military Defense Lawyer. Considering the possible career ending consequences, it is foolish not to do so. While TDS is available to assist, they are often over-worked, inexperienced, and unwilling to provide the time and attention needed to ensure a successful result. Civilian Lawyers can be retained to assist, which allows an Officer to choose a lawyer with a proven track record of success and someone who is highly rated by former clients.

This Article was written by Attorney Matthew Barry. Attorney Barry is highly rated by former clients and has a proven track record of success.

The Law Office of Matthew Barry represents Soldiers worldwide. He has offices on the East Coast, West Coast, and in the Central U.S. Attorney Barry and his team will travel to any base, worldwide, to represent Soldiers accused of misconduct.