In today's modern military, would there be any benefit to an enlisted structure similar to that of the past?

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 23:43:54 -0400

I believe that most, if not all of us, are familiar with the old army enlisted rank structure where one could go their entire career without ever becoming an NCO, but still make it up through the paygrades. We all have known people who were great at their jobs but not fit to lead. Is there any benefit to bringing back such an enlisted rank structure?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 12 at 2017 11:58 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 23:58:44 -0400

The question pops up from time to time.

The major issue is one of "force structure." For every Non-NCO in paygrades E4-E9, we must give up an NCO of equal grade. That's the drawback.

Why use someone who is not fit to lead when you get someone who is fit to lead (and capable of performing the same primary task) for the same cost? (both financial and opportunity)

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made Jun 13 at 2017 12:01 AM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:01:24 -0400

I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes. If you're happy at your present job and want to do it I don't think you should be forced to move up or out. Sadly some people aren't meant to lead, but worked their butts off where they are. No reason there shouldn't be lateral promotions.

Response by SFC George Smith made Jun 13 at 2017 12:04 AM

SFC George Smith — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:04:00 -0400

never saw any thing Higher than a Spec 8... Hospital Ward Master

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 1:44 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:44:43 -0400

If they did, I would love to become the SPC 9 of the army

But seriously, I don't see the benefit. As you increase your grade, your responsibilities and your influence expand quite a bit. You are often no longer just doing your MOS, but asked to take leadership in other areas. Thus, as a Soldier moves through the middle grades, they need that junior NCO leadership development to help them as succeed later. The closest we have to senior Specialist ranks are MSG and SGM. But, even though they are often in Staff positions and not command, no one will doubt their ability as a NCO leader

Response by PFC Jonathan Albano made Jun 13 at 2017 3:01 AM

PFC Jonathan Albano — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 03:01:45 -0400

I could see it as an effective way to clarify unit rank structure (leadership positions vs. non- leadership), however, I am a firm believer in the "be prepared to lead at a moments notice" philosophy that the current rank structure promotes.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 9:48 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:48:21 -0400

They wouldn't do it - they're too in love with STEP at this point.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 9:57 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:57:56 -0400

I think in cyber where every branch is trying to get qualified people to stay and to offer pay a little more competitive to the civilian world it might make sense. Other than that I think becoming an NCO is important to all services and will revert to what Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS said.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 10:02 AM

Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:02:20 -0400

I could see how this could be useful for certain fields like Cyber where sometimes you get introverted but highly skilled people who don't need to be leaders to add value to the military but for the most part that's why Warrant Officers exist.(Not saying Warrant Officers can't also be leaders I am mainly referring to how their primary asset is their specialized skills)

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Jun 13 at 2017 10:08 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:08:47 -0400

My brother was an SP6 operating room cardio-pulmonary specialist at Walter Reed during the 70's. He had no interest in leadership positions but loved the service and the job he had. Unfortunately there was no career path for him to advance beyond his current grade. He was drawing pro pay, housing and some sort of living in the DC area supplement that probably doesn't exist now. He went to Hospital Administration to discuss promotion. They allowed as how the slot was only authorized an E6 pay grade and if he wanted better pay he could request an early out and come back to his job either as a civil servant or a contractor. He added up the bucks he was receiving, factored in his implied income such as medical benefits and compared these to the civil servant pay scales for the job and the payments contracted nurses were receiving for his job. Long story but the upshot of it was he could double his effective income by changing clothes and coming back to work in the same job as a contracted nurse. So he did. And that's why the Specialist system did not work in the advanced grades.

I'd bet the same situations apply theses days in various highly technical fields. The military trains SM to perform highly complex tasks , cyber, legal and medical for example, but cannot pay for these tasks at the going commercial rate. So the SM leave and are replaced with either contractors(Former SM trained by the military) or newly trained specialists(Future contractors trained by the military). Because govt accounting systems work the way they do, the unit may not have more than a certain number of SM in each pay grade, but does have a discretionary budget for contracted services. So they can have functional equivalency for increased costs and still be within budget. Ain't life grand?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 13 at 2017 10:10 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:10:35 -0400

If a person has a skill that is important enough to warrant the pay, shouldn't they also be expected to mentor others? In other words, to lead? Service in the military is transient and no one is irreplaceable unless there is no one to replace them...

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 13 at 2017 10:11 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:11:14 -0400

I could see such a system having merit with National mobilization but not with an all volunteer force. If we did have a shortage of people capable of leading maybe, but nothing about Spec-6. What Senior Leadership position would not require a someone who was a leader?

Response by SGT Morrison (Mike) Hogwood made Jun 13 at 2017 10:57 AM

SGT Morrison (Mike) Hogwood — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:57:23 -0400

My honest opinion is no,I was in during those rank structures ,i was a Spec/5 in in a leadership position,and we do lead from a different structure,it still boils down that we still had to lead and be leaders in positions that required us just not as technicians but Soldierly Army things also,There is no reasons to change the ranks system again,it will just bring back the mentality that your just a technician and not worthy of being a NCO in the United States Army.

Response by SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity made Jun 13 at 2017 11:05 AM

SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:05:13 -0400

I would say keep the rank structure as it is now. The specialist rank past grade of 4 because we now have warrant officers. If the army wanted to create enlisted technicians working with warrants yiu might be able to incorporate specialist there 5,6,7,8 there.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 12:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:33:00 -0400

I think that there would be. There are a lot of people that get promoted into the NCO ranks that would be better suited in a more specialized SME position less the leadership responsibilities. Unfortunately I think the WO career paths eliminate any hope of that happening.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 4:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:20:56 -0400

Isn't the SPEC4-SPEC9 the old version of what Warrant Officers are today?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2017 9:31 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:31:34 -0400

You a re correct, I've witnessed plenty of soldiers who were great at their jobs but due to being socially awkward B-type personalities where they weren't the best to lead soldiers. I do feel like soldiers should have some input on their career path. Some soldiers are all about coordinating training events and writing counseling's and such; while there are some that just want to do their job to the best of their ability. As you move up the rank structure, your responsibilities push you away from doing your actual job. I, myself, spend way more time doing the admin side of army than what my technical expertise is. IMHO, that's why we have ended up having to rely on contractors for a lot of tasks. Its because while the senior leaders may have an idea of how to do things, they are pulled in so many other directions that it tends to be junior enlisted that are the ones that are the experts now (mainly those terminal specialists).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2017 1:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:07:31 -0400

I think there is a need and pace for all the Specialist ranks. Have to admit when I became SSG and SFC it was a new ball game for me had to hit the ground running when I was assigned to tanker BN. Although I had completed Advance NCO professional Development, it really wasn't enough training for being assigned to Combat Arms units.

Response by PFC Randy Kittelson made Jun 14 at 2017 1:58 PM

PFC Randy Kittelson — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:58:43 -0400

I think the better question is the"up or out" policy hurting our readiness? Is forcing out a good E4 helping us? Just because they aren't ready to get stripes. Should specialties that are top heavy served by constantly having to train new privates instead of retaining good specialists that are swimming against a strong current to promotion?

Response by CSM Clifford Fargason made Jun 14 at 2017 3:19 PM

CSM Clifford Fargason — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:19:49 -0400

This has been beat to death in other posts. My background involved the Specialist ranks, in fact, I think I was the last SP6 on Fort McClellan while I was going through the transition course for Chemical NCO.
The reality of the Specialist ranks is that it was mostly tied up with a soldier's MOS. The exception to that was SP4. Almost everyone who made E4 (from early 70s at least) was a Specialist. I knew some who had to take a reduction to E4 after a break in service as an NCO and they were pinned as CPL. In technical MOSs like Satellite Communications everybody was a Specialist, even the leadership. And I am sure that there were guys wearing "hard stripes" in some Infantry units that were only in charge of their desks rather than soldiers.
Specialist ranks were not the ancestor of Warrant officers. The Warrants were around long before the specialist ranks came out, specialists were more an offshoot of the ranks with the T in the graphic - Technical Sergeants (from WWII era)

Response by SPC John Decker made Jun 14 at 2017 3:26 PM

SPC John Decker — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:26:48 -0400

To be an NCO, I'd like to think a person must pass some ind of leadership test. If a sm who is proficient in their chosen specialty but is incapable of passing the leadership test, should still be promoted when eligible. There are jobs, both in the military and in the civilian world, that do not require leadership skills.---Taking a random group of people and putting them into a random set of circumstances. They will gravitate to those positions requiring their particular skillsets. That includes leadership.

Response by SGT Eric Hawkins made Jun 14 at 2017 3:57 PM

SGT Eric Hawkins — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:27 -0400

Definately, when I was first promoted to Sergeant, I was not ready. I was 23 years old and damned good at my job. I was technically and tactically proficient. But, I was not ready to lead. I was lucky enough to have an awesome squad leader and fellow NCO's that helped mold me into someone that was ready to lead. But it took time. I could have probably better served as a SP5 for a while before pinning on Sergeant stripes.

Response by SFC Kevin Ireland made Jun 14 at 2017 4:37 PM

SFC Kevin Ireland — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:37:58 -0400

Shortly after I came in, the Army got rid of the SP6 and SP5 ranks. My first team was led by a SSG and have 5 SP5s on it. I was the only private. It was like belonging to a family with 5 older brothers, which isn't always a good thing. Then came the day they all came into work and were now wearing SGT rank, with me being the only private. I can say that out of the 5 none of them had the desire to be a SGT or they already would have been. How good of an NCO do you think they were?

Instead of bringing back those ranks how about just letting someone stay a SPC if they want to instead of kicking them out? As others have already said, not everyone wants to be a leader, or is capable of being one. That doesn't mean they can't be valuable to the Army or even a good mentor to younger soldiers. You don't have to be an NCO to be a mentor. Hell, I've had soldiers who didn't join until there were up there in age. Do you think they weren't good mentors just because they weren't an NCO?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2017 5:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:47:21 -0400

What is the point. If you are good at your job and not fit to lead, then stay good where you are at. For some, being a good leader takes time, effort and training. If you are good at your job and put in the hard work to become a good leader then, move up through the ranks. Let's not forget that we are supposed to be able to lead from any level and position because that is what could happen at any time on the battlefield. It is what happens now throughout our ranks.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Reese made Jun 14 at 2017 6:39 PM

SPC Jeffrey Reese — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:09 -0400

My self I think the ARMY should go strictly to hard rank stripes only E-4 is a E-4 CPL only get rid of the SPC rank entirely. That or have it where once you make it to promotable status you are transitioned from SPC to CPL to distinguish between the status and start preparing the soldier for their new duties once promoted.

Response by PO1 Mark Robinson made Jun 14 at 2017 8:04 PM

PO1 Mark Robinson — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:04:11 -0400

Bringing back any kind of technical grades would be problematic for the reasons stated above. But, depending on the MOS, Rate/NEC, or AFSC involved, I could see much more use of proficiency pay.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 14 at 2017 8:50 PM

SSG John Jensen — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:50:48 -0400

Great-Uncle was a Tech Sgt on an Army Tugboat in WWII( the army had more ships than the Navy)
I loved being a Spec/5- I was a medic and so wasn't in the chain of command anywhere.
1 Oct 1985 was the day that I stopped being special !

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2017 9:38 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:38:54 -0400

We need to bring back Corporal-Captain. Worked well in the Korean War. Time to bring it back.

Response by SSG Johnnie Vaughn made Jun 14 at 2017 11:07 PM

SSG Johnnie Vaughn — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:07:26 -0400

In today's "real world" coporate environment, we have a need for both Leaders/Managers and technological specialists. Why does my electrical engineer who lives in the lab need to know how to manage or lead individuals?

