Should 'Corporal' be a requirement for promotable E-4s?

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:57:00 -0500

Let's take a look at TRULY separating the E-4s in the Army.<br><br>When a SPC is recommended and attends a promotion board and is recommended for promotion (becomes 'promotable') to Sergeant, should the Army empower our junior leaders by laterally promoting them to Corporal?<br>

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Nov 30 at 2013 11:58 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:58:50 -0500

Yes...I'd recommend this change.<br><br>This would empower our junior leaders by placing them in leadership positions without costing the Army anything significant.<div><br></div><div>This change would truly be 'LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT' at its finest.</div>

Response by 1SG Steven Peoples made Nov 30 at 2013 12:04 PM

1SG Steven Peoples — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:04:58 -0500

yes.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 12:29 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:29:40 -0500

MSG(P) Quick - Absolutely, a Specialist that is promotable should start separating themselves from their peers (other Specialists) so when they actually do become a Sergeant it won't be as hard to be their superior. Being promoted to Corporal would instantly be a separator and would give them more power to take charge! I agree with you 100% about promoting he/she to Corporal would empower them to take charge off the rip, instead of waiting until cut-off! Great question!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 12:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:32:26 -0500

Yes.  It allows for universal recognition of the leadership potential of that individual.  SPC (P) are usually recognized in their platoons and units, but with CPL, the rest of the post will know that individual is striving for a higher leadership position.  And it does not cost the Army a dime more to do so!<br>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 1:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:26:16 -0500

I have to agree. <div><br><div>We, as NCOs, often call upon our 'high speed E4s' to take on leadership responsibilities. Why are we treating them as an NCO, but not recognizing them as such. I believe that the lateral promotion would encourage them to conduct themselves as an NCO. </div></div>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 3:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:43:55 -0500

Yes, it is great recognition for those who have worked hard and passed the promotion board. He/she has stood out among their peers and demonstrated that they are ready to take on responsibility in a leadership role as many E-4's do today

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 5:06 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:06:40 -0500

I also say yes becaus that is what happened to me and it made such a difference with the way my subordinates and leaders looked at me. It was one of the best ranks I have held in my Army carrier and mad me a better leader down the road

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 30 at 2013 9:20 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:20:25 -0500

I've always believed that ALL enlisted personnel should be promoted to SP 4-9, and only be frocked to NCO ranks when they are actually occupying a leadership position. This way you can actually screen for potential, and you don't have to worry about "50 chiefs and 3 indian" syndrome. Also, we can keep our best people who simply aren't cut out to be leaders.

A lack of wrench turners and managers will lead to mission failure just as soon as poor leadership will... If not sooner.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2013 9:37 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:37:30 -0500

I don't think that it should be a requirement. Honestly I think it the way it is set up now CPL still helps separate your high speeds from others. We all know that a lot of soldiers go to the board because they "have to", or it is just the next logical step, or someone convinced them they are ready. But I have seen Soldiers flat out refuse CPL rank. Told the 1SG they didn't want it because they weren't getting paid extra for it why should they wear it. Wrong answer. I asked for CPL when it was time. I pulled my PLT SGT to the side and said I wanted to be CPL I wanted to be an NCO. I didn't want it for the pay, I didn't want it for the power I was already one of the most senior E4s and my NCOs treated me as such. I personally felt as if striving for CPL set me apart, made me look more hungry for responsibility, and made me look more eager to lead and train Soldiers. I feel like refusing CPL would be like turning down a 1SG slot cause you don't get paid extra. You can tell the guys who are in it because they want to lead and advance their career and which ones are looking for more money before more responsibility.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2013 4:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:04:36 -0500

All of you have made very valid points, when I was coming thru the ranks I felt like I didn't want to wear CPL rank, but as time went along I have see where soldiers take a long time to go from SPC to SGT. Many of them for the fact that they couldn't make points, and so my views have changed. When you become an NCO soldiers expect you to have all the answers, CPL really is a good tool for our high speed E-4's to separate themselves from their amongst their peers and develop themselves as junior NCO's

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Dec 1 at 2013 4:28 PM

CPL Jay Strickland — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:28:30 -0500

I say no because several technical MOS's benefit from having a non leader E-4. For instance my AIT was so long that I arrived at my first duty assignment as an E-3, and having an E3/E4 allowed leadership to know who was clueless vs who was a competent technician.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made Dec 1 at 2013 5:47 PM

CPT Jason Torpy — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 17:47:34 -0500

Better to do away with corporal or specialist. It's a bit of an odd rank. If anything, specialist should be reserved only for those who entered the military at E-4. Anyone promoted to E-4 or who has been in for 18 months or 24 months or whatever the time in service requirement is for E3 to E4 should then be moved from specialist to corporal. I think that would be the best option.

