Addressing a MSG, SFC & SSG as “Sergeant.” Does anyone else think this is disrespectful?

For us AF folk the official term of address for all ranks from SSgt to SMSgt is sergeant or the full rank. I don't think it's disrespectful, it doesn't change my pay and I don't rely of people using my full rank as a means of respect. Respect is shown in everyday actions not simply using a longer title to address you.

To address a senior NCO (with 10 to 20 more years of service) as "sergeant," the same as any "3-4 year wonder" does a disservice to the senior NCO. Though unintentional, it is a minimalist attempt at military courtesy, and attains the lowest standard, the "common" denominator. That may be how the regulation reads, however we as soldiers ought to strive for a higher standard, "above and beyond the call," if you will. I must say that the U.S.M.C. has it completely right on the issue. Calling a Gunnery Sergeant a "sergeant," you might as well be slapping him in the face! Every enlisted Marine knows this, and takes the (slightly) extra effort to address a senior NCO with the title he or she has earned over time, effort, and often blood...

I don't think it's disrespectful, yet I can understand that an individual earned their rank and wanting to respect that. I currently have an additional duty where I write medals for the Operations group and per the AFI you only use Sergeant in the official certificate. The individuals actual rank only appears in the automatically generated statement.

Served 74-95 and always used Sergeant to address E-5 through E-8 (MSG). Used Sergeant Major to CSM and Sir to all Officers. Served me well!

Here's a small bit of trivia from days gone by. I can remember the old Army Rank Chart from when I was a young troop in the 70s which depicted two names for the grade of E-7...there was Platoon Sergeant and Sergeant First Class. I suppose the latter was supposedly intended for those who were not functioning as Platoon Sergeants in their unit's hierarchy, but there is nothing visible about the rank insignia which would set them apart like those insignia for E-8 and E-9. I don't see that on newer Rank Charts now though so I guess it is assumed that E-7s will most likely be Platoon Sergeants anyways. Another trivial bit of none-issue material for your consumption. ;)

It really never bothered me. A few times I was referred to as Sargent First Class because I was receiving something, mostly when referred to by my full rank, it was because I was in deep "dodo"

I always laughed at fellow NCOs that require to be called by more than just "Sergeant". It is not a matter of disrespect it is the proper term. That being said there have been a few MSG that I always use the full title, not because they wanted it but because of I respected them personally not just rank.

Could of, would of should of, but it's not a "Need", simply because of the regulations. I do think is appropiate in certain situations or scenarios to emphasize courtesy and respect but it's not necessary to be anal if Only Sargent is used. The one think I don't agree with is "Top" or "Sarge.

100% agree with you SFC Torres...I'll parrot what I said in the post on "Sir/Ma'am"...regardless of what the regulation requires (not saying blow off the regs, saying we can do better if we want), how about we try to treat each other with respect...I assume your SFC rank was earned from years of hard work and study...how about I treat you like the professional that rank indicates?

I always thought MSG is the perfect rank, just high enough to avoid BS.