Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:01:28 -0500

When I joined the Army we Specialist 4-6 (SP7 had just been discontinued). It provided those Soldiers who had technical expertise and experience the opportunity to progress and earn more pay. However they typically were not "green tab" leaders and were subordinate in rank to a "sergeant" of the same pay grade (SSG & SP6). I've often thought over the years that the Army deleted a program that brought added value to the organization by discontinuing these ranks, as not all Soldiers are not going to be good leaders but should have the opportunity to progress based on their occupational expertise.

Should the Army bring these ranks back?

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 16 at 2013 11:31 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:31:27 -0500

You see this a lot in the motor pools. You have guys who really just want and love to turn wrenches, not necessarily be in charge of a bunch of people. I guess it could be a good thing but I don't think it benefits the Army as a whole too much.

You can only be so "technical" and there's probably a bunch of people who can do just as good as you that keep coming in. I mean there's only so many ways to fix a truck. You can either fix it or you can't.

Just my 2 cents.

Response by MSG Phil Herndon made Dec 17 at 2013 9:29 AM

MSG Phil Herndon — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:29:41 -0500

<p>What good is a Soldier that can't lead?  We are going to lose several good Soldiers anyway through drawdown and loss of retention slots.  Some just aren't going to be able to reenlist.  We need multi-talented Soldiers that aren't just good at their job, but can also teach other Soldiers how to do it.</p><p> </p><p>As for the technical side of the house, I agree with the others.  That's what a WO is for.  Long term technical expertise in a specific field in order to prevent knowledge loss.</p>

Response by 1SG Shane Hansen made Feb 22 at 2014 2:54 AM

1SG Shane Hansen — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:54:39 -0500

I would say yes, but only in technical MOSs of course (e.g. aviation, lightwheel mechanics). I don't see any purpose or value in having SP5 or SPC6 in the combat arms realm.

You could recognize the difference by assigning the "Leaders" an ASI or SQI that denotes them as SGT/SSG vs. SP5 or SP6. Sort of like how you can tell the difference between a MSG and 1SGs MOS (SQI "M").

Would take some work to add the ASI or SQI to every MTOE in the army, but is not out of reach of doing. They had to do it when they got rid of the SPEC ranks to begin with, right?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2014 3:09 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:09:48 -0500

I think every time I hear someone bring up SPEC ranks, they tend to mention that the traditional ranks of Sergeant on up should be reserved for combat arms. I ask this: do we really need more distinction for the grunts? Do we really need to further segregate the technical jobs that are more or less indirectly responsible for the success of the Military in general? At best I can see this being a headache to implement, and a sense of nostalgia for those who were around to witness it. If we need to establish that one person of a certain rank has authority over someone of the same rank, this can accomplished by better ways than bringing back a secondary class of rank structure.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 2:32 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:32:04 -0400

I hate the SPC insignia. IMHO, it is also ugly and it is hard to like.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 13 at 2014 7:46 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:46:34 -0400

Maybe I am wrong but it sounds like the SPEC ranks were a subservient rank structure to the NCO ranks. Also, how can the SPEC not be good as leaders as the NCO ranks because how would they even lead their own SPEC ranks?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 8:10 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:10:51 -0400

Yes. Way back when (I was a 1LT back in the early 90s) when I was an assistant Bn S2 we had an Intel Analyst in our section (SPC). He was technically highly proficient and was the SME on a lot of subjects. However, you literally had to tell him to come in out of the rain (seriously). He would would have done well as a SP5 or SP6, but an NCO? Not so much.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 8:19 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:19:33 -0400

If your that technically good at something, they should go warrant or civilian. Overall Army rank should be based on technical and tactical know how. You gotta be able to also pick up a weapon and maneuver your element, not just know your individual craft.

Response by MAJ Sitz Randy made Mar 14 at 2014 12:49 AM

MAJ Sitz Randy — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:49:11 -0400

<p>After 26 1/2 years of service, I have met plenty of folks that were great at their MOS but never figured out how to motivate and lead soldiers. There is a distinct difference in being great at your vocation and being great at leading.  Some can get it done...for them give them the stripes.  For those that can't I am in favor of letting them follow and not lead.  Not sure why we seem to think everyone can be a leader but not everyone can be a pilot, medic, or pick another MOS.  You have to meet certain qualifications and standards...but we promote just about everyone to the rank of Sargent and put them in leadership positions.  When I was in Korea (95-96) as a newly promoted 2LT PA after crossing over from E-7, I witnessed first hand the migration of mindset that all Sargent's should be able to fill leadership roles.  My Section Sargent came from the Hospital Ward and had no flipping clue about leading line medics...none!!  In the words of Jase from Duck Dynasty "it was a disaster."</p><p><br></p><p>Please understand that this is my opinion/2 cents...don't hate!!  LOL</p>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 6:06 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:06:30 -0400

First, let me say that this is a great idea. Being in theater with medical and commo units that did not have the time to train leadership or combat tactics, I have no problem with having Specialists up to Spec 7. I think it is a disservice to the Army to have an "up or out" mentality when not everyone has the mindset or ability to lead under pressure, particularly when that attribute is not necessary in a technical MOS.

