Essentially the rules seek to prevent inappropriate relationships between higher-ranking personnel and their subordinates.
Relationships of the same and opposite genders are prohibited if they fall into any of the following categories: Such relationships don't have to be sexual in nature to be prohibited.
Violations of such regulations, directives, or orders may be punishable under Article 92.
Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems using the UCMJ/MCM as a basis of charges.
All the services prohibit personal and business relationships between officers and enlisted members, calling them prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Personal relationships include dating, cohabitation, and any sexual relationship.
While they could be charged under service regulations, each of the services had different and wide-ranging policies and definitions as to what constituted an "inappropriate relationship." Additionally, the explanation of what is and is not allowed is not specifically spelled out in the MCM/UCMJ.
In July 1998, Defense Secretary William Cohen directed the services to "adopt uniform, clear and readily understandable" fraternization policies.
For instance, there are officer / enlisted relationships within the military that one of the members is a Navy Diver and the other is a Navy Pilot either as higher / lower ranking officers or enlisted.
The Army—and all branches of the military—maintain specific rules about fraternizing.
The Air Force is charging Joiner with disobeying an order against fraternizing with enlisted personnel.
With all the changes Do D is making to placate the minoritygroups (i.e.
DADT repeal, grooming for certain groups) why has no one looked atthe officer/enlisted relationship issue.