The unified rank progression that did away with the Specialist ranks hurt the army more than it helped it. You have Warrant Officers as specialists in the officer ranks; doesn't it make sense to have the same in the enlisted ranks?

Response by Cpl Earl Armstrong made Jun 14 at 2017 11:31 PM

Cpl Earl Armstrong — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:31:13 -0400

As a Marine who later served in the Army the problem I see which makes this question keep coming up is the leadership culture in the Army. In the Marines we're taught leadership early on. Example if you have two Marine private one will always be senior to the other and even placed in charge of the other even if it comes down to who signed the enlistment papers first. Promotion to Corporal is not guaranteed like specialist is in the Army. Our promotion system into the NCO ranks is a better approach than the Army's system. Our system takes into account proficiency in mos,conduct rating, pt score and rifle score,education and awards. The Army system doesn't score for mos proficiency or conduct rating.

Response by SP5 Robert Ruck made Jun 15 at 2017 12:01 AM

SP5 Robert Ruck — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:01:13 -0400

I enjoyed being a Spec. 5. I don't feel it was a statement on my ability to lead. It reflected only on the highly technical nature of my job.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Jun 15 at 2017 1:31 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:31:22 -0400

I see no benefit to some of the past grades that gave no rise into NCO positions. Its nice to have people capable of certain tasks and being good at it but We also need leaders. Training and experience should produce NCOs not just people who are just there in their little corner and content with that. Most organizations upward mobility is into leadership, why should any branch of the Military service not follow that same logical path ?

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Jun 15 at 2017 5:09 AM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:09:02 -0400

I think so. It would weed out the weak leadership. I have seen other SNCOs who were weak in leadership, but knew their MOS. I can't count how many times I heard this "But, Sarge, I'm not ready to go to board", "Sarge, if I get promoted, I won't be able to hang out with my buddies". Let them progress through the SPC ranks, and let the hard-stripe CPL lead from the front.

Response by Jerry Rivas made Jun 15 at 2017 7:02 AM

Jerry Rivas — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:02:03 -0400

In Ft. Polk in 74, I remember a cook that was a SPC7.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2017 8:09 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:09:53 -0400

I would say yes the older ranks could be useful. For example I knew a mechanic who couldn't lead you to the defac on time. However you gave him a vehicle that needed a repair, nor just a regular repair but the kind that stumps most mechanics, and you would watch a miracle happen. He would find and fix anything that was wrong with any vehicle. Why not promote people like this through the specialist ranks. To me I see it a the warrant officer in the enlisted ranks. An enlisted subject matter expert. It could also help with our NCO heavy army and be a step to balancing things out.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jun 15 at 2017 9:44 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:44:55 -0400

There are also those who are happy where they are and a promotion forces them to do something else. I was happy as an E-6 out in the boonies. E-7 put me in a job I hated E-8 never went outside. In 67 we had all of the above, you needed a decoder ring to tell who was who. We had Specialists up to E-7, We had the regular rank structure and the obsolete rank structure with SSG E-5, SFC E-6, MSG E-7. They were leftovers from obsolete systems who needed to retrain to advance. Firing Batteries were simple but Headquarters was insane.
Up or out can destroy the careers of some good soldiers.

Response by COL David Turk made Jun 17 at 2017 6:31 PM

COL David Turk — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 18:31:22 -0400

This would be more applicable as we build a "cyber" force. A lot of "techies" like to focus on the computer monitor, and not necessarily leading others. I would have no problem with a room ful of spec five, six and sevens cyber sleuths, reporting to a warrant officer. Think of the savings (cost, and billets) of not sending this group to NCO and related schools. I'm assuming these individuals would never be deployed into a combat zone.

Response by MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan made Jun 17 at 2017 9:29 PM

MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 21:29:11 -0400

While doing Army support duty as a member of the Air Force I became familiar with the idea of the specialist grades. I think this is something that all of the services could benefit from as there are many within each branch who do not want to promote themselves out of a job. I personally knew guys in the AF who would score low on promotion tests so that they could continue to do the job they really enjoyed instead of getting promoted into a job they did not want to do.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2017 8:15 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:15:02 -0400

I would like to know where rallypoint pulled this picture from as it is from the 2012 AL best warrior competition with no bearing on the topic what so ever?

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 11 at 2018 12:52 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:52:05 -0400

Yes, with the need for skilled technicians there needs to be a structure to address that, or we lose them, and lose them fast to the civilian world.

Response by SSG Jess Peters made Jun 12 at 2018 3:49 AM

SSG Jess Peters — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 03:49:20 -0400

As I recall all those specialist ranks acted as if they were noncoms. Most were put in leadership positions of an NCO and treated as such by officers. Just saying.

Response by MSG John Wawroski made Jun 12 at 2018 6:33 AM

MSG John Wawroski — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 06:33:07 -0400

In most units I was in, there were always a few to sometimes many Sergeants but not enough NCOs! I believe it is still this way whenever I speak to uniformed personnel. Some don't want responsibility!

Response by CW3 Michael Clifford made Jun 12 at 2018 8:13 AM

CW3 Michael Clifford — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 08:13:33 -0400

I served in the former rank structure as both a SP5 and SP6 as an enlisted CID Special Agent. MI Special Agents had a lot of the non-NCO ranks as well. Most of these MOSs, the rest of Army did not know our ranks (enlisted and warrant). Most who did bitched like a bunch of little girls. Nothing like a Colonel suspect learning through unofficial channels that his CID interrogator was a Sergeant First Class. Confessions are confessions, whoever gives them and whomever takes them.

Response by CPT Jim Lee made Jun 12 at 2018 10:41 AM

CPT Jim Lee — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:41:13 -0400

MPI, CID, MI, and cyber folks would fit in those categories well.

Response by SSG Marshall Paul made Jun 12 at 2018 1:10 PM

SSG Marshall Paul — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:10:56 -0400

I joined the army in 67. We still had a few career privates. I only knew one personally. What was wrong with that?

Response by COL William Oseles made Jun 12 at 2018 2:16 PM

COL William Oseles — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:16:51 -0400

Back when you had the Specialist Ranks in the senior levels they had Pro Pay which compensated the technicians for their advanced technical skills when they could not be promoted higher. This was resented by the Hard Stripes that a 'non-leader' was getting paid more than they were. Just as you had Specialists (And Techs) that would not make good leaders, many to most of the "Leaders" did not have the mind set to master the technical details. Also the Specialist ranks were effectively killed by the Up or Out mentality that came to run our military.
To bring back the Specialist/Tech ranks would require a fundamental change of both pay and retention. There were individuals that served their entire career in the lower specialist ranks but were VERY good at what they did.

Response by CW5 Roger Jacobs made Jun 12 at 2018 3:02 PM

CW5 Roger Jacobs — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:02:15 -0400

As a soldier who was enlisted in that old rank structure, the problem was that all to often senior Specialists (SP6 and SP7) were often thrust into leadership positions and were untrained and woefully unprepared to do the job. As a Warrant Officer who is the technical expert in their field we are called to teach, coach, mentor and lead at all levels. As stated in other comments, as you progress through the levels your responsibilities expand. I see no sense in going back to a system that just didn't work.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Jun 12 at 2018 4:28 PM

CPT Tom Monahan — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:28:37 -0400

I think there is a place to bring back T SGTs. Yes, they are NCOs but primarily techs first. Many MOSs can use these: Logistics, Medical, Cyber, AG/Music, etc. Also is you are over strength you make those in leadership hard stripes and the the rest Ts.

Response by SGM Frank Marsh made Jun 12 at 2018 4:29 PM

SGM Frank Marsh — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:29:35 -0400

and on the other hand, we all know NCOs who weren't fit to lead. you can't teach leadership, only improve on it. the specialist rank, IMHO, didn't work the way it was planned. even as a SP-6 promotable, I got little respect except in my career field. I have also listened to folks say "I don't care what your score is, it's Gene's turn to move up". well, Gene (false name) came out of the guard and somehow made it to SSG, not a leader, will never be a leader, but IS one of the 'good old boys'. gene goes before the board, fails miserably, they look bad for sending him, I have to wait until next board...nope, I'm out of here.

Response by CSM Lynn Chrisman made Jun 12 at 2018 6:02 PM

CSM Lynn Chrisman — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:02:20 -0400

I am with rank comes responsibility and leadership. I can’t imagine being an E-5 or greater and not standing in front of soldiers

Response by SPC JeffRhey Bell made Jun 12 at 2018 8:21 PM

SPC JeffRhey Bell — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:21:59 -0400

You can mentor without being "in charge". You can be the best at your mos and not be a leader. You shouldn't have to choose between warrant Officer or NCO.

Response by SGT Randall Smith made Jun 13 at 2018 7:47 AM

SGT Randall Smith — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:47:48 -0400

There’s many a job that takes knowledge and work but not leadership of more than 5 or 6 men. Cooks, finance, personnel, Signal, maintenance. Good men doing a good job but not NCO’s. They deserve to go up in rank on ability. I should have never been a Sgt.

Response by SFC Andrew Gawura made Jun 13 at 2018 9:06 AM

SFC Andrew Gawura — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:06:38 -0400

I do believe that we should pay the people that have excelled in their given field. BUT, a SPEC 7 has no business in a combat line company. Having a CPL giving commands to a SPEC 7 will never work. It didn’t before you can’t create units made up of just SPEC, who would lead them. Though I’ve heard that thy have put Warrent Officers in Learership rolls now.

Response by CW3 Kim B. made Jun 13 at 2018 9:50 AM

CW3 Kim B. — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:50:05 -0400

The specialist ranks in the Army ended up having to pull the same duties, attend the same common core training, and perform many leadership duties as hard stripe NCOs. The lines were blurred so much that it almost didn't matter between the two. Remember, specialist ranks beyond E-4 were dictated by MOS. Why should a generator mechanic go the specialist rank but the turret mechanic go the hard stripe route? Your MOS does not dictate what kind of leader you are or will become. Leave the SPC5 and above ranks in the past.

Response by SGT James Blakeney made Jun 13 at 2018 1:12 PM

SGT James Blakeney — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:12:02 -0400

That would confuse the New troops

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 5:22 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:22:53 -0400

In technical fields such as the 94 series it certainly would be advantageous.

Response by SPC Kyle Williams made Jun 13 at 2018 5:28 PM

SPC Kyle Williams — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:28:31 -0400

I didnt know the spc rank use to be like that. I mean when yer at the top of the spc rank your sham powers must be amazingly strong. You could tell every detail to fuck off. You no longer have to sneak and hide, they would have to allow us use of the secret teleporters for instant shams. Lol.

Response by SSgt Max Gonzales made Jun 13 at 2018 6:10 PM

SSgt Max Gonzales — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:10:02 -0400

No need for restructure,these days rank seems to be earned easier. Took me 4 years to make E4. These young people seem to advance easily. Maybe I'm just old or they're genius's.

Response by SSgt Max Gonzales made Jun 13 at 2018 6:15 PM

SSgt Max Gonzales — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:15:15 -0400

Thank you SGT. Joseph Gunderson.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jun 13 at 2018 6:23 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:23:09 -0400

I look at the specialist grades of the Army and see how high they could possibly go.
And I looked at WO grades. I was getting around and seen there were some Specialists that had been picked to go to Hyde Park at the Culinary Institute and do a semester.. Some decided to not re-up and then go back to CIA(culinary Institute of America)and use their G.I. Bill and then re- enter as a W.O. and run a Food Service program in the Army.. in Mt case it’s out of reach as I’m 65 In a couple weeks . Back when I was a young man
This opportunity wasn’t around (about 35
Years ago). One other prob would
Of held me back even if it were.. my
TBI.. Wven though I got back in the AF..
demands of the Army are much different.

