Liberty2Love supporters, we have a proposal! Too often a problem is identified without a solution, but we're more proactive than that. After reviewing constitutional law and a multitude of cases, we bring a solution! Below is a proposal for a revised version of the Regulation:
Article 134: Fraternization (Revised Policy Framework)
I. Explanation of the Offense
Fraternization occurs when a service member engages in an inappropriate personal relationship with another service member over whom they exercise direct leadership, authority, command, or systemic professional influence.
The violation is strictly determined by a functional power dynamic and a proven, detrimental conflict of interest. Differences in class, rank, grade, or status alone cannot constitute a violation. A violation cannot be assumed by default simply because a relationship exists; the government must prove a distinct, measurable negative effect on the operational environment.
Furthermore, the conduct must be explicitly inappropriate within the professional workplace environment. Relationships that remain entirely private, non-exploitative, and operate outside of a direct chain of command or systemic professional influence are exempt from this article and are recognized as constitutionally protected associations.
II. Elements of the Offense
The accused must meet all of the following criteria:
- That the accused was a service member exercising positional or professional authority.
- That the accused entered into a specific personal relationship with another service member.
- That the accused exercised direct leadership, supervisory authority, operational command, or systemic professional influence over the other service member, or that the other service member was directly influenced by the accused's positional authority.
- That the accused engaged in conduct that was explicitly inappropriate in the workplace, or directly allowed the relationship to compromise the workplace environment.
- That the relationship resulted in a demonstrable, factual impact that compromised the chain of command, caused actual or perceived partiality, undermined good order and discipline, or brought discredit upon the armed forces.
III. Prohibited Conduct Under Direct Influence
When a direct leadership dynamic, systemic professional influence, or active conflict of interest exists between service members, inappropriate relationships are strictly defined as and limited to:
Romance: Engaging in sexual relationships, romantic dating, or shared living arrangements that factually compromise supervisory objectivity.
Gambling: Participating in games of chance for money, property, or items of value that demonstrably erode professional boundaries.
Commercial Lending: Lending money or extending credit with the expectation of interest, or entering into predatory financial partnerships for personal gain.
IV. Definition of Service Discredit
Workplace Impact Required: To satisfy the terminal element of bringing discredit upon the armed forces, the government must prove explicit, disruptive actions within the military workplace environment. Merely being in a relationship across ranks does not constitute a discredit upon the armed forces.
Discrediting Actions: Actionable service discredit under this article include behaviors such as:
- Explicit favoritism based purely on fraternal or romantic interests rather than military merit.
- Displacing mandatory work hours, neglecting official duties, or abandoning watch for romantic pursuits.
- Using rank or position to resolve interpersonal partner disputes, arguments, or domestic conflicts within the workplace.
- Lewd personal displays of affection, including inappropriate physical or bodily contact while on duty or in uniform, to include displaying or transmitting lewd photographs, sexually explicit messages, or other inappropriate media within official spaces or channels, even if consensual.
- Other discrediting behaviors not described herein must be in a similar vein of behaviors deemed by a broad majority of the public of being grossly inappropriate for a work environment between platonic colleagues.
V. Constitutional Exemption and Privacy
Protected Private Sphere: A relationship conducted entirely within the private lives of service members, off-duty, and away from the military workplace, and outside the chain of command, is protected and outside the scope of this regulation.
Outside the Workplace Exemption: Private, non-exploitative, cross-rank relationships that exist outside of a direct chain of command or systemic professional influence are explicitly exempt from regulation, investigation, or prosecution under this article.
Constitutional Protection: The military department recognizes the fundamental right of service members to engage in private, consensual, non-harmful personal associations. Command authorities cannot police, monitor, or penalize private relationships that have no factual footprint on the military workplace or operational chain of command.
VI. Recreational Gaming Exemption
Games of Chance for Fun and Honor: Participation in games of chance, cards, board games, or recreational activities played without stakes—where the only outcomes are for amusement, camaraderie, or personal honor—is entirely exempt from this policy.
Application: Such recreational interactions do not constitute prohibited gambling, regardless of whether a direct supervisory or leadership relationship exists, provided they do not involve financial transactions, wagers, or predatory dynamics.
VII. Misclassification of Exploitative Conduct
Exclusion of Exploitation: Conduct, actions, or demands that are exploitative or coercive in nature do not constitute fraternization under this article.
Reclassification as Quid Pro Quo: Exploitative interactions within a power dynamic represent severe, criminal misconduct rather than inappropriate professional boundaries. Such actions must be treated as "quid pro quo" violations.
Investigative Jurisdictions: Allegations involving exploitative behavior must be immediately referred to criminal investigative components. They will be handled under Army Regulation 600-52 (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program) and investigated as potential criminal violations under Article 120 (Sexual Assault), Article 132 (Retaliation), or other applicable punitive articles of the UCMJ, rather than managed under the administrative boundaries of fraternization.
