# Fraternization in CF



## munky99999 (9 Jun 2006)

Does the CF have fraternization rules? If yes, How does it work?

Now I’m a very strict no dating any co-workers person. Or in other words, “Never dip your quill in company ink.” I'm simply interested.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Now I’m a very strict no dating any co-workers person. Or in other words, “Never dip your quill in company ink.” I'm simply interested.



I thought that referred to stealing stationery. Unless you're suggesting men and women are somehow company "property"?


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Does the CF have fraternization rules?


yes



> If yes, How does it work?


don't do it, or you'll be punished. 

(This really only applies on deployments, whether Exercise or Operational. Many CF members are married to others - usually of the opposite sex - and nobody says squat about them canoodling when *not* wearing the uniform. Or even a quick peck, here and there in uniform. Common sense prevails.) Good enough?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jun 2006)

It applies on courses too, between candidates and course staff, to be technical.


----------



## Danjanou (9 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I thought that referred to stealing stationery. Unless you're suggesting men and women are somehow company "property"?



Never been to my workplace have ya?  ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Jun 2006)

This is also available for info...

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5019/1_e.asp

Mud

*Edit - might be the most current (2004).


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It applies on courses too, between candidates and course staff, to be technical.


very true. Although it is not..."appreciated"...let's say, between candidates, either.

In all areas, discretion is your watchword. Out of simple politesse, if nothing else.


----------



## reccecrewman (9 Jun 2006)

And may I also add it makes for a rather uncomforatable charge parade as well should you get caught............  "In that he on 25 May 2002 was caught fornicating with A12 345 678 Pvt. Whomever, at CFB Wherever......."  Not a good day at all. Especially as the Officer presiding keeps looking down at the papaers on his desk and stiffling a giggle and his shoulders are going up and down as he does so.  

In any event, my recommendation is don't do it - it isn't worth the hassle - there's plenty of fair game to chase at the bars and out of uniform.

Regards


----------



## Hot Lips (9 Jun 2006)

So what I hear you saying is...the CF is a professional place of employment not any different than any other professional setting regardless of where that employment takes place that day...no?

HL


----------



## reccecrewman (9 Jun 2006)

You are correct HL, it is a professional place of employment, same as anyplace else.  My own example provided is a simple warning of the inherant dangers and risks that come with; a) not playing the by the rules laid down by higher authority and; b) being just stupid enough to try and get away with it.

Alas, I was young, full of p!ss & vinegar, and not thinking clearly as the testosterone overpowered common sense.  I learned a valuable lesson and have never since strayed of the straight and narrow guidelines as provided by CF policy.  I share my personal folly as a lesson to other young troops so they need not go through the same experience, rather they can merely laugh at my misfortune and carry on.

Regards


----------



## orange.paint (9 Jun 2006)

Makes for a good tour. ;D


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> *Many CF members are married to others* -



...and sometimes to each other  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...and sometimes to each other  ;D


D'oh! Good thing you aren't proofing my PERS!


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2006)

Not criticizin' - - just including another option.  

Some members fraternizing _are_ married, just not to each other....or so I've heard.....I wouldn't know, myself  (dammit, where's that angelic smiley?)


----------



## Lost_Warrior (9 Jun 2006)

> It applies on courses too, between candidates and course staff, to be technical.



One would think so, but we ended up having a 25 year old Mcpl dating a 17 year old candidate on our BMQ....  :


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> One would think so, but we ended up having a 25 year old Mcpl dating a 17 year old candidate on our BMQ....  :


charge and jail.


----------



## Haggis (9 Jun 2006)

Never pee in your own pool.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jun 2006)

LFWA has a Relationship Policy waiver which all candidates and course staff sign during each course; at least here at our reserve training detachment in Calgary. Hard to wriggle out of a charge when you've signed a statement to the effect that you're aware of the policy on fraternization. As with many things, I suppose different areas/brigades/commands/whatever do things differently.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> LFWA has a Relationship Policy waiver which all candidates and course staff sign during each course; at least here at our reserve training detachment in Calgary. Hard to wriggle out of a charge when you've signed a statement to the effect that you're aware of the policy on fraternization. As with many things, I suppose different areas/brigades/commands/whatever do things differently.