If Corporal is an NCO rank and reserved not just for time in service but for actual merit and leadership potential, then no one should be promoted to E4 without some sort of board review.
In any case, Army is the only service that doesn't treat E4s as NCOs or junior NCOs in all cases. Better we review the Navy/Marine system than continue this odd straddling. We got rid of the other Spec-5, etc. Why keep Spec-4?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2013 7:16 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:16:56 -0500

Yes, it should be a requirement for promotion to Sergeant; this period of time between SPC promotable and Sergeant is the most ideal time to provide additional responsibility to a young and future leaders. 

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2013 4:47 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:47:13 -0500

I think this would be a great idea. Not only would this give our highspeed SPC a little actual authority, it will aslo keep those on the fence people from submitting packets. Some people put up packets dont want the extra responsibility for awhile and under the current system you could get another 3 months minimum of sham shield before your picked up. If you say put up a packet get approved gain instant responsibility it might change some peoples minds.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Dec 2 at 2013 4:14 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:14:43 -0500

I have to go along with the majority here and say yes. A SPC(P) is often called upon to do "NCO Tasks" and more often than not, given the respect from lower enlisted because they are still not a NCO. Doing the lateral promotion would give the highspeed SPC the recognition he/she has earned.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2013 9:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:18:33 -0500

I say yes. It was what happened to me and like a few people have already posted it separated them. I, however, think that someone who has not been recommended for promotion to SGT should be wearing CPL rank. While they might have demonstrated leadership potential they have not taken that last step, whatever it may be, to separate themselves to be recommended for the board.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2013 5:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:50:58 -0500

I fully believe that promotable E4s should hold the rank of CPL as soon as they get recommended until they make points to rank up, whether it be three weeks or 12 months or more. A SPC(P) still is only a SPC in the eyes of all junior enlisted and some seniors (enlisted and officers). As a CPL they would be given the respect of a NCO because that is basically what they are.

Response by SSG Ronald Limbaugh made Dec 3 at 2013 6:43 AM

SSG Ronald Limbaugh — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:43:38 -0500

Looking back toward the time I was anticipating getting pinned with CPL stripes, I think that being sent to the board and achieving promotable status already identifies leadership potential, as your chain of command has already shown their expectations of you by sending you to the board. Personally, I think CPL should be utilized for those SPC(P)'s that are actually in a leadership position, such as a Team or Section Leader. I don't think that it should be granted to a (P) just because they are now promotable, though I do think that all (P)'s in a position of responsibility over other Soldiers should be laterally promoted. CPL is an NCO rank, which denotes that individual as being in a leadership position. I've actually seen several instances where SPC (non-P) have been laterally promoted, while (P)'s have been left as SPC's, which led to some confusion within the ranks as to who should receive the next open team leader position.
Just pinning stripes on them is not going to make them a more effective leader or give them more time to attempt becoming a leader. They'll still need to actually be given the responsibility of leading others, in order to get the experience to go along with the rank.
I think the rank should be utilized more than it has been in the past, but not given out, just because a SPC went to the board for his E-5.

