Unprofessional relationship

[Guest Shenanigans]

I am currently a senior cadet in AFROTC, however my girlfriend is a sophomore cadet. I have been warned time and time again by ROTC folks that as soon as I commission, I have to break it off. Personally, I think that is standard ROTC over protective parenting.

My question is: Has anyone seen married officers that weren't the same rank? It is only a 2 year difference, but I don't have much knowledge of the real Air Force, so I don't know how that works. Also, if we are both going to be pilots, will the Air Force allow us to be stationed together?

I have tons of questions along these lines, but if anyone has some guidance or personal experience on the issue, I would really appreciate it.

PS- I am not going to break up with her...so anything other than that is fine.

Thanks

[ 30. January 2007, 20:33: Message edited by: Shenanigans ]

[Guest Hydro130]

Yes, I know several married officer couples at different ranks/ages.

I'm not aware of any blanket USAF rules prohibiting commissioned officers from dating cadets, but times may have changed.

Whoever is telling you that you need to break this off needs to provide a regulatory source. Call their bluff.

"Show it to me in the regs." That should never be an unreasonable request.

Cheers, Hydro

[Guest ddoyle1]

There is no policy. Several guys that I commissioned with were dating/engaged to cadets a year or two behind. Don't know an answer for the pilot question. Good luck!

[Guest stusakss]

It all depends on the cadre...if they want to push it they will win, I knew a guy who went to basic instead of commissioning over this type of thing...technically POC can't even date GMC, and the regs...those regs ARE there, but I am not sure what happens after one is an LT. (eg, ROTC regs don't apply to the LT anymore)

On a personal note, the AF is a family, and you should never marry your sister. If I was a General, that is the first thing I would change, no mil-mil marriage...period. However, I am not in change, and my opinion is much like my ass, and I will have it forever, some may think it stinks, but that’s all OK.

On the flip side, I hope it all woks out, just be forewarned that it is going to be tough, and remember when it is tough that it was your choice, so don't go crying about how much you miss each other to me.

It has nothing to do with being unprofessional to me, it is that the challenges you will face will not just be yours...your commanders and supervisors are going to be saddled with them as well, everything from joint spouse assignments to deployment schedules to dependent care issues, you name it; and your squadron mates are going to have to pick up the difference when those issues arise.

[Toro]

I know plenty of mil-mil marriages with different ranks, it's no problem - one of them is a Lt Col married to a Captain.

I also had a T-37 IP Captain who was married to a 2Lt - they started dating while he was a Captain and she was a cadet.

Concur with Hydro - the AF has a reg for just about everything (all the way down to local supplements for regs). If they can't show you where it's written, I wouldn't sweat it.

[Baseops.Net]

I just wanted to add that Pilot married to another Pilot is probably one of the toughest combinations in the AF. Even if by some lucky chance you end up flying the same aircraft, unless you somehow manage to be in the same squadron (I've seen it done), it can be extremely trying.

The worst thing that could happen would be you both go AMC C-130s and end up at the same base, but in DIFFERENT squadrons - thus when one is deployed the other is at home, and vice versa until infiniti - thus never to see each other again...

[M2]

It would be a great reason to break up with her if you wanted; but from your comments I see you don't want to break up with her, so just don't go sucking face at your detachment and you should be fine. Serisouly, don't AFROTC cadre have more important things to worry about??

I remember 100 years ago when I was enlisted we had a pretty hot looking female captain walk into our office with the same name as one of the colonels that worked in our building. Someone asked if she was that colonel's daughter, and she replied that she was that colonel's wife!

Needless to say, we all had a healthy new respect for that colonel!

And next time post some pics of your girlfriend in a bikini or something so we can better assess whether she is worth the trouble or not!

Cheers! M2

[lazlo]

I just wanted to add that Pilot married to another Pilot is probably one of the toughest combinations in the AF. Even if by some lucky chance you end up flying the same aircraft, unless you somehow manage to be in the same squadron (I've seen it done), it can be extremely trying.

The worst thing that could happen would be you both go AMC C-130s and end up at the same base, but in DIFFERENT squadrons - thus when one is deployed the other is at home, and vice versa until infiniti - thus never to see each other again...

It is possible though... Both of my parents were IP's at Laughlin, then both stationed at Eglin after that, on different airframes. (That was back in the 80's, and I'm sure that the AF has changed a little since then.) Best of luck Shenanigans, I'm sure you'll work it out.