I thought the CF policy would cover that.  And that all "members" are briefed on it.  

Maybe I am smokin happy grass?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I thought the CF policy would cover that.  And that all "members" are briefed on it.



**shrugs** Just reporting on some of the reams of paperwork I've been filing on course candidate files.


----------



## Hot Lips (10 Jun 2006)

I like the briefing and signing of the document requirement deal...as you say...hard to argue when it is signed sealed and delivered by you...

HL


----------



## 043 (10 Jun 2006)

You guys haven't seen anything until you have been to the base hospital in Gagetown!!!!!!!!! The Adj (Capt) is dating and marrying a Pte. How the CO lets that happen is beyond my little pea brain's comprehension!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hot Lips (10 Jun 2006)

Do these rules apply to outside of working hours...and out of uniform?

HL


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jun 2006)

Back in Canuckistan, I used to date (and later shacked up with) a girl from the same unit, and we kept things discrete as possible when working, its not that difficult.

Ya, like all guys, I was a frat rat to a degree, you know, summer flings at Dundurn, same rank stuff, in the mess out to Saskatoon for a dirty wknd stuff, but around in uniform, etc, we always kept our distance. We feared the worst of course, maybe an RTU and the embarrassment that would cause not only to you, but your unit.

Seen lots of both discrete frat, and in your face stuff over the years, more so in the CF than here, but I dated a UCC/PTI here in Aussie back just after I was separated from Ex wife No1 (hey there is only one Ex wife). We went out for 2 yrs, and we kept that quiet and low level, although it was common knowledge. It did cause some problems for her, as she was, yes, hot and blonde, and would cop it from her peers and others (about 'her lumberjack'  : ), which she hated. I told her if she was fat and ugly, she wouldn'y get all the attention.

Whats this thing with blondes anyways?

On a more serious note, you just gotta be professional about it. Was I? Well, most of the time anyways.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## navymich (10 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> I like the briefing and signing of the document requirement deal...as you say...hard to argue when it is signed sealed and delivered by you...
> 
> HL



Same kind of forms are required to be signed regarding drug use and harassment.  And we know how well the forms prevent *that* stuff from happening.  :  But true enough HL, what it gives is the offender no argument afterwards, although they try mighty hard.


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jun 2006)

Never, ever, under any circumstances sleep with your fire-team partner!


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Same kind of forms are required to be signed regarding drug use and harassment.  And we know how well the forms prevent *that* stuff from happening.  :  But true enough HL, what it gives is the offender no argument afterwards, although they try mighty hard.


Also, ignorance of a law is no excuse, so any "signing" of documents is extraneous, in my opinion.  This from a guy who did extras a long long time ago because I was supposed to be on duty.  The Routine Orders had been issued, but not posted.  "Not good enough" said the DSM du jour.


----------



## orange.paint (10 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Do these rules apply to outside of working hours...and out of uniform?
> 
> HL



Nope not at all,although its sometimes frowned upon.My wife was working in Ottawa as a cpl and me in petawawa and there were no probelms.However its usually frowned upon because it causes a lot of probelms involving postings,tours etc in SOME CASES.I have friends who married in the unit,infact in the same squadron with little to no problem.Discretion is key.Dating officers can be interesting as a ncm also...almost like high school where if daddy finds out..... ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> LFWA has a Relationship Policy waiver which all candidates and course staff sign during each course; at least here at our reserve training detachment in Calgary. Hard to wriggle out of a charge when you've signed a statement to the effect that you're aware of the policy on fraternization. As with many things, I suppose different areas/brigades/commands/whatever do things differently.


