Military Constraints Upon Marriages of Service Members Overseas, Or, If the Army Had Wanted You to Have a Wife

• Author: by Captain Ross W. Branstetterl
• Pages: 03

Every year, thousands of American service personnel marry while stationed in foreign countries. As many as one out of every se\en single U.S soldiers stationed in the Republic of Korea, for example. marries a Korean national during a tour ~n that country.1 Such cross-cultural marriages are plagued by a high incidence of psychological disorders, extreme financial difficulties and domestic violence These grave personal problems often carry over to the service member's job. Additionally, up to 80 percent of Korean-American marriages end in divorce within the first two years.2 The Army has an undeniable interest in the morale af its soldiers. especially when personal difficulties degrade duty performance and draw resources from the defense mission.

* Jvdee Adiacate GeneraYrCorps, United States A m y . Currentls asiipnedfathe Office af the Staff Judge Advocate I Corps and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewa, Rashlnmn Formerly completed 3lstJudge Adrocate Offleer Graduate Course, 1982.83 asmgned to Headquartera. 8th T.S.Aim?. 1980-82.TriaiCaunsei, Legal AlsijfsncpOffieer 1st Cavalry Dli'mon Fort Hood. Texar. 1978-80: Field Artdlery Platoon Leader. 4th Infanlrr Division Ihlechanizedl Fort Carson. Colarada 1973-76. J D., Pepperdm Unwersits. 1978, B.A. California Stet. L'nlver9% Fullerton. 1970 Member af the bar of the state of \?mesots

1Eiehth Personnel Commandletter 16hlar. 1982 rubirrt. InnliratinnifnrP~rrni~.

MILITARY LA\V REVIEW [VOL. 102

In protecting this interest. the armed farces require that every service member. regardless of grade. gain command approral before marrying overseas. The process of requesting permission to marr) is lengthy and intrusive: sometimes, permiasion is denied. Critics insist that members of the armed farces have the right to marry the person of their choice, without military Interference. even

if to do so 1s a mistake which will long be ~gretted.~

This article ~1-111 discuss how the Army got into the busines of ''approving" marriages. how the present Army system works, what some of the problems are. and what improvements could readilj be made in the procedures.

I. THE HISTORY OF MILITARY CONTROL OF MARRIAGES

The potential of conflict between the demands of military service and the obligations of married life has long been of concern to the military; hence, the enduring expression, "If the Army wanted you to have a wife they [sic] would have issued you one."

As early as the past-Civil War era, The Judge Adrocate Generaiof the Army was asked if Lt i v a ~ permissible for commanders to prevent their soldiers from marrying. This question came at a time when. inEuropean armies, soldiers were forbidden to marry and were pun. ished for doing so and, in the United States. only unmarried men could enlist Additionally, this was a period in which large numbers of U.S soldiers were stationed in remote and hostile westernterrito-r ~ s .

Despite these facts and the burdens created by noncombatant dependents, The Judge Adrocate General declared that commanders could not prohibit soldiers from taking wives.4

member and the commander C B ~ be faced wrh increared abwqteemn

Inefficient\ A\\ OL beha\ioral problems and poor retenlion

The "studies" Iiicl referred to concerning Korean-American divorces appear3 to ha! e been a single report from Fort k r l s Washingran See D Moon. Reserie Chaplain Study of Problemi of Korean Wives 119761

'Jones. The Rrahlfo .Mor,s Amtrd Forces hiniloimi,i 10 Pam L 0 357119771

41" 1879 Tte judpe Adiocate General said A m.lnsru commander anthorned to manror rafuseoasierar flir1ou.h~

19831 MILITARY COUSTRAIXTS UPOK MARRIAGES

The right to marry was not without some limitations even atthat time In 1888, the United States Supreme Court characterized ma? riage as "the most important relation in life" which had "more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." However, the Court went on to recognize that the marriage relationship had "alw~ys been subject to the control of the Legislature ''j

By the time American forces girded for the Great War of 1917, marriages of service members were prohibited in two situations First. for a time. members of the Army Surse Corps were not permitted to marry. Those nha did marry were dishonorably discharged.8 Second, male Service members, who weregenerally free to marry as they saw fit, could, it they knowingly married a prostitute, be punished under Article of War 96 for conduct which tended to bring discredit upon the armed forces?

In 1923, the Supreme Court held that the canstitutionai prohibition againat deprivation of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law" included within its scope "liberty" interests such as the right of the individual "to marry, TO establish a home and bring up children."? The Court also held that thedue processclause limited the power of the state. during time of peace, to interfere with the exercise of such right.

Bet~~i.eenWorldBarIandBorldRarI1,agreatmanymembersof the American armed forces were stationed and married in foreign countries. Many of the alien brides were not eligible far immigrationto the United States. If they were successful in entering the United

offieerr, whilemthessriice So held that under eairtinglaw a mlliI~ry commander could have no authority to prohibjt soldiers. while in hm command, from marrying and that the Contiacting of mamiage by a soldier (althovph his commander had forbidden him or refused him permmmn. to marry) eavld not properly be held IY eonstnute a military offense.

Command VA2a. Digest of Opinions of The Judge Advocate General of the Army -1912 i19171

Iwiynard v. Hd1, 125 E S 190 (18881. This was an action contesting the (late's

It a divorce:ell. The Kamsn's Army Corm 110 119141

...

paver to gra,

%I Treadu'C 11. No 121330 (1918J, idrd 82 Stc. i54!68J Digest of Opinioni of The Judge Adweate General of the Army - 1912-1940 (1943)

'hlegerv Nebraska,262U S 390,399(19231, wssaca~elnwhieha teacher had been criminally prosecuted for teaching German to a mdent in riolatmn ai B Sebraska iiarureforbidding in~fr~m10n0fw~n8children in an) IanruareexeeprEnelish The Court appreemted rhsf ''unfortunate experiences during the late wr. and aveimon tau ard e i w characterntic of truculent adversarm" influenced the leninlature. bur held the stace had exceeded ~ t n poaer The eonviefi~n was rereried.

MILITARY LAX REVIEW [VOL.

States. their marriages were mmetimes declared void by State laws which forbade marriages of person8 of different races. Often, the unions with persons of markedly different national and racial backgrounds were opposed by the soldier's family and friends *

In this emotional and political climate, military restraints on marriages were further expanded; ail soldiers, male and female. were required to have their regimental commander's approval before marrying.'< The Judge Advocate General of the Army reversed prror opinions and asserted that such a requirement was lawful where necessary to promote military efficiency." The penaltyfor marrying in violation of Army...