Response by LCpl Troy Gwyn made Jun 13 at 2018 6:42 PM

LCpl Troy Gwyn — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:42:08 -0400

A bunch of crybabies.
As a L/Cpl I ran an entire engineer section, while my SSgt was at his career development school.
As you can tell, I have strong opinions. That kept me out of being promoted.
But, I didn't go crying about it.

Response by PFC Robert Shadwick made Jun 13 at 2018 6:49 PM

PFC Robert Shadwick — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:49:44 -0400

Yes on specialists grades up to e-6, and no on the technical grade because specialists already cover that. As far as e-7 SFC, I would have more respect for SFC then for a spec 7

Response by MAJ Bill Riddle made Jun 13 at 2018 7:04 PM

MAJ Bill Riddle — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:04:24 -0400

SpeedyFive might be worth bringing back. Very few were ever above that. The way I see it, the only reason to have SP4 was to keep them n the duty roster as privates while paying them more. But SP5 went on the same roster as SGTs.

Response by PO2 Charles Kokel made Jun 13 at 2018 8:46 PM

PO2 Charles Kokel — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:46:25 -0400

The sea services that how you advance it you switch rates you get dropped back to E4

Response by SSG Ralph Moran made Jun 13 at 2018 8:48 PM

SSG Ralph Moran — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:48:22 -0400

All hard stripes would have to complete an NCO training course. If you wear E6 SSGT Stripes I would expect you to be able to take over if I was wounded. If you don’t want the responsibility then let someone have it that does. I was a squad leader as an E5 sgt and was promoted to E6 ssgt and no change of duties except more responsibility if my Platoon sgt was wounded I was his replacement if something happened to him

Response by SSG Christopher Cannon made Jun 13 at 2018 8:51 PM

SSG Christopher Cannon — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:51:17 -0400

As a soldier you are to lead if you don't want to lead get out and be a contractor. Nco's are the back bone of the Army you geat money based on responsibility. If you just want to be a tech and not lead get out.

Response by SFC Gonzalo Garza made Jun 13 at 2018 8:52 PM

SFC Gonzalo Garza — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:52:28 -0400

Not everyone has the capability of been a leader, so these guys should be groomed early if they intend to be career soldiers

Response by CW3 Raymond Mead made Jun 13 at 2018 8:54 PM

CW3 Raymond Mead — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:54:09 -0400

As one who served in the green suit Army, I had the opportunity to serve with some senior specialists. They all served in technical fields but could be converted to hard stripes if their position required it. They didn't serve in combat arms unless they were maintenence positions. I didn't see a loss of NCO positions for any of the senior specialists' promotions. Most of those who were promoted above SP5 were in MOSs that were technical in nature and were designated 30 rather than 40 MOS trailers. My MOS 96B, actually split at E6 with tactical assignments being 96B40 SSG and strategic being 96B30 SP6. This later changed to 96B30 for both ranks. I saw no real shortcomings in the specialist ranks. It was a way of letting people advance in rank as they continued to serve. By not having them serve in leadership positions they were available at their duty positions pretty much 24/7. There were certainly advantages to that. Also most of the senior specialists that I served with were drawing proficiency pay based on their technical expertise. It also eliminated the dilema of more chiefs than indians. But times do change and so do the needs of the Army. I don't expect any changes on the horizon.

Response by SGT Joseph Miller made Jun 13 at 2018 9:20 PM

SGT Joseph Miller — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:20:18 -0400

Bringing the tech sgt ranks back would be idiotic as they were replaced with the specialists ranks ,but they should bring back the specialist ranks as we've become a more technically advanced military and just like the officer rank the warrant officer ranks are just like the specialist ranks for officers, warrant officers are experts in their technical fields but are not leaders ,they are here for their expertise. Some people are excellent at their jobs but just not a strong leader and shouldn't be placed over other soldiers but they shouldn't be put out as we need their expertise and a bad leader but a excellent expert in their field shouldn't hold up a leadership rank that a good leader should be in. This will repair alot of the problems also with the NCO promotion system and benefit soldiers and keep the the expertise in the army we need. I was in during the middle 80's and knew a couple spec5's and spec6's as that was the year they got rid of 5 and 6, it was kind of weird as they were E6 and I was a young corporal and outranked them as they had no NCO authority but they were excellent in their jobs but were horrible as a leader and the army just gave them stripes when they finally discontinued the rank and they screwed up so much as they had no leadership training as they were not required to go for their career path and promotions and they hated it as they had to immediately go to PLDC and BNCO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 9:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:35:06 -0400

So needs to come back

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 9:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:35:50 -0400

None

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 9:38 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:38:40 -0400

I’ve been thinking about this one for a while, because I have a soldier who is very experienced and great at his job, but maybe not leadership material at this time. I think the Army should bring back spec-5 and 6 for soldiers like him. No need to have anything higher than that. The idea being, that soldiers who excel in their career field, but are not necessarily ready for the responsibility that comes with being an NCO, can receive the extra pay and respect befitting their seniority. And obviously, they could promote to SGT from either of those additional ranks, when they are more prepared for that leadership role.

Response by SPC Jesse Peeples made Jun 13 at 2018 9:48 PM

SPC Jesse Peeples — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:48:22 -0400

Being compliant enough to lead another is part of your duty I think if they do bring a pay chart like this about it would be a cluster fuck all the way around with no incentive to be better at team building skills...

Response by SFC Ken McClain made Jun 13 at 2018 10:26 PM

SFC Ken McClain — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:26:22 -0400

Yeah, I was a Spec 5 Senior Tank Driver in 85 before they did away with the rank and made everyone hard stripe. Then I was reassigned as a tank gunner. The inequities of the position were they would assign me to do lower enlisted duties or supervise them. Sometimes I would be CQ or Sergeant of the Guard or a guard or CQ runner. Perhaps the Army should consider career E-4’s if someone does not want to be a leader and be a career tank driver. They can call them Senior Specalists or something. ;). The German Army has them. Either way I do not see a benefit and besides in the Army one should expect to lead if they want the rank and pay.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 10:45 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:45:32 -0400

I’m young in the military so my say might not say so, but, I think yes definitely. Either some people may not be “meant” to lead, others just may not want to. Those who just want to do their job without the supervision type and plus responsibilities should be allowed imo. Especially if it means keeping many more people in if that’s a major issue

Response by PO2 Karl Lehn made Jun 13 at 2018 11:14 PM

PO2 Karl Lehn — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:14:41 -0400

I never understood that old specialist system. I thought all of us were specialists in our field anyway. However on the flip side I've never liked the up or out system. How high in rankbone goes should be at the discretion of the individual. I'm Navy and saw quite a few E5s coming up on 20 years. One common theme existed here. Those members were happy as front line supervisors. People who are content with what they do tend to be more well adjusted to their position. If I had a member lets say that was an E4 and operated boats and hes performance is 4.0 why put him in a position he knows he cant run with? It is important to be happy in one's work is a quote from the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai. Movie or not I believe it holds true. It certainly does in the civilian world where one can be a bank teller for 30 years and happily retire. The services spend beaucoup money training us. Throwing away good material is foolish.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2018 11:21 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:21:25 -0400

So I think there are benefits to brining this back. I seen a SPC do there job better than a SSG just because you are a SSG don't mean you can do your job or even a CSM I know that solder said I don't want to be a SGT or anything like that because I like doing my job that's what I hear a lot I get told by solders that they would rather stay a SPC now if we did bring these ranks back it would help keep those solders in that love there MOS because I do see it my self NCO's do not do there job anywhere near as much because they do have to do other things I'm not saying anything about being an NCO but being an NCO is not for everyone there are solders that just don't want that but that's all I really have to say is maybe it wouldn't be bad to bring back at all I think in the long run it would help

Response by LCDR Robert Turner made Jun 14 at 2018 12:10 AM

LCDR Robert Turner — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:10:31 -0400

All people should be given the opportunity to achieve a position where they are delivering their highest and best use. For some, that is not to be a leader. Having a career track where promotion equals the opportunity for greater technical, non-leadership related challenges.

At a point where DoD cyber communities are contemplating recruiting top talent at the E-7 and O-6 level simply for their technical skill, perhaps it is time for the Service Chiefs to consider a technical promotion path...

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 12:12 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:12:47 -0400

I say yes bring them back but pay them 20% less otherwise most servicemen will go that route and you'll end up with too Indians not enough chiefs.

Response by MSgt Mainard Mills made Jun 14 at 2018 12:24 AM

MSgt Mainard Mills — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:24:42 -0400

Current rank structure in the Army is okay. The other services get along okay with theirs, so I see no need to bring back the spec5s,6s etc.u

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 12:34 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:34:59 -0400

Yes

Response by SFC Richard Baerlocher made Jun 14 at 2018 12:43 AM

SFC Richard Baerlocher — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:43:29 -0400

When I entered the service in 1966 there were soldiers up to a Sp-7 in Food Service, medical, and maintenance. They were the technical experts. I see no reason to not have the ranks again!

Response by SGT Kent Hessling made Jun 14 at 2018 1:09 AM

SGT Kent Hessling — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 01:09:28 -0400

Move up or move out , the pink slip , yet E-5 not able to retire but E 6 ok , I ve known failure E 6 s that were worthless but known some great E 5 s carrying them that got booted , it's sad

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 1:53 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 01:53:28 -0400

From a non soldier perspective, I can see the benefits and drawbacks of both and I think either decision would have equal opportunity costs so the army would just have to decide if it’s more important to have leaders be at higher paygrades or to keep people in who are really good at their job.

Response by PO1 Michael Moe made Jun 14 at 2018 5:29 AM

PO1 Michael Moe — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:29:14 -0400

No, keep em out but change the time in rate as the needs of the army change.

Response by Derek Ledford made Jun 14 at 2018 5:37 AM

Derek Ledford — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:37:59 -0400

As far as I see it, the army wants people able and willing to lead or at least develop those skills. Just like any other job, if they aren't fit for leadership or don't want to progress, they can find another job. The motivation to do and be better is something they try to instill at basic. I mean, worst case is join the Reserves or National Guard to keep your service going and go find something on then civilian side to do. But the expectation to continue growing isn't a problem unless a person is complacent. Finally, what we should be asking is what happens when lateral promotions come into play and then they have a need for leaders and none to fill the positions? Just look at Special Forces. They don't even have enough people to fill an entire squad properly anymore (per Tim Kennedy) because recruits aren't motivated anymore. Too many people enlisting for the benefits and not to truly serve and "be all they can be".

Response by SSG Carl Gamel made Jun 14 at 2018 8:12 AM

SSG Carl Gamel — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:12:02 -0400

Bring back the specialist ranks, not everyone is a leader, but now you ate losing all specialised knowledge needed to repair or keep things going, like medical, criptic, computers or machanical.

Response by SSG Carl Gamel made Jun 14 at 2018 8:17 AM

SSG Carl Gamel — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:17:09 -0400

In cyper warfare, you are going to need high skilled computer hacker and program installers, the current system with it's up or out and zero defect mentality, is hurting us in this important field.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 8:53 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:53:25 -0400

For technician jobs yes

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 11:15 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:15:27 -0400

No , way he soldiers nowadays get confused with just looking at a staff sergeant rank and some people get confused with a lieutenant colonel in a specialist

Response by SP5 Gary Bohannan made Jun 14 at 2018 11:18 AM

SP5 Gary Bohannan — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:13 -0400

I think this questions misses the point. Under the old system, you were not made a Specialist because you were not fit to lead. Specialist ranks were based on jobs/MOS. It had nothing to do with your ability to lead. Can you imagine the arbitrary system for deciding who should be an NCO and who should be a Specialist? I'll recommend my brother-in-law to be an NCO, etc, etc, etc. As a side note, I was always treated as an NCO and assigned leadership roles during most of my nearly 8 years in the Army. My MOS, however, called for me to be a Specialist.

