Posted on Jun 12, 2017
In today's modern military, would there be any benefit to an enlisted structure similar to that of the past?
108K
914
366
194
194
0
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?
Rank
Leadership
Enlisted
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 246
1
1
0
1
1
0
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!
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!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
I do believe the Specialist system worked and should continue.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
This would effective be exactly what I'm talking about. However, an outward sign of experience and technical expertise--the rank insignia--is something that I believe would be a good thing. When you need a certain thing done, being able to look at that SP7, 8, or 9 and knowing that who you're talking to has been doing this exact task for that long and that well is valuable. There's also the simply point of allowing those technicians something to put pride in. There's no shame in not being an NCO when you can still gain promotions that demonstrate your technical proficiency for all within your community of professionals.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Lee Goehl
SGT Joseph Gunderson I come from an era where there were SP5 and SP6 in most technical MOSs. Back then the argument was that was pigeonholing them as very few were being selected for E7 due to the non leadership background. My thought for example at FSHTX we has a GS4 and a GS5 that each had over 20 years of service were good at what they did. They come in did there job everyday until they retired. No one tied to push them higher like our LPNs that could be 5-6-7. who in a few years would eventually be a GS7 with more responsibilities. But I do think if someone is in a supprt role say clerk or support service role they could be allowed to opt into the specialist grade and stay that level. but also feel that pay should equal responsibility. If Im processing your 201 working 7-4 , M-F Should I make the same as that PSG who is responsible for say 30 or so personnel and their development?
(1)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
MAJ Lee Goehl so, perhaps a system in which the pay scales diverge at the juncture of the SPC grades and NCOs? But then what would you say to allowing for grades on the SPC side to be determined not just by responsibility but by technical proficiency? IE, a computer or network technician that goes above and beyond to learn anything and everything about the job, perhaps completes a degree, and is "the guy" so to speak: should this technical expert not earn more than his peers on that basis?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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....
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....
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google