Response by SFC Jere Hawkins made Dec 3 at 2013 8:04 AM

SFC Jere Hawkins — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:04:32 -0500

I think that once you have been to a promotion board for SGT, and successfully have been recommended for promotion to SGT, then you should be laterally promoted to CPL. Yes it's a time for transition but the point of you going to the promotion board is to be promoted why not start immediately once recommended for SGT. To clarify, I think once you have successfully been recommended by board members for promotion to SGT, you should be laterally promoted to CPL. I was a CPL for about a week then I made the next month's promotion points.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2013 9:53 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:53:48 -0500

I would agree with a lot of other people on this thread. Yes, like many others have said it would be great training for an up and coming new NCO. There are a lot of Soldiers who gets promoted to E-5 without ever having any leadership experience.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2013 10:12 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:12:47 -0500

Personally I think they should bring the Specialist teir back (SPEC 4-7)... We have too many "SGT's" and not enough NCO's. The future of the Army will be carried on the shoulders of the young seperating themselves by earning a spot to NCOES rather thanjust checking the block. Respect is earned, not given. Stripes should be worn with pride knowing the your responsibilities include the welfare and training of those under you as well as doing your job. If all you can do is punch numbers, then you should be a specialist (kind of the point of the rank title), but if you want to lead by example, then go the extra mile and earn your stripes, rocker, and hopefully your star.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2013 10:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:13:01 -0500

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2013 11:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:52:18 -0500

I was a CPL and belive that it is a good steping stone to help you transition to being a SGT

Response by SPC Matthew Birkinbine made Dec 3 at 2013 12:38 PM

SPC Matthew Birkinbine — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:38:24 -0500

I think it would help pinpoint who the available leaders are. I don't know how many times in a formation I've heard it asked "who are the e-4 promotables?"

I agree with recognizing young high speeds who haven't the time in service/grade with Corporal stripes, if they show those NCO qualities, but I don't think an E-4P necessarily needs to be passed over for the leadership position by a corporal. To place a SPC P in the rank of corporal eliminates that mess from happening. I'd honestly rather someone who's due to become sergeant, possibly soon, to be groomed for that rank than to have a corporal who might have 6 months to a year before s/he is eligible to board.

That being said, I don't believe leaders should be sending a soldier to the board because "it's the only thing left to do." If a junior is not performing to the standard of an NCO to warrant sending him/her to the board, then counsel the soldier and start the paper trail.

I agree completely. It's time to separate the Specialist promotable from his/her e-4 and below counterparts.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2013 6:34 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 06:34:10 -0500

When attends promotion board and is successful I fully agree he/she should be laterally promoted to corporal. Sets them part of the e4 mafia spc and they become a NCO.

Response by SSG Ronald Limbaugh made Dec 4 at 2013 7:43 AM

SSG Ronald Limbaugh — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 07:43:20 -0500

This is one of those times I wish I did have an edit button for a previous post, because then I could add to the other one instead of creating another... anyways, here goes.

As a caveat to my previous response, I think the original question should be inverted... "Should promotable status be required for Corporal?"
I would say, definitely. I have seen quite a few Corporals through the years that were either DA appointed or laterally promoted by their chain of command, without having been vetted through the board process. They may have shown the potential to be a leader or they may have been on the commander's good side... I can't say for sure for any of the one's I've seen, but I did have my suspicions about a few. In some of those instances, I've seen where a CPL (non-promotable) was placed in a leadership position ahead of a ranking (time in grade) SPC(P), partially because he was a CPL.

My thoughts... as soon as the board results are posted and a SPC is recommended for promotion to SGT, if that SPC(P) is in, or placed in, a leadership position, then they should immediately be frocked to CPL. If they are removed from that position, before being promoted, then they should be laterally demoted to the "Sham Shield".
Like I said, just my thoughts.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 3:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:00:12 -0500

Being a CPL, I have developed into a better Soldier, then some because of it. I think it should be a requirement to become a SGT. The CPL rank is called the junior Non-Commissioned Officer. If a CPL and a SGT make the same mistake a SGT will get the hammer more so then the CPL because of the rank, regardless of TIS/TIG. If the Army utilized the CPL to actually build NCO's then we would become a better Corp. I have seen the most unqualified person make SGT, and because they didn't know how to act/treat/mentor the lower enlisted some decided to get out because of poor leadership.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 3:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:00:50 -0500

I believe that the Army should do away with SPC rank. I think that if Soldier's were promoted directly to CPL from PFC then it would be a more distinct transition into the NCO ranks. It would also force us Senior NCO's and Officers to take a more in depth look at the Soldier's that we are considering for promotion. It would force us all to instill leadership qualities in our Soldiers sooner and better mold them into effective Leaders. We would be able to bestow greater responsibility on our junior Leaders and also promote maturity in our Soldiers. This way when they are eligible for SGT they will be that much more prepared for the next level.

