Witnessed two soldiers kissing (same gender)

[SSG Schwartz]

I don't want to bias this by saying what gender the two soldiers were. I don't want to bias this by saying what my reaction was. I will give you this much information. I was talking to PFC A and looked down for a minute at the paperwork PFC A presented to me. PFC B came in and had not seen PFC A for awhile. I hear lips smacking, look up and see heads withdrawing from the kiss.

So, what do you think I should have done?
What do you think I did?
What do you think about this?

Sgt Schwartz

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Mind your own business.

[SSG Schwartz]

Mind your own business.


I wish I could. I am a direct supervisor for both and should have included that in the OP.

Sgt Schwartz

[Amp]

Don't ask don't tell.

[JustAnotherGeek]

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

You don't have proof.

Mind your own business.

[Captain Carrot]

Were they on duty? If so, did this encounter compromise their abilities to perform their assigned tasks? If the answer to either of these is no, it seems to me that there is nothing you need to do about an activity that does not affect their capacity to serve, and could get them discharged if you do report it.

[Spezza]

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

You don't have proof.

Mind your own business.

Seconded.

[SSG Schwartz]

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

You don't have proof.

Mind your own business.

I will not ask about sexual orientation. I really don't care.
I suppose you are saying I should not report this incident to my higher-ups.
I am not sure what you are saying I don't have proof of. Are you doubting the kiss, the orientation of the Soldiers involved, or documentation of the incident?
Again, this is my business. I am responsible for the conduct of the soldiers within my platoon.

Sgt Schwartz

[Cyn]

Do whatever you'd do if they were of opposite sexes. If it's inappropriate for PFCs to kiss when in front of their supervisor, then do as you would for anyone else.

[SSG Schwartz]

Were they on duty? If so, did this encounter compromise their abilities to perform their assigned tasks? If the answer to either of these is no, it seems to me that there is nothing you need to do about an activity that does not affect their capacity to serve, and could get them discharged if you do report it.


Yes, both were on duty. No, it does not change the ability to preform assigned tasks. It could efffect me personally if I knew that this kind of thing happened and I did not document it and report it to my leaders. I am required to report statements, acts, or attempted marriages involving Service Members of the same gender.


Sgt Schwartz

[delphica]

I'm genuinely curious -- what would usually happen if that had been a man soldier and a woman soldier kissing? Were you on the clock? I generally disapprove of kissing in the workplace between anyone.

I'm also a little confused by why two people who might get discharged if they are reported (going by what Captain Carrot posted) would kiss in front of you. It's not as if they didn't know you were there, if A was doing paperwork with you. It seems like it could be 1: they want to be reported, 2: they don't think you are going to do anything about it, or 3: they thought it would be funny to mess with you. Ha, or 4: they are siblings, and you thought it would be funny to mess with us. :D

[Oakminster]

Dude, you did not actually see them kiss. By your own statement. Perhaps you were mistaken about the whole thing. Perhaps you should make it clear that if you ever did actually see them kissing, you would be obligated to report it. But since you did not actually see it this time, you won't report it. Then perhaps you should have a beer and hope they get the clue.

[Mr. Moto]

Y'know, it is possible that some people in some circumstances will trade a kiss with someone they aren't attracted to with an early discharge from a military organization.

Of course, this only works if you can arrange it so that you can be seen.

Just saying.

[Geek Mecha]

1. You didn't see actually see the kiss, as in the actual contact of lips to lips. You can make kissing motions and sounds to someone without touching them.

2. Kissing someone of the same sex doesn't mean you're gay. This, of course, depends on the nature of the kiss in question, but since you lack proof a kiss took place, it's pretty moot.

IMO, at best you could bust them for improper conduct of some sort, with the appropriate punishment being a stern look and disapproving comment. Anything else is an overreaction.

[Mr. Moto]

BTW, the other side of "don't ask" is "don't tell". And that doesn't mean that Sgt. Schwartz isn't supposed to tell, it means the gay soldier isn't supposed to tell, either verbally or by kissing in public.

[Ferret Herder]

This is probably more common in females but not unheard of for males - depending on how you were raised/on your cultural background, greeting with a kiss on the cheek isn't completely unusual for friends. You heard lips but didn't see if they met or if cheeks were kissed.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Yes, both were on duty. No, it does not change the ability to preform assigned tasks. It could efffect me personally if I knew that this kind of thing happened and I did not document it and report it to my leaders. I am required to report statements, acts, or attempted marriages involving Service Members of the same gender.


Sgt Schwartz

Right. You go tell someone you 'heard' a kiss and be prepared for laughter. Really, this is silliness. Go on about your business and don't mention this or you'll look like a loon.

[MovieMogul]

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

You don't have proof.

Mind your own business.I'm not in the military, and if the OPs particular code of conduct would require you to report something that was (a) brief, (b) potentially circumstantial (c) devoid of background info or context, (d) was none of my personal business, and (e) a 1-time incident to my knowledge, then I suppose it's all well and good that I'm not, because what Geek said is what I would do.

[NurseCarmen]

Are you sure they weren't doing the french kiss the air near the cheeks thing?

[Mr. Moto]

C'mon. This is the Army, not the French Riviera.

Like I said, the first thing I'd suspect with such a blatant display is someone going fishing for an early out. If I were Sgt. Schwartz, I'd put the kibosh on that really fast.

[Mr. Moto]

Let's be clear about something. I was in the Navy for five years, and knew a few gay and lesbian sailors. The ones who were discreet about it did fine and usually weren't bothered. The ones who made it public, or had it made public for them, generally had a really rough time.

So why would someone, knowing this, invite trouble this way, unless there might be a benefit of some kind at the other end? Like, for instance, an early out and a avoidance of deployment to the Mideast?

[Ferret Herder]

Let's be clear about something. I was in the Navy for five years, and knew a few gay and lesbian sailors. The ones who were discreet about it did fine and usually weren't bothered. The ones who made it public, or had it made public for them, generally had a really rough time.

So why would someone, knowing this, invite trouble this way, unless there might be a benefit of some kind at the other end? Like, for instance, an early out and a avoidance of deployment to the Mideast?
I agree, that does seem extremely stupid to do unless you want to get booted out.

[Rusalka]

That's what I thought too; hearing a kiss doesn't mean a thing, you are jumping to conclusions. Females kiss each other in greeting in certain social circles, and so do men. In my opinion, it would be morally wrong to take action, especially since you *didn't see anything*. Is it normal in the military not to talk to your subordinates about inappropriate behavior?

The idea that you would get in trouble for something you didn't see is preposterous.

So what's actually against the rules in the military? Being homosexual? Acting homosexual? How does the military manage to define that?

