Posted on Aug 4, 2014
Should Sergeants Major pay grades be commensurate with their positions like Generals?
29.5K
264
79
16
16
0
General officer ranks are appointments with stars based on their levels of position. We had an O6 go straight to O8 because of the position. To me it makes no sense that this is not the same with our Sergeants Majors. I mean it blows my mind to think that a Battalion S3 SGM is the same pay grade as the Advisor to the Joint Chief of Staff. It seems severely unbalanced. I think the ranks should be much like Generals, i.e. Brigade CSM.
Posted in these groups: 
Military Pay
Military Pay
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 28
10
10
0
Absolutely. I also think that there should be an E10-E14 rank structure. All CSM's know and respect their "superiors," but damn...this could be a lot easier. Is there any other rank that has this problem? Maybe Corporal. The CSM branch in the Army is changing the way they do business now with the CSL and assignment processes. I think it's time to up the ante and make nominative jobs commensurate with their rank and pay. One problem with this is the possible back and forth from OPS SGM jobs to CSM jobs. Would you go from being an E-10 to an E-9 because you went from a BDE CSM job to a Corps S3 SGM job? That would suck. Don't know how to crack that egg, but I bet someone could figure it out.
(10)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Do GO's ever go "backwards" in there job assignments? Why should E-9's. Something I've always pondered!
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Most GO's go forward (or lateral) or they retire if it doesn't look like they are going to get that next star. I agree that E-9s shouldn't go backwards either. But part of the "problem" is that there are more of them than there are GOs and if they don't retire, they have to go somewhere, and if according to big Army that an E-9 is an E-9, then yes, you will see "backward" movement.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I've only seen a Master Chief go backwards once - that was a Fleet Master Chief doing a twilight tour in Charleston.
While there may be no pay associated with it, there's plenty of room for lateral promotions within the rank structure. You can create the ranks but have them occupy the same paygrade. Granted, this probably wouldn't work for the Army, since y'all don't even like giving your E-9 another stripe.
While there may be no pay associated with it, there's plenty of room for lateral promotions within the rank structure. You can create the ranks but have them occupy the same paygrade. Granted, this probably wouldn't work for the Army, since y'all don't even like giving your E-9 another stripe.
(1)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
The first Sergeant Major of the Army, William Woolridge, after completing his tour in DC went back to Vietnam to be the MAC-V Sergeant Major.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
As a Command Master Chief who did tours at 4 different Commands (two ships) and even put in for Force Master Chief once at the urging of both my CO and the retiring FMC I would tend to feel that we are all Master Chiefs and should get the same pay. Yes, it would have been nice to get some special allowances for my uniforms and even for some of the entertaining I felt obligated to do at times, but there was no real need for it.
Would I have turned down any extra pay, no. Would more pay have made me try harder for these positions, heck no. I applied for the job because I loved working with people and representing them, not for the money or the power. I cannot imagine a successful CMC/CSM doing the ob for more pay. If he or she does, find someone else fast!
Would I have turned down any extra pay, no. Would more pay have made me try harder for these positions, heck no. I applied for the job because I loved working with people and representing them, not for the money or the power. I cannot imagine a successful CMC/CSM doing the ob for more pay. If he or she does, find someone else fast!
(10)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
I understand your position Master Chief, but I would think a man (or woman) is worthy of their hire. Where as I doubt I will ever be in that position, I think paying those in that position is worth it.
Besides, congress makes plenty. Take it out of their pay checks.
Besides, congress makes plenty. Take it out of their pay checks.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Do you really think any Congressman (or Senator) would give up 2 cents of pay for any reason? Although I fully agree with paying people in those positions. Armed Forces I mean.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Of course they would give up 2 cents of pay for any reason. as long as it's our pay and not theirs.
In fact. with AFRH, they'll take .50 without approval!
In fact. with AFRH, they'll take .50 without approval!
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
Honestly, I would like to see an E-10 grade. Keep E-9 for BN and BDE level positions (tactical), but E-10 for Div and higher (strategic). Those SGMs and CSMs working at the strategic levels really do a have a quantum leap in responsibilty and oversight over fellow CSMs at the more tactical levels.
(8)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I had no idea just how true this was until I did some time working with IMCOM staff at garrison levels.
The responsibility is immeasurable greater at the division or corps levels. Running a battalion is no mean feat, but running an entire division or corps under a general is astounding.
One of the best ways to compare the pay scales is the civilian equivalent.
A general may leave the army and be able to make the same or an increase.
A CSM at a division level would be able to compete for a MUCH higher salary in the civilian world than e-9 pay based on experience.
I understand what CMDCM Gene Treants is saying about wanting the man who wants to do the job FOR the job and not for pay, as the prestige and the work should be rewarding enough, but there should be a clear difference in compensation commensurate with the position.
The responsibility is immeasurable greater at the division or corps levels. Running a battalion is no mean feat, but running an entire division or corps under a general is astounding.
One of the best ways to compare the pay scales is the civilian equivalent.
A general may leave the army and be able to make the same or an increase.
A CSM at a division level would be able to compete for a MUCH higher salary in the civilian world than e-9 pay based on experience.