Response by 1SG Dan Nichols made Jun 14 at 2018 11:24 AM

1SG Dan Nichols — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:24:05 -0400

When they changed over to the non specialist grade I had an 88M ask me why do I need hard stiles. The only thing I command is my truck. Enough said. Sometimes troops are smarter than their command

Response by 1SG Dan Nichols made Jun 14 at 2018 11:24 AM

1SG Dan Nichols — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:24:26 -0400

Stripes

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 11:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:54:39 -0400

I have said this for years. Forcing someone to move up when they don't want to or know they are not ready is bad for the Army. We also need lateral ranks for Army wide units. A specialist in a troop leading position should be a corporal and any 5 or above that cannot or does not feel comfortable being a leader should be able to maintain their grade but have, like in the past, a Specialist Rank SPC4, SPC5, SPC6. I have seen many in the last 20 years that were not people friendly, could not lead, and many of them knew it and didn't want to be but they were forced into it which made their situation worse.

Response by Sgt John Nichols made Jun 14 at 2018 12:11 PM

Sgt John Nichols — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:11:50 -0400

Sure..some people can not lead. You cant make them. There is a place for everyone. Non leading people can contribute in other places.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 12:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:24:23 -0400

Be nice if it was the soldier’s choice, but I highly doubt it

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 12:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:54:05 -0400

No, No, No... none of this E4/E5 and above, but can't lead BS !!! Every other branch , you are expected to start being a leader at the E4 level. If you can't do so , I say it's time to get out.

Response by SSG Bruce Janes made Jun 14 at 2018 1:04 PM

SSG Bruce Janes — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:04:22 -0400

I thought the whole purpose was for the non-combative MOS’s

Response by MSG Robert Ford made Jun 14 at 2018 3:07 PM

MSG Robert Ford — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:07:21 -0400

Yes I was in the army when they had SPc 7... 8 and 9 had already been done away with... they went to lead follow or get out... it is about cost...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 3:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:18:20 -0400

It would definitely benefit retention in units where soldiers can not financially support there family at E-4 and there are limited promotions in there MOS. Specialist 5 - specialist 9 would also make a convenient step program to becoming a warrant officer as an alternate to WOC school in some MOS’s.

Response by SP5 Ed Hicks made Jun 14 at 2018 3:23 PM

SP5 Ed Hicks — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:23:21 -0400

SP8 & SP9 I'm pretty sure was authorized but never awarded During it's heyday most spec.jobs were clerical,commo, fire control, computers, etc... personnel that did not need an NCO giving every next move that was necessary to complete task (in theory) NOT that they were not good enough to lead.

Response by SGT Donald Philpot made Jun 14 at 2018 3:32 PM

SGT Donald Philpot — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:32:00 -0400

I agree I was in under old system I think it is a better system

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 3:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:32:49 -0400

Yes. Spc5 pay 1/3 difference between E4-E5. Spc6 pay 2/3 difference. Spc7 pay slightly below E5. Spc8 slightly above E5.

You have soldiers who can do a decent job, for whatever reason they are not able to lead.

Do not give them as many responsibilities nor as much pay.

Response by LTC Joe Crankshaw made Jun 14 at 2018 4:15 PM

LTC Joe Crankshaw — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:15:58 -0400

Yes

Response by SGT Michael Susanka made Jun 14 at 2018 4:18 PM

SGT Michael Susanka — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:18:42 -0400

Response by CPT Jeff Robinette made Jun 14 at 2018 4:23 PM

CPT Jeff Robinette — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:23:44 -0400

My Dad was Tech5 during WWII. He was not a combat troop but a technician. He was a "true" Armorer.
He retired as the Chief of Inspection at Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins GA in 1979.
He always said that he was best suited for that post as he knew the system of the Aircraft and other systems he would oversee.
There are soldiers that are leaders and those that are technically orientated. Those technically orientated soldiers need to have that avenue if advance in their careers.

Response by SFC James L. Woodling made Jun 14 at 2018 5:09 PM

SFC James L. Woodling — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:09:06 -0400

It should not take away from present leadership promotions but build an interior work force .mai.tain the leadership pro.otions but give the others a chance to advance as well.

Response by SFC Randall Atchison made Jun 14 at 2018 6:02 PM

SFC Randall Atchison — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:02:40 -0400

I have always said they should have never gotten rid of the specialist ranks! It never made sense. Not everyone is Audie Murphy and making them hold a rank they are not ready for or even want, is setting them up for failure!

Response by SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) made Jun 14 at 2018 6:19 PM

SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:19:01 -0400

I think so, it would separate those in charge from those that work. And if a worker was in charge you'd know it because the rank would be the same. It's the difference between 1sg, and MSG.

Response by SPC Richard Skeen made Jun 14 at 2018 6:44 PM

SPC Richard Skeen — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:44:15 -0400

Well. Yea some people don’t want to lead. Just Specialze in a certain Area or JOB.

Response by CPL Charles Sharpe made Jun 14 at 2018 7:45 PM

CPL Charles Sharpe — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:45:08 -0400

I don't see a reason not to reintroduce the SPC5 rank.

Response by PFC Thomas Napier made Jun 14 at 2018 7:57 PM

PFC Thomas Napier — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:57:28 -0400

Thisis the reason the militaryhas warrant officer ranks .

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 8:21 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:21:35 -0400

I say, get rid if Specialist altogether. Breed leaders. Make them. Either they will lead or they will leave.

Response by CPL Rob Wilson made Jun 14 at 2018 8:30 PM

CPL Rob Wilson — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:30:05 -0400

Would there ever be a Spec9 of The Army?

Response by CSM Andrew Perrault made Jun 14 at 2018 8:44 PM

CSM Andrew Perrault — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:44:11 -0400

Specialist rank had it's place, but only in certain fields.. cooks, medical, electronics repair, truck drivers...etc.. can't see a SPC9 maybe up to a SPC7 and then they either go warrant or bottom out...knew many that were just happy just doing their job and didn't have to mess with all the leadership stuff. but SPC5 and above pulled CQ and staff duty etc....

Response by SGM Loren Emery made Jun 14 at 2018 9:04 PM

SGM Loren Emery — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:04:43 -0400

There was also a Platoon Sergeant (PSG) at E7 level.

Response by SSG Andrew Zvonik made Jun 14 at 2018 9:08 PM

SSG Andrew Zvonik — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:08:19 -0400

Yes also I'm a graduate from Anco and Bnco it made me a better leader and a teacher to my charges my troopers

Response by SGT Daniel Hogan made Jun 14 at 2018 9:11 PM

SGT Daniel Hogan — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:11:00 -0400

I say bring it back, but not all he way up to E-9...stop at 7. I would’ve preferred to have been a Spec-5 as opposed to a Sergeant. Don’t grt me wrong, the hard stripes are nice, but my skill set is better suited to Spec ranks.

Response by CPT William Jones made Jun 14 at 2018 9:19 PM

CPT William Jones — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:19:11 -0400

some people are highly trained and lost to the military because everyone must be promoted or be forced out. They like what they do and are good at it. Having something like the old spec pay grades go higher would allow those people a way to stay in and be compensated at a higher pay scale It is a huge waste of training and manpower to force talented people out because they do not care to ever become CSM of the Army and lead troops outside their mos "shop"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 11:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:48:03 -0400

Personally I'm fine with how it is now however I don't quite agree with the current advance or out ideology. Mostly for two reasons. One is that the army is hurting for people right now. As unfortunate as that is some units are struggling to meet personnel numbers. Two is that due to lacking personnel means lacking NCO leaders. Some units compensate this by forcing personnel to be boarded and promoted vs having to boot them for not doing so, this ends up with certain individuals who have very little to no personal care or want to lead in leadership positions which hurts the cohesion of the unit. So in my opinion up or out conflicts with meeting propper numbers. But once again this is just my observations.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 11:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:52:59 -0400

If the specialist ranks beyond E4 where brought back, I would have a real hard time to think of a SPC8 not being a leader. We must understand there are simply different types of leaders. Some are interpersonal while others are technical leaders.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 11:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:57:48 -0400

In the Aviation branch, the increased complexity of these aircraft required much more time to maintain readiness percentages. We keep adding to the amount of tasks to train/ tasks to complete. The end state becomes dangerously unsafe to personnel and equipment. Just compare the critical ask list for a 15R/ 15U/ 15T. Even larger yet is the 15Y list. Put those tasks to train to proficiency in DTMS then you will see why the training schedule is constantly red inked

Response by CSM John Mead made Jun 15 at 2018 1:19 AM

CSM John Mead — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:19:54 -0400

Not only no, but hell no. Granted there are soldiers that can’t lead, but why cowtow to them. If you can’t lead, why other employment. Years past, we had the the specialist ranks through E7, but hey boys and girls, some of them had leadership responsibilities. For every SP7, there were several SP6s and below. Someone had to be in charge. Therefore this millennial argument is moot. Call me archaic, call me old school, but we’ve already had this discussion before. The answer was no then, and it’s no now.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2018 1:48 AM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:48:31 -0400

It would definitely keep people in the army longer

Response by SFC Milton Collazo-Casiano made Jun 15 at 2018 1:51 AM

SFC Milton Collazo-Casiano — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:51:19 -0400

The technician rank should be back.

Response by MSG Daniel C. made Jun 15 at 2018 2:04 AM

MSG Daniel C. — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 02:04:29 -0400

I believe we could add maybe up to E6 in the specialist ranks but no more. I think more importantly we should do away with the up or out policy. I noticed a couple other comments were similar in that some people may enjoy doing their job, steady paycheck, good benefits and a retirement plan but just simply don't want the headaches and Leadership. If somebody is doing a good job they should be able to stay as long as they can perform.

Response by MSG Justin Kuchar made Jun 15 at 2018 4:28 AM

MSG Justin Kuchar — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 04:28:04 -0400

One word. No.

Response by SSG Dwight Fields made Jun 15 at 2018 6:22 AM

SSG Dwight Fields — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:22:42 -0400

All jobs need leaders.

Response by SP5 Earl Booty made Jun 15 at 2018 7:01 AM

SP5 Earl Booty — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:01:13 -0400

Bullshit. I was a Spec 5 who should have been a sergeant. I was the CQ. I conducted police call.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2018 8:16 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:16:11 -0400

The military is about learning leadership. Whether you're a lifer or just in it for a few years leadership skills should be learned in some form or another. It'll be awfully weird looking at a 40 or 50 something in any branch of the military who hasn't learned any leadership skills.