[Sage Rat]

I would either ignore it, or give a talking to the both of them that "I don't care about who you fraternize with, but I do care about whether you will effect the morale or team spirit of others under my command. If you can't keep your relationships private to both me and others, then I'll boot your ass in two seconds. This is your one and only warning."-type thing.

[Mr. Moto]

You can't ignore it. Like I said, they chose to put on this show in front of their supervisor. That is disrespectful to him, and itself a breakdown of discipline.

I don't know that it is proof of any kind of relationship, given the issues I outlined.

This is where your knowledge of your soldiers and your leadership skills have to kick in.

[Ruby]

I have to agree with the other posters in that you didn't actually see a kiss. You're making an assumption based on what you think you heard and their "heads withdrawing". Hub has been in the military 37 years and has the least tolerance of anyone I know (;)) and even he would likely say that unless you actually saw an act, you won't likely be able to pursue it.

I also believe that anyone who is gay and in the military is quite familiar with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy currently in effect. Anyone who would engage in a blatantly sexual act with someone of the same sex in front of their SGT, is either too stupid beyond comprehension or has an agenda (ie looking to be discharged). I have to believe that you didn't "see" what you think you saw.

The most I think you should do is to say something to them that their behavior didn't go unnoticed and that..... On second thought, just don't go there. You didn't see anything. Just let it go.

[hawksgirl]

I'd say since you admit you didn't *actually see* them kiss, I'd talk to them about it, but not report it. Warn them about what the consequences are if it happens again.

Report facts, not suspicions.

[alphaboi867]

...So what's actually against the rules in the military? Being homosexual? Acting homosexual? How does the military manage to define that?

Actually having intercourse with someone of the same sex can land you in Leavenworth on a sodomy conviction. "Homosexual conduct" can get you a discharge. This inludes such things as; sexual intercourse, kissing, statements, handholding, pornography, getting a letter from an ex, being seen off-duty going into a gay bar, being seen off-base buying a copy of the Advocate*, etc. While it is a completely idiotic, immoral, digusting policy Sgt Schwartz is bound by oath to follow it.


*Yes, I met a guy who was seperated form the Army (fresh out of boot camp) for doing just that. :mad:

[SSG Schwartz]

Thank you all for your input. I am having a hard time processing this incident myself. I have a great deal of respect for both of these soldiers. I believe that both have respect for me, if not because of my personality, but for my duty position. I do not want either to be discharged.

My response was:


You will never do that again while in uniform.

I made eye contact with both when I said that. I reallly hope that this is the last of it. I know, from recent conversations with both, that they want to serve out the initial enlistment. I also know that some people also kiss as greeting. I do know what I heard and it will not stand up in court, but it was lip to lip kissing.

I am feeling that the general opinion is that I should keep this to myself regardless of the risks to myself and those involved.

Sgt Schwartz

[Caridwen]

Thank you all for your input. I am having a hard time processing this incident myself. I have a great deal of respect for both of these soldiers. I believe that both have respect for me, if not because of my personality, but for my duty position. I do not want either to be discharged.

My response was:


You will never do that again while in uniform.

I made eye contact with both when I said that. I reallly hope that this is the last of it. I know, from recent conversations with both, that they want to serve out the initial enlistment. I also know that some people also kiss as greeting. I do know what I heard and it will not stand up in court, but it was lip to lip kissing.

I am feeling that the general opinion is that I should keep this to myself regardless of the risks to myself and those involved.

Sgt Schwartz

I think you handled it very well. I'm glad to know that there are people in the military such as yourself who can handle something like this in such a thoughtful way and not just react. Not that I think most people in the military are homophobic, but you were really put in an uncomfortable position.

[tomndebb]

If they were male, they were being pretty blatantly stupid if they do want to serve out their enlistment. It would seem that they are either idiotically innocent or they were baiting you for some odd reason.

If they were female, I am not sure that the same situation applies, (unless there was serious exchange of tongue), given that in U.S. society women do exchange kisses (even wet ones, although not passionate ones) as a form of greeting--particularly after an extended separation.

That, however, also raises a separate issue: are they, by any chance, of recent immigrant (2d generation or more recent) background? There are a number of societies in which even men greet each other with kisses. (Again, not passionate ones.)

As to the response, here: you've been posting long enough that you have to have known that the overwhelming majority of posters are not bothered by homosexuality and consider "don't ask; don't tell" to be the stupidest decision imposed by the military (or by Congress acceding to plaintive cries from such military luminaries as Colin Powell) in recent history.
We are unlikely to provide a very large number of posters interested in military discipline and even those of us who will accept your position as uncomfortable in that regard will only include a small number of posters who agree with Mr. Moto that "them's the rules."
So, I am pretty curious what sort of response you expected or sought?

- - -

For those of you who are insisting that MYOB is the only valid response, consider this scenario: Pfc's A and B go at it again behind the mess tent and get caught by Cpl Tightass who duly reports them to Lt. Falwell. They get hauled up before the company commander and decide to try to muddy the waters by claiming that Sgt Schwartz "knew all about it." It would be a pretty tough break to lose a career over such a stupid act of covering for some idiots who were pretty blatantly breaking the rules, even if the rules were among the dumbest imposed on human society.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

They get hauled up before the company commander and decide to try to muddy the waters by claiming that Sgt Schwartz "knew all about it." It would be a pretty tough break to lose a career over such a stupid act of covering for some idiots who were pretty blatantly breaking the rules, even if the rules were among the dumbest imposed on human society.
That would be the word of a senior gen-u-wine macho guy-type man over the words of (gasp! :eek: ) people suffering from teh gay. Anyway, no matter what he 'heard', I would hope nobody would ever condemn somebody without actual evidence (i.e. visual confirmation of what you thought happened). I realize it's hopelessly starry-eyed of me, but is it possible that the rules of evidence exist in the military, too? Because that would be nice.

[Sage Rat]

I am feeling that the general opinion is that I should keep this to myself regardless of the risks to myself and those involved.
Soldiers fight wars. Personally, I would view this as one war worth fighting. If anything, getting busted down in ranks or booted from the military is a lot better for your health than getting shot at.

[RandMcnally]

For those of you who are insisting that MYOB is the only valid response, consider this scenario: Pfc's A and B go at it again behind the mess tent and get caught by Cpl Tightass who duly reports them to Lt. Falwell. They get hauled up before the company commander and decide to try to muddy the waters by claiming that Sgt Schwartz "knew all about it." It would be a pretty tough break to lose a career over such a stupid act of covering for some idiots who were pretty blatantly breaking the rules, even if the rules were among the dumbest imposed on human society.


That's why I would have suggested against "minding your own buisness." You're their sup. It is your job to enforce the rules, rules that they knew of when they signed on the dotted line. Like the above example, I could see them saying something like that to hopefully get themselves out of trouble. Why should you jeapordize your career when they would sell you up the river in a moment?

