7
7
0
Congress created the Army CW6 rank in the 1970's but never authorize it. For years it has always been my opinion that O-Grade officers have their voice in the Pentagon (The Army Chief of Staff), the NCO's have their voice (The CSM of the Army), why can't the the Warrant Officers have their voice at the top of the chain? <div>What say you, my fellow Cohorts?</div>
Posted in these groups: 
Warrant Officers
Warrant Officers
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
4
4
0
Chief, what would the CW6 task and purpose be? I recognize the value of the Warrant Officer a Corps growing up in OD myself. I think it is a question of what we expect the CWA to do for the CSA and Sec Army. The CSA and CSMA steer the Army through direct communication with GO Commanders and CSMs. Your Senior CW5s, where do they predominantly come from? I could potentially see some goodness with central communication through the Corps through the senior Chiefs by branch. Rarely is the CSA trying to steer the organization on a technical issue, where a warrant officer would clearly be of value. I have to believe that in that case the appropriate warrant is summoned to advise the CSA. Other than advising the CSA on the institution of the WOC, his personal experiences would not be deep and wide enough to do the whole WOC justice. SOF, Aerial Delivery, SSAs, AV multiple airframes, Avn Maint, allied trades, armament, automotive, missile, ammo, heavy junk, marine deck officers, prime power, engineers, electronics, personnel, food service, intel, PBO, and everything in between. Think the big disconnect is not having command level type warrants.
(4)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Sir, with all do respect. Their responsibility has already been determined. If a division warrant officer is a CW5, then what is a corps, regimental, command chief, or even the Army staff warrant officer? It is mathematical, 6 is more than 5, and so is the responsibility of 6 over 5.
(1)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
I got the addition part, but I am asking how would that person with that rank be leveraged? My steering comments came right from the last CSA during my BN PCC. I think if I read your comment right you would advocate the CW6 to be the Regimental Warrant Officer? A CWA would be incredibly variable due to the width and breadth of the WOC.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Keith Dolliver
CW2 (Join to see) Playing devil's advocate here, you could argue the same for CSMs. The CSM from the BN all the way up to the MACOM level wear the same rank insignia and receive largely the same pay.
LTC Jason Mackay Sir, GEN Odierno did create such a position in 2014, titled ARSTAF SWO. Attached CSA Sends lays out duties and responsibilities.
LTC Jason Mackay Sir, GEN Odierno did create such a position in 2014, titled ARSTAF SWO. Attached CSA Sends lays out duties and responsibilities.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
CW4 Keith Dolliver - I think it is a disservice to the Warrant Officer Corps to take a one size fits most approach. The depth and breadth of the WOC can't be summed up in one Staff officer, but I am glad he chose to bring a Senior Warrant on his team to advise him.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes, congress should create the Army CW6 Position. There are CW5's that are running Divisional units, and there are CW5's that are in charge of branches (i.e. RCWOB, or CCWO). Hierarchal responsibility requires CW6 in today's Army.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CW2 (Join to see) - Negative. Respectfully chief, there are hundreds of Sergeants Major running around in charge of battalions and brigades and individual sections, etc. I think in the hierarchical nature of the Army, the SMA has more responsibilities. Division CSMs and above have more responsibilities. Yet an E10 rank isn’t required.
There are probably only 600 or so CW5s. That represents about .001% of active duty Army personnel.
I expect more from an E4 than an E3. More from and E7 than E6. More from O3 than O2. Etc. But I really can’t envision expecting any more knowledge or ability from a proposed CW6 than what .001 of the Army already has.
But if warrants feel left out, I think a better course of action would the creation of new positions, as opposed to a new rank. Responsibility and authority will be commensurate with that position (as well as the rank of CW5). Similar to the SMA. While both are E9s, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a battalion CSM willing to buck up and start calling SMA Dailey ‘bro’ and saying things like, ‘this is my battalion, I run it as I see fit!’ when he SMA was visiting.
Just some thoughts..
There are probably only 600 or so CW5s. That represents about .001% of active duty Army personnel.
I expect more from an E4 than an E3. More from and E7 than E6. More from O3 than O2. Etc. But I really can’t envision expecting any more knowledge or ability from a proposed CW6 than what .001 of the Army already has.
But if warrants feel left out, I think a better course of action would the creation of new positions, as opposed to a new rank. Responsibility and authority will be commensurate with that position (as well as the rank of CW5). Similar to the SMA. While both are E9s, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a battalion CSM willing to buck up and start calling SMA Dailey ‘bro’ and saying things like, ‘this is my battalion, I run it as I see fit!’ when he SMA was visiting.
Just some thoughts..
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Same reason we don't have E-10's, no need to provide better delineation of responsibilities in the CW5 structure (specially as the Army is downsizing). If anything as an Army we need to continue to review the requirement at all grades and figure out where our redundancies are. Requirements drive force structure and currently there is no requirement.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google