PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 2013
No Tolerance Act - Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish and maintain a policy to uniformly define and prescribe what constitutes an inappropriate and prohibited relationship, communication, conduct, or contact, including when such an action is consensual, between: (1) a member of the Armed Forces (member) who is superior in rank to, exercises control over, or supervises a person during entry-level process or training; and (2) a prospective member or member undergoing such processing and training. Makes violators subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Directs such Secretaries to require the processing for administrative separation of any member in response to the first substantiated violation of such policy, if the member is not otherwise punitively discharged or dismissed for such violation.
Requires the DOD Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a proposed UCMJ punitive article regarding such violations.
People & committees
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-10] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2206 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2206 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2206 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2206 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.