Response by SGT Aerik Santillan made Jan 24 at 2014 4:00 PM

SGT Aerik Santillan — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:00:31 -0500

I was a corporal for three years. I think this provided valuable experience for promotion to E5. Some people all the see is rank and monetary gain. With corporal your are doing the dirt ..spending the time and being groomed. A lateral appointment to corporal is definitely something that would be welcomed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 4:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:51:50 -0500

Absolutely. This separates them at a glance from the other E4s. It gives them a taste of what there are striving to get. The problem is that it cannot be made uniform around the Army right now due to the fact that certain branches do not allow or authorize Corporals. Air Defense has always been one branch that hates allowing Corporals. But by allowing them to "try on" the leadership role would allow the transition to be smoother.

Response by SrA Brian Walker made Jan 26 at 2014 3:52 AM

SrA Brian Walker — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:52:36 -0500

As what my NCO's all called a "senior specialist" I had their respect, as well as that of those junior to me. I honestly don't think that laterally promoting me to corporal would have made a difference. That being said I'm sure that I would have been the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think a better question should be whether the "technical specialists" or old SPC5-SPC7 ranks should be brought back... Or at least allowing personnel who are TRUE specialists at their MOS to stay in for longer performing the tasks that they excell at and leave the leadership to those who are better at that. Not a great idea I know, but one that I am sure would avoid some of the issues with poor leadership that I have seen in the Army... some people are not good "leaders" but make GREAT soldiers who really excel at their particular job.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 6:19 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 06:19:00 -0500

Without to much input, YES. I have been saying this for years.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 1:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:53:51 -0500

Yes I think this would be a great. This is one of the thing I have thought about for a while. this would give them a chance to step up. By doing so now you can give them more responsibility. They would be able to get the chance to start fill the bigger shoes and this would step up the leaning curve.

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Apr 18 at 2014 11:11 AM

SSG Genaro Negrete — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:11:01 -0400

Absolutely! I've stated this on other threads, the SPC rank needs to be done away with. I'll skip the details on my line of thought behind this. I agree with the leaders that have replied to this thread so far. It helps set you apart. More is expected of you. As difficult as it may be to create that separation from soldier's that have not advanced to the same rank, it has to be done. The two main things that will help that shift in thought is 1) a visible rank change. Anyone, whether they know the soldier or not, will see that he/she is an NCO, and 2) support from the rest of the NCO chain for that corporal's rank and authority.

I've seen it happen both ways. A promotable soldier is pinned CPL and he has no shift in thought process and attitude. Or a different soldier that is pinned CPL and jumps at the opportunity to lead, ready to learn from seniors and teach subordinates, but is hamstrung by SGT's and SSG's that undermine his authority.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2014 3:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:48:11 -0400

Yes, promotable SPC should be promoted to CPL. But only if senior leadership stops pressing first line leaders to send every eligible SPC to the board. Some SPC aren't experienced or developed or motivated or competant enough to hold NCO responsibility within the minimum timeframe proscribed by DA. Some may never be. I've seen too many instances of SPC pushed to a promotion board by a 1SG when first line leadership had a legitimate counseling record of why that Soldier isn't ready for promotion.

Response by SPC Joshua Yohe made Apr 18 at 2014 10:23 PM

SPC Joshua Yohe — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:23:33 -0400

From my experience when I was in, Cpl was the "hell no" rank. Nobody wanted it, and if they did get it, it didn't change anything. I was put in charge of a squad as an E3, performed monthly counselings, barracks inspections, and pov checks. But when it came to disciplinary action against my troops, my counselings were thrown in the trash, even after I received my Spc rank. I believe Cpl should not be a requirement, it should be based on the soldiers ability to perform the duties of a noncommissioned officer, regardless if Cpl is attained or not.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Apr 20 at 2014 8:50 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:50:30 -0400

Have they changed the requirements for support versus combat arms MOSs? During my time, stripes were only issued to combat arms and supervisory positions. All others were specialists.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Aug 7 at 2014 6:47 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 06:47:31 -0400

It would depend on the career management field, unit's mission and mission capacity. Promotion to Corporal rather than SPC4 implies that the shop is no longer a unit requirement? Assignment to Corporal pulls the individual out of the shop and into another realm, such as the PltSgt/1SGT's detail baby.