[Walloon]

As to the response, here: you've been posting long enough that you have to have known that the overwhelming majority of posters are not bothered by homosexuality and consider "don't ask; don't tell" to be the stupidest decision imposed by the military (or by Congress acceding to plaintive cries from such military luminaries as Colin Powell) in recent history.Let's not forget the president who signed it into law instead of vetoing it.

[tomndebb]

Let's not forget the president who signed it into law instead of vetoing it.He was certainly a wimp, but he did not propose or vote on the legislation. I do not cut him any slack for botching that episode, but he was not the author.

[Rodgers01]

Sounds like you handled it well Sgt Schwartz. Can you tell us now what gender they were? (I might buy the "cultural" excuse if they were women, but if they were men, even of immigrant origin, they'd have to be almost completely unsocialized in American society to think that lip-to-lip greetings were appropriate, especially in a work context.) Also, what did they say when you talked to them? Did they claim it was just a non-sexual way of greeting one another, or was there an unspoken acknowledgment that it was "something more"? If the latter, are you still legally obliged to do something?

[Nava]

Would it be acceptable behavior if they were different gender? I'd find that very strange in a regular job, same-gender or not!

[Ferret Herder]

Would it be acceptable behavior if they were different gender? I'd find that very strange in a regular job, same-gender or not!
I don't know what the rules regarding "fraternizing" with the opposite sex are, but if it would be prohibited I suspect that (at least if they're the same rank) the penalty would not be nearly as severe.

[Kalhoun]

I wish I could. I am a direct supervisor for both and should have included that in the OP.

Sgt Schwartz
Don't ask, don't tell. Isn't that how you're supposed to handle it? (I realize that's directed toward the "perps" but why would you think this is anyone's business but theirs?)

It should be handled the same way a het relationship would, I suppose. If they were on the clock and supposedly working, not cool. But since you said you didn't actually see the kiss, there's nothing to report.

[JustAnotherGeek]

I am feeling that the general opinion is that I should keep this to myself regardless of the risks to myself and those involved.



I do understand that you're in a bizarre situation. I also understand that there are regs for when you need to report certain acts to the higher ups, and, if you don't (and it's later determined that you knew), you can get in career-jeopordizing trouble. That said, from your initial story, you had nothing but an assumption and some noise.

Perhaps my distaste of this this reg made me answer too tersely. The real reg is more "don't ask, don't tell, but if you know, you must report." I think you were right in informing the two in question that their actions could bring about legal consequences. Had I been there instead of you, I probably would have worded it a bit different (Look, the rules are very straight-forward, if I see it, I have to report it. Don't let me, or anyone, see it.), but, then again, IANA sgt, have never been, and (barring some sort of reality distortion) never will be.

Informing them of your responsibilities (regardless of how moral you think the rules are) may help them to understand the position you're all in. As far as keeping it to yourself, if you mean not sending it up the chain, yes, that's exactly what I think. Again, unless there's more to the story than you've told us, you do not have proof. If you told your superiors, "I think I heard the sounds of a lip-to-lip kiss while I was reading paperwork," what do you think their response would be?

[Mr. Moto]

We are unlikely to provide a very large number of posters interested in military discipline and even those of us who will accept your position as uncomfortable in that regard will only include a small number of posters who agree with Mr. Moto that "them's the rules."
So, I am pretty curious what sort of response you expected or sought?

I don't know if I made myself clear.

The rules are the rules, but the rules can also be gamed by someone with an agenda. In the Navy, we used to call these folks "sea lawyers".

The purpose of NCOs is to provide leadership, and that means not only knowing what the rules are but how his soldiers might try to use them for their purposes. It also means understanding how those rules will affect his unit and its readiness.

At no time in my posts did I advocate that Sgt. Schwartz just report the incident and let the chips fall. I floated the possibility that an agenda was in play, and I said that his understanding of his soldiers and his leadership skills would have to be the deciding factor.

Not knowing the soldiers in question, I cannot say for certain that his decision was a good one, and even Sgt. Schwartz seems to struggle with it. However, given all of the factors involved, it probably was a sensible one.

[gigi]

Don't ask, don't tell. Isn't that how you're supposed to handle it? (I realize that's directed toward the "perps" but why would you think this is anyone's business but theirs?)As mentioned upthread, "don't tell" means the soldiers don't mention their own homosexuality. Supervisors are required to act on observed behavior.

"Don't do it again while in uniform" may not be enough either, if even off hours activities are monitered, as above.

[Liberal]

I am feeling that the general opinion is that I should keep this to myself regardless of the risks to myself and those involved.I think you should report what you saw, except that what you saw was nothing. I think you should have asked them point blank, "Did you just kiss?" You could then have proceeded from there.

[Kalhoun]

As mentioned upthread, "don't tell" means the soldiers don't mention their own homosexuality. Supervisors are required to act on observed behavior.

"Don't do it again while in uniform" may not be enough either, if even off hours activities are monitered, as above.
I know. That's what I said. :) However, since the OP didn't actually "see" the lip lock, I don't think even a warning is in order.

[ZipperJJ]

I think you did the right thing. I think the reminder will help save everyone's jobs (yours and theirs) and hopefully they respect you for not turning them in.

How did they react when you told them?

[Paul in Qatar]

1. Look up from your desk.
2. Growl "Get a room!"
3. Forget about it.

[gigi]

I know. That's what I said. :) I thought maybe that's what you meant. :o sorry

[Kalhoun]

I thought maybe that's what you meant. :o sorry
No harm done...we're on the same page!

[Shodan]

I would also like to know how they reacted to what you did (which sounded reasonable). Did they seem provocative, or defiant, or guilty, or what?

If they are angling for an early discharge, they might up the ante. Not necessarily in some homosexual way, but something a bit more likely to get the reaction they are looking for. Some newly discovered medical problem, or a reason for a hardship discharge, or something of that nature.

Or they are gay, and will become more discreet. Or they were pranking you, and either have wised up, or not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Wee Bairn]

Unless they were trying to get discharged, I can't imagine two soldiers would pull an "in love" kiss in front of their superior.

[butler1850]

IMO, it was a blatent showing of disrespect. Same as if they had walked in and flipped you the bird while screaming at you to "F*** Off!!!"

What they do on their own time, in private, is nobody's business but their own.

What they did in front of you should be punished by whatever means you would normally apply.

I'm certain to get tossed to the pit here about this issue, but I don't kiss at work, I don't show disrespect to my employer/supervisor/co-workers, and IMO these privates did both. Blatently.

You showed far more restraint than I would have, so it's probably a good thing that I never enlisted.

[zelie zelerton]

Yes, both were on duty. No, it does not change the ability to preform assigned tasks. It could efffect me personally if I knew that this kind of thing happened and I did not document it and report it to my leaders. I am required to report statements, acts, or attempted marriages involving Service Members of the same gender.