But I have to question, I enlisted in 1982 and it was only a year or two latter that the SPC 5-7 went away. How long have you been in Major?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 8:01 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:01:20 -0400

I don't know, None of the other services ever had SPEC ranks. And there was a reason we got rid of them. I say let them stay dead.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Mar 23 at 2014 2:12 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:12:18 -0400

100% agree! I have known many EXCELLENT Soldiers who were great at their MOS duties, but didn't have the desire to lead others. Whether leadership is inherent or learned (it's learned, btw!), they simply didn't want to do it. <div><br></div><div>These people should be kept. Their institutional knowledge is priceless. Forcing them out because "everybody is a leader" is shortsighted. </div>

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 23 at 2014 4:11 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:11:27 -0400

No...the Army needs to develop leaders, not 'specialists'.

If you do not want to be a leader, there are many other options OUTSIDE of the active military where your skills would be useful.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2014 10:19 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:19:44 -0400

They should be brought back, everyone isnt able to lead. Those that are good at what they do technically might not be comfortable on the leadership side and that should be ok.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2014 10:50 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:50:41 -0400

If a Noncommisioned Officer wants to focus on the technical aspects of their job rather than training and leading Troops tell them to fill out a Warrant Officer packet. Thats just my thoughts on the subject.

Response by SGT Drue Rockwell made Mar 24 at 2014 5:10 PM

SGT Drue Rockwell — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:10:49 -0400

I think in some fields having that set of ranks would work....but not in infantry or many other fields. Areas of intelligence where you don't really lead soldiers, but do the job and earn advancement would be good candidates...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2014 5:54 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:54:22 -0400

Why not I already feel like a Private E-8 (PV8) in top heave unit. you have those who want to take charge like myself but get treated like a Private because you are the lowest ranking Solder in your section.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 11:16 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:16:35 -0400

Sir, while I agree with you about the fact that the SPC4-6 ranks were useful, they really don't fit the modular BCT structure of the Army today. With a smaller, better trained force, I agree with everyone having to be a leader. It doesn't matter what MOS you serve in, everyone will find themselves in a leadership role at one point or another. Down range, you could be on a convoy that gets hit, and anyone on the convoy has the potential to need to take charge. We are a leadership based organization, and while I agree with the notion of technical jobs and SPC ranks, I don't think that we will be able to fill those positions in this downsizing Army.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 6:25 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:25:53 -0400

Sir, I think that the case could be made for it. One good example: chalain assistants in a number of national guard units. Basically, unless someone dies, or retires, there is zero chance for them to get promoted because the E5 slots are perpetually filled, so there is nowhere to advance to. They would be prime candidates for such ranks.

On the other hand, outside of specialty positions and MOS's, there is significant potential for advancement, and do we really want to be doing something for the sake of a relative handful? I would say yes, within reason, but I know others might reasonably disagree.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 6:39 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:39:28 -0400

I completely disagree with the SPC ranks.  This creates a divided Army.  If you want to be a technician, then attend WOCS and pin on W1.  Until then, you either cut it as a leader in the NCO ranks or you don't.  For those who don't, or won't, or can't compete with their peers, then maybe separation or a Bar to reenlistment is in order.  The institution we call the Army is drawing down and only those who have exhibited the highest qualities should be allowed the privilege to continue serving.  I agree some are great at their MOS but I also feel we've learned though the last 13 years of war, that everyone has an impact on the war time mission.    

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 9:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:57:21 -0400

I do not think bringing back the Specialist Rank structure is a good idea. The SP5 - 7 was discontinued right at the time I attained SGT. I got out of the Army for a long time and came back in. I would have a really hard time wearing "soft" stripes. In my experience the soldiers in a medical MOS were usually the one who wore them. I am a medic and while I have not gone to war, I have lead troops. We as NCOs need to be able to step up and learn to do what is expected of us in any given situation. Our mentors, the people above us and our peers need to make sure we have the knowledge, expertise and chance to lead. Don't assume we can't, assume we can until it is proven we can't. It is easier for some than others.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 1 at 2014 4:42 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:42:45 -0400

I fail to see the benefit to bringing back the Specialist ranks. In my opinion the Army should phase out the E4 specialist rank as well. I as a specialist was barely treated as being only as good as a PFC. One rank structure of "hard stripes" is all that is needed. This is one man's opinion.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 4:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:41:42 -0400

Sir,
I believe its a good idea. Then maybe I can get an ALC slot!

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Apr 10 at 2014 11:43 PM

1SG Frank Rocha — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:43:32 -0400

This reminds me of how we got ourselves in trouble in Vietnam. A term I
heard analogized to it was "Age of Aquarius", which was attributed to
the hippie generation living without shaving, or bathing, etc. those of
you that experienced that time may recall this. well those people
started coming up with diseases that hadn't been seen since the middle
ages and it was due to the fact that they decided that what they had
come up with was better than what civilized society had been doing.

