Should PFCs stand at "Parade Rest" for a SPC?

Why not? We're told "put so-and-so on X-task." A lot of times, especially in today's army, if you're not an NCO, juniors don't respect you flat out. It's a professionalism thing, in my opinion.

Reserved for the officer ranks, both commissioned and non commissioned. E1-E4 are not officers of the armed
Forces. Understand?

SFC Eric Williams - I completely understand that and agree that it is traditionally reserved as such.

1SG, I agree with the lateral appointment. Keeps folks tracking for success.

I was taught this lesson by a former platoon Sgt of mine back when I was a mosquito wing who went on to become a 1SG.....

Respect is definitely a key component to this discussion. However, I do not feel that respect can ONLY be conveyed from a PFC to a SPC by standing at Parade Rest.

Yes, agreed, but I think you may have missed my point. If by the actions that the SPC displays day in and day out, emulates Leadership that lower enlisted Soldiers look up to and want to reflect then that SPC wouldn't have to ask/tell the PFC to stand at Parade Rest, he would have done it out of respect for the Soldier because of his character and leadership attributes and not just because he is an SPC. It's just my take on it. I'm not saying it's right for the SPC to tell a lower enlisted to do that.

Richard, the point I am trying to make is this... doctrine is doctrine. It is not what the U.S. Army uses (unless it has changed in the last seven years) to determine whether it is right or wrong to have Soldiers of lesser rank stand at parade rest when addressing a SPC. Actually, I think the Ranger Regiments routinely have subordinates of SPCs stand at parade rest when addressing SPCs. And as you state above, the FM provides clear guidance on the subject, and thus, my point, that it is only guidance and can be either followed or not, which regulations are not guidance but have to be followed or if altered by a unit, the alteration has to be more stringent than the regulation. The point I was making about UCMJ is you can't administer it based on the guidance from doctrine. When I was on active duty, I relied on my Non-Commissioned Officers to keep me straight on these matters. I would ask them if there is an Army Regulation (AR) that regulates customs and traditions. Thus far, no NCO has come on the net to confirm or deny the existence of such an AR. Therefore, as a unit commander I would either follow the doctrine or have a SOP just like the Ranger Regiments if this is what I thought was necessary to maintain and sustain discipline among the ranks. Now, I personally believe having PVTS or PFCs addressing SPCs at parade rest is not necessary in Cavalry or Armor units.

Fully understand Sir and got your point. There is no regulation just this FM.

LTC Mark Gavula , I appreciate your input on this subject sir. It is just Doctrine as previously stated. I have responded that in the absence of a specified unit policy or directive regarding this issue, enlisted Soldiers should fall back on the Doctrine and execute accordingly.

SFC (P) Gilley, SFC from the Grand Rapid Armed Forces Reserve Complex, TX and all the NCOs that have been reading the comments/opinions on this topic. I have repeatedly stated that doctrine is a guide. I stated that you can't use UCMJ on someone who fails to execute doctrine as written, I stated that unit SOP or policy can direct PVTs, PFCs to stand at parade rest when addressing a SPC as in Ranger Regiments and asked what regulation covered this subject. I learned early in my career as a young dumbass cavalry platoon leader to ask my right hand man, my PSG for guidance and council especially when it came to question like this. Back in 1985, my SFC platoon sergeant had 17 years TIS, was not only technically and tactically proficient but was very mature militarily. He told me to always ask a NCO. Since he told me that I, when given the time, (METT-T dependent) I always asked my NCO not SGT what he thought or for a COA to solve a problem. I did this as a staff offer, S4, S3, SXO, SCO etc and I continue to do it today. In this case I knew there was more than doctrine to cover this subject. You all were right but did not do your homework. I asked CSM (Ret) George DeSario former Thunderbolt 7 and Fort Knox CSM and I would Have asked SMA(ret) KJack Tilley if I had to for the regulation that covered this. The regulations are AR 600-25, AR 600-20. Everyone had the right answer but could not back it up with an AR. Please, don't let your officer down and say there is no regulation but only doctrine. There is a reason why SFCs are PSGs. This is the first time in an NCOs career where he is paired with an officer, a 2LT. He is to teach and train, to advise and counsel. Why is there a 1SG and CSM. Those officers depend and trust you for your advice and counsel, don't let them down. Why do you think some officers don't trust NCOs? It is because early in there career an NCO let them down someway or somehow. I was fortunate and I trust NCOs.

CPT Mike M. , I am with you on both counts sir.

Agreed.

Might help the relationship after....sounds like ass-kissing. If the relationship was good, it would be good before that promotion. It it wasnt, its likely going to get worse.

What if the SPC 4 is in a position of that responsibility?

Parade Rest is something reserved for NCOs. a SPC with the responsibility of being a team leader deserves your respect but like SFC Herring said, if he wants someone to go to parade rest then he should bust his butt and get some CPL stripes.

