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.

Addressing a sergeant first class by their rank is somewhat unwieldy. In that case only I use the term Sgt. All other times, I used the full rank.

Try calling a Marine Sergeant Major (E9) "Sarge" and see WTF happens to you....ROFLMAO =)

Even wearing "the butter-bar" won't save you from the impending avalanche of crap you're about to get.....and rightfully so. =)

SFC Matthew Torres, reference AR 600-20 Ch 1 and it will answer your question.

I personally don't care how they address my rank, as long as they execute my guidance and absorb my mentorship. I do make sure they are aware of what the reg says but in today's Army, I feel we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about if their addressing of my rank in full or truncated is disrespectful. It's neither. It's regulatory.

SFC Torres,
Me personally I would say it is not disrespectful at all to call SSG-MSG by their Regulation name of "Sergeant". That is what they are supposed to be called. However, out of respect I always refer to MSG's and "Master-Sergeant "Joe", in any conversation. To me E-8 is a big deal and they deserve it. IMO the diamond gets it, so why would the MSG not get it. That of course is not the reg and I do realize that. But its just an additional respect in my eyes that they have earned as the second highest Enlisted Grade in the Army

SFC (Join to see) I agree with you. As I was enlisted in the Marine Corps prior to commissioning in the Army, I bring those courtesies with me from the Corps. If you have ever seen another branch refer to a SSG in the Marines as "Sergeant" you will know what I mean. I feel it is a respect issue, and the Soldier who has attained that rank, deserves to be addressed by that rank. I will always address my Soldiers by their rank, not just a general rank, and this goes for junior enlisted as well. I will address a Specialist as "Specialist Smith" versus just their last name as I hear all the time and correct.

I do understand that the Army's policy on addressing Sergeants, Staff Sergeants, and Master Sergeants as Sergeants, but it doesn't mean that I don't think each rank deserves the respect of their rank.

I'm also an Instructor in an Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO) and we teach all branches. My particular division teaches only Soldiers and Marines. When I first got to this unit and began teaching, the Marines (which usually accounts for 30-50% of any class) would call me "SERGEANT FIRST CLASS". I found that kind of weird since I'm used to Soldiers calling me "SERGEANT". I later found out that is part of their customs and courtesies. So no, I don't think we should be addressed by our full ranks. As stated many times before in this thread, we have our customs and courtesies and should abide by them. We cannot pick and choose what to follow. Is it "disrespectful" to address us by our full rank? Absolutely not. As NCOs, we enforce. Let's ENFORCE and let our officers make policy.

I would like to add, though, that when I was coming up through the ranks, we often referred to MSG as "Master Blaster". I honestly don't know where that came from but I've always thought it was pretty cool. When I do finally pin on my third rocker, I wouldn't smoke anyone for calling me Master Blaster. But again...that's me.

Not disrespectful, the Marines do this, but this is specific to them. The Army calls everyone E-5 to E-8 Sergeant. Now if someone addresses me as Master Sergeant I dont correct them either, most people dont however. Enlisted ranks for the purpose of addressing them break down to; Private (E-1 through E-3), Specialist, Corporal (very Rare now), Sergeant (E-5 through E-8), Sergeant Major (Staff and Command Sergeant Major).

Side note, any rank can be made to sound disrespectful as well as “Sir”.

I believe the regulation says “Sergeant” is the proper address.

50 plus years ago ,first sgt,Sgt major, we don't say,yes Sgt first class,or yes master Sgt, or yes staff sgt. Now in Nam it was Sgt major, first sgt ,we called top . Rhe rest was sarge.