Posted in these groups: 
Rank
Rank
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
We speak about keeping the best talent, and pushing them to be as successful as possible, but we limit these capable people by associating Rank with Responsibility.
Before joining the Army, and ever knowing S.H.A.R.P existed had taken Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention courses for a job as an Student Resident Adviser at the age of 19 in college. That year I was the primary case personnel for a rape case, I helped the victim from the time they knocked on my door until they were done in the hospital, before I had to relinquish my duties to a higher source. At 23 I join the Army and because of my rank it is believed I would not know how to compose myself if a situation were to arise.
I believe we could engage personnel and better help our peers to our left and right by utilizing the talents of everyone that they bring with them from the private sector.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision #1:
I do not think I properly presented this topic. I will attempt here to clarify. The argument I was attempting to make is that we have a shortage of talents in areas like EO/SHARP/Master Fitness Instructor/Master Resilency Trainer/ ect. These positions and classes currently have ranks associated with them although myself and others might argue that JSMs are able to feel these positions. Like my prior experience shown above, might qualify me for a SHARP rep, someone with a degree or ceritification as a fitness trainer might qualify elswhere. Our junior ranks vary widely in age ranges and prior experiences, and I see this as wasted potential. I hope this helps to clarify things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision #2:
After some conversing with SFC Richie, I thought this a different option: "would you be more inclined to support a system in which a junior service members (JSM) was not in one of these roles fully, but formally trained and could service as an Assistant with a limited amount of authority granted? That way those with prior experience could continue to develop those skills, and help with their prior knowledge the NCOIC of that program."
Responses: 20
First, I'm not sure the chart portrays the question. Respect versus "equivalency." Right off the bat, showing equivalency between any of the WO/CWO ranks to an officer is wrong in so many ways, I almost choked when I looked at it. An E6 equivalent to an O2 or a CW2...nope. If it's "experience in duty positions," then I might buy it. If it is "respect towards a rank in duty positions," I might buy it. I guess seeing it written out is what bothers me. It's wrong. There are some unwritten rules that shouldn't be written down. Every 2LT in the Army outranks the Command Sergeant Major of the Army and every CW5 in the Army. Bottom line. Those personnel show the 2LT the proper respect, and the 2LT knows better than to challenge their authority based on their position in the organization. That isn't written down, but it's damn sure abided by.
That your chart would not have direct equivalents as they are shown on the chart.
That the chart would be dangerous for everyone involved...especially for an E-5 and CWO-5?
That the chart would be dangerous for everyone involved...especially for an E-5 and CWO-5?
SGM (Join to see)
Dangerous indeed, I have seen a few Army 0-4's politely correct Senior NCO's and Chief Warrants before. Everyone has a place in the Army, a professional acts accordingly.
I won't go into who "outranks" who because anyone who has been in the military knows the real and officially recognized answer to that. However, when it comes to the Chain of Command and the NCO Support Channel, there is an authority-level hierarchy.
LTC-GEN who are in Command=Commensurate CSM.
MAJs are usually BN XOs or Staff positions.
SGMs are usually Staff positions.
CPT=1SG.
MSGs are usually Staff positions.
1LTs are usually CO XOs or Adjutants.
2LT=SFC or SSG (Platoon Level Leaders.)
LTC-GEN who are in Command=Commensurate CSM.
MAJs are usually BN XOs or Staff positions.
SGMs are usually Staff positions.
CPT=1SG.
MSGs are usually Staff positions.
1LTs are usually CO XOs or Adjutants.
2LT=SFC or SSG (Platoon Level Leaders.)
SCPO Nemeth,
The biggest problem I see is the imbalance of responsibilities on the chart. Example: When I was a Captain (Infantry), I had the responsibility of 120+ men in combat (Vietnam). A CW-3/4 would be in charge of a tech section, helicopter, and so on but rarely more than 15 personnel. An E-7 would normally be a Platoon Sgt. with 30 max.
While I give you that the CWO-3 and E-7 probably have many years more experience, they still do not have the responsibility for the welfare, equipment, and sustained operations that an Infantry 0-3 has. That being said, I know that there are exceptions to this but based on my experience as an Infantry Officer. This was what I observed, there is no other "Buck Stops Here" environment as a Platoon Leader, Company, or Battalion/Squadron Commander.
I gave the respect to anyone who earned it no matter what the rank. Example: E-4/5's who took over an Infantry Company whose leaders, including NCO's had been KIA or WIA. They multi-tasked like no others and pulled the unit through tough times. They had my respect more than some of the 0-1/2/3's I knew.
Same goes for 0-5 and W-5. LTC Halvorson Commands a Cav Squadron (equal to a Battalion). I am not aware of any W-5 that has that responsibility. I see this table as an indication of time in service, not responsibility. Just Sayin'.
The biggest problem I see is the imbalance of responsibilities on the chart. Example: When I was a Captain (Infantry), I had the responsibility of 120+ men in combat (Vietnam). A CW-3/4 would be in charge of a tech section, helicopter, and so on but rarely more than 15 personnel. An E-7 would normally be a Platoon Sgt. with 30 max.
While I give you that the CWO-3 and E-7 probably have many years more experience, they still do not have the responsibility for the welfare, equipment, and sustained operations that an Infantry 0-3 has. That being said, I know that there are exceptions to this but based on my experience as an Infantry Officer. This was what I observed, there is no other "Buck Stops Here" environment as a Platoon Leader, Company, or Battalion/Squadron Commander.
I gave the respect to anyone who earned it no matter what the rank. Example: E-4/5's who took over an Infantry Company whose leaders, including NCO's had been KIA or WIA. They multi-tasked like no others and pulled the unit through tough times. They had my respect more than some of the 0-1/2/3's I knew.
