Inappropriate Relationship in the Army

January 31, 2025

An inappropriate relationship in the Army is defined by AR 600-32, available at this link. DA Pam 600-35, available at this link, provides numerous specific scenarios on what is, and what is not, an inappropriate relationship in the Army. These regulations were recently published and supersede the language in AR 600-20 about inappropriate relationships.

There are two general types of inappropriate relationships in the Army: outright prohibited relationships and relationships that become inappropriate over time.

Outright prohibited relationships, which applies to relationships between Officers and enlisted Soldiers/NCOs and NCOs and enlisted Soldiers, are as follows:

on-going business relationships, except for landlord tenant situations or one-time transactions (like the sale of a house or car);
dating, shared living accommodations other than those operationally necessary, and intimate or sexual relationships; and,
gambling together;

Enlisted Soldiers and Officers/NCOs can marry each other and this is not an inappropriate relationship in the Army; however, Commands can still punish Soldiers/NCOs/Officers in this situation for an inappropriate relationship that occurred before the marriage occurred. Basically, marriage is not a good solution to Soldiers/NCOs/Officers facing an investigation into their relationship, as it does not preclude the Command from taking action. That said, AR 600-32, paragraph 2-2c(2)(a) states that in these situations, "the commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs of the good order and discipline are satisfied."

An inappropriate relationship in the Army that develops over time is the following:

relationships that compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of the 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 grade or rank or position for personal gain;
relationships that are, or are perceived to be, exploitive or coercive in nature; or,
relationships that create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission

Examples of these types of relationships, straight from AR 600-32, paragraph 2-2b, are "repeated visits to bars, nightclubs, eating establishments, or homes between an officer and an enlisted Soldier, or an NCO and a junior enlisted Soldier, except for social gatherings, that involve an entire unit, office, or work section. Depending on the nature of the interaction, even one instance of such behavior could amount to undue familiarity."

What this means is that an inappropriate relationship in the Army can exist, even if it is based on perception. While the regulation does not state this, the perception must be a reasonable one and one that is based on actual facts, not pure speculation. Officers, NCOs, and enlisted Soldiers should be cognizant of how their relationships with others are perceived, as a perceived inappropriate relationship can, and usually is, addressed in the same manner as an actual inappropriate relationship in the Army.

Inappropriate relationships in the Army are typically investigated by an AR 15-6 investigation. Anyone facing this type of investigation should immediately consult an experienced Military Defense lawyer. Whether to answer an investigating officer's (IO) questions or not, and how to answer them, can have drastic consequences.

An inappropriate relationship in the Army, even a perceived one, can result in letters of concern, GOMORs, Article 15s, referred NCOERs, referred OERs, separation (enlisted) and/or elimination (officers).

Any Officer, NCO, or Soldier facing an investigation or adverse action relating to an inappropriate relationship in the Army should recognize that his/her career is in jeopardy. While Trial Defense Services (TDS) is available to assist, a Civilian Defense Counsel can be hired, which allows the Soldier in question to hire a lawyer with a proven track record of success and one who is highly rated by former clients. Furthermore, TDS is generally inexperienced and overworked, and generally cannot give someone accused of an inappropriate relationship in the Army the time and attention needed.

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.