Response by 2LT Gerald Dominy made Jun 15 at 2018 9:50 AM

2LT Gerald Dominy — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:50:00 -0400

I have seen far too many who were unfit to lead nor are professional but yet the proficient and motivated get discharged. Part of the underlying problem is a little know clause in the UCMJ that was removed in 66_67 thst desperatly needs reinstatement. The MORAL TERPITUDE Clause. I had superiors on both usaf and us army who morally were bankrupt but in leadership positions. Now given that the us military is the only legalized form of SOCIALISM we support by government, ( socialistic in structure) and every form of socialism has failed from within because of moral decline.. it would seem such a statute needs to return to the Ucmj. Even the politics i saw in Tn Army NG were ridiculous. Here i was. 12 years of service. With superiors all around me , and many younger and inexperienced being promoted ahead of me. But yet in the shop no one had more promotion qualifications than me but the section chief. By only 3 semester hours of college and 1 more year of service. Numerous times i had to pull my rank as most qualified in shop over superiors who were not mos q or experienced and capable as i was when they started excercising their ranks but not their skills which werent on caliber to mine. They were promoted ahead of me. But yet i was selected 2x for OCS only to be DOR for inability to complete education requirements in time to graduate (ft worker at defense contractor facing overtime season which prevented attending school) and medically hindered the 2nd attempt because of re injury of service connected ankle injury. Was unable to do PT first 3 days of class. So IMHO yes. We can use technical ranks outside of leadership channels. But i believe we got a bigger problem in moral terpitude of the existing ranks where politics and personal bias rules over abilities and skills.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2018 11:38 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:38:22 -0400

I have read a lot of comments and realized that there are a bunch of folks in the military that only want to just do their specific job. I used to think that most of us knew that when you enlisted in the military, you were going to work hard and do a lot of extra duties...even some that we weren't going to like or want to do. I have read a bunch of comments like, "I don't want to be in a leadership position because" or "he is just not a good leader." I was always told that when there are two Marines together, one is in charge. If the majority of these "technical positions" can have just a techy working it and also have a very small possibility of ever going to combat and leading other service members, why is that even an MOS? Maybe that MOS is too fat and needs to be cut down to a more efficient number (just those that could possibly be deployed in a real combat environment where they might actually have to repel the enemy) or just civilianize the positions. Those that only want to do their job or don't want to lead can be civilian military contractors. They can than do their specialty and have no worries about all the extra tasks and duties that are required of uniformed personnel.

We have created this large military machine in this country and the money is flowing very freely now. Are we really hurting for capable volunteers who are smart enough to complete a technical task and have the intestinal fortitude and abilities to lead. Most think that we have to have uniformed personnel doing everything associated with the military but then we complain when we have to do everything. I completely understand that military service and extended military service is not for everyone and it shouldn't be. Part of being in the military is sacrifice, doing your job in an excellent manner (not just doing your job), all the extra duties that come with that service to include leadership duties, and troop leading duties. I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this but if certain people can't handle all the duties required of the position, this is not the organization for you. There is nothing wrong with only doing 4 years in the military and moving on to a civilian career.

Response by SP5 Randy Hartley made Jun 15 at 2018 12:43 PM

SP5 Randy Hartley — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:43:54 -0400

I loved being a SP5. I at job that required technical skills.

Response by SGM Ronald Cheatom made Jun 15 at 2018 1:54 PM

SGM Ronald Cheatom — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:54:50 -0400

I had a great deal of respect for the specialist ranks. They knew their jobs well. I also saw the change over, and the negative results of it. When some senior specialists became instant platoon sergeants, and squad leaders, not all were fit to be leaders, causing some serious problems throughout. Bring them back, and let those great at what they do, but not good or leading troops be able to excel.

Response by PO1 Mike Meehan made Jun 15 at 2018 6:16 PM

PO1 Mike Meehan — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:16:02 -0400

The USN is effectively all "specialists" who also must lead. No one becomes a leadership "generalist" until they become a Fleet or Force Command Master Chief, then their rate is changed to reflect that along with their NEC (MOS for all you other services). I'm not sure what a Specialist would do at Senior paygrades that wouldn't involve the leadership component.

Response by SPC David Stowe made Jun 16 at 2018 12:04 PM

SPC David Stowe — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:04:27 -0400

There is absolutely room in the Army for the return of Spec 5 and 6, especially in your technical fields. During my time in on the aviation side of things when an experienced mechanic becomes an NCO there is no longer time for these people to pass along their knowledge of the job to the newer soldiers. The entire focus for them shifts from being an expert in the skill to maintaining order and discipline of their soldiers. They just don't have the time to teach them the job and lead them as NCO's at the same time.

Response by SGT Andrew Howard made Jun 16 at 2018 3:14 PM

SGT Andrew Howard — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 15:14:06 -0400

I could see the benefit for technical MOS.

Response by PFC Ryan Battista made Jun 16 at 2018 10:22 PM

PFC Ryan Battista — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:22:57 -0400

So think of it like this....
The FFL (French foreign Legion) still does this. At E4, you basically choose to become a corporal or a “Senior Private”. As the latter, you have no chance to progress further in terms of authority and unit leadership, but you can continue to work your rate as an experienced professional and get more respect than the FNG. No post, firewatch, latrine duty, etc. you may not be in charge, but you get recognized as having paid your dues. Mostly for people who like their trade and don’t want the hassles of leadership.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2018 8:41 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:41:42 -0400

I say take the E4 Specialist rank out of the Army and give it to our Civilian Contractors. Instead of G have them be called SPC 1 to whatever. Then merge the Enlisted and Commisioned ranks so Officers have to be NCOs first.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2018 1:05 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:05:46 -0400

I say yes and no it would be beneficial if we had a rank structure similar to that. Unfortunately it would be abused. I feel that it would work better for everyone if you had to complete all levels to advance to sgt. Maybe even have a way to distinguish between field grade and hq.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2018 6:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 18:08:41 -0400

In select MOS’s this will work such as Maintenace wheeled, aircraft, and tank, counter intelligence, pao, construction, power Generation, and software guys

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2018 10:02 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:02:51 -0400

Warrent Officers have that covered.

Response by SSgt Gerald Davis Jr made Jun 19 at 2018 8:47 PM

SSgt Gerald Davis Jr — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:47:24 -0400

The Marines had career Pvts when I came in. It was done away with up or out. Never did see why.

Response by MSG Gary Johnson made Jun 20 at 2018 8:00 AM

MSG Gary Johnson — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:00:00 -0400

We tried that once and it didnt work

Response by SPC Paul C. made Jun 20 at 2018 9:17 AM

SPC Paul C. — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:17:12 -0400

Being a SPC4 , I am torn on this issue. Even at this rank, you are a leader whether you want to be or not. The Army is unique in that e4 can be junior enlisted or NCO. But most jump to SGT from SPC4 without becoming Corporal. So should there be one rank for e4? And should e4 always be NCO like other branches?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 10:38 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:38:38 -0400

Having been an enlisted soldier when there were SP5 & SP6’s around I do see the value. We are a much more technologically based Army now and to compete with the civilian sector we must retain (pay) our more technological based MOS’s better. I would also rather they spend their efforts honing their technological skills. I am not likely to have someone from the S6 lead a combat patrol but I do need them to be able to keep my computers and communications up!

Response by SrA Branon Lamphere made Jun 20 at 2018 12:05 PM

SrA Branon Lamphere — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:05:22 -0400

Not a bad idea

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 12:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:10:42 -0400

Bringing back the specialist ranks for the administration and technical fields would be a good idea.

Response by SPC Joel Alioto made Jun 20 at 2018 2:26 PM

SPC Joel Alioto — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:26:40 -0400

I would say a highly motivated NO! So now the support unit soldier can be a SPC 5 or SPC 6 and be told to go pound sand from a corporal? I can hear it now "you’re not even a real NCO you’re just a specialist " I had my Sergeant first class /E-7 92G get told by a E-5 13B "why don't you go back to the M.K.T. and do something useful like cooking a hot meal instead of standing here". He was the acting NCOIC of the F.O.B. guards in Baghdad in 2003 and the 1st Sergeant just laughed out loud. Can you imagine the amount of consoling statements, article 15, even physical altercations, etc. this will generate leading to a loss of good order and discipline? Plus, the added expense for class A and b uniforms, even field uniforms. No thank you please.

Response by SFC Robert Adams made Jun 20 at 2018 4:11 PM

SFC Robert Adams — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:11:14 -0400

Yes. I was in at a time when we still had SP5 to SP7. We had lateral promotions for each grade as needed, based on your experience, training and unit needs.

Response by Sgt Robert Vicars made Jun 20 at 2018 5:03 PM

Sgt Robert Vicars — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:03:19 -0400

It's the same as the civilian sector. In engineering we have senior engineers and fellows who make as much as directors. There is huge benefit it maintaining and paying highly experienced subject matter experts who want to stay in...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 5:07 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:07:12 -0400

I see a great benefit of it up to E6. I have been an advocate to bring back the Spec ranks for years. But I also think that we should get rid of most of the Warrant Officers. To me they are over paid NCO's that don't even lead Soldiers. They get paid more and do less just because they are supposed to be subject experts, aren't all Soldiers supposed to be subject experts?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 5:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:46:10 -0400

No need to bring back Tech's,we have our spec,s I never saw more than spec 6, maybe after 6 move to sfc

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 7:12 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:12:27 -0400

I think about this daily. Other branches take tests to promote on job proficiency, why cant the Army? We are the only branch where you can make it all the way to the top without knowing a thing about what your actual job is. They need to bring back the technical ranks and stop forcing people to be leaders that dont want to lead. I think this needs to change like yesterday!!!

Response by CPL William Haines made Jun 20 at 2018 7:17 PM

CPL William Haines — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:17:55 -0400

I can certainly see some of them. Although you SHOULD want to become an NCO....l knew some who should not have been....bring back SPEC 5 AND 6 wouldnt be the worst thing

Response by SPC Korey Kilburn made Jun 20 at 2018 7:24 PM

SPC Korey Kilburn — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:24:44 -0400

I said the same thing in the early 1990s. I loved working in the medical field but had no ambition to stop taking care of sick and wounded to be a manager instead.

Response by SFC Charlie Broadus II made Jun 20 at 2018 8:38 PM

SFC Charlie Broadus II — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:38:44 -0400

No you get soldiers stuck with a spc 5 or higher grade because of there MOS not because they are a good or bad leader

Response by CPT Bob Hempel made Jun 20 at 2018 9:08 PM

CPT Bob Hempel — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:08:56 -0400

I really hope so, I entered the Army in 1966, and remember well the expertise of 'OUR' Specialist and how they preformed their work.. They took pride in their work and understood that even as an E 7-8, they where still on the shop floor.
Today, their are 'Hundreds" of E 7-8 that can not lead and should not be in a position to do so.. They are 'Wrench Turners and 'NOT' people persons or have or want that position.
Just my thoughts....

Response by CSM Tommy Nester made Jun 20 at 2018 10:39 PM

CSM Tommy Nester — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:39:50 -0400

I once recommended promotion.of a SPC4 to SPC5 because was technically proficient but had no leadership skills. 9 year s later as a CSM he was a SFC still had no leadership skills. So SPC 4 to 6 would be good maybe even SPC7

Response by CPT Derial Bivens made Jun 20 at 2018 10:44 PM

CPT Derial Bivens — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:44:41 -0400

I think it is time to bring back the technical or specialist ranks. The SPC rank is the most mis- used rank in the service. Senior leaders place SPCs in leadership positions all the time. If a soldier is in a supervisory position, he needs to be a hard-striper. The argument of "up or out" is fallacious. The pyramidal rank structure forces good soldiers out because they're either forced to become leaders when they either do not have leadership potential or have no desire to be in a leadership position. If they wish to feed their families, they have to get promoted or get out and find a higher paying civilian job. One way to look at it is that NCOs are often placed in charge of soldiers with more than one MOS among them. The technical or specialist grades would allow good soldiers who do not wish to be leaders to have a career in their field and have the added benefit of opening up opportunities for soldiers who have leadership potential and desire to be leaders. I was an SP-5 for a few years before they did away with the grade and made us all "hard stripers". I took a commission soon after promotion to SSG. Those of us who held the SP-5 rank often jokingly referred to ourselves as "Private E-5s". BUT...we did not have the added responsibilities of troop leadership, which is a job unto itself. We are able to focus solely on our MOS duties and we became VERY GOOD at what we did. At that time, most soldiers actually worked in their MOS a few days a month, at best and spent the rest of their time picking up cigarette butts, painting rocks, and many, many other BS work details. For us, work details were left to privates and supervised by NCOs. As specialists, we were left alone to excel in our areas of specialty. Which brings me back to the mis-used SPC rank. In the days before the specialist ranks, promotion to corporal was more competitive than to sergeant, because the field was larger. In the beginning, the specialist ranks were highly coveted but by the end of the Vietnam Era, senior leaders were using them as over paid privates and it has only worsened since then. Restore the specialist ranks (including the E-4 SPC) to their original concept and function. Encourage and promote potential leaders into the NCO positions.