I went through this in a DS/GS CSS shop in the 70s and early 80s. We all were bench repairers, and well trained. When the backlog was not heavy, we got put on detail. This went on for weeks and sometimes months at a time. Shop culture and Command culture, that is Plt/1Sgt time for us lower enlisted had this duality role.

This duality role at E-5/Sgt and SPC5 became a shared leadership/management style of service in a DS/GS or IDS CSS shop. The emphasis later became less bench time and more Soldier time. That didn't hurt the people not working in their MOS, as the bench technicians; board pullers. Now, we were not specialists or technicians, we became systems repairers; installers and DX'ers. All that technical training felt like a waste. A lot of SPC5/6s went warrant officer when the branch opened up.

Ok, I can see that, but when these people became warrant officers, they did not get a tool box or bench time. The term technician IMO, was just a front name that had no meaning. They did not fix anything to be called a technician. That's like calling a doctor when a nurse practitioner did all the work and the doc just signs off the treatment.

I saw this cultural shift. The warrant officer had the office, and the SPC6 was the foreman. I stand to witness many toe-to-toe exchanges between the shop foreman and the 1SGTs elite while the warrant is somewhere else.

I don't know what DS/GS, IDS CSS shops are like now...gone are the true bench technicians and repairers, now DX'ers; direct exchangers or 1Sgt's elite.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 3:41 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 03:41:26 -0400

Im in the National Guard and I dont know about it for AD and maybe its even just my battalion but in order for a SPC to be laterally promoted to CPL you must be E-4 promotable and also filling the slot and assigned in that slot on the UMR I believe thats the correct one and not the PQR and usually thats used at a loop hole some the units use in order to promote withing their unit who they want to be promoted and that was made harder to do after the state figured out it was being done so its pretty rare for me to see a CPL thats infantry in my state. To answer your question though no I dont believe a SPC should have to be CPL before getting promoted to SGT unless they are specifically in a position like Cadre for RSP or YCP or some some position similar to that otherwise the SPC can distinguish himself apart from his peers on his own without being laterally promoted and will most likely be more respected as a NCO for deserving the promotion to SGT because they have shown their leadership abilities before they held a leadership position.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 20 at 2014 5:54 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:54:57 -0400

Absolutely. Start making the transition immediately.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 3:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:27:10 -0500

Yes I believe it distinguishes from and it prepares them to seperate themselves from the rest of the herd. Believe it or not being treated like an NCO and actually being an NCO go along way, especially when being away from my parent unit. I will say that my time as a Coporal was the hardest part of my career so far but it thoroughly prepared me to be a better NCO.

Response by SPC Matthew Birkinbine made Feb 27 at 2015 11:07 AM

SPC Matthew Birkinbine — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:07:53 -0500

Another reason I can see the benefit of laterally promoting a promotable SPC to Corporal is that it gives low-density MOS's more junior leaders. Case in point: as a promotable SPC, I cannot be a truck commander at my local installation; however, if I held the rank of Corporal, I could TC other mechanics in my motorpool when a roadtest is required for the completion of our services and repairs. As it stands, the only two noncommissioned officers we have tend to be at brigade level and battalion level as well as company level meetings throughout the week, and when they're not, they're preparing for the next one. The lack of NCOs hits us hard, in not being able to complete maintenance tasks.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 4 at 2015 2:22 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:22:35 -0400

Yes for most of the reasons listed by my Brothers in this post.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 5 at 2015 4:52 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:52:04 -0400

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 6 at 2015 2:14 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:14:06 -0400

I was gonna throw my 2 cents down here, but after reading all the awesome responses I dont think I need to... WAIT!!!! I just did didnt I ???? Hate it when that happens !!!!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2015 7:22 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:22:13 -0500

As a junior enlisted soldier, I would much rather be promoted to CPL and earn it than be promoted to SGT and (figuratively) have it handed to me. A lateral promotion would not only allow me to start understanding how to be an NCO, but also be a morale booster.

That, of course, is just an E-2s view on the matter.

