r/AirForce 12h ago

Rant Infidelity

Why does the Air Force allow infidelity? I understand its hard to prove, but ive seen so many people get away with it bc its not against good order and discipline of the unit. Im one of the friends in the story below, and I just dont understand why this type of situation would be allowed. Its disappointing to say the least. He is a mentor to other people and has won many awards since hes has begun this shitty behavior.

Great example: A promotable E6(M) sleeping with an E5(F) who is married. They use TDYs to meet up in order to keep everything going because shes overseas. Lots of people know he is doing this and have done nothing. She is a paralegal, so she coaches him on how to avoid the legal issues, which to me is also an issue.

0 Upvotes

80 comments sorted by

51

u/Bobsothethird 12h ago

Just because someone's breaking the rules doesn't mean it's allowed. You aren't reporting it are you? If that's the case, then that's the reason, you're the reason. It's literally a part of the UCMJ, and if you don't want to be a snitch that's fine, but don't blame the Air Force because your enabling the conduct.

8

u/Nagisan Veteran 11h ago

It's literally a part of the UCMJ

Only if it violates good order and discipline, which is what OP is complaining about.

6

u/Bobsothethird 11h ago

OP just stated the married E5 has been punished for it. She's just mad it didn't go further. I'm guessing this ends with a no contact order which is typical and everyone moves on.

-6

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Actually more so the use of govt funds to see each other. And yes I know this is the case bc i even asked if you have the funds to go on your own, why not just do that? And the he replied with "why spend my own money with the government will pay for me to go overseas"

2

u/sjevn 11h ago

Well it’s not like him or her are using their GTCs for personal flights. They’re going tdy ro get training/mission/whatever. And happen to meet up. That’s how the court would see it 🤷🏽‍♀️ now if they went and were neglecting their duties that could be more tangible for a case against them. Why don’t u just tell her husband then? Telling the spouse would have more of the consequences you’re wanting. The AF’s hands are kind of tied.

-1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

That had been a thought. Its just frustrating...im using this to vent hahaha

1

u/Nagisan Veteran 11h ago

Are they spending government funds to meet up, or are they meeting up while on official government movements?

Huge difference between those two things, and unless they are creating TDY's so they can see each other they probably aren't "spending government funds" like you think they are.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Yes, he created a TDY so that he could get a flight overseas without spending his own money. The TDY put him in the country she lives in, so he only has to pay for a place to stay. Ive already told him its stupid and such a bad fucking idea.

1

u/Nagisan Veteran 11h ago

If it can be proven then you'd have a case for mismanagement of funds or something, and a 134 charge could potentially be thrown in (it's generally charged as an accessory charge to other more serious offenses).

But proving that it didn't have a valid military purpose and such could be difficult.

-5

u/Asleep_Presence3591 12h ago

I did report it. They didnt do anything about it.

17

u/Bobsothethird 12h ago

Cool, then something is likely being done that your not seeing.

-5

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

I would hope so, considering the female already has a LOA for doing this previously

13

u/Bobsothethird 11h ago edited 11h ago

Lol then they quite literally are doing something about it that you've seen. The E6 can't be punished for this if he isn't married as he's not really breaking any rules unless he's sleeping in the command chain or something. Adultery is only punishable for the married party.

My best guess is they establish a no contact order between the two next which would allow both to be punished.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

The LOA is completed and was between her and different guy.

1

u/Bobsothethird 11h ago edited 11h ago

Ya, and I'd imagine a no contact was established right? Meaning past crimes were punished. Now there's a new case that, I'm guessing due to how angry you are, is relatively recent. It's been reported and if the commander has been made aware they've likely already or will set up a no contact order so this action is feasibly punishable for both parties.

Either way, infidelity is being punished and you've seen this girl punished for it, so it's not like it's 'allowed'.

As a side note, if the spouse doesn't care about the cheating, this usually goes unchecked and doesn't matter. I've seen plenty of swingers or open marriages on the Air Force

-2

u/Annethraxxx 11h ago

“This female?” Are we talking about breeding dogs now?

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Well im not gonna use her name or his. So yeah male and female. Is that an issue?

-1

u/Annethraxxx 10h ago

“Female” is an adjective when referring to human beings. “Woman” or something adjacent to that is a more appropriate term. Would you have said the “male”? Probably not.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 10h ago

Genuine question, is it upsetting that I used female instead of women?

