Posted on Jul 14, 2015
DA Pam 670-1 announced that both Officers and Warrant Officers will wear the Coat of Arms of the US Army. What are your thoughts?
31.3K
142
20
11
11
0
The "Eagle Rising" has been the symbol of the Army Warrant Officer for going on a hundred years. With the change to wearing the Army Coat of Arms is another piece of tradition falling by the wayside? Or is this something we should embrace? Officers how do you feel about this?
Posted in these groups: 
Warrant Officers
Officers
Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS)
Officer Candidate School (OCS) (Army)
Warrant Officers Officers Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) Officer Candidate School (OCS) (Army)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
14
14
0
I do not understand why traditions are falling away from our military? Warrants should be recognized as such. Those connections to the past are what inspire the future leaders and service members of our military forces. Do you agree?
(14)
(0)
7
7
0
CW3 Kevin Storm, I must comment for a couple of reasons and please do not take it the wrong way as I mentor publically in a thread such as this. The ARSTAFF SWO and the team of Chief Warrant Officer Fives concluded that we need to give that part up already as it has changed on the uniform a decade ago. The fact that things like the "EAGLE RISING" and not "Rising Eagle" have stuck around is the lack of representation at the senior levels when AR and FM were changed to reflect new and developing policies. Us being a cohort must first be able to represent the proper Eagle (ER versus RE).
Lastly my immediate attention was drawn not so much to the subject as it was the misspelling of the word announced in the title of your question. As warrant officers, the most critical thing we can do is communicate and be the SMEs for the force of the future. Credibility is jeopardized when we do not either properly express ourselves or don't check our six (misspell).
The coat of arms is fine for the head gear, the fact that is not brought up that the now defined Field Grade warrant officers are not wearing scrambled eggs on the hat is probably a better question than the Eagle Rising versus the Coat of Arms.
Just my .02 and like I said, have thick skin and drive on, looks like the voters are wishing to keep the Eagle, but I assure you that it probably will not return.
Lastly my immediate attention was drawn not so much to the subject as it was the misspelling of the word announced in the title of your question. As warrant officers, the most critical thing we can do is communicate and be the SMEs for the force of the future. Credibility is jeopardized when we do not either properly express ourselves or don't check our six (misspell).
The coat of arms is fine for the head gear, the fact that is not brought up that the now defined Field Grade warrant officers are not wearing scrambled eggs on the hat is probably a better question than the Eagle Rising versus the Coat of Arms.
Just my .02 and like I said, have thick skin and drive on, looks like the voters are wishing to keep the Eagle, but I assure you that it probably will not return.
(7)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
No offense taken Chief, when you are out here in the hinter lands of the NG world as an MDAY it is easy to forget terms.
(1)
(0)
Stephen Poole
"Credibility is jeopardized when we do not either properly express ourselves or don't check our six (misspell)."
Please look at your very first sentence: "publically."
Then, this:
"Us being a cohort must first be able to represent the proper Eagle."
If you had "checked your six," you would have changed that to, "We, being a cohort, must first be able to refer to the proper name of the Eagle (ER versus RE). Or even better: "As a cohort, we must first..."
Please look at your very first sentence: "publically."
Then, this:
"Us being a cohort must first be able to represent the proper Eagle."
If you had "checked your six," you would have changed that to, "We, being a cohort, must first be able to refer to the proper name of the Eagle (ER versus RE). Or even better: "As a cohort, we must first..."
(0)
(0)
CW5 Sam R. Baker
Stephen Poole - I am from Alabama Stephen and my wife gets on me all the time for such things. I am human and do make mistakes and while my English and Human error can jeopardize my credibility, I own my mistakes and appreciate the candor and poke regardless of how pointed it may be. Thank you for correcting me, maybe I can hold my credibility in flying helicopters and not English.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
This has been a highly debated topic on RallyPoint in the past. I think there is a balance that can be established between wearing the "Eagle Rising" and keeping the history of it alive. It is a symbol of our history, and as such, it should be remembered and displayed proudly where appropriate to celebrate our lineage and the Warrant Officers that came before us.