Response by SGT Andy McGriff made Jun 20 at 2018 11:13 PM

SGT Andy McGriff — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:13:10 -0400

First, we have annual pay increases for non-NCOs, but they end after the DOD determines they should have promoted. Then the soldier is booted from the Army at some point.

Second, promotions are given as leadership positions. Pay and responsibility increase at the same time.

There may be some need for higher spec. racks, but only maybe to e6. In the civilian world most promotions come with supervisory responsibility. This is not always true. Sometimes there are tech positions that require more knowledge, skill or training the warrant a higher pay grade.

The difference is the civilian world doesn’t fire you if you’re still useful and cost effective.

Here’s the correlation, if a specialist is doing a job that doesn’t require supervisory skills, and can pass the PT test, they should not be removed from the Army or loose annual pay increases unless their job can easily be done by a brand new specialist. If it is a job that does require a higher skill set, but no supervisory skills, spec 5 or 6. This is only needed to compete with the civilian world.

Response by TSgt Johnny Velez made Jun 21 at 2018 12:15 AM

TSgt Johnny Velez — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:15:42 -0400

I would stick with the current rank structure it promotes growth from a technical expert to a teacher to a leader. We need our young people to grow and stay in one spot because they are comfortable. If they are unfit or do not wish to lead then they need to go. A career soldiers needs to have a sense of progression.

Response by PFC Charles Macias made Jun 21 at 2018 12:22 AM

PFC Charles Macias — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:22:07 -0400

I think it should stay the way it is

Response by SFC Tom Welgos made Jun 21 at 2018 12:28 AM

SFC Tom Welgos — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:28:51 -0400

No No and No If you are in charge of a med detachment you have to lead you cannot pass responsibility for this ewho work for you that is why we got rid of Spec 5 thru 7 If you can't lead we don't need you.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Jun 21 at 2018 1:07 AM

SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:07:24 -0400

This was never based on leadership. It was simply MOS and TOE. Also you could be a Sp5 one day and get promoted to SSG E6 the next. People think this was something it wasn’t. Get rid of specialists. And get rid of that stupid-looking rocker under the PFC stripe. Embarrassing.

Response by PO1 Charles Babcock made Jun 21 at 2018 2:03 AM

PO1 Charles Babcock — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 02:03:43 -0400

there are likely people of that type in EVERY military branch and I know there are people like that in modern business practice. Great techs at.... Can't lead a flock of ducks to water.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 9:06 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:06:27 -0400

If you need a thought sugar coated, stop reading. There is no reason that a soldier who is not fit to lead should continue to climb the pay grades beyond his/her RCP. We all have a job to do so we must either do it or no longer be paid for holding the position. Anyone who does not exhibit the potential to be a leader has no business progressing beyond PFC. Be good at your job and work hard, that is fine and should be the norm at all levels. But only doing MOS tasks and not being charged with the welfare of others is Junior soldier level stuff. Climbing the pay chart involves accepting greater amounts of responsibility. And what is a greater responsibility than being entrusted with the lives of America's sons and daughters? If you would like to be compensated at the same rate as a Senior NCO then you should be required to earn it, not just take the easy road.

Response by PO2 Hauke Powers made Jun 21 at 2018 9:40 AM

PO2 Hauke Powers — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:40:42 -0400

these days, as far as I have seen, NCOs who are NOT of leadership quality are usually discovered very early in their careers and assigned to other tasks better suited for their skill sets...let's face it, not all NCOs are leaders. It's a simple fact of life...many people are DOERS rather than MOVERS...this does NOT make them less in the eyes of society or the command structure. To bring back the old NCO rank structure would not really make a big difference...just more steps up the ladder...God bless you all !!!!

Response by SSG Brian Dean made Jun 21 at 2018 10:32 AM

SSG Brian Dean — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:32:39 -0400

Knew a few old crusty career privates, ever needed something done right they were the ones to go to

Response by CSM Ralph Hernandez made Jun 21 at 2018 11:38 AM

CSM Ralph Hernandez — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:38:20 -0400

I was in the Army for 35 years and I don't think that I ever saw a Spec 8 or 9, but I do agree with the Specialist ranks.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 1:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:07:22 -0400

No, if they can't lead and progress through they ranks they should be forced out

Response by SPC Larry Leon made Jun 21 at 2018 3:20 PM

SPC Larry Leon — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:20:13 -0400

I remember spc 5,6 and sevens that were leaders they were tough and they made sure we looked and acted like soldiers.the same for warrant officers they were leaders they were tough but not like most commissioned officers my service was in Vietnam and Germany and in the Air Guard.

Response by SPC Larry Leon made Jun 21 at 2018 4:00 PM

SPC Larry Leon — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:00:07 -0400

I remember sp5,6 and 7,s that were tough and they were leaders. I almost remember a sp8 or 9 in Germany at a NATO school and he was a strac soldier and he was a leader.

Response by SP5 Howard Bartholf made Jun 21 at 2018 4:36 PM

SP5 Howard Bartholf — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:36:10 -0400

I'm not sure the Tech ranks are needed if you bring back the Specialist ranks

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 5:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:35:52 -0400

I think it should only go the spc6. There should still be a board and promotion points. But it shouldn’t continue past that point. If they don’t want to continue on that’s fine and they can still do their 20 years without RCP. But you shouldn’t be able to go past that without being a leader.

Response by SPC William Hasley made Jun 21 at 2018 7:11 PM

SPC William Hasley — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:11:18 -0400

If you’re a soldier: hell yes! In the Vietnam era lots of us were not interested in or were too “Short” to move up to a NCO level, but we surely deserved more than PFC wages for humping the boonies. Promotion to SP4 or SP5 helped with that problem. A few of my buds stayed in because they knew they could continue in a MOS they liked and, at some point, could make enough money to raise family. They wouldn’t have stayed in as an E-3.

Response by PO3 Jake Lucid made Jun 21 at 2018 9:24 PM

PO3 Jake Lucid — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:24:46 -0400

I belive this would be practical. We have so many new tech related fields...lets face it...why push out techs and mechanics and so forth who arent the best or who desire to not be in a true leadership role. Some one great at thier job has to either accept areas where they are a leader....struggle in that area and fail as they arent natural leaders. The military mentorship of leaders is dreadful at best. Those whose aptitude for it are those who will continue up the ranks. Those who arent suddenly find themselves with a decision....go ply my trade in a civilian market and make better money or forgo any further advancement and forever be stagnant. All too often our soldiers and sailors...and....airmen..leave as they arent good leaders.

Response by CPT John Pagan made Jun 21 at 2018 9:50 PM

CPT John Pagan — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:50:35 -0400

Specialist grade E-5 thru E-9 are already non-existing and the Technical grades made more sense

Response by SSG Dan Mck made Jun 21 at 2018 9:54 PM

SSG Dan Mck — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:54:37 -0400

Leadership is part of the job. The whole reason the Army did away with the senior specialist ranks was that you were (1) paying seniority for essentially entry level work, and (2) it was rewarding soldiers for avoiding responsibility

Response by Cpl Joe Voegtle made Jun 21 at 2018 10:48 PM

Cpl Joe Voegtle — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:48:24 -0400

I was a Marine and we never had the specialist ranks, an E4 Corpal was an NCO. If you have an E4 CPL and an E6 SPC6 who is in charge? An E6 is 2 grades higher and the senior person. I can't see a SPC6 taking orders from someone 2 grades lower.

Response by PO1 Jeffrey Pennala made Jun 22 at 2018 9:58 AM

PO1 Jeffrey Pennala — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:58:40 -0400

Not many sailors or marines responding I see, that whole mentality of an E4 in leadership over an E6 specialist is just weird. In the Navy everyone is a sailor first and has assigned battle stations and knows firefighting and damage control. They know how to "fight the ship", first and foremost, then they work their specialty. They move up based on leadership skills and technical skills. Same with the Marines, a rifleman first and foremost then the specialty.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2018 11:22 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400

Back in the day (when I came in the Army) there was still such a thing as Spc 4-9 these were non-NCO positions usually for Cooks, Supply, Personnel, it seemed to work pretty good from what I remember

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2018 11:45 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:45:16 -0400

In my 35 years (now retired) I have seen way to many Sergeants that were not leaders but they could answer the questions on the board right, they could score high on APFT, they could go to college (during work hours) But they didn't know anything about their MOS or how to lead Soldiers. Then again I have seen alot of PFC and Spc. that were great at their and those above them job's. These same lower enlisted Soldiers were hard workers and showed a great amount of respect to everyone. they could even take command if the situation warranted it, but they weren't an everyday leader. Bottom line is, Rank doesn't make you a leader nor does it make you a subject matter expert. The Army rank system is set up to entice a Soldier to want to advance in the ranks, you should want to strive to advance in your field and you should try to be the one that when the SHTF you are the go to Soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2018 6:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 06:52:55 -0400

No. Beyond the whole change in force structure who create a two tier cast system.

Response by SGT William Bowers made Jun 26 at 2018 10:04 AM

SGT William Bowers — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:04:13 -0400

Among my five MOS classifications in service and combat support fields, I started out as a musician in the mid 70's so I saw specialists up through SP7 at that time. As a musician in a field band you might advance up to a section leader of maybe 6 people or a group leader of 15 or so. The supervisory requirements were mostly insuring that for performances of less than the entire band, especially two at the same time, enough people from each instrument or section were on that gig. Leadership in a more traditional sense was not part of the job. Mentorship was more dependent on skill level than rank or position. I've seen junior ranking people who were graduates of the best music schools like Eastman or Julliard. This is one of the best justifications for specialist or technical ranks.

I've served as a SP5 and a SGT, both E5 pay grade, and can tell you that many times there was a world of difference in the respect and credibility given to each outside of their units. "Chicken" ranks (so called because of the eagle in the middle of the insignia) were frequently all treated as if they were just glorified SP4's. Hard stripes were treated as NCO's.

I understand the logistics and complications of having multiple ranks corresponding to each pay grade. It was a major pain being transferred out of a lateral promotion as a SGT to an new unit as a SP5 and having to change over stripes on class A, B (khakis) and blues uniforms. However, I can definitely see good reason for separating out the rank structure.

Response by SFC Gerald Halbur made Jul 4 at 2018 1:30 AM

SFC Gerald Halbur — Wed, 04 Jul 2018 01:30:43 -0400

I did not like it when they did away with the specialist 5-7, there are some people that should never be in charge of more than a wheel barrow but are really good at a specific specialty

Response by CMSgt Steve Pennington made Jul 14 at 2018 1:24 PM

CMSgt Steve Pennington — Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:24:11 -0400

Great question, and not a new one either. My career included 3 years of Army service, so I am familiar with the Specialist ranks and my brothers (5 0f us 7 boys) and my dad were Army, so I know a little about the Tech. ranks of WWII. Those ranks were specifically for training and expertise in a non leadership role. In the days before Up or Out you could spend a career and retire as an E-4. Those days are long gone. My personal opinion is that up through E=5 the Specialist ranks/rating is appropriate, but after that NCOs should be in leadership positions. Warrant Officers are another situation, and clearly defined as to roles and responsibilities. The Air Force has no Warrant ranks and are now looking at opening up that rank structure to address the current pilot shortage.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2018 9:46 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:46:40 -0400

I believe the Brits and Canucks have or had a Senior Corporal that is an expert in his profession. They were paid like an E-6 but could stay doing their job for their career. That makes sense to me but all of the Specialist paygrades seems stupid. I do think there are places for SMEs in today’s military as there are many good troops who are not or will never be leaders.