Response by SGT Anthony Myrdahl made Jul 21 at 2017 5:10 PM

SGT Anthony Myrdahl — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:10:06 -0400

I don't think they should because it allows the individual to show whether they have what it takes to be an NCO that and it gives them time to mature and enhance their abilities for leadership

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jul 25 at 2017 6:14 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:14:01 -0400

Back in the earlier years (Korea, WW II)the Army had Corporals and Sgts that had a 'T' as a part of their rank insignia. I tried to find a pic of it but none available. So think of the old war movies with troops that had that insignia. So those were the guys that had the so-called special know how to operate and repair, put together the difficult gear.. Maybe if the army Would have left the insignia alone..

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 25 at 2017 7:00 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:00:22 -0400

1st of all congrats on YOUR promotion, pretty sure you were a MSG when you posted this 2013.
2nd, do you still have the same opinion now that you may have sat a few boards, had a company as 1SG, seen a bit more over the years that have gone by? Do you w\still feel Selected for promotion to sergeant E5 should = immediate and automatic lateral transfer to CPL?

Lastly..questions then an opinion..
Who sent the E4 to the board?
Who knowns the SM best, DA or the unit?
Who knows best the leadership positions and opportunities a CPL would fill in their unit? DA or the unit?
I submit to you the local unit commander and NCO for all of that, and thus the unit should be the one to select, train and laterally promote a E4p to CPL IF they are ready and IF a leadership position is available.
I would also note, in my experience this is already happening all across the Army after every promotion board, or at least did in every unit I served in from 1986 to 2014. If an SM was selected for promotion and the unit had a leadership slot available, that SM was laterally promoted to CPL. I watched it done with precision, where as the lateral promotion orders were already done BEFORE the board and needed just a signature and date from the commander. And watched it work dismally slow as the company unit had to fight with an S1 to get it done....but still it was done just as you suggest it could.

I also know plenty of E4p's that were selected and had the "potential" for greater responsibility but needed some further grooming to be ready to take on leadership...They were boarded and selected, with the leadership knowing it was a year or longer process for those on the E5 promotion list to make points...so they knew they had time to work with the SM.

Response by Frank Ricciardi made Jul 27 at 2017 12:20 PM

Frank Ricciardi — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:20:53 -0400

What's the acronym nbsp?

Response by SP5 Bob Peterson made Jul 27 at 2017 7:39 PM

SP5 Bob Peterson — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:39:06 -0400

I was happy with being a SP5, as a pharmacy tech. 18 week school after basic medic training. Was damn glad to be working in hospital 90% of the time. Never had to pull company duty.

Response by LTC Jeff Shearer made Aug 4 at 2017 10:21 AM

LTC Jeff Shearer — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 10:21:54 -0400

SGM what a great question. I will just say my personal preference is I had rather see and E5 who was once a CPL. My experience has been SPC and CPL's perform differently I think part of that is we always made it very clear more was expected from CPL, they were now an NCO and expected to act like it. Now the were not held to the same standard as the PLT SGT but I think if nothing is expected then you will not be disappointed. Before I retired I would tell my guys that all the time, guys want to be challenged, they want to perform, they want to be stellar and if they don't kick their ass. hahaha

Response by LCpl Mike Moore made Aug 8 at 2017 12:03 PM

LCpl Mike Moore — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:03:34 -0400

Spec is a special position, back in name specs did everything, I mean what is a spec with a rifle or grunting?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2017 9:39 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:39:53 -0400

I was made a CPL to separate me from the other E-4's that had a (P) status but were not doing anything except sitting around waiting for points it allowed me to take charge and learn about being a leader ahead of them even though they all went to the board ahead of me now I'm a SSG and not to my surprise a lot of those peers are either still SGT's or were separated. So I feel it would better prepare young soldiers to start being leaders and avoid the complacent mindset

Response by CPL Bill Wilcox made Aug 28 at 2017 11:24 PM

CPL Bill Wilcox — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:24:51 -0400

I would say yes

Response by CW3 Mark Olver made Sep 3 at 2017 9:28 PM

CW3 Mark Olver — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 21:28:31 -0400