Same goes for 0-5 and W-5. LTC Halvorson Commands a Cav Squadron (equal to a Battalion). I am not aware of any W-5 that has that responsibility. I see this table as an indication of time in service, not responsibility. Just Sayin'.
I would put some space in there kinda like below.
O-10 ------------
O-9 --------------
O-8 --------------
O-7 - W-5 ------
O-6 - W-4 ------
O-5 --------- E-9
O-4 - W-3 - E-8
O-3 - W-2 - E-7
O-2 --------------
O-1 - W-1 - E-6
--------------- E-5
--------------- E-4
--------------- E-3
--------------- E-2
--------------- E-1
O-10 ------------
O-9 --------------
O-8 --------------
O-7 - W-5 ------
O-6 - W-4 ------
O-5 --------- E-9
O-4 - W-3 - E-8
O-3 - W-2 - E-7
O-2 --------------
O-1 - W-1 - E-6
--------------- E-5
--------------- E-4
--------------- E-3
--------------- E-2
--------------- E-1
Interesting topic. Reminds me of a discussion I was part of in Afghanistan one time. I was the Detention OPS NCOIC in Bagram. During a meeting to reorganize the Task Force, a 2LT brought up how the MP Corps has 5 missions and all MP companies should train on all. I told him there wasn't enough time, that all training should concentrate on the METL. He adamantly disagreed with me and told me I didn't know what I was talking about because I wasn't an officer.
The TF CDR spoke up. He said this discussion reminded him when he was an OBC instructor at Ft. Leonard Wood. He said he would tell all the 2LTs when they left there, the would be going someplace to be assigned as a PLT LDR. He said he told them he had no idea why they would be a PLT LDR because they didn't have enough experience yet to lead. He recommended when they got to there duty assignment to be in the hip pocket of their PSG as he/she has years of experience. He told them to let their PSG mentor them. He then looked around the table and said, "LT _____ is refusing to learn from SGT Fox who has the experience." He then broke the meeting for lunch. All returned but the LT. I guess he was embarrassed.
So what does this have to do with the discussion? The experience of a SFC exceeds that of a 2d or 1LT and in most cases a CPT.
The TF CDR spoke up. He said this discussion reminded him when he was an OBC instructor at Ft. Leonard Wood. He said he would tell all the 2LTs when they left there, the would be going someplace to be assigned as a PLT LDR. He said he told them he had no idea why they would be a PLT LDR because they didn't have enough experience yet to lead. He recommended when they got to there duty assignment to be in the hip pocket of their PSG as he/she has years of experience. He told them to let their PSG mentor them. He then looked around the table and said, "LT _____ is refusing to learn from SGT Fox who has the experience." He then broke the meeting for lunch. All returned but the LT. I guess he was embarrassed.
So what does this have to do with the discussion? The experience of a SFC exceeds that of a 2d or 1LT and in most cases a CPT.
I feel that the rank is not the same as it was in the past. 0-1 to 0-3 doesn't matter how you commissioned are equivilent whether you commissioned through ROTC, Direct Commissioned, or went through OCS that is strange to me. Also, it always bothered me that a 0-1 straight out of ROTC automatically out ranks that E-9 with 20 to more years in. That E-9 could potentially have more education now a days than what that 0-1 has, and I know that the E-9 made a choice to be enlisted, but Now it is suggested that E-7 and above have Bachelor Degrees, also some E-4s and above have Degrees, have expirence, and deployments, but, now, some may never be afforded the opportunity to out rank that 0-1 ROTC graduate or 0-2 Direct Commissioned Officer because of a few tattoos? So, now a few Tattoos is what is separating that expirenced E-7, or what ever enlisted rank, that may have the same level of degree, or more, more time in the military, and a deployment expirence, but will never be able to out rank or make as much money as that ROTC graduate. That is strange to me. I think I first noticed how stange it was when before I joined the military I was a young boy, didn't know much, but when my uncle explained to me that he has been in for 20 plus, platoon Sergeant, but his brand new PL out ranks him, as a young civilian I just couldn't understand that, Well I've been in for more than a minute now, and I understood how times were before in regards to enlisted, but times have changed, and the requirments for an enlisted member in regards to education and career progression have changed. Now the schools we attend for leadership, NCOESs, and level of education and expirence we have should mean something, but what incentive does a enlisted member have if no matter how much they move up the latter, that Direct Commissioned Officer, or that ROTC Graduate will always out rank you?
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Yes as an E-5 or E-6 the enlisted side has had our share of leadership positions, though not on the level an O-1 or WO-1 have so I'd first knock the enlisted part of the chart down a notch to make E-6 'equal' to an O-1. Sorry to my NCO Corps but again this is based of leadership roles and frankly some of us just do not cut it.
For the Warrant Officer side, it's hard since you have the flight and tech sides, one needs years of enlisted experience, the other just requires you to enlist. If you're going to make a chart like this, divide the W.O. ranks to show both sides. Techs I would bring the up a peg to start them 'equal' to an O-2 since chances are the platoon leader they're partnered with is of that rank and they share the same responsibilities in most cases. Additionally for the tech side you were already an E-6 or E-7 or higher. Flight sorry, but I would leave as is.
Now when it comes to the officer side of the house there's a difference between those who went green to gold and those fresh out of college or West Point who need to be walked through a lot of standard operations. Either way the officer side has to rely on the advice of those senior NCO's in order to get more perspective when making decisions at any level. Setting rank aside Sir, would you not consider your Command Sergeant Major your peer nine times out of ten or would you always see them as subordinate?