Sgt Schwartz
What on earth is an attempted marriage? :confused:

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I think you should explain the exact spacial situation of what happened. If they were standing outside your door, then that's not as bad, if said PFC A was no less than 5 feet away from your desk (standing I assume) then it seems blatant. It simply doesn't seem that it would be acceptable even for male/female pairings either to kiss in front of a supervisor. Was the situation more casual? It seems a bit staged, but who knows...I like Paul in Saudi's response! But it seems as if it was done to provoke you. But then it's hard to say, not knowing the layout of the room. Maybe they thought they would get away without getting caught.

Kissing in public, breaks the "don't tell" part of the rule, I think. But you can't ask and you can't tell. I suppose your response was about as appropriate as you could have done. The other choice was to ignore it, but then you don't want them to think they can do whatever they want.

[Bear_Nenno]

Sgt Schwartz,
I'm assuming this was not a simple "hello" kiss.

You need to counsel each soldier individually and document it on a DA 4856.
-'Key Points of Discussion' should contain the Army's policy on homosexual activity (verbatum), as well as a generalized paragraph explaining how perception influences reality. Also, make sure to include a paragraph stating how such conduct can lead to disciplinary action as well as discharge, etc.
Plan of Action section should include a part stating specifically that they will not make out other soldiers (of any sex) while on duty.
Be very thorough in your statements and have them sign the forms. Then add it to their counseling packet.

That's all you need to do at this point. Nothing needs to be passed up to "higher", provided the misconduct does not repeat itself. If the conduct continues, then you have the paper trail necessary to take action--should you so choose.

At no time do you ask about the SM's sexual orientation. And dont write anything that accuses them of being homosexual. Just reiterate the Army's policy, be specific about what you saw, and explain why such conduct will not continue. The purpose of the counseling is basically to ensure they are aware of the Army's policy and your interpretation of the rules and the consequences of violating them. That's it. At this point, their sexual orientation is still irrelevant.

It's really not a big crisis. Just counsel them. Basically it's what you just did verbally, but you need to do it officially. They will get the point and see that you're not out to get them, but that you are also not going to let shit like that go unnoticed.

[Miller]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how many man-hours are wasted in the various branches of the military on bullshit like this. Not that the OP is in the wrong for being concerned about it: it's the way the military works right now, and he's got to roll with the system if he doesn't want to hurt his career, but Jesus Christ, how fucking stupid is this law? Aren't there about a hunderd billion more important things for our military to do than gossip about who kissed who like a gaggle of teenaged girls?

[Bear_Nenno]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how many man-hours are wasted in the various branches of the military on bullshit like this. Not that the OP is in the wrong for being concerned about it: it's the way the military works right now, and he's got to roll with the system if he doesn't want to hurt his career, but Jesus Christ, how fucking stupid is this law? Aren't there about a hunderd billion more important things for our military to do than gossip about who kissed who like a gaggle of teenaged girls?
It's not gossiping, and it's not wasted manhours. It's called professional development and it is one of the top priorities and responsibilities of an NCO. Hell, I've written counseling statements on privates for wearing their hats sideways. If you just say "hey, fix your hat" all the time, it's not going to mean shit to them. If you put it in writing and explain what the penalties will be for continued indiscipline (like losing pay, extra duty, etc), then they will get the point and stop. Otherwise, they will be punished. And if you try to have the soldier placed on extra duty because you've "told him a thousand times that he needs to wear his hat properly", then the 1SG or CO will want to see documentation. If you've only been 'telling' him, you're fucked. All he has to do is go to JAG and they are going to request all the paperwork documenting the past events. If they dont exist, then the events never happened and the soldier gets off scot free. And then he goes back to the other privates talking about how he "got over" and "beat the system" and he infects the others like a god damn virus and before you know it, all hell is breaking lose and privates think they run the fucking show.
Counseling them covers your ass and allows you to take their pay, take their free-time, give them extra work, and actually do something that will drive the point home. Yelling and push-ups dont do anything. You want to change someone, hit him where it hurts--his money and his time.

[Liberal]

Bear Nenno, your advice strikes me as practically perfect, both for the reasoning behind it and clarity of its goal. Sgt Schwartz is fortunate that you happened by.

[panache45]

I've noticed that more and more, these days, I see young people greeting with a short kiss, even if they're the same gender and even if they're totally straight. Especially if they're close and haven't seen each other in a while. Absolutely nothing sexual is meant by it. My guess is that they're younger than you are, and they were simply acting as other of their peers would act. They may have meant it as a casual greeting, as many their age do, and didn't even stop to consider it as anything else. But you were correct in reminding them that it's against regs.

[Miller]

I kinda think you missed my point, Bear_Nenno. I get the importance of proper discipline in the military. I'm not saying that's a waste of time. What is a waste of time is making sexuality a point of discipline. And yeah, I can see that there are other issues here than the possibility that these two soldiers are gay: fraternization, sexual relationships in the same chain of command, tongue wrestling in front of a superior officer. I get why these are bad things no matter what the sex of the soldiers involved. But the draconian nature of the "discipline" when it comes to gays makes the whole issue that much harder to negotiate. I suspect that if the two soldiers Sgt. Schwartz is talking about had been different genders, he wouldn't have started this thread, but because they're the same sex, the military's frankly idiotic prejudice against gays makes the whole situation needlessly more complicated.

[Liberal]

I agree also with Miller's point that the regs about gays are draconian, even Neanderthal in their conception. "Don't ask, don't tell" was a poltical compromise. Clinton had many successes in his presidency, but that policy was one of his most boneheaded moves. It left a lot of people in the lurch who had counted on him to be their advocate.

[Bear_Nenno]

I see.
And for the record, I am completely against the military's prejudice against gays. I speak my mind whenever I can and make my opinion known. The mindset of the majority of soldiers is just so unnecessarily negative towards homosexuality. Hell, I even had someone make a comment to me for watching Will and Grace while on Staff Duty. Apparantly there was a basketball game on or something. He was really genuinely disgusted that I would be watching that show. Not just disgusted, but set aback. WTF.
However, I also thought that rule against wearing hats sideways was stupid too. I'm talking about off duty, civilian clothes, and baseball caps, not military uniform hats. Some General decided he didn't like the way it looks, (and justified it by saying something about "gangs") and so I had to enforce that rule regardless of how I feel about it.
Fortunately though, I can force compliance with set regulations without going out on a witch hunt.

[Bear_Nenno]

I agree also with Miller's point that the regs about gays are draconian, even Neanderthal in their conception. Me too.

[alphaboi867]

What on earth is an attempted marriage? :confused:

The federal government (and hence the military) define marriage as the union of one man and one women. Therefore in their eyes it is impossible for a soldier to marry a member of the same sex. If a military said "PFC Doe" married a another man and is therefore discharged" it would imply that Doe is in fact married to another man when under federal law he is not.