Edited February 22, 2007 by lazlo

[Guest MNNCO]

I just joined this forum and I have a question on this topic. In the National Guard what is the policy (and the reality)for a full time Air Guard COL dating a full time LT. I know the NG is different animal from what most of you are use to. Typically the "organizational influence" of AFI 36-2909 (I found the AFI after a little searching) can cover a lot of territory and in the NG the full timers can be pretty tight at the top AND so far the LT has never had to deploy. I can't prove a connection but those of us who are deployed it's a little frustrating after months in the desert. Especially after talking to a friend out west in a NG unit who is looking at an involuntary second year in the sand box. I think the COL has only 4 months or so deployed himself. I personally wouldn't call someone three or four grades above me by a first name much less start some kind of relationship. I have seen in a similar situation where a captain who rated an LT was nervous whenever he did her OER because he knew she was seeing a higher ranking staff officer. Not directly in his chain but friends with someone who was. (That's not uncommon in the NG) I don't think the ranking officer actually said anything, but you can see his how awkward it could be with a kind of subtle pressure. Thanks for your time.

[Guest Hydro130]

I just joined this forum and I have a question on this topic. In the National Guard what is the policy (and the reality)for a full time Air Guard COL dating a full time LT. I know the NG is different animal from what most of you are use to. Typically the "organizational influence" of AFI 36-2909 (I found the AFI after a little searching) can cover a lot of territory and in the NG the full timers can be pretty tight at the top AND so far the LT has never had to deploy. I can't prove a connection but those of us who are deployed it's a little frustrating after months in the desert. Especially after talking to a friend out west in a NG unit who is looking at an involuntary second year in the sand box. I think the COL has only 4 months or so deployed himself. I personally wouldn't call someone three or four grades above me by a first name much less start some kind of relationship. I have seen in a similar situation where a captain who rated an LT was nervous whenever he did her OER because he knew she was seeing a higher ranking staff officer. Not directly in his chain but friends with someone who was. (That's not uncommon in the NG) I don't think the ranking officer actually said anything, but you can see his how awkward it could be with a kind of subtle pressure. Thanks for your time.

It's definitely poor form for an O-6 to be running around with an LT. Regardless of whether that's technically permissible by regs gets irrelevant when it's that big of a rank spread, for all the reasons you mentioned. In such cases, perception of what's going on behind the scenes is far more relevant than actuality; that O-6 should know that.

Shame on the O-6. He (I assume "he") should know better. And, hell, for that matter, so should the LT! Bad on both of 'em....

Cheers, Hydro

Edited March 20, 2007 by Hydro130

[Boxhead]

I think it has been said somewhere on here, but if I ruled the AF, there would be no mil-to-mil marriages. Period dot. Just too much ass pain for all involved. Lots of other reasons too, but that is not for this thread.

The AF is a family, don't bone down your sister.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Boxhead

[Guest TheBurt]

The AF is a family, don't bone down your sister.

If she is hot, it seems like it would make it more fun if it was your Air Force sister, seriously, No AF to AF marriages or hot deployment dating action? YGTBFSM!! Back on the topic, there is no problem whatsoever if you are a cadet dating a cadet and then subsequently dating or getting married, there has to be a godzillion AF couples that have gotten married in said manner, I personally know of around a dozen or more. As far as, ANG you can date anyone you want, you are a civilian that is in the military during drill, AFTPS and annual training, when you are title 10 a little different story.

[Guest MNNCO]

If she is hot, it seems like it would make it more fun if it was your Air Force sister, seriously, No AF to AF marriages or hot deployment dating action? YGTBFSM!! Back on the topic, there is no problem whatsoever if you are a cadet dating a cadet and then subsequently dating or getting married, there has to be a godzillion AF couples that have gotten married in said manner, I personally know of around a dozen or more. As far as, ANG you can date anyone you want, you are a civilian that is in the military during drill, AFTPS and annual training, when you are title 10 a little different story.

IMHO, We should have one standard for everyone. In this particular case we have individuals who wear the uniform every day whether deployed or stateside and really are on active duty when you get down to it. This was touched on earlier i believe but at the very least mil-mil relationships handicap the leadership when it comes to placing personnel in duty assignments. A leader may have the best person for a particular job all picked out and then finds out placing them in the assignment will put them in the rating chain of someone they are seeing. Picking the regs to follow because someone is title 32 versus title 10 really shouldn't be the reason we follow or don't follow a reg. In the Guard especially if you are O-5 or above E-7 or above on the enlisted side, you pretty much know everyone else in that peer group, at least in your home state. So you can see the potential issue there. We are here to fight wars after all not run a dating service. I'll get down off the soap box now

[M2]

BS. I've known many military-married-to-military folks who have served professionally and without problem. Unless there is a direct chain-of-command issue (and one that you have absolute proof of, not just what you "think" is going on), then the USAF can go suck an egg. WTF, people complain about having to wear a fucking reflective belt but have no problems with the Air Force telling you who you can and cannot marry? Get real, if you have evidence that there is wrongdoings going on, go to the IG. If not, shut your cakehole and quit spreading rumors. We have enough of that shit going on.