Response by MAJ Bruce Davie made Jul 20 at 2018 1:41 PM

MAJ Bruce Davie — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:41:31 -0400

I take exception to this comment. As a medic (clinical specialist - 91C), rank structure moved from Sp6 to SFC. It had nothing to do with inability to lead. MAJ.

Response by SGT Stephen Jaffe made Jul 29 at 2018 9:56 PM

SGT Stephen Jaffe — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 21:56:42 -0400

Usually, in order for a person to become an NCO, there has to be a 'slot' which calls for some kind of supervisory responsibility. You can't have a platoon or squad that consists of all NCOs. As it is currently, you have a squad consisting of SP4s or PFCs with a Sgt. E-5 or E-6 as a squad leader. You could have some SP4s who are really sharp, but can't find an NCO slot to get promoted because of the next paygrade being an NCO. It would be hard to convince a SP4 to re-up as an E-4. If the Army brought back the specialists ranks, it would have an easier time keeping some really sharp people.

Response by SMSgt Sheila Berg made Aug 23 at 2018 7:47 AM

SMSgt Sheila Berg — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:47:26 -0400

I have witness some make rank for the pay but have no leadership skills.

Response by SPC Earl Semler made Aug 29 at 2018 5:28 PM

SPC Earl Semler — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:28:48 -0400

I am of the opinion that because a Specialist 4 is an exceptional work in his field it does not make him an exceptional candidate to move up the ranks as an NCO. So what does the Army do, they let him go because 1. He has no desire to leave his job, 2. because he doesn't pass the boards for Sgt. and doesn't know what a Sgt. does. The Army then loses someone who knows his job inside out and can do it practically in his or her sleep. Bring back the Specialist rates and the Army gets to keep these experts.

Response by CPL David Stout Jr made Sep 7 at 2018 12:55 PM

CPL David Stout Jr — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:55:09 -0400

Think this would apply to those who want to just serve a term of duty and then return to civilian life. Don 't necessarily want to lead, but just do a great job for the time they are in service.

Response by SSG Mike Busovicki made Sep 12 at 2018 9:52 AM

SSG Mike Busovicki — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:52:45 -0400

When we boot career service members, we lose a lot of institutional knowledge and experience. Then, we waste time, money, and effort re-training someone else to the same level of proficiency. In a combat environment, we don't necessarily have the luxury of constantly having a unit full of troops learning skill-level-one proficiencies. On active duty, I probably would have disagreed, and said we should get rid of all the non "super high speed Soldiers". But after a decade in the civilian sector, I have seen that a diverse set of skills, experience, and personalities is an asset to your organization, not a liability. Of course there are limitations on how much performance must be tied to retention and military readiness, but the constant "up or out" system might be worth reevaluating. The Army, at least, is large enough to have some room for a couple highly experienced personnel (perhaps a handful as part of battalion staff) that can stay on as SMEs for a particular system or essential task, serving in the "extended grades" of Specialist ranks. Standardized testing for that position would make it competitive (an alternative to leadership positions - some folks are competitive in other ways), prove their superior knowledge base, and justify the E-grade pay/promotion they're getting paid. That way it is concurrently not made a "dumping ground" where slackers could hide out, but we aren't forced to lose a good troop. To naysayers, I agree: I don't think there should be a "Specialist 9" (or even SPC 8). But on the other hand, we all know of NCO's that were promoted because of their knowledge, and not because of their leadership potential. Those stripes didn't mean anything either.

Response by SFC Robert Bishop made Sep 16 at 2018 6:58 AM

SFC Robert Bishop — Sun, 16 Sep 2018 06:58:11 -0400

The only rank I think the military should bring back is the corporal rank. Other than that, the structure is designed to advance soldiers into leadership. Those that don't want to lead don't have to go for their E-5 stripes, though I doubt there aren't many they would refuse them. With rank comes additional responsibilities and leadership. Once you become proficient in your MOS, your rank goes up in recognition of that level of proficiency, as it is expected that you will help those less proficient. That's leadership.

Response by Sgt Jeff Martin made Sep 17 at 2018 7:48 AM

Sgt Jeff Martin — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 07:48:30 -0400

Well when I came up we had all the spec ranks. You didn't have a spec ín a squad leader position. Then again we also had all the warrants also. You couldn't fly if you weren't an officer or a warrant. Our brigade had a platoon of specs. Most were back office weenies. No disrespect meant...just what we called em. I don't understand why you need a hard stripe over accounting or in hospital or any of the other back office/non combatant positions. Hard stripes were always combat troops. It's sorta how we cliqued back then. You know no frat rule. Unofficial of course. Maybe it was our unit or army wide I really can't remember. My mind is not what it used to be. Hell I didn't even know they had done away with the specs.

Response by SFC William Ewing made Dec 9 at 2019 9:29 PM

SFC William Ewing — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:29:09 -0500

In some of the service MOSs there may be ten Sergeants working in a section.

In the old days one would be a Sergeant the rest would be Specialist 5.
They were all equally capable but one was in charge you knew who that was just by the rank ialist on the sleeve.
Same as if you walked up to a bunch of E4s if one was wearing Corporal and the rest had Specialist you know who can well better be supervising not playing.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Dec 10 at 2019 3:12 PM

SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:12:48 -0500

This was based entirely on your MOS, not your leadership ability or lack of it. At a certain point, your next promotion made you an NCO.

Response by LTC Jim Talbot made Dec 10 at 2019 3:37 PM

LTC Jim Talbot — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:37:06 -0500

The old spec rank was not great for senior grades, make tech grades and juniors grades can see they are tech NCO.s The from ol' old enlisted and then officer

Response by SPC Earl Semler made Dec 10 at 2019 4:50 PM

SPC Earl Semler — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:50:37 -0500

Yes, let's face facts by the time an E-4 Specialist is ready for promotion to E-5 they have spent all their time in their field, mechanic, personnel, truck driver, engineer, etc. and have become proficient in their job and duties. Now some will be ready for a leadership role, but most want to stay doing what they are doing. Promote them to the position they are applying for.
Now combat arms needs to do away with the specialist E-4 and make them NCO ranks, That is where you really need the leaders who can take over when needed to the higher ranks. This is where the SGTS and officers need to mentor and identify who under their command will make a good intelligent leader

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Dec 10 at 2019 5:55 PM

CPT Robert Holden — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:55:44 -0500

Our current rank structure has been fine for over 30 years . Why mess with it

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Dec 10 at 2019 8:33 PM

CPT Robert Holden — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:33:41 -0500

Some in charge don’t belong there . But our current rank structure is fine.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Dec 10 at 2019 8:38 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:38:24 -0500

I have come across soldiers in my career who could both lead and were subject matter experts in their MOS. But, I have also come across those who were technically on point yet couldn't inspire anyone to follow them out of a paper bag. Also, I've met soldiers with great ability to lead, but were a disaster when it came to the finer points of their MOS. I think we should bring back the old rank structure that way the army could put people where they could perform best.

Response by SFC Keith Bailey made Dec 10 at 2019 9:29 PM

SFC Keith Bailey — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:29:11 -0500

Yes, I totally agree..

Response by SFC Ted Agens made Dec 11 at 2019 1:13 AM

SFC Ted Agens — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:13:26 -0500

sure there is for the reason stated. it would also help to keep NCO's from getting 'double-tapped' by having to be in charge of their section/squad and being assigned "additional duties" -that were more like full time--at BN or BDE. Let the specialists handle that. Those who are NCO's should get slightly hire pay though for being leaders.

Response by SFC Rick Forlines made Dec 11 at 2019 9:52 AM

SFC Rick Forlines — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:52:51 -0500

I would much prefer to see the 'specialist' brought back Made Spec 5 in Aviation

Response by Sgt Peter Schlesiona made Dec 11 at 2019 10:49 AM

Sgt Peter Schlesiona — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:49:32 -0500

Sounds to me like an endorsement of having two distinct Army branches. The “fighting” branch and the “specialty” branch.

Response by Sgt Peter Schlesiona made Dec 11 at 2019 10:53 AM

Sgt Peter Schlesiona — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:53:36 -0500

BTW, what is the point of having the most senior specialist chevrons if there is no authority behind them? The way the author describes this (I’m a Marine so this is not something I’m used to) a corporal could tell the senior specialist to go pound sand and it would be perfectly OK.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Dec 11 at 2019 11:23 AM

1SG Harold Piet — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:23:23 -0500

I see management issues. I have a bunch of E6 or E7 but no leaders? I was in when the spec 5 and above went away. I did not like it then because you had two dudes with equal pay and not equal responsibility. It can be managed but I think my vote is no. I have issues with any E-6 thru E-9 not required the same standards. PT standards are my biggest issue. everyone should have the same standard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2019 3:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:36:04 -0500

Dod civian might be a better fit for the army than a SP5.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Dec 11 at 2019 4:06 PM

SSG John Jensen — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:06:44 -0500

I loved being a SP5, but then I was a medic. My last position before my retirement in the old system was a SP6, but then I was a truck driver/mechanic. While doing office cleaning while in zero week for 91B school, cleaned an office someone's desk had 2 nameplates one for SGM and the other for SP9!, but that was Ft Sam Houston. So many people and so many stories of jerks that needed to be SP9s rather than SGMs.

Response by CSM John Pepper made Dec 11 at 2019 5:47 PM

CSM John Pepper — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:47:54 -0500

No. end of game.

Response by SFC Martin Reddy made Dec 12 at 2019 3:00 PM

SFC Martin Reddy — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:00:13 -0500

Most in the rank of SP5 or SP6 were in supervisory billets, anyway.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2019 4:38 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:38:39 -0500

Yes, I think the Air Force would benefit greatly from such a system, but i believe it should stop at E-7. You do not want to drink the cool aid and be Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force or SMA, fine, but you'll retire as an E-7. Set it up so that you can make the choice at E-4,5,6 or 7 but once it's done, you're done.

Response by Maj Thor Hauff made Dec 12 at 2019 4:47 PM

Maj Thor Hauff — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:47:54 -0500

Definitely. This comes about as the military wants to give up Warrant Officers. I’ve seen some physicians that were horrible leaders but great physicians. Due to promised rank up through O6 they are forced into leadership positions and it’s the reason many of them leave the service. Because they know if they take that O6 position it will force them into some type of command.

Response by SSG Steven Gotz made Dec 12 at 2019 9:48 PM

SSG Steven Gotz — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 21:48:15 -0500

The problem is that leading was not always what the rank was really about.
I was a Sergeant E-5 and when I changed fields, from Signal Corp to Ordinance, I became a Specialist E-5. Then when I made E-6 I became a Sergeant again. It never made sense to me.

If a Specialist was to go to NCOES, and graduate, and could then become a Sergeant, I would be OK with it.

Response by SGT Jon Creager made Dec 12 at 2019 10:00 PM

SGT Jon Creager — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:00:16 -0500

Not everyone is cut out to be a leader. If someone is comfortable in their job, let them perfect it. Yes we still need cross training. But we need professionals in the job they love.