[CaerieD]

I think you should report what you saw, except that what you saw was nothing. I think you should have asked them point blank, "Did you just kiss?" You could then have proceeded from there.

But wouldn't asking them that violate the "don't ask" portion of the policy?

[gonzomax]

Can you prove it if they deny it. ? If not you are apt to look like a fool.

[alphaboi867]

But wouldn't asking them that violate the "don't ask" portion of the policy?
No since by engaging in coduct that could lead a reasonable person to conclude it was homosexual they "told".

[Ruby]

Sgt Schwartz,
I'm assuming this was not a simple "hello" kiss.

You need to counsel each soldier individually and document it on a DA 4856.
-'Key Points of Discussion' should contain the Army's policy on homosexual activity (verbatum), as well as a generalized paragraph explaining how perception influences reality. Also, make sure to include a paragraph stating how such conduct can lead to disciplinary action as well as discharge, etc.
Plan of Action section should include a part stating specifically that they will not make out other soldiers (of any sex) while on duty.
Be very thorough in your statements and have them sign the forms. Then add it to their counseling packet.

That's all you need to do at this point. Nothing needs to be passed up to "higher", provided the misconduct does not repeat itself. If the conduct continues, then you have the paper trail necessary to take action--should you so choose.

At no time do you ask about the SM's sexual orientation. And dont write anything that accuses them of being homosexual. Just reiterate the Army's policy, be specific about what you saw, and explain why such conduct will not continue. The purpose of the counseling is basically to ensure they are aware of the Army's policy and your interpretation of the rules and the consequences of violating them. That's it. At this point, their sexual orientation is still irrelevant.

It's really not a big crisis. Just counsel them. Basically it's what you just did verbally, but you need to do it officially. They will get the point and see that you're not out to get them, but that you are also not going to let shit like that go unnoticed.I just talked to Hub who disagrees with this advice. If Sgt Schwartz were to pursue this in any "official" way, he would have to support his counseling with what he DIDN'T see. Had Sgt. Schwartz (or anyone else) witnessed the event, he would totally support a counseling of both soldiers. Hub has had to officially deal with sexual harrassment and homosexual behavior situations both in peacetime and in combat and believes that Sgt. Schwartz would be a fool to pursue this any further.

[SSG Schwartz]

Thank You Bear Nenno, I appreciate your thoughts and I was thinking on the same lines. The reasons I chose not to fill out a 4856 had to do with the fact that I did not want an official record of something that may never happen again. My First Sergeant and my Command Sergeant Major occasionally review the counseling packets of the soldiers (mostly to ensure they are done) and I don't want this to become official on what may simply be a misunderstanding by the soldiers about Army policy.

The two soldiers were females. One is 20yo, the other 25yo. I have a very small office and PFC B was seated when PFC A entered. True, I did not see the kiss, but as has been stated, perception is reality in the Army. I have know homosexuals and lesbians who I have served proudly with. I agree the military needs to rethink the don't ask, don't tell policy. Orientation should not be an issue, but at present it is. There are many regulations in the Army that I do not agree with (such as the prohibition against no alcohol by Service Members under 21 in the Continental US), but I have to enforce them.

As to the reaction of the Soldiers: The older one had a nervous giggle, the younger one gave a brief guilty look. Because I was speaking as Sgt Schwartz there was no verbal response needed from either nor was one offered by the Soldiers.

OP by tomandeb:
As to the response, here: you've been posting long enough that you have to have known that the overwhelming majority of posters are not bothered by homosexuality and consider "don't ask; don't tell" to be the stupidest decision imposed by the military (or by Congress acceding to plaintive cries from such military luminaries as Colin Powell) in recent history.
We are unlikely to provide a very large number of posters interested in military discipline and even those of us who will accept your position as uncomfortable in that regard will only include a small number of posters who agree with Mr. Moto that "them's the rules."
So, I am pretty curious what sort of response you expected or sought?

I respect the opinions of most of the Dopers. I guess I was seeking confirmation of my actions. I know most of the people who post here do not have a military background, but even so, can have an opinion on this. Most people are at least familiar with the Military policy on homosexuality and I was interested in what a Doper who was faced with a similar situation might do.

Sgt Schwartz

[Liberal]

But wouldn't asking them that violate the "don't ask" portion of the policy?No, I don't think so. It isn't asking them to reveal their sexual orientation, it is asking them to bear witness to an event. "Did you just kiss?" is like asking them "Did you just close the door?".

[JRDelirious]

Thank You Bear Nenno, I appreciate your thoughts and I was thinking on the same lines. The reasons I chose not to fill out a 4856 had to do with the fact that I did not want an official record of something that may never happen again. My First Sergeant and my Command Sergeant Major occasionally review the counseling packets of the soldiers (mostly to ensure they are done) and I don't want this to become official on what may simply be a misunderstanding by the soldiers about Army policy.

The two soldiers were females. One is 20yo, the other 25yo. [...]

As to the reaction of the Soldiers: The older one had a nervous giggle, the younger one gave a brief guilty look. Because I was speaking as Sgt Schwartz there was no verbal response needed from either nor was one offered by the Soldiers.

OK, I can see here some well-appreciated willingness to make a judgement call on your part. With the information you indicate was available, my own take on this is that we may not have seen "gay" behavior, but rather "young females with very touchy-feely, expressive personalities" behavior, and that this may have been one of those situational dislocation moments not unknown to folks of all ranks, in which they momentarily revert to the default setting of "young person, back on the block" mode instead of the appropriate "member of the US Army, on-duty" mode. If so, then to put it "on the record" could be overkill IMO.

If it repeats even once, OTOH, I would go ahead and proceed with all the formality, because at the least, it reveals a too-casual attitude.

[newcrasher]

Now that it has been handled...were they hot?

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

They probably looked sheepish because they realized you might consider them gay. I looked pretty sheepish when I, wearing a men's flannel shirt I bought because it's lovely and warm, went to the (very hot) neighbour's door and told him that the car in our mutual lot was my 'girlfriend's'. First thought: 'make sure he knows your visiting pal is a gal'. Second thought: :smack: ''girlfriend' doesn't just mean 'friend who is female'.

[Lute Skywatcher]

I agree the military needs to rethink the don't ask, don't tell policy.It has been (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/gays_in_the_military_-_rethinking_dont_ask_dont_tell/).

[Northern Piper]

I think Sgt Schwartz handled it correctly, for four reasons:

1. Obedience to the law and to orders is of particular importance in the military, for both the strength and discipline of the local unit, and also to ensure civilian control over the military. It doesn't matter what you think of "don't ask, don't tell" - it's the law passed by Congress and the military has to comply with it.