And I am still waiting for pics of your cadet g/f to make the final determination as to whether she is work tanking your career or not!

Cheers! M2

[Boxhead]

I think everyone knows mil-to-mil married folks who are professional and serve honorably. Actual direct chain of command issues are not all that common. The issues I am talking about are more general than that. Issues like assignments, deployments, TDYs, etc...when there is a married couple, it just causes issues, regardless of how swell the people themselves are. It is not the couple that always suffers, it is their leadership and their squadron mates.

A commander should be able to look at their people, and make decisions about their careers and duties based on the qualifications of the individual and the needs of the unit. Not something like "OK, this person is depolying...Oh wait, they can't their spouse is deployed somewhere else, they won't see each other for over 6 months...their kids will have to leave the country and go live with grandma halfway through the school year"

Assignments are similar..."Hey, person X is shit-hot...they deserve this good deal assignment"...wait their spouse is not so shit hot...is there something for them? Na, just give them the good deal too..." That type of stuff breeds all kinda anger among the troops, the alternative is "Here is your good deal, you will be stationed with your spouse in a few years, see ya" Then, the leadership is viewed as being "anti-mil-to-mil marriage" and look how they screwed over this couple...

OR, the couple acknowledges all these issues, take assignments that are traditionally viewed as "not so good" because the good part for them is just being together, they have someone that an take their children at the drop of a hat for an extended period of time ect...

None of these are rumors...every example here I have firsthand knowledge of. My cake hole is hungry. :) BTW...you have never heard me bitch about reflective belts...I save my bitching for stuff that negatively affects me personally, the mission, or my troops, and this issue affects all of those.

I do hear ya barking M2, it's not that I want the AF to make all the decisions for us, want I really want is for people to make good decisions on their own...but I think you have been around long enough to know how well that works out! :)

EDIT: Holy crap, thank God for spell check...sorry if you had to read this before I corrected it!

Edited March 27, 2007 by Boxhead

[Guest jojo61397]

I am currently a senior cadet in AFROTC, however my girlfriend is a sophomore cadet. I have been warned time and time again by ROTC folks that as soon as I commission, I have to break it off. Personally, I think that is standard ROTC over protective parenting.

My question is: Has anyone seen married officers that weren't the same rank? It is only a 2 year difference, but I don't have much knowledge of the real Air Force, so I don't know how that works. Also, if we are both going to be pilots, will the Air Force allow us to be stationed together?

I have tons of questions along these lines, but if anyone has some guidance or personal experience on the issue, I would really appreciate it.

PS- I am not going to break up with her...so anything other than that is fine.

Thanks

[ 30. January 2007, 20:33: Message edited by: Shenanigans ]

I haven't read any of the responses, and here's mine. Whoever told you that is full of shit. My DH is an Academy grad (class of 1997), I was an ROTC cadet (class of 1998). When I asked my ROTC detachment if it was OK if we continued to date, the answer was oh heck yeah. I actually became an Academy bride my Senior year, and was married to an officer while still a cadet. It is NOT unprofessional. I actually left the military as a Captain. If I were to continue to be in the service I would be a Captain, my DH a Major. Line numbers being what they are-- it would have been almost three years after my husband that I would have pinned on Major. If he was a fast burner, theoritically, I could have been a Captain and he could have been a Lt Col. As long as she doesn't enlist, any relationship you have with her is fine. I would, however advise you, if you are going to get married, get married soon after graduation. You will have better odds of getting a join-spouse. We didn't get a join-spouse until 3 years after we were married, but the assignment system now is better about it.

ETA: BTW, I graduated from ROTC unit at UMD!!!! And as far as mil-to-mil marriages, while it was a good idea at the time, I would have to agree with those against it. It was nice when we didn't have children, once you add children, pregnancy to the mix it sucked big time. Obiviously, I'm the female component, but as soon as I started trying to get pregnant it was a going impression that I was trying to get out of deployment. I was under a lot of pressure, and finally someone screwed me (I was told I was going to Korea-- DH is NOT a fighter pilot and could not go with me), so I said ###### it and left the service. Two kids and two dogs later, I'm happy I made that decision.

Edited April 15, 2007 by jojo61397

[Guest MNNCO]

One question I have is why the Cadre would be telling him this if it wasn't a problem. I mean, what would they have to gain? You've got me on this one.

[Guest jojo61397]

One question I have is why the Cadre would be telling him this if it wasn't a problem. I mean, what would they have to gain? You've got me on this one.