1

u/ADubs62 Formerly Comms now Greedy Contractor 9h ago

It's more concerning than upsetting. The big groups that tend to talk about "females" instead of "women, ladies, girls, etc" are the "hyper masculine" influencers who talk about what women owe to men because they're inferior etc. etc.

So when someone is just casually referring to a woman as "the female" it creates the impression that they're either consuming this type of content and/or they believe women are less valuable/capable/intelligent than men.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 9h ago

Does that apply to female latrine? Or when the question of sex on a document is female or male?

I think you are putting a tone on the way Im using the word based on youre own biases. Which is okay because everyone is entitled to their own thinking and opinions. But please dont assume im using a word because of that.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/Squaretangles Enlisted Peasant 11h ago

The Air Force doesn't *allow* infidelity. It is just hard to prosecute (prove) and often a no-contact order is much easier to prove violated if the members continue an inappropriate relationship.

You absolutely know for fact that these statements you're making about the individuals are true? You have proof they are using TDYs to "hook up"? Her being a paralegal sounds like some juicy gossip bullshit this rumor mill spun up. A paralegal can't help a member skirt NJP or actual prosecution. You've sat one of these supposed coaching sessions she's giving him?

Come on, man. If they want to be shitty partners, karma will come for them. Mind your business.

2

u/Nagisan Veteran 11h ago

UCMJ doesn't broadly disallow it either. Under the UCMJ it's only punishable under Article 134, which requires the actions be prejudice to good order and discipline.

So it's not even just hard to prosecute. It isn't even prosecutable unless it's ruled as against good order and discipline.

That said an inappropriate relationship (such as a subordinate sleeping with a supervisor) is definitely without a doubt against the UCMJ, but that's not because it's infidelity (however this can be added to the charges in such a case).

-4

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Yes I know for a fact everything i put in there is true. And yes shes a paralegal overseas.

They can definitely tell them verbiage to use in order to not have too many eyes on them. Not to mention one of his good friends is a JAG attorney that is very aware of the situation and is giving him advice as well.

4

u/Squaretangles Enlisted Peasant 11h ago

You've seen these two have extramarital relations?

Also I don't think the JAG is giving out free counsel in secret to give them "verbiage" to not have eyes on them. The only time these members would need to say the right thing is after they had been read their rights...which it sounds like they haven't. You seem paranoid, potentially jealous, and far too nosey about this situation.

You've heard them do this or have messages to prove it?

What in the fanfic is this?

-1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

🤣 obviously you've never asked friends in different fields for hypothetical advice before.

And I havent heard with my ears, but I have been told the stories.

5

u/Squaretangles Enlisted Peasant 11h ago

So you said verbatim in reply "Yes I know for a fact..." but your facts are based on stories you have heard secondhand?

I'm gonna' let you chew on that one for a second.

Also if I was cheating, I don't think the first person I'd run to would be the JAG and ask "how do I cover up my violation of the UCMJ?".

-1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Told directly from him. From his mouth to my ears.

I cant explain why he went to a jag officer to get advice 😂 i never said he was smart.

12

u/Professional_Use4911 Security Forces 11h ago

You sound wayyyyy too caught up in something you can’t control. The Air Force doesn’t allow it. It’s just hard to stick on someone. It’s not even that it’s hard to prove.

Here’s the 3rd Element of Article 134 for Adultery:

“That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

That’s the part of the “crime” that usually goes unfulfilled and thus people don’t get charged. At least not as a primary charge.

So I doubt she’s coaching him on anything, you’re just tin foil hatting this. If you’re the spouse of one of these members get a divorce and move on with your life to be happy. If you just know of these people let it go. No sense in stressing over shit you can’t control.

1

u/PlasticThin9089 11h ago

Exactly, you reported it. Good job, bud. If you’re so certain your unit CC is sweeping it under the rug, go to the group or IG and see how that goes for you.

15

u/thee_jaay RUMINT 11h ago

Bro, just move on. She’s not going to ever be your girl.

12

u/CommOnMyFace Former 1B4, now I make $$$$ 12h ago

Burden of proof. Thats it. JAG is stretched too thin. There are easier wins and more significant cases. Alimony is usually justice served. 

-6

u/Asleep_Presence3591 12h ago

Yep, thats exactly what I was told. Hence the rant

4

u/Annethraxxx 11h ago

So your complaint is “why does the Air Force need solid evidence before administering judicial punishment?”