Ignorance of any law or directive is no excuse.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (11 Jun 2006)

Cornwallis, 12 Platoon, Course 8930, one of our MCpl's was married to a Lt (N).  She picked him up at work sometimes (our H Hut) .  We knew about it, they were professional about it.  The way they acted around the H Hut, they could have been brother and sister.  I think it was a good example at the time. 

Where I work now, we have a Reg Frce Capt, married to a Reg Frce Cpl.  He is posted to CFB Halifax, her to our Bde HQ.  I can think of numerous other examples, and personally, over 17 years, I have never known a "couple" that was stupid about it.  The Frat policy is pretty straight forward AND common sense applies.

The trouble begins when people forget to be smart about being stupid.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> The trouble begins when people forget to be smart about being stupid.



That's the key. Use common sense and remain professional.

We have a few new Ptes around this Base who are joining later in life. Quite a few are married to Officers and have kids my age, so they were obviously married to Officers before they joined the CF ranks. I'm good with that as long as it's kept professional at work. 

The times are a changing and there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. After all, would it be right to deny someone who is recommended by the CoC for Comissioning From the Ranks because they have done well and displayed those characteristics deemed "officer-like" their comission because they happened to be married to a Pte or a Sgt? If so what do we do when we have 2 married MCpls and one is being promoted to Sgt? Perhaps deny the new Sgt entry into the Snr NCOs Mess, after all it is the only Mess that you have to 'earn' your way into? That doesn't make any sense. 

If they remain professional and use common sense at work and in uniform then they won't have a problem.


----------



## paracowboy (11 Jun 2006)

Ah'm agin' it, dagnabbit! 
If the Army wanted you to have a spouse it would have been issued to you! All that mushy stuff just makes you weak! *WEAK!* Gotta stay hard. In fact, I'm gonna go find me a puppy to kick, and steal some kid's ice cream right now!


----------



## Hot Lips (11 Jun 2006)

k paracowboy..steal the kids ice cream but don't kick the puppy...it may grow up to be a big mean dog and bite yah back...lmao
So what I hear you saying is that I ought to be single then to be successful in the CF  ;D...lmao

HL


----------



## paracowboy (11 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> k paracowboy..steal the kids ice cream but don't kick the puppy...it may grow up to be a big mean dog and bite yah back...lmao
> So what I hear you saying is that I ought to be single then to be successful in the CF  ;D...lmao
> 
> HL


single and "available". Particularly to old, chubby, married broken paratroopers.

And this thread is officially off the rails!


----------



## medicineman (11 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> k paracowboy..steal the kids ice cream but don't kick the puppy...it may grow up to be a big mean dog and bite yah back...lmao
> So what I hear you saying is that I ought to be single then to be successful in the CF  ;D...lmao
> 
> HL



See quote by 2023 earlier.

The problem gets bad when there is perceived or actual intervention by someone on behalf of their partner by throwing their rank around.  That`s why I have a problem with people in the same chain of command or someone who directly has the bosses´ear or ears starting a relationship with a junior rank.  The frat rules are there to keep morale from going to the rats´ backsides because of the aforementioned.  Also, when it comes time to say "Rifleman number 2, take that trench", there is no room for thinking "Hey, my dude/ette is likely going to get killed" or "Hey - tell someone else to do it" based on the booty principle from occuring and the job gets done.  I`ve seen units pretty become quite divided, and not just at the junior rank levels either - it  goes all the way up because the young uns are complaining to us, we complain up and often little or nothing gets done about it.

HL - you don`t need to remain single but use the common sense Nature gave you.  The big thing is discretion - something your used to anyway due to your job.  As soon as things are flaunted - things go downhill.  Hey, if you have a bad day, what happens if you take it out on eachother at work - could result in charges for either of you if there is a rank discrepancy.