I understand what CMDCM Gene Treants is saying about wanting the man who wants to do the job FOR the job and not for pay, as the prestige and the work should be rewarding enough, but there should be a clear difference in compensation commensurate with the position.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
@ SSG Robert burns
CSM's already get SDAP:
(5) Command sergeants major whose raters and senior raters are all GOs or senior executive service (SES)
equivalent. If rater is––
(a)
Brigadier general, SD–1 is authorized.
(b)
Major general, SD–2 is authorized.
(c)
Lieutenant general, SD–3 is authorized.
(d)
General, SD–4 is authorized
Straight out of AR 614-200
CSM's already get SDAP:
(5) Command sergeants major whose raters and senior raters are all GOs or senior executive service (SES)
equivalent. If rater is––
(a)
Brigadier general, SD–1 is authorized.
(b)
Major general, SD–2 is authorized.
(c)
Lieutenant general, SD–3 is authorized.
(d)
General, SD–4 is authorized
Straight out of AR 614-200
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I had no heard of this!! You are losing your SDAP?
That is sad, SSG G. Im sorry to hear it.
That is sad, SSG G. Im sorry to hear it.
(0)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
That must be new - or Navy never put it into effect. I never drew any while working for a Rear Admiral (no not a Commodore).
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I believe it's now a normal thing in the navy. Submariners are having fits over it, though, since the EDMC is often senior to the COB, but doesn't get the SDAP (but they do get nuke pro-pay, so it balances out).
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Leave as is but have special dispensations/compensations for their positions.
(4)
(0)
I could live with the creation of E-10 but only for the Master Chief of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the AF and the Sergeant Majors of the Army and MC. Only because they are the senior leaders of our enlisted. Other then that it should stay the same. I agree with CMDCM Gene Treants statement.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is a tough one, because I think Sergeants Major -and enlisted personnel in general - deserve more money anyway.
Should an O-6 who works for the C,JCS receive more money than an O-6 elsewhere? Officers rotate into the Pentagon, serve a tour, and go back to the field to "broaden" them. There are fewer NCOs in the pentagon than officers, most of them will also try to rotate back to a field assignment so part of me feels there should not be different pay grades for E-9s. However, there are some NCOs who, once going to a senior position will not go back to the field.
Should an O-6 who works for the C,JCS receive more money than an O-6 elsewhere? Officers rotate into the Pentagon, serve a tour, and go back to the field to "broaden" them. There are fewer NCOs in the pentagon than officers, most of them will also try to rotate back to a field assignment so part of me feels there should not be different pay grades for E-9s. However, there are some NCOs who, once going to a senior position will not go back to the field.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
E-9s are underpaid as it is. I'd hate to see them whittled down as a result of this, which is the way I see it ending up. It would be an excuse to limit the "supergrades" to staff, fleet, or force levels.
Now, if we made an E-10 that was legitimately only for senior enlisted advisers, I could see that. Instead of Command Master Chief being one MCPO among many on a CVN, he would the the only of his grade.
Ironically, that would be a distinction NOT shared by his CO - who is one of many Captains on a CVN - a few of whom have been commanding officers in their own right.
Now, if we made an E-10 that was legitimately only for senior enlisted advisers, I could see that. Instead of Command Master Chief being one MCPO among many on a CVN, he would the the only of his grade.
Ironically, that would be a distinction NOT shared by his CO - who is one of many Captains on a CVN - a few of whom have been commanding officers in their own right.
(3)
(0)
??
SSG Robert Burns, I must have missed that one. Who was the COL that skipped BG and was promoted to MG? BG and MG are permanent ranks and BGs have a 1 year TIG requirement before being eligible for promotion.
LTG and GEN positions are as you described (based on position), and POTUS does have the authority to promote a COL to LTG or GEN (T10 only says you have to be an O6 or above), but it's doubtful he would ever do that in all but the most VERY bizarre circumstances.
SSG Robert Burns, I must have missed that one. Who was the COL that skipped BG and was promoted to MG? BG and MG are permanent ranks and BGs have a 1 year TIG requirement before being eligible for promotion.
LTG and GEN positions are as you described (based on position), and POTUS does have the authority to promote a COL to LTG or GEN (T10 only says you have to be an O6 or above), but it's doubtful he would ever do that in all but the most VERY bizarre circumstances.
(3)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
sir,
It happens in the Nursing Corps at least the last two times LTG Horoho, went from Col to MG when she was selected for Chief Nursing Corp, now she is the Surgeon General
It happens in the Nursing Corps at least the last two times LTG Horoho, went from Col to MG when she was selected for Chief Nursing Corp, now she is the Surgeon General
(2)
(0)
SrA David Steyer
The same jump happens in the USAF. But there was talk of lowering it to a BG rank. When I was stationed in DC, the 79th Medical Wing commander was almost always a Dental officer that want from Col to MG, no idea if that changed though.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Only practiced in the AMEDD Sir. These positions are required by federal law and have recently been changed to ensure for proper development of these new GOs.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Randall C. only the AMEDD has that stipulation Sir. It’s since been stopped as a practice. The Chief of the Medical, Dental, and Nurse Corps are GO statutory positions. But with the changes in the AMEDD, our TSG might soon be a 1-star and MEDCOM may no longer exist in the next 5 years.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google