Pregnant US soldiers overseas

[Jarnhamar]

Stemming from an argument over whether females being deployed to Iraq have high increased pregnancy rates I had some questions. (Not about the pregnancy rates mind you)

What is the US military outlook on fraternization among their soldiers while deployed?

I know in Canada it's zero tolerance.  Soldiers won't 'mix it up' with locals and married couples deployed together will not either.
The dutch army, soldiers are ordered not to fraternize with locals however they can fraternize amongst their fellow soldiers.

What is the rule for the American military? Is frat illegal?

As well, assumingfrat while deployed IS illegal, if a female soldier becomes pregnant while deployed (not before) would disciplinary action be taken? Some kind of charge.  Are pregnant female soldiers immediately returned home? Or would they stay for a while, say up until 4 or 5 or 6 months of their pregnancy?

 

[scoutfinch]

As well, assumingfrat while deployed IS illegal, if a female soldier becomes pregnant while deployed (not before) would disciplinary action be taken? Some kind of charge.  Are pregnant female soldiers immediately returned home? Or would they stay for a while, say up until 4 or 5 or 6 months of their pregnancy?

Re disciplinary charges:  You know what they say about it taking two to tango... presumably there would be more than one person charged in the event of a deployment pregnancy (in the event the other party were identified)!

 

[PteGDD]

Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure that the female would be returned home after less then 1 month.  Carrying around a 6-month-old baby is like a permantent rucksack on the front of you, especially in combat boots.  If a pregnant soldier was to be KIA, it would be two lives not one.  Also the combat stress the female would sustain would be too much on top of the normal stresses of carrying a baby.  That can be dangerous in some situations. 

Summary, pregnant women go home... but after how many weeks/days?

PteG

 

[scoutfinch]

Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure that the female would be returned home after less then 1 month.  Carrying around a 6-month-old baby is like a permantent rucksack on the front of you, especially in combat boots.  If a pregnant soldier was to be KIA, it would be two lives not one.  Also the combat stress the female would sustain would be too much on top of the normal stresses of carrying a baby.  That can be dangerous in some situations. 

Summary, pregnant women go home... but after how many weeks/days?

PteG

Worse case scenario:  imagine the public/ political fallout should a pregnant soldier be taken captive.

 

[geo]

Stemming from an argument over whether females being deployed to Iraq have high increased pregnancy rates I had some questions. (Not about the pregnancy rates mind you)
I know in Canada it's zero tolerance.  Soldiers won't 'mix it up' with locals and married couples deployed together will not either.

From what I remember.... the zero tolerance rule applies to the Kabul/Kandahar deployment. The rule did not get applied while in Golan, Bosnia or Haiti......

 

[Armymedic]

It was applied in Bosnia. Later rotos, in particular.

 

[Springroll]

What is the rule for the American military? Is frat illegal?

edited to add: Deleted post after I received the official information via email from S_Baker.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You are also not allowed to chat or be social with members outside of your rate during working hours.

Rank or rate?
Not being able to chat with someone or be social outside of your rank seems a little silly and archaic to me.


I figure the frat rule is like the 2 drinks a night limit.  The minute you make a rule like that people will go out of their way to break it. I prefer treating adults like adults and if their activities effect their jobs, punt them home.

 

[Springroll]

Rank or rate?
Not being able to chat with someone or be social outside of your rank seems a little silly and archaic to me.

My bad...meant rank, not rate(trade for those that don't know).

Now, they don't enforce it all that much, but you are not "supposed" to chat with anyone outside of your rank.

 

[Scott]

From the Conduct Guidelines

You will not post any material which is knowingly false.

We've had a few instances lately where opinion and rumour have been presented as hard evidence. Unfortunately in many cases, the information is flat out wrong.

Due to the anonymous nature of these forums, it can be hard to tell if information is coming from someone in a position to know or just someone who "has a friend whose uncle served with the Botswana Defence Force in the 70's."

So our request is this: Please qualify unconfirmed information posted here.

That is, if you didn't witness it first hand or read it in the CFAO's, state that it's an opinion, rumour or best guess. We won't think any less of you for not "knowing" the information. In fact, we'll all appreciate the honesty, and it'll likely save readers heartache later on, when they find out (the hard way) that it wasn't exactly bang on. If you do know the source, please reference it with a link or include the related information in your post. If the source information is large or takes the discussion off topic you may want to consider making use of a footnote1 to provide references and sources that back up your claims.

 

[Springroll]

Springroll, I am not trying to bust your chops, but I have never ever heard of what your above posts implies.

Your source of information is?  If you don't know there are several US Army Officers and enlisted soldiers, airmen, marines, and seamen that check this board out.  I am one of them, I have been a company commander, Asst S-3, XO,  and I won't hesitate to call your post above bullshitt!

Have a look at the DA PAM. below............

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/p600%5F35.pdf 

I am going by what my husband and I were told by a USN Commander, our landlord, when we were posted down to NAS Whidbey Island in 2001,
along with what other members of the USNavy were told, and my husband's orientation meeting when we was first posted down there.

If you would like the commander's name, feel free to PM me.
btw, the link isn't working for me.

 

[Springroll]

If anyone wants a copy of the DA Pam, (i sent a copy to springroll)

Thank you for that.
I did receive it and a reply has been sent back.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

PWOP entered the lexicon in the 1940s when women were first admitted to the service; it was considered in the same category as AWOL - and stood for Pregnant With Out Permission.  Is the term still used?