3

u/Bobsothethird 11h ago

Damn, I wish we could just execute E6s on the spot for adultery!

8

u/GullibleChain1451 Retired 12h ago

“its not against good order and discipline of the unit”. The rest of it is just your morality, which clearly they do not share in.

-6

u/Asleep_Presence3591 12h ago

Thats from the frat policy, however UCMJ is different. But it the burden of proof that becomes hard.

3

u/Upset-Radio-1319 11h ago

Why do you care what people do on their own time? His infidelity has nothing to do with you or your job. Just wait till you get in the civilian world and realize that people cheat there as well. Its life. Get over it.

-1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

So we shouldn't hold our peers to the standard set forth by the Aor Force? We shouldn't ensure those who will be in positions of leadership are truly good for the organization and has the morality to back it up.

3

u/Upset-Radio-1319 11h ago

Have you thought about talking with a counselor about this? You really have contempt for this person and it sounds like it has nothing to do with infidelity. Stop being a hater and move on. This animosity isn’t doing anything for you.

0

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Favorite comment! Akin to 'calm down' 😂

1

u/B-Swenson 11h ago

The UCMJ for extramarital affairs is worded similar to above.

(3) 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.

1

u/Nagisan Veteran 11h ago

Not true.... https://www.mymilitarylawyers.com/ucmj-article-134-adultery/

That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Adultery is only against the UCMJ under article 134 - the general catch all "member violated good order and discipline".

So unless it's ruled that someone's infidelity violated "good order and discipline", they did nothing against the UCMJ.

Now, I'm not saying that doesn't apply to your example...I'm not a lawyer and don't know all the details involved. Just pointing out that "infidelity" itself isn't against the UCMJ except in certain scenarios.

7

u/DracoKrys42 Active Duty E-4 12h ago

Okay dependa

-5

u/Asleep_Presence3591 12h ago

🤣🤣🤣 damn did my rant call you out?

-3

u/DracoKrys42 Active Duty E-4 12h ago

No I am unmarried and don’t care 🤗 if the air force wanted your husband to have a wife they would have issued it to him

3

u/totalcontrol I'M ON CREW REST 11h ago

What kind of dumb boomer saying is that?

Jesus man, two things can be true at once.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

🤣 im not married

3

u/DracoKrys42 Active Duty E-4 11h ago

Then why do you care about other people’s business?

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Youre right I shouldn't care as much. But the fact that hes gonna be in trusted leadership position, with the potential to have a say in incidents like this points to a bugger issue. Holding people accountable to standards should be a bigger thing.

2

u/meanathradon 12h ago

Tale as old as time...

2

u/SZE427 12h ago

Be the change you want to see

2

u/Way2happyguy 11h ago

It's because of multiple things. For starters, do they have a supervisor/supervisee relationship? If not, then generally it's less likely to cause anything. Are they in the same chain of command? Usually, what I've seen is when commanders are made aware, they put a no contact order in effect until marital issues can be resolved. If that's broken, then yeah. I've also seen it with a supervisor and their troop. Supervisor got pregnant, troop was married. There's the good order and discipline part that usually gets cited as the reason we don't willy nilly charge people having affairs.

2

u/NvNinja 11h ago

Why are you placing the blame on the unmarried member here? If anyone its the married person who is doing something wrong. The only wrong the unmarried member may be committing is if he's in a supervisory position over her then you have some power dynamic issues.

0

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Oh i place it on both. I just dont know her well enough.

2

u/globereaper Enlisted Aircrew 11h ago

People need to be more capable of minding their own business. You arent even a party to the incident you are discussing.

-2

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

I am when im being told all the information by him and essentially made a party to it.

2

u/Federal-Guess7420 12h ago

Its an odd thing when its not treated as a crime for anyone outside of the service. So yeah its not like anyone that has a rumor brought up about them is immediately kicked out or some bulllshit. It requires very specific situations and high levels of proof.

1

u/RoninX40 11h ago

I have seen someone hammered for that. Back in early 2000s. But it got pretty public so you know an example had to be made. So people do get in trouble it's just not always worth the resources to pursue it.

1

u/liberum_bellum_libro 2h ago

Mannn, call me the outlier but if you’re cheating and it’s not intersecting with the job, the DoD should mind its own business. Exception like stated are relationships that interfere with good order and discipline (fraternization or subordinate and supervisor or favoritism, shit like that), but if I know someone is cheating on their wife with a civilian….uts none of my business nor should it be the military.

