Relationships WIth Other Ranks

#1
Relationships with Other Ranks – your view

Op Telic – what a tour……………..

I am a Private ranked soldier. Whilst serving in Iraq I got caught having a personal relationship with a married but separated SNCO. Is this a chargeable offence? As I result, my Squadron Seniors and Officers (who I may add, are personally familiar with this certain situation!) decided that the best way to deal with this, was to send me else where in theatre. Their aim, was for this relationship to end and for us to have no contact with one another until the end of our tour. But, as a result this made our relationship stronger and we are still together now. (We have had our fair share of problems and it hasn’t been the smooth relationship we both hoped). Our Squadron Seniors and Officers were oblivious that we were still in frequent contact.

Our Sqn Seniors and Officers are now fully aware that we are in contact. As a result I have been extended in Theatre for an extra month while my partner returns camp. Therefore, we are unable to take any POTL together. It is also inevitable, that on my return to camp I am posted early to a new unit.

My overall view of the whole situation is that our squadron has very much over reacted and are continuing to create further problems, even four months later. However, I can see that they initially had to react to this situation in some form, hence their positions in the Rank structure. (I am sure they would have been frowned upon if they were to have done nothing.) But a relationship in the Forces is hard enough, without added unnecessary attention! I think that yet again, the Forces need to re – think and change the way they deal with certain situations – a more modern approach maybe?

Who are the Armed Forces Hierarchy to tell you, who you can and cannot have a relationship with?

Lessons to be learnt: If you are to get involved with “Other Ranks” trust NO ONE and DON’T GET CAUGHT………….
 
#2
Peanutbutter said:
Who are the Armed Forces Hierarchy to tell you, who you can and cannot have a relationship with?
.

Easy, just apply the 'service test'.

msr
 
#3
If you are too naive to realise why there are such rules, perhaps Tescos could provide better career opportunities for you.
 
#5
Well I can't offer advice PeanutButter but,

There was another situation in the Litter Tray , where a female was caught in flagrante delecto with a SNCO in the hot sandy place . There was much hilarity ,as well as having several TA soldiers re-affirm their belief there is a God after all :D

If you want an idea of the level of sympathy you can expect, I'd venture over to the RAMC part of the forum , where a similar incident has been discussed.

Lessons to be learnt: If you are to get involved with “Other Ranks” trust NO ONE and DON’T GET CAUGHT………….
Especially by the Guard
 
#6
Peanut,

I have sympathy but let us not forget the business we are in.....when you sign up you have to surrender certain things that are taken for granted in the other life – you have VOLUNTEERED to put yourself in harm's way.

I have no time for AGAI 67 as normally applied (I think it should be the last of all options) but it exists to deter misbehaviour that impairs military decision making.

An example scenario:

Your boyfriend as a SNCO, Sgt Bloggs, is responsible for detailing personnel to attack a trench. You are a clerk (normally a zillion miles behind us in the AGC but now the OC’s radio Op/dvr) now one of the possible nominees

Does his relationship with you figure in his decision to detail personnel to a dangerous task……probably so. That is why the whole business of females in teeth arms )(& attached to them) is a c___k of s___t because relationships develop and are involved in decisions.

Keep females out of combat zones..they create their own

 
#7
Peanut,

firstly remember that the hierarchy in your unit must be seen to be taking action against YOU BOTH!

You may be getting extended out there but I bet his promotion chances are now well and truly ficked.

Since females became an integral part of Medical units it was inevitable that this would occur. However, have they applied the service test? Is he in a position of responsibility and in your chain of command? I know he is a SNCO but he may not be directly related in that chain!

Finally, if they are pissing you off, which sounds like they are and you are serious about each other then one of you leave. Problem solved.
 
#8
dui-lai, Thanks for the advice.
Could you please expand your knowlage on "The Service Test"

He is in a position of authority, but not in my line of work. Does this make a difference?
Many Thanks Peanut Butter.

Ps. Just some extra info - I am not part of a medical Unit, this is just where my "Subject" got published. I have also seriously thought about leaving the Forces World, but we am determined to not let the Hierarchy get the better of us!
 
#9
Peanutbutter said:
Whilst serving in Iraq I got caught having a personal relationship with a married but separated SNCO
3 points really Peanut, firstly you say caught, which implies that even you thinks its wrong.
secondly, he is married but separated, which is technically still married.

and thirdly, youre on an operational tour, good to see youve time for a relationship, mind on the job eh? professionalism at its best!!
 
#11
Peanutbutter said:
Could you please expand your knowlage on "The Service Test"

He is in a position of authority, but not in my line of work. Does this make a difference?
Commander's Guide Edition of 'Values and Satndards of the British Army' defines the Service Test as:

“Have the actions or behaviour of an
individual adversely impacted or are they
likely to impact on the efficiency or
operational effectiveness of the Army?”

Which is about as ambiguous as it is possible to be.
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#12
I thought it was when a CO has decided two parties has trangressed the unwritten rules and are duely punished with the full force of the Service.
 
#14
OK...the Service Test and maintenance of discipline within the Army.

The Adjutant General was closely involved in the redesigning of Service Law in the wake of the adoption of the Human Rights Act (HRA). The amended piece of legislation is known as the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 (AFDA 00). The Army Act of 1955 (AA 55) still applies where relevant.