Inappropriate Command Inquiries: Commanders are explicitly barred from using general 'good order and discipline' provisions or Article 134 as catch-all clauses to investigate lawful consensual relationships Speculation, gossip, or general personal discomfort regarding a lawful, cross-rank relationship shall not constitute grounds for command inquiries, AR 15-6 investigations, or adverse administrative action.
Protection Against Retaliation: Any adverse personnel action, negative counseling, or hostile work environment initiated by a commander or supervisor against a service member based strictly on a relationship protected under this section shall be treated as an abuse of authority and investigated under Article 138 (Complaints of Wrongs)."
VIII. Consensual Conflict Resolution Framework
Administrative Scope: Consensual relationships that are deemed non-exploitative but present an active conflict of interest constitute fraternization under this article but require strictly administrative, non-punitive action. Anti-fraternization policies exist solely as an administrative tool to ensure ethical command and supervisory relationships are not compromised by conflicts of interest and remain entirely professional, and not as a "catch all" for failed investigations under Army Regulation 600-52 or other misconduct.
Mitigation of Harm: Command actions must be strictly limited in scope to measures that directly resolve the conflict of interest. Interventions must prioritize bringing the least possible harm to the involved parties, balanced against the operational needs of the armed forces.
Mandatory Prior Counseling: Command authorities must formally counsel the involved parties, with documentation, regarding the conflict of interest prior to initiating any official investigation.
Escalation Protocol: If it is demonstrated that initial counseling was unsuccessful in resolving the conflict, further progressive administrative actions may be taken:
Voluntary Transfers: Parties are first offered the opportunity to request a voluntary transfer or lateral duty reassignment to remove the conflict, if available and suitable for the needs of the Army.
Mandatory Transfers: If voluntary measures are refused or unfeasible, commands may issue a mandatory administrative transfer.
Maximum Administrative Ceiling: The highest authorized administrative enforcement mechanism under this policy is a non-punitive, locally filed General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR). No permanent human resources record entry, judicial punishment, or non-judicial punishment under Article 15 is permitted for non-exploitative consensual conflicts.
IX. Strict Limitations on Investigations
Inherent Risks of Inquiry: Official investigations into personal relationships are by nature highly disruptive, intrusive, and scandalizing. They frequently degrade unit cohesion, breach personal privacy, and inflict disproportionate emotional and reputational harm on the couple's lives and careers.
The Necessity Standard: Command-directed investigations into allegations of fraternization are strictly restricted. They should be conducted only if absolutely necessary to prevent severe, systemic operational impairment.
Balancing Test: Before authorizing an investigation, commanders must execute a formal balancing test. The speculative utility of a formal inquiry must be weighed against its concrete negative impacts on unit climate and the service members' well-being.
Resolution Priority: Investigations should be bypassed entirely whenever possible. Commanders must place absolute emphasis on the Consensual Conflict Resolution Framework, utilizing early counseling and administrative transfers to bypass intrusive inquiries and resolve the professional conflict cleanly.
X. The Marriage Exemption
Scope: Service members who enter into a legally recognized marriage while under investigation are outside the scope of this article.
Application: Upon legalization of the marriage, the command will resolve any remaining supervisory conflicts strictly in accordance with AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-14(c)(2)(a). The specific prohibitions against dating, shared living accommodations, and intimate relationships do not apply to service members who are legally married. Upon solemnization of marriage, the relationship is no longer evaluated under standard Article 134 fraternization frameworks. It is instead governed by administrative policies regulating married Army couples, subject to the structural limitations codified in AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-14(a) (Command Structure) and AR 623-3, Paragraph 2-3 (Evaluation Systems).
XI. Prohibition of Post Facto Persecution
Ban on Retrospective Prosecution: Command leadership is explicitly banned from launching retrospective investigations or initiating post facto persecution against past relationships that have already been administratively resolved unless they meet the criteria for AR 600-52 .
Exploitation Exception: A concluded relationship can only be prosecuted if credible evidence demonstrates that the relationship was problematic as coercive, exploitative, or an explicit abuse of authority for personal gain during its duration, shifting the case into investigation channels governed by AR 600-52 or the appropriate criminal components of the UCMJ.
XII. Retroactive Enactment and Redress of Grievance
Retroactive Application: This policy framework is fully retroactive. Prior regulatory oversights, status-based restrictions, or classist applications of fraternization policies are recognized as historical errors.
Redress: Former service members penalized, separated, or disciplined under previous status-based fraternization policies may approach the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for redress of grievances, upgrading of discharges, and removal of adverse actions.
Re-entry Channels: Individuals seeking re-entry into active or reserve components following corrective action by the ABCMR may utilize standard military accessions and re-accessions pipelines, provided they satisfy all other non-fraternization-related re-entry criteria.