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

Holy Cpl Vote Down!! I wonder why he did...

Anyway, SFC, I don't think it is disrespectful. Especially for those new young recruits who should but might not know what the rank is. I would hate to call a 1sgt Sgt. OR SGM SGT...

But again, It's all on the tone. :-)

During my time as a soldier that was just how we did it, unless it was some formal address such as awards presentations or promotions, or reporting to the Commander and the like. The only Senior NCOs who were addressed differently in my time were in pay grade E-9, unless they were First Sergeants. And I have been in or around companies where the First Sergeant position was filled by a senior SFC or an SFC (P), and we still addressed them as First Sergeant. This may be a little silly but I always cringed just a little down deep whenever someone addressed the First Sergeant as Top, even though it was widely acceptable to do so. In an Aviation unit where there is a large population of Warrant Officers, you couldn't just walk into a room and say, "Hey, Chief." You'd have several of us looking at you as if we were wondering if you'd been hitting the bottle already or something. Personally I think we find a lot of different reasons for poll-vaulting over mouse feces when it comes to some of these things regarding customs and courtesies. The wise-guy in me compels me to further state that after I pinned-on CW4 bars, I always made it a point to smile really big whenever I saluted a 2LT and said "Good Afternoon, Sir!" But that's just me I suppose. We all have to start somewhere, don't we? And that 2LT, though probably very young and still wet behind the ears, has earned the title of "Sir" or "Ma'am" and I would be terribly unprofessional if I did not acknowledge it...but sometimes it was just too much fun for a crusty old hoot like myself. ;)

In the Air Force, our regs permit "Sergeant" as a term of addresses for any NCO from pay grades E-5 through E-8, although in the Security Forces (AKA Security Police) career field, we have an unwritten tradition of addressing E-8s (Senior Master Sergeants) as "Senior." Our BIG taboo is to NEVER address a Chief Master Sergeant as simply "Sergeant" or refer to him/her verbally as an "E-9" (even though that's his/her pay grade); it's ALWAYS "Chief" (or theoretically the full rank, although in practice that's too much of a mouthful for practical oral usage).

Not by my lights.

Disrespectful would be addressing them as "LT"...

Just depends on your career field, and sometimes on how recently someone was promoted...

Other than the ranks that have to be addressed differently - i.e. First Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Marines at their full rank etc I will generally use "Sergeant" the majority of the time but I have felt sometimes that I should address a E8 by their full rank (Master Sergeant, Senior Master Sergeant as example), as a sign of respect, even though I am not in the wrong by addressing them as Sergeant and last name.

I have been reading all of the answers and thought how funny it would be if we called Lieutenants First and Second. Wouldn't that sound ridiculous? I don't think anyone would make the argument to call LT's by their full title. As my comment above on SFC Torres' thread states: in the case of the MSG, I have no issue with addressing them by "Master Sergeant". Its just one of those little things that shows you respect that person and what they have done in their career. I don't think anyone will be calling you out for violating regs, but I could be wrong...

In general, and as has been mentioned per regulation -- Sergeant is applicable for all up to First Sergeant and Sergeant Major. However, MANY people address Master Sergeants as their complete title. I find myself "following the crowd" in addressing Master Sergeants simply because I feel like I am disrespecting them by not doing what everyone else does...even if regulation supports just calling them "sergeant." If 49 people call them Master Sergeant, and I'm the only one addressing them as "sergeant" -- it could be viewed as disrespectful. Even though allowed to by AR -- I also don't think that the AR prohibits the use of their full rank.

This isn't taking away from you accomplishment. It is not speaking a mouth full ever time you have to speak to several NCO ranks in the same meeting.

Copied straight out of AR 600-20.

Grade: Sergeant Major of the Army
Pay grade: E-9
Title of address: Sergeant Major
Abbreviation: SMA

Grade: Command Sergeant Major (See table note 2)
Pay grade: E-9
Title of address: Sergeant Major
Abbreviation: CSM

Grade: Sergeant Major (See table note 3)
Pay grade: E-9
Title of address: Sergeant Major
Abbreviation: SGM

Grade: First Sergeant
Pay grade: E-8
Title of address: First Sergeant
Abbreviation: 1SG

Grade: Master Sergeant
Pay grade: E-8
Title of address: Sergeant
Abbreviation: MSG

Grade: Sergeant First Class
Pay grade: E-7
Title of address: Sergeant
Abbreviation: SFC

Grade: Staff Sergeant
Pay grade: E-6
Title of address: Sergeant
Abbreviation: SSG

Grade: Sergeant
Pay grade: E-5
Title of address: Sergeant
Abbreviation: SGT

.