2. The NCOs are the backbone of ongoing unit discipline. It's very much Sgt Schwartz's job to enforce the military law and ensure unit discipline. If something happens rights under his nose that is potentially contrary to military law and unit discipline, he has to respond to it.

3. However, he didn't actually see anything, so I would think it would be difficult to start anything formal; it would just be his word against theirs, and without even him able to say he saw anything - just that he had his suspicions. Given the serious nature of the alleged infraction, I think he should be cautious about putting anything in writing without being able to back it up.

4. Even so, an NCO's job isn't equivalent to a police officer, who can only act on evidence that can stand up in a court of law. He's the supervisor of the people in his unit. He can use informal discipline in a case like this, as a good NCO who knows what's going on in his unit and lets the soldiers under his authority know about it. Progressive discipline has an important function - a warning in a case like this, without any formal follow-up, is a good approach. It puts the soldiers on notice that he saw them, that he won't stand for it if it happens again, and that he's watching them. That might be sufficient to resolve the issue, within the boundaries of "don't ask, don't tell."

[Bear_Nenno]

I just talked to Hub who disagrees with this advice. If Sgt Schwartz were to pursue this in any "official" way, he would have to support his counseling with what he DIDN'T see. Had Sgt. Schwartz (or anyone else) witnessed the event, he would totally support a counseling of both soldiers. Hub has had to officially deal with sexual harrassment and homosexual behavior situations both in peacetime and in combat and believes that Sgt. Schwartz would be a fool to pursue this any further.
One does not need to support a counseling with anything. I can counsel soldiers for no reason at all. A counseling doesn't necessarily mean anything other than the fact that it documents a conversation that you had with a soldier.
If there is an ongoing problem that I am noticing in another platoon and I am concerned that one or more of my soldiers may be involved, I can and will counsel all of my soldiers on that particular thing. The counseling will include the Army's policy on such action, the consequences of participating in such action, and my intent to pursue punishment if one of them participates in such a thing.
When a soldier signs a counseling statement, they are not admitting anything other than the fact that they received the instructions, advice, reprimand, etc
A 4856 by itself is not something that needs evidence, just cause, witnesses, or anything of that nature. I wonder why your husband would think otherwise.
It's not an Article 15, which would require supporting evidence.

[Bear_Nenno]

Thank You Bear Nenno, I appreciate your thoughts and I was thinking on the same lines. The reasons I chose not to fill out a 4856 had to do with the fact that I did not want an official record of something that may never happen again. ... The two soldiers were females. One is 20yo, the other 25yo. I have a very small office and PFC B was seated when PFC A entered. Most likely just a hello kiss. In that case I would have probably done exactly as you did, or maybe even less. I dont know. I dont have the luxary of working with females. Or should that read, "the burden"?

[Rysdad]

If there was any question as to whether counseling and documentation was required, I'd call the JAG Off.

If my recollection of the Army still applies, it's better to CYA than hope for the best. The Army is pretty good with giving credit, but it's outstanding at assigning blame.

[Inner Stickler]

Thank you all for your input. I am having a hard time processing this incident myself. I have a great deal of respect for both of these soldiers. I believe that both have respect for me, if not because of my personality, but for my duty position. I do not want either to be discharged.

My response was:


You will never do that again while in uniform.
snip


This is the part where, if I were them, after completing my service, I would hope to high heaven that I had your contact info so I could e-mail or mail you a picture of me kissing in uniform and if I were feeling up to it, pictures of me kissing in various nonmilitary uniforms.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Most likely just a hello kiss. In that case I would have probably done exactly as you did, or maybe even less. I dont know. I dont have the luxary of working with females. Or should that read, "the burden"?

Was it my perception or did you change your opinion based on the fact that they were women? If you did change your opinion because they were women, why? I'm kinda curious.

[Rodgers01]

I have know homosexuals and lesbians who I have served proudly with.
Without reading over the entire thread again, I think some of the other military folks here have said the same thing.

Question: how did you know they were gay, and if you did, weren't you even then legally required to do something about it? Or did you just suspect they were gay, or find out only after they had retired?

[levdrakon]

I don't want to bias this by saying what gender the two soldiers were. I don't want to bias this by saying what my reaction was. I will give you this much information. I was talking to PFC A and looked down for a minute at the paperwork PFC A presented to me. PFC B came in and had not seen PFC A for awhile. I hear lips smacking, look up and see heads withdrawing from the kiss.

So, what do you think I should have done?
What do you think I did?
What do you think about this?

Sgt Schwartz

Former military NCO here.

What would I do?

"Did you just kiss? You know what a PDA is? Watch your military bearing."

For those of you in the thread who like to get all anal over military regs & shit, imagine a navy ship just returning from sea, or a battalion of Army just getting back from duty in Iraq. Lots of military folk who are required by the UCMJ to refrain from PDAs get to hold hands, hug, kiss and generally hang all over each other. You going to run out there armed with a stack of DA 48-whatsits? "I swore an oath to uphold military policy and I'm duty bound to counsel all of you!" :rolleyes:

An NCO is *required* to report it, reprimand the soldiers (sailors) in order to "cover their own ass?"

Baloney. Part of being an NCO is having a brain and using it.

The OP didn't witness sex or homosexuality. He witnessed a PDA and told them to knock it off, which is about how he should have handled it IMO.

[garygnu]

...Part of being an NCO is having a brain and using it...
I would like to thank Sgt Schwartz for doing just that.

[DMark]

I would like to thank Sgt Schwartz for doing just that.

I agree. Handled well, Sgt Schwartz!

I happen to be teaching a course in ethics and will ask my class on Monday how they would have dealt with this situation. I have several members of the class who at one time were in the military, so it should be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Out of curiosity - I wonder if Sgt Schwartz would have dealt with the situation differently had it been two male soldiers?

(Gender bias on my part - I assume Sgt Schwartz is a heterosexual male and therefore would have had the "ick" factor to contend with two males kissing.)

[Bear_Nenno]

For those of you in the thread who like to get all anal over military regs & shit, imagine a navy ship just returning from sea, or a battalion of Army just getting back from duty in Iraq. Lots of military folk who are required by the UCMJ to refrain from PDAs get to hold hands, hug, kiss and generally hang all over each other.
What military regulation prohibits PDA? Especially "holding hands"?? The UCMJ doesn't require anyone to refrain from PDA. You're speaking nonsense. They get to "generally hang all over each other" because it's appropriate conduct in that situation. Not because they're getting a break on the rules.
Soldiers can hold hands with their wives on base and kiss their wives in public and hug them. There's no reg against PDA.
However, two soldiers in the same unit should not be dating, period, so PDA between those two is forbidden for other reasons. Two soldiers, in uniform, from seperate units. That would have to be a situational thing. It's not black and white. The main litmus test there is "Is it unprofessional?".
I've watched couples eat together on their lunch break and kiss goodbye. Nothing wrong with that. They're not "making out" or something obscene.

