Should Rank be on a Resume?

In general, I'd leave it off, but it really depends on where the resume is being sent. If it's used to apply for a job at a defense-related company, or a government agency, that might be relevant info. I'd say add it when relevant, and remove it when not relevant. Most people likely (or should) shape their resume to the job, rather than having a one-size-fits-all resume.

Agree with LTC Kevin B. . In fact, almost all of the resume writing courses when you're transitioning out of the military will tell you to "demilitarize" your resume. Highlight your military experience - yes, but put it in terms that non-military will understand.

The number of people that understand what "SGT so-and-so" means are a LOT fewer than those that do.

CPT Steven Cunningham, in my experience, it is best to leave them off. Unless they are a SGM/CSM or COL or above, and even then the usefulness can be debated.

Not many civilian hiring managers know the differences between the ranks or even between commissioned/noncommissioned. They are "aware" of "Private", "Sergeant", "Lieutenant", "Captain", and "Colonel". Adding the rank for anyone uninitiated can be confusing and subjects the resume to unconscious bias. For example, some hiring managers may dismiss qualifications that indicates the rank was "Private" because they may equate it to "general labor". The same happens even if you run into the hiring manager that knows or has prior service, for example valuing an LT's qualifications over a Staff Sergeant.

The resume should be a straightforward listing of positions held, responsibilities, and experienced gained. Anything that does not add to that, takes away.