Should congress authorize the Army CW6?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:55:15 -0500

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>

Response by CPT Brandon Christensen made Jan 20 at 2014 7:04 PM

CPT Brandon Christensen — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:04:08 -0500

I have always wondered that as well. Even though I am not a warrant (yet), I would say we should have a "Warrant of the Army" or something like that.

With that, what would be qualifications for it? What would the rank look like? Would it be similar requirements like for SMA, but more technical? What would his/her role be at the pentagon?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2014 7:19 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:19:10 -0500

Like, the Warrant Officer of the Army? I think we'd need one for each major field. I don't see how flight connects to intelligence connects to maintenance on the large warrant officer concerns.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jan 20 at 2014 7:26 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:26:55 -0500

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.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 8:04 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:04:59 -0500

We do have Command Chief Warrant Officer in the Army Reserve, just not on Active Duty.

Response by LTC Jason Bartlett made Jan 21 at 2014 9:10 AM

LTC Jason Bartlett — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:10:40 -0500

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.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2016 9:08 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:08:31 -0500

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.

Response by CW4 Rod Phillips made Mar 4 at 2016 10:05 AM

CW4 Rod Phillips — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:05:11 -0500

I think the CW5 rank covers this area and level of expertise. Do you want 1's and 2's to be nothing more than LT's? WE are supposed to be SME's and able to step in as such from W1. This smacks of going back to the old "hard stripes or tech stripes" NCO system of old.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Jun 20 at 2018 1:08 AM

MSG John Duchesneau — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:08:08 -0400

I don't see the need. Most MW5s work for colonels on the staffs of generals so they are already at the top of the food chain. Also, most major commands have a Command Warrant Officer these days. It won't be long before there is a Master Warrant Officer of the Army.

Response by CW5 Tommy Osullivam made Dec 19 at 2018 12:14 AM

CW5 Tommy Osullivam — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:14:37 -0500

Yes as the SWA position. The USAR and the NG both have active duty T10 CCWOs These three Warrant Officer positions should be as CW6. The CW5 and CW6 ranks were proposed back in 1966.

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made Feb 4 at 2019 5:04 AM

CW4 Craig Urban — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 05:04:53 -0500

The only reason cw5 was crested is because of Aviation warrants

Response by SSG Cameron "KB" Kingsbury made Sep 27 at 2020 6:02 PM

SSG Cameron "KB" Kingsbury — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:02:46 -0400

A solution I have is why doesn't the army just make a Command Warrant position and have a senior CW5 fill that position. Alternatively you could make that the only CW6 position in the Army and make it branch immaterial.

Getting back to the actual issue is unlike NCOs and Officers, Warrants are experts in their technical discipline and therefore would get more traction in their issues from Branch. Then have Branch raise issues up to HQDA as they see fit. Unless I'm just missing something that Warrants need from HQDA that Branch cannot offer.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Nov 2 at 2022 11:57 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Wed, 02 Nov 2022 23:57:35 -0400

I think this surely has its merits!

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 22 at 2024 1:31 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Wed, 22 May 2024 01:31:03 -0400

Since the CW5 is seen as frequently as the Big Foot, a Leprechaun riding a unicorn crapping Ice Cream, or a Liberal Democrat that actually cares about their country I would say what's the point.