Part IV · Punitive Articles
Article 134. Fraternization · MCM ¶ 101
2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
See all changes(a) Text of statute. See paragraph 91.
(b) Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;
(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;
(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);
(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s Service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was either: (i) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces; (ii) was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; or (iii) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
(c) Explanation.
(1) In general. The gist of this offense is a violation of the custom of the armed forces against fraternization. Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors to be considered include whether the conduct has compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The facts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced by their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations of an officer.
(2) Regulations. Regulations, directives, and orders may also govern conduct between officer and enlisted personnel on both a Service-wide and a local basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different ranks, or between officers of different ranks may be similarly covered. Violations of such regulations, directives, or orders may be punishable under Article 92. See paragraph 18.
(d) Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(e) Sample specification. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, knowingly fraternize with __________, an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: __________, in violation of the custom of (the Naval Service of the United States) (the United States Army) (the United States Air Force) (the United States Coast Guard) that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality, and that said conduct was (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces) (of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces) (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces).
Information on this tab is reproduced from the U.S. Army Military Judges’ Benchbook (Electronic Benchbook v2.70, updated 2026-05-26). It is for informational purposes only to compare to the text on the Manual for Courts-Martial on the MCM tab. Always check the current EBB to make sure you’re reviewing the most recent information.
3a-101-1 · FRATERNIZATION
NOTE 1. If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.
Maximum punishment
Dismissal, TF, 2 years. (Category 1)
Sample specification
In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), on or about __________, knowingly fraternize with __________, an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: __________, in violation of the custom of (the Naval Service of the United States) (the United States Army) (the United States Air Force) (the United States Coast Guard) that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality, and that said conduct was (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces) (of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces) (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces).
Elements
(1) That, on (state the date alleged), the accused was a (commissioned) (warrant) officer;
(2) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with (state the name(s) of the enlisted member(s) alleged) by (state the manner in which the fraternization is alleged to have occurred);
(3) That the accused then knew (state the name(s) of the enlisted member(s) alleged) to be (an) enlisted member(s);
(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the (Naval Service of the United States) (United States Army) (United States Air Force) (United States Coast Guard) that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces) (of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces) (to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces).
Definitions & other instructions
(“Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline” is conduct which causes a reasonably direct and obvious injury to good order and discipline.)
(“Service discrediting conduct” is conduct which tends to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in public esteem.)
Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors to be considered include whether the conduct has compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The facts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude that good order and discipline in the armed forces have been prejudiced by the tendency of the accused’s conduct to compromise the respect of enlisted persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations of an officer.
NOTE 2. Regulations, directives, and orders may also govern conduct between officer and enlisted personnel on both a Service-wide and a local basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different ranks, or between officers of different ranks may be similarly covered. Violations of such regulations, directives, or orders may be punishable under Article 92.
NOTE 3. Conduct pled as both prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting. When the conduct is pled as both prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting, the following instruction should be given:
The government has alleged that the conduct in question in (The) Specification (___) of (The) (Additional) Charge (___) was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To convict the accused of the offense charged, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements, including that the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. If you are convinced of all the elements except the element of the service discrediting nature of the conduct, you may still convict the accused of the offense charged. In this event, you must make appropriate findings by excepting the language “of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” On the other hand, if you are convinced of all the elements except the element of prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces, you may still convict the accused of the offense charged. In this event, you must make appropriate findings by excepting the language “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.” Of course, if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct in question was both to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then you may convict the accused as charged provided you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the other elements of (The) Specification (___) of (The) (Additional) Charge (___).
Source: Instruction 3a-101-1 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil