Posted on Aug 20, 2016
Is a Lance Corporal (USMC) essentially the same as the Specialist rank in the Army?
518K
145
101
27
27
0
Rank
LCpl
SPC
Responses: 61
35
35
0
Yes & no.
We promote to NCO (Cpl = E4) from the LCpl grade, whereas the Army promotes to NCO (almost always SGT = E5) from Specialist. We don't have the same NCO/Non-NCO divide (either with Split Grade or Transition to next rank). Our expectations tend to be "different" as well. We have no problem putting a Non-NCO in charge, based on seniority or capability.
The idea of a "Senior LCpl" (positional authority based on TIG) is a very real thing for us. Just because someone is not wearing "hard stripes" doesn't mean we won't treat them like they are.
Additionally, because our promotion system is generally 1 rank down from the Army, combined with Billet T/O structure being the same, we start applying more leadership development earlier. USMC E2-E3 (PFC & LCpl) are "automatic" where Cpl & Sgt are "statistical" (based on an Objective Composite Score system) and all others are "Formal Board" at the HQMC level. The Army parallels that at E1-4 being "automatic," SGT & SSG being "statistical" (with Less formal Board at unit level) and all others being Formal Board at Army level. It is not uncommon for LCpl to be the "terminal" rank within the USMC just as Specialist is for the Army.
So "functionally" they can be viewed very similarly with likely more authority & responsibility on the LCpl side, and "philosophically" they are much farther apart. We just treat the transition process differently, even though we promote similarly.
We promote to NCO (Cpl = E4) from the LCpl grade, whereas the Army promotes to NCO (almost always SGT = E5) from Specialist. We don't have the same NCO/Non-NCO divide (either with Split Grade or Transition to next rank). Our expectations tend to be "different" as well. We have no problem putting a Non-NCO in charge, based on seniority or capability.
The idea of a "Senior LCpl" (positional authority based on TIG) is a very real thing for us. Just because someone is not wearing "hard stripes" doesn't mean we won't treat them like they are.
Additionally, because our promotion system is generally 1 rank down from the Army, combined with Billet T/O structure being the same, we start applying more leadership development earlier. USMC E2-E3 (PFC & LCpl) are "automatic" where Cpl & Sgt are "statistical" (based on an Objective Composite Score system) and all others are "Formal Board" at the HQMC level. The Army parallels that at E1-4 being "automatic," SGT & SSG being "statistical" (with Less formal Board at unit level) and all others being Formal Board at Army level. It is not uncommon for LCpl to be the "terminal" rank within the USMC just as Specialist is for the Army.
So "functionally" they can be viewed very similarly with likely more authority & responsibility on the LCpl side, and "philosophically" they are much farther apart. We just treat the transition process differently, even though we promote similarly.
(35)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I will say that in the army, outside of infantry, SPC is a private. I've witnessed, and held conversations with mechanics, cooks, supply, admin, that confirm my statement. In the infantry however, it is not uncommon in the least bit to have a SPC serve as team leader, in certain situations as squad leader, and very rarely (which I have seen in my own company) as temporary Plt Sgt.
Especially with the transition from WLC to BLC, where even if you're a SPC (p), you will not be promoted until you have completed BLC. Long story short, more specialists in leadership positions. However, I think the generalization of a lance corporal having more responsibility than the average specialist holds up when taking into account every Army MOS.
Especially with the transition from WLC to BLC, where even if you're a SPC (p), you will not be promoted until you have completed BLC. Long story short, more specialists in leadership positions. However, I think the generalization of a lance corporal having more responsibility than the average specialist holds up when taking into account every Army MOS.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Bob McCord - The Sea Services (USMC, USN, USCG) have "always" operated like this. Within the confines of my above post, I left Navy out simply because the USMC and USN tend to operate very similarly and the question was a compare/contrast LCpl (E3) vs Specialist (E4). Those contrasts shift as we delve into PO3 & SrA.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Emanuel W.
When I was on active duty (94-98), I was told that both PFC & LCPL were "automatic". That was true only for PFC! To get to LCPL, one had to be recommended for promotion to E-3. Standards had to be met before being recommended to E-3, and no matter how much I've met them, there was a new roadblock and hurdle for me to jump. And no, I wasn't a sh*tbird Marine! I acquired a knee injury and had problems with running ever since. Every time I improve, my company would set the bar higher or give me an excuse on why they "can't" promote me. At least my Shop SNCO was honest with me! he straight up told me that he didn't like me and wouldn't recommend me to LCPL.
But all of that just served as ammunition against them and not me. I got my promotion, but my company saw to it that no matter how well I did, and the many times I've met the cutting score for CPL, I would not see it. Karma got them in the end, from what I was told from a friend that stayed and made it to E-7.
Some Marines may have been lucky to get to LCPL automatically, but others had to go through hell to get theirs.
But all of that just served as ammunition against them and not me. I got my promotion, but my company saw to it that no matter how well I did, and the many times I've met the cutting score for CPL, I would not see it. Karma got them in the end, from what I was told from a friend that stayed and made it to E-7.
Some Marines may have been lucky to get to LCPL automatically, but others had to go through hell to get theirs.
(0)
(0)
LCpl DV Shawn Lucas Whitehead
I got out of the corps as a E-3.. and I had a billet and had more time in then any of the cpl in my shot and my unit for the most part.. even though I was still a lance I had the respect of my piers because I knew my MOS better then the E-4's
(0)
(0)
I would say mostly yes. It is one rank below becoming an NCO. Also, although it's an E-3 and a Specialist is an E-4, Marines are ahead of Army peers in terms of rank responsibility. In the Marines an E-5 is an Infantry Squad Leader, in the Army it's an E-6. In the Marines an E-6 is a Platoon Sergeant, in the Army it's an E-7, etc. So Marines are one pay grade ahead in responsibility. For this reason, and the fact that it's the last non-NCO rank, I would say a Marine Lance Corporal and an Army Specialist can be viewed as similar. They will often also have similar time in service since Marines promote more slowly as well.
(13)
(0)
SGT Tim Soyars
While the billet for a Team Leader is E-5, it can be, and commonly is, filled by an E-4 Specialist 4 or Corporal. Squad Leader is an E-6 Staff Sgt. billet, but is commonly filled by an E-5 Sgt. Of course, in the late 70s and early 80s, we were experiencing a large exodus of mid-level NCOs (E-6 & E-8) due to slow promotions and many reaching their 20 year mark. In some units, it was even common to see senior E-6s as platoon sergeants.
(2)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
I know many Lances that are salty about Army Spc getting E-4 pay when they're pretty much the same
(1)
(0)
SP5 Peter Keane
LTJG (Join to see) - NO, one is an E3, one is an E4. If being "salty" is a problem, should have joined the Army
(2)
(0)
MGySgt Ernest Murray
As a Lance Corporal in Vietnam I was awarded along with my crossed rifles a FireTeam to lead. Corporals were squad leaders and carried the M79.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
In a sense yes. Besides pay grade they are the same. One step below becoming a NCO. They should be on top of their game and when the time comes they are ready to lead as a NCO.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google