https://warrantofficerhistory.org/Hist_WO_Insignia.htm
https://warrantofficerhistory.org/Hist_WO_Insignia.htm
WARRANT OFFICER INSIGNIA OF GRADE - Warrant Officer Historical Foundation
The Army Institute of Heraldry's Rank Insignia Section, Warrant Officer Page
(6)
(0)
3
3
0
I honestly don't think this is a big deal. I've never worn the Rising Eagle on my service cap because my mentor told me that when the Rising Eagle went away in 2004, so did the emblem on the service cap. It just takes too much time for regulations to catch up and he was right. I've been a Warrant Officer since 2007 and I've never seen anyone wear the Rising Eagle on their service cap. I actually wear the Rising Eagle belt buckle with my ACU's although I probably shouldn't. I think traditions mean something but I also believe in change and now that we are a Cohort, we have to stop trying to bring things back that is keeping us from moving forward. I keep hearing people say that we are Field Grade Officers when in fact we are Field Grade Warrant Officers. There is still a difference. The only thing that our Field Grade Warrant Officer status grants us similarities with Field Grade O-Grade officers is on-post housing and the OER template.
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I agree with your sentiments. This is a very exciting time for the Warrant Officer Cohort, and the more attention we place on embracing the cohort and maximizing our contributions to the force the better off we will all be.
(2)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
This was the intent from the beginning when the Army aligned the Warrant Officers with our specific branch counterparts. The goal was to gain benefits of being part of a branch and not just left on the sidelines as a Corps fighting for scraps. I know many retired Warrant Officers currently serving ones as well, want things to go back to the way it was but how can you deny the vast improvements that have been made on behalf of the Cohort. The Army has changed and will continue to change as we head towards 2025 and beyond. Being a Warrant Officer means so much more these days.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Just offering $0.02 from an ol' Jarhead: While I don't like to see traditions fall to the wayside, uniform changes, don't seem to be a big deal to me. On one hand, I like the Army's warfare/specialty designations displayed. On the other hand, I do like uniformity. Marines all wear the eagle, globe, & anchor (EGA). To this, the WO & Officers' EGA is slightly different from the enlisted Marines' EGA. But, we're all identified as Marines --first. Why wouldn't the Army's Officer Corps want the same?
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Tradition Sir, the Army WO's up until 2004 wore the Rising Eagle as our Branch insignia. The hat Rising Eagle was worn to show the differences between a WO and a Commissioned Officer. Granted we are commissioned now, but it is an old tradition that is fading away. Years from now it will no longer be remembered.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I thought Warrant officers were already wearing branch, US, and the standard officer hat insignia. Is this hat insignia a new change? If I got vote, I would keep the hat insignia.
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
We have been wearing the branch for some time now Sir, but the hat emblem was the last piece of rising eagle and I thought it did make a distinction between the two sides.
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
CW3 Kevin Storm - I did not know the later changed, or was changing. I think the hat insignia should stay as is, but like all Army decisions, we don't a vote...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
When I see us described as a "cohort" instead of a "corps", I'm thinking the battle is already lost.
Looks like I need to put getting a coat of arms on my "to do" list.
Looks like I need to put getting a coat of arms on my "to do" list.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think CW2 and above should wear the Coat of Arms. I beleive they actually become commissioned officers.
(1)
(0)
Stephen Poole
Although the following citation is from an article regarding warrant officers in the Navy, I'm sure it applies equally to the Army since Warrant Officers are regulated by Congress. The name of the article is "Naval History and Heritage Command" and it's located on the Navy History and Heritage Command Web site.
________________________
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has rules that personnel in the Naval Establishment are divided generally into commissioned officers, noncommissioned or warrant officers, petty officers, and seamen of various grades and denominations (United States v. Fuller, 16 U.S. 593 (1896)), the Court of Claims has declared that "warrant" and "commission," outside of naval technicality, are synonymous words. It said:
"There is no difference, in form, between a commission and a warrant as used in the Navy, except that one recites that the appointment is made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and the other does not. Both are signed by the President." (Brown v. United States, 18 Ct. Cls. 537 (1883), affirmed 113 U.S. 568 (1885)).
________________________
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has rules that personnel in the Naval Establishment are divided generally into commissioned officers, noncommissioned or warrant officers, petty officers, and seamen of various grades and denominations (United States v. Fuller, 16 U.S. 593 (1896)), the Court of Claims has declared that "warrant" and "commission," outside of naval technicality, are synonymous words. It said:
"There is no difference, in form, between a commission and a warrant as used in the Navy, except that one recites that the appointment is made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and the other does not. Both are signed by the President." (Brown v. United States, 18 Ct. Cls. 537 (1883), affirmed 113 U.S. 568 (1885)).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google