FYI, in my day you got promoted for doing the a good job at the next ranks job. In the 80's we promoted from SPC4 to SGT. We went to the NCO schools as SPC4's. I don't know why especially in the infantry back then there were so few corporals... I really don't know. It just burns me a little to hear you guys talk like SPC4 was so automatic... well it was not completely automatic back then. Lots of soldiers never made it to SPC4. But I digress.... its a changing world.

I'm not trying to diminish the rank of corporal here.... on the contrary. Its just that so many of you talk like the way it is now is the way its always been. That's simply not true. Different time different place.

The difference is that SPC is automatic. The reason why the SPC rank even existed was to move the technician who wasn't quite leadership material through the ranks similarily to their counterparts of equal pay grade who chose to take on the burden of leadership. The Army got rid of the ranks of SP5-SP9 because it was unnecessary to have a SP9 and a SGM running around an S-3 shop doing virtually the same thing. Then there's the whole "why should I listen to you if we're the same pay grade" mess. So to get rid of the confusion the NCO ranks which has traditionally denoted leadership stayed intact and the technical SPC rank except for SP4 were abolished. NCOs are required to be leaders, teachers, and technicians as they have always been for the past 239 years. The rank of SPC needs to find its way into the history books. If a Soldier does not aspire to lead, coach, train, and mentor younger Soldiers then, in my opinion, he/she should ETS as a PFC. The only reason why this thread exists is because of the confusion at the E4 grade. I say end the confusion, either you're an NCO at E-4 where your knowledge and expertise is valued and required to be shared with Soldiers junior to you (and of course the parade rest junk that for some odd reason makes people think that they are the shiznit) or you're a SPC at E-4 where you are considered a "full-bird Private". Either is fine with me as long as the mission gets accomplished without the confusing meanial petty junk of who stands at parade rest for what.

I was a PFC and had the "PFC IN Charge" counsel me once.

wow that's a first!

A CPL yes but not a SPC... unless that SPC has been placed in the position of an NCO which sometimes happens in an rear-d situation.

Randy and William, I do not believe a PVT or PFC should ever address a SPC at the position of parade rest unless unit SOP dictates it. It is just nonsense. It is not about respect, what is the bank account. It is about leadership development. Those Soldiers that have demonstrated leadership potential are laterally promoted to corporal. Hence, a corporal is considered a noncommissioned officer. By that rank they are given authority and then they earn respect. The young corporal will only be as good as the Non-Commissioned Officers coaching, teaching and mentoring him.

Exactly I agree

There was a time in The Army where you had SP5 and SP6 and they were skilled soldiers but did not have the desire or qualities to be a leader and thus were soldiers with capabilities that deserved a specific rank. A Corporal is a E-4 who exhibits leadership qualities of an NCO, who is learning the Art, a SP4 is a soldier with a higher skill level that a PVT and PFC yet has not exhibited or been taught those qualities of a leader. As a Commander I did not make an E4 a Corporal until he or she had passed the Sgt's board and was awaiting points to pin on the rank. This step signified that they were ready to lead soldiers and be an NCO.

LTC Gavula, I don't see much room for disagreement between our comments.

LTC O'Neil, I would have disagreed with your policy for that lateral promotion as hiding behind a board's decision rather than exercising your judgment as a commander.

I have known many troops who were excellent leaders well before they met time-in-service and time-in-grade requirements for going before the board. This was especially true when we had a significant number of prior-service veterans coming back into the service during the post-Vietnam years. If an E-4's chain of command is willing to entrust him or her with leadership responsibility, they should make that vote of confidence visible to all with at least a VOCO pair of stripes.

SGT Robert D., your PSG was wrong. That is why I laugh when I see Soldiers including officers place the (P) after their rank. It means nothing. A SFC (P) is not a MSG or 1SG. In fact, by AR the (P) after one's rank is not authorized on official paperwork. I think I only used the P after my rank was when I was a young LT and thought it meant something.

Correction Sir. According to AR 25-50 Chapter 6 Section 5 Subsection (c) part (2) Do not use the “(P)” (meaning the signer is promotable) as part of a signature block in Army correspondence
unless it benefits or enhances the image of the Army. However, it may be used in an address for such things as
congratulatory notes. Examples are—
(a) A lieutenant colonel promotable, filling a colonel position. The position requires the signature of a colonel or
higher. This situation would constitute using the (P) in the signature block.
(b) Enhancing or promoting a particular program or issue if it is supported by a potentially higher grade military
individual. It may carry more clout if a brigadier general select issues a directive over a colonel.

Help me Obiwan Kenobi!

And I would be all for the regulation being re written so that you are at parade rest when talking to someone that outranks you regardless if an NCO or not. However, our regulation does not, and to my knowledge never has, stated that.