You going to run out there armed with a stack of DA 48-whatsits? "I swore an oath to uphold military policy and I'm duty bound to counsel all of you!" Wow, you're so damn funny. You must have been a lousy NCO if you dont think the professional development of your soldiers is a top priority. 48-whatsits indeed.
Guess what, when soldiers perform well or do something above par, they also get counseled. Enough of those can help me justify an ARCOM instead of an AAM when the time comes for an award. They also help me give out impact AAMs and when little incentives come around, I know who's getting them. At a minimum, a soldier should be counseled once a month regardless. NCOs who can't find anything to put down in the counseling statements are those who are too worthless to have been doing anything to develop their soldiers all month.

Was it my perception or did you change your opinion based on the fact that they were women?
No. I made an understandable yet inaccurate assumption that the OP was talking about more than just a "hello" type kiss.

If he had added details to explain that the two soldiers were Muslim or of some other heritage where kissing other males on the lips is custom then I would have agreed there was nothing more to it. But as the OP was originally written, and even the fact that it was written at all, lead me to believe this kiss was more than a peck and more than a "hello my friend".

[Bear_Nenno]

An NCO is *required* to report it, reprimand the soldiers (sailors) in order to "cover their own ass?"Exactly who are you quoting here? Is this a strawman, or are these quotations here because someone actually said that in this thread?
Baloney. Part of being an NCO is having a brain and using it.And who has claimed otherwise?

The OP didn't witness sex or homosexuality. He witnessed a PDA and told them to knock it off, which is about how he should have handled it IMO.The original OP implied there was open and obvious display of homosexuality. The fact that he later added details to explain otherwise changes things.

[levdrakon]

Sgt Schwartz,
I'm assuming this was not a simple "hello" kiss.

You need to counsel each soldier individually and document it on a DA 4856.
-'Key Points of Discussion' should contain the Army's policy on homosexual activity (verbatum), as well as a generalized paragraph explaining how perception influences reality. Also, make sure to include a paragraph stating how such conduct can lead to disciplinary action as well as discharge, etc.
Plan of Action section should include a part stating specifically that they will not make out other soldiers (of any sex) while on duty.
Be very thorough in your statements and have them sign the forms. Then add it to their counseling packet.

That's all you need to do at this point. Nothing needs to be passed up to "higher", provided the misconduct does not repeat itself. If the conduct continues, then you have the paper trail necessary to take action--should you so choose.

At no time do you ask about the SM's sexual orientation. And dont write anything that accuses them of being homosexual. Just reiterate the Army's policy, be specific about what you saw, and explain why such conduct will not continue. The purpose of the counseling is basically to ensure they are aware of the Army's policy and your interpretation of the rules and the consequences of violating them. That's it. At this point, their sexual orientation is still irrelevant.

It's really not a big crisis. Just counsel them. Basically it's what you just did verbally, but you need to do it officially. They will get the point and see that you're not out to get them, but that you are also not going to let shit like that go unnoticed.

What military regulation prohibits PDA? Especially "holding hands"??

Your blatant homophobia and ignorance of the UCMJ is absolutely amazing. I'm not exactly sure what you're on about here. I'm surprised you don't know that if your unit or the installation commander has issued instructions with regard to PDAs and you choose to ignore them you potentially run afoul of the UCMJ. Do I need to quote a UCMJ article about failure to obey orders or conduct unbecoming? "ART 92 (http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061218050721AAtH1w6) , UCMJ (Failure to obey order/regulation). Second, traditionally PDA has been prohibited under ART 134, UCMJ (conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). Specifically, PDA is mentioned in DA PAM 600-35. Here are a few quotes:

"Hand-holding between soldiers in uniform while in public is inappropriate." (Para 2-5-b)

"At the same time, officer/enlisted family members are expected to maintain the traditional respect and decorum attending the official military relationship between them while either is on duty or in public." (Para 2-8-b)

"[Example Soldiers] should be counseled that they are expected to maintain the traditional respect and decorum attending the official military relationship between them while either is on duty or in public." (Para 2-10-d)"

I dont have the luxary of working with females. Or should that read, "the burden"?Wow, let's add "sexist." You claim to speak on behalf of Army NCOs, you don't even work with women and if you did you'd consider it a burden? My God you're a classic piece of work.

However, two soldiers in the same unit should not be dating, period, so PDA between those two is forbidden for other reasons.

What reasons pray tell, and where on earth did you get the idea these two PFCs were dating?

You sound kinda drunk or something.

[Bear_Nenno]

:rolleyes: What reasons pray tell, and where on earth did you get the idea these two PFCs were dating?Which two PFCs? I am talking about any. Nice of you to not pay attention.

Speaking of not paying attention. Your whole fucking post is absolutely ridiculous!!!
DA PAM 600-35 only concerns SOLDIERS OF DIFFERENT RANKS! Did you even read the fucking pamphlet that you are quoting from?

It does not say that PDA like holding hands with your wife while in uniform is outlawed or against UCMJ.

I'm surprised you don't know that if your unit or the installation commander has issued instructions with regard to PDAs and you choose to ignore them you potentially run afoul of the UCMJ. Do I need to quote a UCMJ article about failure to obey orders or conduct unbecoming?Oh what a fucking stretch that is. Of course disobeying a lawful order is against UCMJ. If a General said "No personnel are allowed to consume alcoholic beverages this month" that doesn't mean that drinking beer is against UCMJ, it means that disobeying an order by means of drinking beer is against UCMJ. Fuck, you could claim anything is against UCMJ since a commander could possibly outlaw it. :rolleyes:

Wow, let's add "sexist." You claim to speak on behalf of Army NCOs, you don't even work with women and if you did you'd consider it a burden? My God you're a classic piece of work.And you're a classic piece of shit.

Gotta any more facts you'd like to pull out of your ass?

My blatant homophobia, eh?

[Bear_Nenno]

You sound kinda drunk or something.You kinda sound like you have some kind of agenda. I don't think even Otto could have found "blatant homophobia" in this thread.

[Bear_Nenno]

You claim to speak on behalf of Army NCOs...When did I ever make that claim? You're just full of made up bullshit tonight, aren't you.

[SSG Schwartz]

It is too late in the night to find all the things I need to respond to and quote them. So forgive me if I paraphrase or comment without attribution.

Yes, both are attractive. That does not affect my duties in any way. The only way I noticed was that I have seen both in civilian clothes and they do dress up nice.

No, it would not affect me in any way if the two involved were males. I would do the same thiing. Another squad leader in my platoon had a problem with a male who likes to hug people with no regard to gender. He was counseled on that. I do not know what the DA 4856 said, but he has maintained his bearing since that point.