I don't know why. It's wierd actually. Some ROTC units have wierd rules and regulations. It might a personal opinion of a cadre member, it might be from past experience. There are MANY people I know who had relationships with cadets and who were officers, there are several people I know who got married.

[Guest MNNCO]

I don't know why. It's wierd actually. Some ROTC units have wierd rules and regulations. It might a personal opinion of a cadre member, it might be from past experience. There are MANY people I know who had relationships with cadets and who were officers, there are several people I know who got married.

I was talking to some of our newer military members earlier (less than 2 years service) who entered from various sources that they were advised early on in their career that a one up or one down was a good rule of thumb for relationships. Keep it confined to 1 grade above to one grade below and you don't have to worry. I'm not sure where it started but it seems like a good idea IMHO. At any rate you would think that the powers that be would make sure everyone,including all ROTC units were on the same sheet of music policy wise.

[brabus]

Who cares...as far as ROTC cadets, they're still civilians. They're not under UCMJ. So there's absolutely no policy, reg, etc. that says even a Col can't marry a cadet. Bad form, yeah...but illegal/against regs, nope. Don't worry about LT to cadet marriage, there's nothing against it.

[Boxhead]

Who cares...as far as ROTC cadets, they're still civilians. They're not under UCMJ. So there's absolutely no policy, reg, etc. that says even a Col can't marry a cadet. Bad form, yeah...but illegal/against regs, nope. Don't worry about LT to cadet marriage, there's nothing against it.

Well, sorta. It is one of those "does your cadre really, really hate you and want to press the issue".

If you still have it, go look though the contact you signed with you started taking $$ from AFROTC....they have their own version of the UCMJ "catch all Article" -..there is a section in that contract that lists all the reasons that you can get booted from ROTC and sent to Basic Training...the last one being "Indifference to AFROTC Training"...talk about a vague statement that can cover pretty much anything.

So, your Det makes a local policy something to the affect of "As a contact cadet, you can not date an AD officer or enlisted person". Since their job is to train you to follow rules, the argument can b made that if you do not follow their local policy...you are showing an "Indifference to AFRTOC training". Can they technically "bust" you under the UCMJ? Nope. Can they make you an Airman for two years (where dating a LT is very much against the regs)....they sure can. Can they rate you at the bottom of the class? Yep. They have their ways if they decide to be jerky about it.

I knew a guy that had that happen to him...not for dating an AD person, but a localism that the cadre decided to press...and low and behold, he was in basic with me. That was in 1991...if I recall it was an alchohol related issue.

[brabus]

"Indifference to AFROTC Training"...

How retarded...but not surprising I guess. Can't people just keep this shit on the DL until comissioned? I knew a few people back in ROTC who most of us didn't even have a clue that they were dating until like 7 months down the road. Play that way and you'll pass Go.

[Guest jojo61397]

Well, sorta. It is one of those "does your cadre really, really hate you and want to press the issue".

If you still have it, go look though the contact you signed with you started taking $$ from AFROTC....they have their own version of the UCMJ "catch all Article" -..there is a section in that contract that lists all the reasons that you can get booted from ROTC and sent to Basic Training...the last one being "Indifference to AFROTC Training"...talk about a vague statement that can cover pretty much anything.

So, your Det makes a local policy something to the affect of "As a contact cadet, you can not date an AD officer or enlisted person". Since their job is to train you to follow rules, the argument can b made that if you do not follow their local policy...you are showing an "Indifference to AFRTOC training". Can they technically "bust" you under the UCMJ? Nope. Can they make you an Airman for two years (where dating a LT is very much against the regs)....they sure can. Can they rate you at the bottom of the class? Yep. They have their ways if they decide to be jerky about it.

I knew a guy that had that happen to him...not for dating an AD person, but a localism that the cadre decided to press...and low and behold, he was in basic with me. That was in 1991...if I recall it was an alchohol related issue.

Yeah, you know now that I think about it, there were people who broke "certain" rules were sent to basic training. Our det had a tendancy to follow its rules based on who the det/cc liked. There were several cadets busted for providing alcohol to minors (GMC-type minors), and they were all given warnings, but there was another guy who did something less outrageous and he was sent back to basic-- the Lt Col I know didn't like him. I guess in our det dating an officer wasn't a big deal. Of course my det was not the picture of what a detachment should be like-- there were a lot of things that happened there that were wierd.

[Herk Driver]

including all ROTC units were on the same sheet of music policy wise.

It all goes back to what someone said earlier. Have them show it to you in writing. Otherwise, it isn't policy.

[Guest MNNCO]

It all goes back to what someone said earlier. Have them show it to you in writing. Otherwise, it isn't policy.

OK shenanigans what reg if any did your Cadre cite? I'm sure by now you've had a chance to ask.