As an E-1 through E-7 (and, yes as a CPL, and later as a Chief Warrant Officer prior to retiring), 100% agree with SGM Matthew Quick. We do need a CPL Rank IOT identify future mid-and potential senior-level NCO Leaders! As mentioned, I was a CPL, not due to position, but rather because of MOS. That was/is the problem, vis-avis the CPL rank. As I recall, it was/are not supposed to be tied to specific Army combat functions, or degrading in nature, vis-a-vis "standard" NCOS (SGTS thru CSMs). I believe, however, it has been perceived that way. WRONG!! Why should an Infantry, or Artillery, or Armor, or other direct or indirect combat MOS be CPLs at the E-4 level of expertise and other E-4s (combat medics, cooks, and myriad of other combat "support" functions, also at risk of life and limb, be immediately considered less-qualified for advancement simply because of MOS and not due to leadership capability? We, collectively speaking, need to let our NCOs decide who are ready to take over leadership roles, at what levels, and who are not! Specialist grade(s) do not accomplish this.
Unfortunately now, Specialists are relegated to the grade of E-4, pretty much regardless of MOS, not on any sanctioned ability measure, AND, apparently, solely on perceived SPC-level ability (whatever that is)! We are missing the point here! I know many SPC, E-4s, who know a hell of a lot more than most about cyber concerns, for example. Should all these soldiers be relegated to SPC rank because they don't have "combat MOSs" or become SGTS, SSGs, SFCs, etc simply because they do? What ever happened to NCOS determining who has and who hasn't mid- and senior-leadership capability that can be nurtured to the next level? Let's let the NCO Corps get back to being the Backbone of the Army!!!

Response by SPC Nancy Greene made Dec 1 at 2019 12:34 AM

SPC Nancy Greene — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 00:34:03 -0500

My Opinion SGM Matthew Quick:
Yes! When I was on Active Duty “hard stripes were Only awarded if SM was in Leadership Position...
I Always was at the Rank of SP4 and SP4(P). Yet, I Never wore the rank of CPL...extremely disappointing... I do remember in 1984-85, Army retired SP5 (soft strips) and laterally promoter to SGT. The cut off scores for many ‘Pencil Pushers’ stayed at 998! They dropped once for 75C’s to 806. I had 796, with a permanent P-3 Profile and Military Awards were extremely difficult to Obtain! If I knew I was allowed to ‘swim’ the ‘run’ portion of PFT; I could have easily raised my PFT score and picked of E5! The day I was clearing Post in Germany, found out I missed E5 by ten points...another reason for MY choice for Medical Discharge! Just My two cents.

Response by SPC Christy Peake Mitch Kennedy made May 27 at 2020 2:38 AM

SPC Christy Peake Mitch Kennedy — Wed, 27 May 2020 02:38:35 -0400

Do away with the rank of specialist and make all E4 soldiers corporals. Make it a little longer wait to obtain than the usual 2 yrs in service. In other words promote a PFC to CPL somewhere around the 3 yr mark as long as they're a good soldier. A soldier with the rank of CPL is more likely to reenlist than a soldier with the rank of Specialist. I am a former Specialist that only enlisted for 2 1/2 years. I spent 6 months in Somalia and a few months in Egypt and I obtained the rank of Spc in just 2 years. I had no college when I joined so I went into basic as a E1. In my situation if the rank of CPL would have been attainable I may have actually considered hanging around for a few more years. The Marines E4 level is CPL and I think the Army should be as well. Do away with Spc.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2020 12:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2020 00:54:50 -0400

I believe that transitioning over to corporal would in truth benefit the SM prior to becoming a SGT. With strips comes more responsibility and as a junior NCO one would learn the rights from wrongs and the building block to better form a more well rounded NCO.

Response by 1SG Alfred Webster made Jun 19 at 2020 9:35 PM

1SG Alfred Webster — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:35:19 -0400

I think that a Specialist should be ad vanced in E grade , thatbbefore being promoted to Corporal there shoul be
an evaluation to determine if the soldier
possess the qualities and trails needed
to become an NCO !

Response by SSG William James made Jun 22 at 2020 9:01 PM

SSG William James — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 21:01:36 -0400

Absolutely. I was promoted to Corporal and it was vital to my development as a non commissioned officer!