Very disrespectful especially (if you know better) and if you don't then you should learn better. In my branch once you make E4 you're an NCO Junior though you may be, it is what it is? When you address someone lower than their achieved rank you are doing them a disservice, not only disrespecting whatever achievements they've accomplished and forgot that most of us worked hard to attain whatever rank we posessed and each level you achieve grants you increased authority, responsibility, and thereby respect with the rank and badge of office.

Marines do.

My Platoon Sergeant posed this question to me as a "pop quiz" the other day. For the Army, the regulation clearly states "Sergeant" in those instances described in the original post. Personally, if there are multiple SFCs around, I would say "Sergeant [Name]". If I were referring to an NCO in the third-person, I would use their rank for clarity; "Staff Sergeant Johnson advised..."

Other branches have their own customs. A Gunnery Sergeant is NOT "Sergeant". A Tech Sergeant is most definitely a Tech Sergeant. I know this only from having worked in an joint base environment before. It all depends on the environment and where you grow into what you grow into. But as for the Army, MSG, SSG, SFC, and SGT are all "Sergeant". It's not disrespectful, it's regulation. Asking for something different ... must be one's own preference.

The correct form of address is simply "Sergeant", which itself is a term of respect much like "Sir" or "Ma'am" is to a commissioned officer or "Chief" to a chief warrant officer.

From my earliest days as junior enlisted, through the NCO ranks and now as a commissioned officer I address all senior officers as "Sir" or "Ma'am" regardless of rank. NCOs other than first sergeants or sergeants major I address as "Sergeant", with the occasional exception of one master sergeant whom I particularly respect and who was a long-time mentor. I address her was "Master Sergeant", even now that she is retired.

AR 600-20!

With all due respect Sergeant, the fact of the matter Sergeant is that you "FEEL" that if you are speaking to a MSG that you mus call him by his full rank, SSG/SFC. I was taught as a Jr. Soldier to execute by Regulation, my morals, the law and the Army Values. Don't forget "No one is more professional than I".


-I'm just a regular person doing extra-ordinary things

SFC MAtthew Torres,

This really is a good question. I don't mind either way. I think the regulation should be updated and you call an E-6 t thru E-8 by there rank. Why not? When I made Private First Class I hated to be called Prvate because I wanted that seperation. I know sounds silly, but I think we work hard for a rank and our title of address should reflect that.

To answer you qustion, I dnot think its a signe of dsirespect. Just don't call me SARGE!

As many things go in the Army, this is laid out in an Army Regulation. Similar to this is 2LT and General are both "Sir". It is our duty to enforce the established standards. If given the opportunity voice your opinion and the reasons behind your idea as why the standard should change.

The horse isn't dead yet so I'll put in my two cents. According to AR 600-20, Table 1-1, the proper address for SGT, SSG, SFC, and MSG is Sergeant. I've worked with a lot of prior Marines who are still somewhat stuck in Marine regs, they'll address and MSG and SSG by their full rank, but it's on and off when addressing a SFC. The other thing that annoys me, prior Air Force do this too. When writing the rank of an army Staff Sergeant, they'll write it as Ssgt, First Sergeant as 1Sgt, or even Master Sergeant as MSgt. Leutentant Colonel as LtCol. Sgt doesn't annoy me as much because all the letters are the same, but c'mon, This is the army, we write in all caps for ranks and the abbreviation is never more than three characters.

It's SSG, 1SG, MSG, LTC, and SGT.

Doesn't bother me I have been known to address E-8 Master Sergeants by calling them Master Sergeant only because a 1SG is separated by troop command comparatively.

I've always referred to E-5 through E-7 as Sergeant, but MSG's I always like to refer to them as Master Sergeant. Only a handful of times I've referred to them as Sergeant. And if it's a MSG or even retired, that I knew as a 1SG, I will always refer to them as 1SG, out of respect. I had a 1SG that is retired now, and I see him sometimes at the PX or whatever, and I still address him as 1SG.