Should the Army adopt the rank strusture for SFCs in a 1sg Position.

2013-11-18T14:23:05-05:00

Correct me if I am wrong Air Force members of this site:  The Air Force has a Diamonds for the E7 and E8 ranks for the Leadership if they are in the 1SG positions.  Do you thing because this is commom that the Army should adopt this practice as well?  Would this help simplify thingd if a SFC could have a Diamond if they are in a 1SG position?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 6:12 PM

2013-11-18T18:12:46-05:00

I spent 8 years in the AF. In the AF, a 1st Sgt is a position, not a rank (but it is denoted by a diamond). They have 1st Sgt ranks for E-6 through E-9. The majority of 1st Sgts I had were E-7, but I had two that were E-8 and one that was E-9.

In the AF, 1st Sgt is not the same type of leadership position it is in the Army. In fact, the 1st Sgt is usually not the highest ranking enlisted member in the unit. Most squadrons (at least that I was in) have a Chief Enlisted Manager that is a Chief Master Sergeant (E-9). Only in the one unit where I had an E-9 as a 1st Sgt, was the 1st Sgt the 'Top' NCO in the unit.

I don't think the Army needs a special rank for E-7s in a 1SG position. The biggest issue, and the one that needs to be addressed is the lack of experience that this (usually) brings. It is generally pretty clear who the 1SG is, with or without the diamond from my experience.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 11:39 AM

2014-03-19T11:39:08-04:00

I don't think this is necessary. I have only ever seen or heard of a handful of occasions where a SFC has filled a 1SG position for the long-term. I think our rank structure is good the way it is and doesn't need modification for these occasional situations. Usually when this happens, it is while waiting for a new 1SG to report to the duty station, or if the 1SG is away on TDY. Do you see this as happening frequently enough to warrant a diamond in the SFC rank?

Response by SFC William Manchester made Mar 29 at 2014 12:44 PM

2014-03-29T12:44:19-04:00

This posting reminds me of a paper I came across about two
years ago. This paper proposed grade reductions for various positions throughout
the Army. For example, battalion commanders would be O-4s, first sergeants
would be E-7s, and platoon sergeants would be E-6s and so on. In addition to these
grade reductions, promotions would be slowed overall so the necessary
experience wasn’t lost at those ranks. Is anyone familiar with this? I know
several years ago (2011ish) the CSA was looking at grade plate reviews for major
positions, but I’m not sure if it was related to the above-mentioned paper as
this CSA-directed study was directed at officer ranks.

Of course, I can't find this paper anymore, so it might as well be another military urban legend.

Response by 1SG William Svoboda made Aug 9 at 2017 11:40 AM

2017-08-09T11:40:13-04:00

Quick answer: no diamonds are trump and reserved for 1SG Academy graduates in my humble opinion. That's my opinion.

Response by SSG Greg Miech made Nov 4 at 2020 6:18 AM

2020-11-04T06:18:16-05:00

When I looked at basically any NCO filling a position higher than the rank his position dictated with respect and up and coming. Sometimes the NCO was put in that position and did not do well as an E7 but later on, after mentoring, experience and guidance did well. I still think the mandatory promotion grade to reenlist is a mistake. Some would be happy and great as E4 below or at lower ranks.