In July 2000, the Adjutant General articulated the importance of discipline:

We consider that we need to retain the ability to deliver military justice in the field, including at the summary level. Not all armies do, but we have made it vital ground.

ECAB is quite clear that the administration of military discipline is core business.
The AFDA 00 upheld the authority of Commanding Officers to exercise discipline - whilst safeguarding the rights of the individual. AA 55 was amended in line with this, so that the discipline system is compliant with the HRA.

There are (essentially) 2 main streams of dispensing justice: summary dealing and further if required, and administrative action within the auspices of AGAI 67 (in development). AGAI 67 is concerned with upholding standards of conduct set out in Values and Standards, and this is the area that this thread is concerned with.

The Service Test is to be applied in all cases of Misconduct. Examples of misconduct include (but are not limited to) Fauilure to adhere to the law, discrimination and harrassment, bullying, social misbehaviour, drug misuse, alcohol misuse, irresponsible indebtedness, unauthorised contact with the media, and inappropriate social conduct.

When considering cases of misconduct, and in determining whether the Service has a duty to intervene in the personal lives of its' personnel, Commanding Officers at every level must consider each case against the Service Test:

Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely affected or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?
So what is 'operational effectiveness'. Isee above that it has been described as being fairly vague. How about:

Operational effectiveness is the ability of a unit or formation to function as a cohesive force to perform the functions, missions or actions for which it is organised or designed.
The key phrase here is 'function as a cohesive force'. The overarching requirement is that discipline underpins OE, and that discipline is inseparable from leadership. Self-discipline must be underwritten by enforcement. Military discipline must be fair, appropriate, timely and proportionate.

In the case outlined above, I can offer you a personal interpretation of the situation as it has been presented here.

1. The male in question is still lawfully married.
2. The male in question is technically commiting adultery.
3. A significant disparity in rank exists.
4. The relationship is within the chain of command (defined as within formation)
5. The relationship was continued in an operational environment.
6. The relationship has clearly affected the normas of loyalty and integrity within the WOs and Sgts Mess community.

In this case, the application of the Service Test would seem to indicate that the norms of conduct have been breached, and that the couple in question are acting with misconduct.

I would be very surprised if you had been allowed to continue this relationship with impunity, for obvious reasons.

Peanut - I have a great deal of sympathy for your situation, but can offer no kind words of mitigation.
 
O

one_flew_over

Guest
#15
Peanut,

There are many reasons for you unit to be seen to be taking action - not just for the breach of the service test (see TSW post) but for the morale of others (it must be fairly public knowledge and you can't have been very discreet. If he or she is seperated but not divorced it all depends on the MARRISTAT which might still be 1. If the spouse is still in a quarter at home imagine the morale factor for other spouses!

Bottom line - you're on a 6 month tour so if you are serious about each other then you'll last POTL (he could even ask to delay his maybe) and it will work. It is an op tour and I'd even expect a married couple to be sensitive to the fact everyone else is not 'with partner' for 6 months and not behave like honeymooners!
 
#17
Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely affected or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?
So what has peanutbutter done to fail this test, technically no other half to bring the service into disrepute but is her leading to discipline problems?
As long as they're doing their job I see no problems, it was far too easy to use the old rules to effectively bully soldiers or use the system to their advantage.
I know of staffie who managed to get rid 10+ very good soldiers in 2 years just because she'd been treated badly by blokes in the past. She was also using the rules to protect her own position (and get these blokes in the first place)
 
#18
Hmmm...I don't really want to repeat my post PB! :D

I can see what you're driving at, however. I suspect that you can readily see how Peanut's erstwhile partner has breached the guidelines, but how has she???

The answer is quite simple:

1. The normal command relationship has been compromised by the pair of them.

2. A significant disparity in rank exists (this applies to the pair of them).

3. Peanut is having a relationship with a man who is still married. The fact that he is separated is no excuse.

I would be very, very surprised if morale had reached an all time low in the unit concerned - the Army, and it's people, are bigger than that.

In this case, it seems the Commanding Officer has applied the Service Test, and judged accordingly. It isn't for us to query that. The Service Test is quite clear.

If you consider what could have been done to them both, I would say that they have got off lightly. In some parts of the Army, I daresay that there may have been a different outcome.

In this situation, I would say that the fact that the man is still married is the biggest factor for concern - the Army cannot, and should not, turn a blind eye to marital infidelity.

Old fashioned? Possibly.
Underpinning discipline? Absolutely.
 
#19
Fannybutter said:
Relationships with Other Ranks – your view

Op Telic – what a tour……………..
certainly something to tell you family about, theyll be so proud.

FannyBatter said:
Lessons to be learnt: If you are to get involved with “Other Ranks” trust NO ONE and DON’T GET CAUGHT………….
and if you do get caught take it on the chin (although at the moment of interruption thats probably where you did :twisted: ) and stop whinging, of course we are more than gratefull to you for giving us some gossip, but in future, less whining and more actual details!!
 
#20
Filbert Fox said:
Fannybutter said:
and if you do get caught take it on the chin (although at the moment of interruption thats probably where you did :twisted: ) and stop whinging, of course we are more than gratefull to you for giving us some gossip, but in future, less whining and more actual details!!
Perhaps some 'tasteful' pictures might help raise a little more sympathy?

BTW Foxy - you are soooo going down; sadly it looks like we might be joining you now (at least that's 6 easy points for us next season). :lol:
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top