Response by LTC Gene Moser made Dec 12 at 2019 10:00 PM

LTC Gene Moser — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:00:46 -0500

As it said- specialist. Now why in the infantry a machine gunner is a Specialist but in the artillery, the assistant guner its a corporal? (This may be out of date. )

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2019 7:50 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:50:55 -0500

Absolutely. We have great soldiers who know all aspects of their job but lack the interpersonal skills required to be effective leaders. It’s time we reward soldiers who can grow out (professionally speaking) better than some grow up.

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Dec 13 at 2019 9:28 AM

SFC Gary Fox — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:28:26 -0500

I think it would be beneficial to bring the specialist ranks back, but only in certain MOSs like medical, MI, and Signal. It would increase retention to have the specialist ranks back up to E-7, as it would afford more good soldiers the ability to advance. The higher you move up in the NCO ranks, the harder it becomes because slots are fewer as they are leadership slots; making it one of the most common reasons for those with 8-10 years of service leaving the Army.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2019 9:46 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:46:54 -0500

I agree that we should consider bringing back the Specialist grades at least through SP7, we do not neet the 3 at the bottom as Specialist covers the "T" or Technical grades, Along with this there needs to be followon technical courses for the Spc grades to climb up the ladder as we have for the hard stripers

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2019 9:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:08:37 -0500

We had this debate at my unit a couple months back.

I think it would muddy the waters of authority and simply complicate rank. I love the idea, but the execution is a thing of the past.

My concern is that junior NCOs should be skilled in their respective MOSs: “remain tactically and technically proficient”. - a specialist 5-9 in this area undermines that concept. And what’s the point of having a super 68W SPC9? What exactly would they do that is a force multiplier beyond just paygrade and filling a slot? I totally would take the job but it would probably be a waste of sorts.

I think a better option is identifying potential and current NCOs who are better suited to the more technical aspects of their craft and put them in positions that maximize their skill and less so the “leadership” aspect. As time goes on they can be mentored to take greater or more overt leadership roles.

Response by SGT Kyle Bickley made Jun 27 at 2020 3:15 PM

SGT Kyle Bickley — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:15:43 -0400

In combat arms? No! In the rear with the gear possibly. However there will be a power struggle some guy with SP7 who's been in 15 years is getting school by an NCO corporal and above who's got maybe 3 years in service at the least, how is that gonna play out? I can here that argument already. In combat arms if the NCO gets dropped in a fight it falls to the next man down! If your a SP4? Oh well! Your in the driver's seat buddy! You will lead and accomplish the mission, period! That's your JOB!

Response by PFC Kenneth Anderson made Jun 27 at 2020 3:58 PM

PFC Kenneth Anderson — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:58:19 -0400

Yes!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2020 4:54 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 16:54:15 -0400

Maybe the technical sergeant ranks but honestly have like a 22 year old SGT in command of a 45 year old Spec-9? Doesn’t seem like a good idea

Response by MSG Michael Kissamitakis made Jun 27 at 2020 5:23 PM

MSG Michael Kissamitakis — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 17:23:26 -0400

If you’re not fit to lead, you should not be advanced.

Response by LTC Mike Hughes made Jun 27 at 2020 6:07 PM

LTC Mike Hughes — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 18:07:44 -0400

SP5 and above were eliminated for a good reason most of these people wanted the money and perks but not the responsibility

Response by SGT Albert Thompson made Jun 27 at 2020 9:51 PM

SGT Albert Thompson — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 21:51:51 -0400

I feel that the specialist ranks should only be available to specialized, non-combat MOSs, such as certain medical and high level technical specialties.

Response by Charles Shaw made Jun 27 at 2020 10:46 PM

Charles Shaw — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 22:46:05 -0400

Isnt that the (unstated) purpose of Warrant Officers? They are experts in their field but do not want ro command ?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2020 12:52 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:52:56 -0400

I believe it's a good thing to provide opportunities for pay movement and advancent! But thechnical experts! Isn't that why Warrant officers exist?

Response by MSgt Michael Tweedy made Jun 28 at 2020 1:20 AM

MSgt Michael Tweedy — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 01:20:52 -0400

Yes. I always worked beside Army for 21 years in the challenging specialty of intelligence collection. When the Army did away with specialists in favor of the hardstriper ranks, NCOs failed to show up at work several days a week so they could clean the motor park, or pick up cigarette butts, or worse, do "sergeant's time." In no time at all, the linguists and intel analysts lost their skills and became what we in the Air Force call "stupid." Yes, they "got stupid" so badly and so quickly that they became unqualified to run some of their own expensive programs. Air Force NCOs had to be detached to Army units to run the Army Guardrail program, because the Army had done a thorough job of making my Army co-workers lose their skills. And these were expensive skills. It's high time to bring it back, unless it's too late. Allow NCOs to be good at their jobs again.

Response by MAJ Lee Goehl made Jun 28 at 2020 8:41 AM

MAJ Lee Goehl — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:41:36 -0400

Maybe just stretch the SP4 pay grade out to 20 years similar to the GS pay scale. And let someone in that rank retire at 20. Kind of split the baby so to speak. Keep someone good at the job without the need to force them to lead. Just a thought.

Response by MSG Harry McCoy made Jun 28 at 2020 1:38 PM

MSG Harry McCoy — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:38:55 -0400

I was never happier then when I was a SP5 Nuclear Weapons Maintenance Specialist. The first thing I had to do as a Staff Sergeant (1 May 1985) was go arrange bail for one of our PFCs.

Response by CPL Heath Hansen made Jun 28 at 2020 5:51 PM

CPL Heath Hansen — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 17:51:24 -0400

Woulda been nice. Spc 4 for 6 years. Any time leadership was foisted on me i either sabotaged it consciously or subconsciously for everyones good.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2020 8:50 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:50:39 -0400

I worked with some of those ranks up to SPC7. The SPC6 and 7s were like their MOS "Office Manager". The SPC7 in the Mess hall was the Mess Steward, the SPC7 in the S1 was the PAC Chief, the SPC6 at the Aid Station or MEDDAC was most likely an LPN and asst to the PA who was a WO grade. I don't recall what the SPC6 was called...mostly everyone there was "Doc". Almost all of the Senior SPC were in a HQ Troop or Company/Battery and a lot were exempt from duty rosters of CQ, SDNCO, Guard etc. Also during that time PNCOC was for combat arms and PLC was all others. BNCOC, ANCOC were all MOS specific and SPC4, 5, 6 all attended their specific NCOES. Not sure why it ever stopped.

Response by SPC Tony Pacheco made Jun 29 at 2020 12:56 PM

SPC Tony Pacheco — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:56:55 -0400

My problem with having those ranks is the idea that not everyone should be put in a leadership position. While that is a true statement, we need to remember that leadership is not something we do in the organization, it is the very fabric of who we are as an organization. If you are content with being a mechanic, truck driver, or cook for your entire career, that’s great! There are hundreds of companies outside that’ll gladly hire a high speed worker. You can do the minimum and still be better than your civilian counterparts. If you are looking for a career as a soldier, you should learn leadership. You should teach leadership. You should embrace leadership. We are all, by the very fact that we have donned the uniform, leaders and we need to accept that. If not, do your 4 and bounce. Just my opinion.

Response by SGT Dan Theman made Jun 29 at 2020 4:26 PM

SGT Dan Theman — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:26:31 -0400

We had an arms room armor who was a spec5 he was amazing in his job but as a leader he was lacking and freely admitted it. He was promoted into supply as a spec 6 and it never ran smother.
I do believe the Specialist system worked and should continue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2020 5:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:57:02 -0400

I dont find it at all ironic most of the people that want this are the Specialists and below. If you dont want to lead, get out after your first tour.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Sep 13 at 2020 10:59 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 13 Sep 2020 10:59:49 -0400

In the private sector, employers are often happy with people who want to be very good at their job, but have no desire to run the company. These employees do get raises and sometimes bonuses for being true experts and sometimes instructors in their specialty.

The military does this to some extent. The Navy and Air Force have limited duty officers. The Navy does it formally. The Air Force less formally by allowing some twice-deferred officers to continue to serve to 20 years.

I believe the “old “ rank system of the Army should be adapted for all the services allowing some technical experts to increase in rank without holding leadership positions. Perhaps limiting senior technical rank below E9.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Dec 13 at 2020 12:25 PM

SSG John Jensen — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:25:19 -0500

I loved being a Spec5, but then I was a medic! My 1SG at the time referred to us as Sergeants, but the numbers in the HHC, he had very few Sgts. All of the technical jobs in the Army, the Army needs to bring some of those back - limit the numbers of those? by all means, although I've heard stories of people that needed to be Spec9s.
During zero week of my 1st AIT at Ft Sam Houston, while cleaning offices one night, one desk had TWO nameplates! one for SGM and the other for Spec9! - I imagine he had been the senior 91C at an Army Hospital.
A Great-Uncle of mine left the Army after WWII as a CW2 - But on his tombstone?? Tech Sgt! Somebody knows what is important!

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Dec 13 at 2020 1:58 PM

SSG Harry Herres — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 13:58:11 -0500

I was a sp-5 and loved it. Problem was no sp-6 slots. Got hard strip 6

Response by SSG Darrell Peters made Dec 13 at 2020 2:12 PM

SSG Darrell Peters — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 14:12:35 -0500

The one thing that really frosted me was LPN's in the Army Medical Corps. For years they were Specialists then the transition to the NCO Corp occurred. What really bothered me was no path existed for them to become Warrant Officers. I can understand an LPN serving a set amount of time as enlisted but there should be a window of opportunity to become a Warrant Officer. There are no Warrant Officer Positions in the Army Medical Corp as all the Physicians Assistants were made commissioned officers.
In certain select MOS's I can see using the Specialist Ranks. It's not that they can't lead it is just to retain good people in their field. I can see using the Specialist Rank Structure.

Response by SGT Joel Bourbeau made Dec 13 at 2020 3:12 PM

SGT Joel Bourbeau — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:12:06 -0500

By nature some cannot ever lead. If a soldier has a non-combat, or limited combat role, why not keep them as a support role in the specialties they are trained in. I was in supply and would have been fine remaining in the special tracking system, but they removed it before I got promoted. I didn’t have a problem leading, it just makes more sense to have the leaders be the ones inconstant combat trained roles.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2020 3:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:38:24 -0500

I agree but I see the reason to go past SP6.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2020 3:39 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:39:32 -0500

I agree but I don’t see or understand a reason to go beyond SP6.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Dec 13 at 2020 4:18 PM

CPT Tom Monahan — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 16:18:12 -0500

I’m for bringing back the Specialist Corps with a twist. If you are in an enlisted non-leadership slot you get the old T under your chevrons. Spec 4 looks like Corporal stripes with a T underneath. Spec 7 looks like SFC stripes with a T in the middle. Many Medical, Maintenance, Staff, MI, and even non-leader Grunts / spec Ops folks would warrant these ranks. Also in cases where a unit is over strength NCOs you can easily see who the leaders are. Before anyone bitches, those who want to lead will do their damnedest to no have the T designator on their sleeves.

Response by SPC Leo Van Groll made Dec 14 at 2020 9:39 AM

SPC Leo Van Groll — Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:39:48 -0500

I think they should do away with the specialist rank completely.

Response by SPC Donald Donovan made Dec 14 at 2020 11:40 AM

SPC Donald Donovan — Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:40:28 -0500

I have never seen the SPEC. 7-9 ranks before. And yes, some folks are not meant to lead. I always thought that E-4 Corporal should have been given out more than Spec. 4. Especially in the MP's. Most NCO ranks above E-7 are mostly administrative positions anyway. So I guess it would do no harm to avoid Spec. 8 & 9 because you cant deo too much damage behind a desk. Real good High ranking NCO's are hands on anyway, and the troops know it.