 

[Scott]

I recall from my SHARP training the video about the girl who got choked at her supervisor who told her "Don't get kncoked up or you'll miss out on promotions"  It was not the right ting to say. So I am thinking an official acronym like that would be taboo.

Or did you mean in the American side, Michael?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I recall from my SHARP training the video about the girl who got choked at her supervisor who told her "Don't get kncoked up or you'll miss out on promotions"  It was not the right ting to say. So I am thinking an official acronym like that would be taboo.

Or did you mean in the American side, Michael?

There's a taboo against the word "pregnant"?  I remember Lucille Ball couldn't say it on television in the 1950s.  And it is exactly what we're talking about here - PWOP is an unplanned pregnancy.  I can understand the human rights concerns involved, which is why I ask if the term is still in use.  It used to be.

 

[Scott]

I did not mean there was a taboo against the word "pregnant"  I meant the taboo being about discussing pregnancy relating to soemone's career, meaning bad for yours if you do  ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I did not mean there was a taboo against the word "pregnant"  I meant the taboo being about discussing pregnancy relating to soemone's career, meaning bad for yours if you do  ;D

Career is one thing, and we've enshrined a woman's right to have a family without adversely affecting that.  Well and good. But getting pregnant by illegal fraternization while on deployment (or by legal fraternization to avoid a deployment?) is another matter, no? 

 

[scoutfinch]

Career is one thing, and we've enshrined a woman's right to have a family without adversely affecting that.  Well and good. But getting pregnant by illegal fraternization while on deployment (or by legal fraternization to avoid a deployment?) is another matter, no? 

Have no fear, *pregnancy* has not become a bad word.  The legal issue is not one of *discussing* pregnancy in relation to employment but in actively discriminating against an employee because of a pregnancy. 

Obviously, this is an entirely different legal issue from a pregnancy arising during a deployment with a bar against fraternization.

 

[Springroll]

I did find this in the document that S_Baker sent to me.
It does sum up a bit of what I was saying, as far as fraternization(relations) between the ranks:

2-10. Officer—enlisted soldier (Dating)
a. Situation. Prior to 2 March 1999, CW2 Baker, a single female, met SSG Young, a
single male, at an off-post bar. They started dating. On the second date, each
found that the other was in the military and stationed at Fort B. CW2 Baker was in
the division headquarters while SSG Young was in the corps headquarters. Neither
is in a position to influence the career or duty assignments of the other. The
relationship appears to comply with the former Army policy on relationships between
soldiers of different rank. However, both CW2 Baker and SSG Young are
now aware that, on 1 March 2000, their officer/enlisted dating relationship will be
forbidden by the new policy (AR 600-20, para 4-14c(2)). What are their options?

b. Explanation. They must do something about the relationship before 1 March 2000.
They could, of course, terminate their relationship. Alternatively, they could marry
each other before 1 March 2000. If they are married, they may then continue their
military careers after 1 March 2000. If they decide that they do not want to terminate
their relationship, and they do not want to marry, then they will be in violation
of the policy after 1 March 2000.

c. Situation. Assume it is now April 2000. CW2 Baker and SSG Young did not marry
and continue dating past 1 March 2000. What should their commander do?
d. Explanation. The dating relationship is a violation of AR 600-20, paragraph. 4-
14c(2). Commanders have a wide range of responses available (AR 600-20, para
4-14f), including counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, or other action.
Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in
reaching a disposition that is warranted, appropriate, and fair. Generally, the
commander should take the minimum action necessary to ensure that the needs
of good order and discipline are satisfied.

e. Situation. What if CW2 Baker was actually CDR Smith, on active duty with the
Navy. Would that change anything?

f. Explanation. No. A prohibited relationship between an Army officer and an Army
enlisted soldier would still be prohibited if between a Navy officer and Army enlisted
soldier. This prohibition applies to relationships between Army personnel
and personnel of other military services.

I also found this in the same document:

2-11. Officer—enlisted (Social)
a. What impact does the new policy (AR 600-20, para 4-14c) on officer-enlisted relationships
have on attending events at the installation community club, such as
“right-arm nights”? Will an enlisted soldier get into trouble for talking to someone
at the club who he later learns is an officer?

b. Common sense should guide every application of the policy on relationships between
soldiers of different rank. Not all contact or association between officers
and enlisted persons violates the policy on prohibited officer-enlisted relationships.
For example, right-arm nights, in which a commander might take his or her
senior enlisted member to the community club to socialize over drinks would not
be a violation, since this traditional activity reasonably comes within the realm of
unit-based social functions and team building. Similarly, leadership professional
development meetings attended together by officer and enlisted personnel at a
community club would be an appropriate unit function. In contrast, soldiers who
socialize with other soldiers of any rank at the community club outside the context
of unit based functions or general community activities may be found in violation
of the policy depending on the nature of the relationship.

These exerpts were taken from:
US Department of the Army
Pamphlet 600-35
Relationships Between Soldiers of Different Rank

 

[Scott]

Career is one thing, and we've enshrined a woman's right to have a family without adversely affecting that.  Well and good. But getting pregnant by illegal fraternization while on deployment (or by legal fraternization to avoid a deployment?) is another matter, no? 

You've identified two different situations. Illegal fraternization and getting pregnant to avoid deploiyment. I don't see how getting pregnant by illegal fraternization carries any weight for a charge with it. Wether the fraternization is legal or not the results can be the same.

Getting pregnant to avid deployment - what would the charge be? Self inflicted injury? Dereliction of duty? I am not making fun, I just don't know how one would make a charge out of it and go on to prove it.