MM


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Jun 2006)

Just spent a week with a buddy who is on exchange with the USN. They are really brutal about this stuff. If they sniff it going on there are heavy penalties. He, a Chaplain, got in trouble because him and his wife took in a gal whose husband was violent and she had no where to go...there's a long story to it...but the Chief and LCdr who were her bosses had the Chaplain charged for fraternization.
He argued that a) he was a Chaplain doing what any clergy would do...having compassion...and b) this was not a "love-interest" but a Mother/Father..daughter type thing....they didn't persue it but only because he was a Canadian and they couldn't understand how to get him charged.
I think we have a much more reasoned approach than they do.....most of the relationships I've seen haven't carried into the workplace and if they do they are sorted pretty quickly.


----------



## medicineman (11 Jun 2006)

They take things a step farther in the US with some things - low to zero tolerance of something that even resembles frat if there is a rank discrepancy - here we have a CFAO/DAOD, there it's an article in the UCMJ.  I also seem to recall reading of some fecal cephalics that were charged with adultery under the UCMJ as well and did time in Leavenworth for it - they were having liaisons with other sailors' wives while they were at sea and taping them.  Here, last time I saw someone that caused a guy to come home from tour because he got the dude's wife at a weak moment after lying to her, they left the culprit in the Battalion and shipped dude home to the same company.  Poetic justice/karma at it's best...

MM


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> fecal cephalics


 :rofl:

I had to google that.  Well done!


----------



## medicineman (11 Jun 2006)

Thank you - one of my famous delayed onset insults.

MM


----------



## brihard (11 Jun 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Thank you - one of my famous delayed onset insults.
> 
> MM



Very elegant. Mind if I steal that one?


----------



## Hot Lips (12 Jun 2006)

Well I don't believe that working together is ever a great thing for spouses, whether it be in the CF or civilian world.

:rofl:... MM I didn't have to google to get a roar out of your most elegant use of medical terminologies... :rofl:
Well done  

HL


----------



## MARS2INF (19 Jun 2006)

I've been awaiting my GF to join the CF now for a year. I'm all for dating within the CF, so long as it's not within the same unit. That would kinda complicate things on board a ship or within a platoon. So long as you're not working right alongside of the signifigant other, have at 'er, I say...

my $0.02

MASR2INF


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jun 2006)

I agree that the policy for non fraternization is needed for the CF.  There is an artificial closeness that is created by being on course or in the field, and that can lead to hook up's that may lead to domestic crap in Garrison.  
However, that being said, I am married to a police officer and that works out really well for us.  I never have to explain why I had a late call, or the nuances of the crappy parts of the job.  We can come home from work and be able to talk together as colleagues and not worry about explaining technical stuff, or elaborating on how much people suck and why.  She is a great resource for me, and vice versa (I hope).  I would have to imagine military couples have the same sort of dynamic.  Both parties understanding field deployment, and the uncertain nature of being transferred around the country (and other such stressors) would hopefully cut down on the inherent relationship strain of the job.  
Of course, the flip side for us, and is likely for you military couples, is a heightened awareness of the dangers of the job and knowing that there is a possibility of someone else coming to the door at the end of the shift.  
Bit of a double edged sword, that.


----------



## SeaDog (22 Jun 2006)

Definitely right on the dynamic being the same for service couples, zipperhead_cop, at least in my experience.  My wife and I are both navy and the relationship is stronger for it in many regards.  In the past three years alone I've spent on average about 8 months away  per year and never so much as a "why?" or "again?" in our conversations.  She understands my work intimimately, as she was once the same MOC, and has no delusions about what I'm up to at work.  She never even batted an eyelid when I told her I was going submarines, just a sly grin and a snyde comment about if I would fit down the hatch.  Downside is when you are returning from deployment, anxious to see the missus, only to look through the binos and realize that the ship on your port-side is your wifes...going out to sea!  As for working together, we have been lucky that it's never been an issue - always different units - and I've had some pretty understanding bosses.  One occassion I was called into my Combat Officer's cabin and told I was going to sea on an exercise to sort out some manning issues...was told I had pick between either the Montreal or VDQ...he paused, asked what ship my wife was on...VDQ, I replied... "Montreal, then I take it?" was his response.  "Yessir".  No issues, or hassles...all in all I've found my chain of command supportive.


----------