It is a challenge for a male who has previously only trained and mentored males, to train and mentor females. Sexism aside, there is a different way to interact with females.

Again, thank you for all your input.

Sgt Schwartz

[Frylock]

I don't want to bias this by saying what gender the two soldiers were. I don't want to bias this by saying what my reaction was. I will give you this much information. I was talking to PFC A and looked down for a minute at the paperwork PFC A presented to me. PFC B came in and had not seen PFC A for awhile. I hear lips smacking, look up and see heads withdrawing from the kiss.

So, what do you think I should have done?
What do you think I did?
What do you think about this?

Sgt Schwartz

Well, I mean, I seriously doubt a gay couple would kiss due to a gay relationship when there is someone right there in the room with them who would be able to report them.

I hypothesize the kiss was non-sexual in nature. (And so I hypothesize that these were girl soldiers, not boy soldiers, because its really hard for me to imagine a couple of guy soldiers "friendly kissing." Hard to imagine with girl soldiers too, but not as hard.)

-FrL-

[Walloon]

And so I hypothesize that these were girl soldiers, not boy soldiersSee post #69, above.

[gigi]

It is a challenge for a male who has previously only trained and mentored males, to train and mentor females. Sexism aside, there is a different way to interact with females.How so?

[StinkyBurrito]

I just want to point out that sometimes 2 people just kiss in a friendly manner, even two men. Take this event (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VZQWSj7b6xs)* that happened just a few weeks ago for instance.

*Not just that kiss, but the whole race between Charles Barkley and Dick Bavetta was one of the funniest things I have recently seen on TV. I laughed so hard I cried. And it all culminated with an slow motion instant replay of the kiss.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I kinda think you missed my point, Bear_Nenno. I get the importance of proper discipline in the military. I'm not saying that's a waste of time. What is a waste of time is making sexuality a point of discipline. And yeah, I can see that there are other issues here than the possibility that these two soldiers are gay: fraternization, sexual relationships in the same chain of command, tongue wrestling in front of a superior officer. I get why these are bad things no matter what the sex of the soldiers involved. But the draconian nature of the "discipline" when it comes to gays makes the whole issue that much harder to negotiate. I suspect that if the two soldiers Sgt. Schwartz is talking about had been different genders, he wouldn't have started this thread, but because they're the same sex, the military's frankly idiotic prejudice against gays makes the whole situation needlessly more complicated.

I think you're absolutely right. He wouldn't have started this thread. He would have disciplined them on the spot. Public displays of affection are not acceptable. But because of the policy he is put in a bad position, because he has to discipline them but quite obviously doesn't want to run them out. To make matters worse, they are of the opposite sex and politics gets in the way.

He's in a tough spot, and simply telling him "the policy sucks" or "mind your own business" doesn't help, because the policy exists and he can't mind his own business.

[Czarcasm]

When did I ever make that claim? You're just full of made up bullshit tonight, aren't you.
[Official Moderator Hat On]levdrakon and Bear_Nenno-this is NOT The BBQ Pit, and you both know better than to post in this manner in IMHO. Consider this an official warning.[/Official Moderator Hat On]

[levdrakon]

[Official Moderator Hat On]levdrakon and Bear_Nenno-this is NOT The BBQ Pit, and you both know better than to post in this manner in IMHO. Consider this an official warning.[/Official Moderator Hat On]

An official warning? Like a DA 4856? Ah, man. Can I check the "do not concur" box? I mean, I wasn't the one who developed a potty mouth and I certainly didn't start the exchange by calling anyone a lousy NCO and then going off on a tangent about AAMs & ARCOMs.

Oh, well. On with the show.

:rolleyes: Which two PFCs? I am talking about any. Nice of you to not pay attention.You're saying two PFCs can't date? No two soldiers can date? That's incorrect. Two soldiers of the same rank in the same unit can date, and two soldiers from different units can certainly date.

Two soldiers of the same gender can't date, the OP never said the two PFCs in question were dating and I wanted to know where you got the idea they were.

Speaking of not paying attention. Your whole fucking post is absolutely ridiculous!!!
DA PAM 600-35 only concerns SOLDIERS OF DIFFERENT RANKS! Did you even read the fucking pamphlet that you are quoting from?


The relevant portion was an example of hand holding between soldiers being inappropriate. Are you saying holding hands with someone of the same rank *is* appropriate, then?

It does not say that PDA like holding hands with your wife while in uniform is outlawed or against UCMJ.


All I said was there are situations where one wouldn't run out armed with a stack of DA 4856s and counsel everyone on the spot. There are plenty, plenty of soldiers married to each other and for instance, a happy homecoming event after being deployed for a long period would be one situation where it would be silly to counsel two soldiers for hugging and kissing.

My blatant homophobia, eh?

You kinda sound like you have some kind of agenda. I don't think even Otto could have found "blatant homophobia" in this thread.I didn't find "blatant homophobia" in "this thread" in general. I found it with your attitude about a "hello" kiss between two soldiers of the same gender.

The original OP implied there was open and obvious display of homosexuality. The fact that he later added details to explain otherwise changes things.
See, you see an "obvious display of homosexuality" and I see a "hello" kiss absent-mindedly exchanged between two friends right in front of Sgt Schwartz's desk. You advise the OP to officially counsel them about their homosexual behavior in writing on a DA 4856 and further advise the OP to be careful not to accuse them of being homosexual.

If two guys on the football or soccer field exchanged a quick hug or a pat on the butt would you also become alarmed and feel the need to document and counsel them in writing about their homosexual behavior?

Yes, frankly I do see homophobia in your perceptions and reactions to the two PFCs in the OP.

I have no idea why you invoked Otto in this and I'm curious what agenda you think I'm pursuing.

[Arabella Flynn]

Didn't see the kiss? Reactions of the general "drf, oops" sort? Sounds like you've got three possibilities here.

1. Nothing. Either it was just a 'hello' kiss or no kiss happened.
2. The two of them are yanking your chain.
3. The two of them are playing you and looking for an early discharge.

I think a response of "Knock it off, knuckleheads," is pretty appropriate for all three. I suppose you'd have to handle it differently if you discovered the two of them grappling nekkid behind the canteen, but under the circumstances I think the object is more to squash silly, unprofessional behavior than start tossing official rulebooks around.

[Mr. Slant]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how many man-hours are wasted in the various branches of the military on bullshit like this. Not that the OP is in the wrong for being concerned about it: it's the way the military works right now, and he's got to roll with the system if he doesn't want to hurt his career, but Jesus Christ, how fucking stupid is this law? Aren't there about a hunderd billion more important things for our military to do than gossip about who kissed who like a gaggle of teenaged girls?

Ummm... the manager at Pizza Hut will get on your case for making out at work too.
It's not work, don't do it.
Unless you work in the entertainment industry, you are NOT being paid to kiss anyone!