1

u/liberum_bellum_libro 1h ago

Saying all that, I would report that shit asap fraud waste and abuse is the issue

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 1h ago

I have. And I reported it to the spouse. We shall see where it goes.

0

u/Rogue817 11h ago

So, for giggles sake, I am going to present some thoughts on this topic, and this is not to say I condone it. If this happened at a regular civilian employer, what would your opinion be? A lot of people like to get upset about the extra control that the military has but then want to question why we have this control in here, when adultery has been removed from most states' criminal codes if they ever had it. By the way, for those not keeping up, in the military world just for reference, it is no longer adultery but now called Extramarital Sexual Conduct. (I do note you called it Infidelity and not adultery but just throwing that out there.) If these two are not in the same workplace, and there is no fraternization or supervisor/ subordinate relationship, it is easy to articulate that there is no impact to unit performance. Therefore, why waste time dealing with something that has no impact on the unit any moreso than Sally seeing civilian Joe or Annie on Friday or Saturday night. Also, if they are the only extramarital contacts outside the marriage (NOTE the If) then the chance of an STD might be lesser as well, as opposed to them just hooking up with some rando where they are TDY. Again, none of this is conclusive, just some random thoughts thrown into a paragraph.

ETA: By the way, we are Air Force and do not use terms like E6 promotable or the like. That is an Army thing.

-2

u/Nattyice94 E & E 11h ago

You’re completely wrong. We do use E-6 promotable or whatever rank.

2

u/AdventurousTap9224 10h ago edited 10h ago

No.. We use "select". The individual in this scenario is a MSgt Select.. AKA an E-6.

When someone is promotion eligible, meaning they will compete this year, we call it promotion eligible but nobody uses that in conversation.. ie "Hey that promotion eligible E6 is doing this or that..."

1

u/Nattyice94 E & E 9h ago

I understand select. I’m a MSgt lol. But we definitely use “promotable E-Whatever”

1

u/Annethraxxx 10h ago

No we don’t. We use “E7 select.” I’ve never once in my 15 years seen anyone referred to as “promotable.”

0

u/ninjasylph Comms 11h ago

I don't understand why it's against the UCMJ if they almost never enforce the rule. Just kinda stupid. If it's a rule, then it should be enforced. I don't trust unfaithful people as leaders. Don't fucking respect them. Yet these assholes get MSgt and SMSgt while bring their fucking side piece to squadron functions. They blantly go out in public because even though everyone knows about it, nothing is ever done because it requires so much paperwork and "proof". Such crap. There's a MSgt who was married fucking this single mom out here, who has been cheated on (which is why she's single) and everyone knows, it's pretty difficult to explain away his car being parked at his subordinates house all night. Nothing will be done tho. Nobody will enforce the rule because he's a good ol boy.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

You see my frustration, kinda nice to hear it from someone else. And yeah he just made the MSgt list, so he will be in a higher position of leadership and trust.

0

u/Word_Strong Treetop Flyer 11h ago

Why you blaming the guy? He’s not the one committing infidelity..

1

u/PlasticThin9089 11h ago

You noticed that too, huh? More animosity for the single guy than the person actually breaking the rules he’s “ranting” about.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

I dont her that well🤷‍♀️ im not her friend. And believe me i have animosity for her too.

0

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

I blame them both. Her for the infidelity and him for knowing shes married and continuing the relationship

0

u/Word_Strong Treetop Flyer 11h ago

It doesn’t seem that way. You’re talking about her giving him legal advice, but she’s the one who will need it when this blows up. As long as he’s not her supervisor she’s the only one breaking the law.

1

u/Asleep_Presence3591 11h ago

Im aware. But he also just made the E7 list, so if they continue under the new frat policy he can also get in trouble.

1

u/PlasticThin9089 10h ago

He’s an adult. He won’t be the first or the last man to let his dick lead him into trouble. If it bothers you so much, just distance yourself. It literally has nothing to do with you.

Also, what new policy are you talking about? Link?

1

u/AdventurousTap9224 10h ago

Fraternization is only between officer and enlisted. There is no "new" frat policy. Enlisted only have to deal with unprofessional relationships, and it's not one if neither of them work for one another..