Lessons
learned through past experiences allow us to develop more effective
methods to approach a given scenario. This happened in Vietnam in which
we went through a similar "Age of Aquarius" and for the sake of brevity I
will leave it at that but suffice it to say we learned a hard lesson in
both circumstances.

We brought in the specialist ranks and then
systematically removed them for good reason. We don't need to second
guess ourselves now and go through another "Age of Aquarius".

In
fact If I had my druthers I would get rid of Specialist E-4 and make E-4
Corporal only. This would allow Soldiers to be introduced to being an
NCO and leader earlier in their career and allow senior leaders to
identify leadership issues earlier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 1:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 01:59:13 -0400

What's the point of having a soldier that is great at his/her MOS if he/she cannot lead soldiers and train them to become as proficient? That just seems like a selfish thing to do, and a bit lazy. I came into the Army wanting to be a leader, not just to become really good at being a 10 level 12B.

Response by 1SG Jeffrey Bergeron made Jun 6 at 2014 11:57 AM

1SG Jeffrey Bergeron — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:57:04 -0400

Yes, the Army should bring back the Specialist Rank. The are some soldiers that have no desire be in a leadership position. This could save the Army some money in the long run as well. Pay them less that SGT, SSG becasue they don't want to lead.

Response by PFC Earl Herman made Jun 6 at 2014 3:50 PM

PFC Earl Herman — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:50:31 -0400

I was in Comms. E-4 and E-5 were "Soft Stripe" as it was explained to me, if you were combat MOS, you were "Hard Stripe" if not, (Comms, clerical) you had the Spec rank. Today, I think it should be the same as it was when I was in. Specialist is just that.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2014 5:47 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:47:45 -0400

I fully support bringing back the Specialist ranks. As for the pay issue, that's an easy fix, pay a Spec5 less than a current SGT but more than a Spec4. Your saving money and still keeping a quality Soldier. Like many others already stated, there are many support MOSs that don't necessarily require an NCO to do a job but you need something to keep good Soldiers from always leaving. Just because someone in technically proficient doesn't mean they will make a great leader.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 18 at 2014 10:40 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:40:30 -0400

While I wholeheartedly agree to the premise that just because a soldier is not necessarily a good leader that he is worthless, in the age of fiscal contraints that we are going into, I don't know if we have the room for soldiers who can't do both (be technical experts AND be good leaders). The SPC5-7 ranks are better suited to a larger force that allows for non-green tabs advancing in rank and paygrade.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jun 18 at 2014 10:45 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:45:33 -0400

If they want to be a subject matter expert then why not go warrant? There job becomes being the subject matter expert and teaching other soldiers how to excel at their job. I think that is a great career path and sadly under utilized. If you want to be a SME and not lead, then you are likely in the wrong profession.

Response by SSG David Hollingshead made Jun 18 at 2014 11:34 PM

SSG David Hollingshead — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:34:02 -0400

No. my job is hard enough, to add the insult of no real authority or "rank" would make my job impossible.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2014 11:41 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:41:41 -0400

I actually recently did a presentation on this very topic in SLC. I don't think that bringing back SPC4-SPC6 would be as effective as everyone likes to think it would be. In my opinion, the Army is already at capacity for Soldiers that do not want to lead, and will gladly stay a Specialist for as long as they can. However, I don't think that our NCO Corps is as technically proficient as what it needs to be. I think this is because there recommendation to attend the promotion board comes mainly from the Soldier's first line supervisor, who very well might not be great at their job either. I support CW3 Dean's idea of including MOS skills testing as part of eligibility to attend the promotion board, or as part of the point system for promotion. With the Army utilizing the Warrant Officer Corps, I think creating MTOE positions for additional "technical experts" is quite unecessary.

Response by 1SG James Wise made Jun 19 at 2014 12:00 AM

1SG James Wise — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:56 -0400

I can see a place for SPC5 and SPC6...but that should be the end of it. This would allow those that cannot or will not lead for whatever reason but are good at their job to retire at 20 years. If someone wants to do more than 20 years, then they have to go the hard stripe path...they have to lead.

I would add that SPC4's would all have to be counseled by career counselors, their leadership, and at least up to the company commander and BN CSM on the path they are taking if they go SPC5...no switching to SGT after a while because they want to make E-7...at this point I agree with everyone that said go Warrant....if retiring as a SPC6 doesn't fit their plans after a while the only choice they should have is to go warrant and be that technical expert. Leadership though as an NCO should not be an option once someone makes that choice to go the SPC path instead of the NCO path.

Response by SGT Jim Perry made Jul 7 at 2014 2:00 AM

SGT Jim Perry — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 02:00:07 -0400

I read all of the interesting comments on this subject and now would like to add my experience. I was a Spc5 when I was discharged in 1966. The Army was at about the 1 million man strength during my time in service 1963-66. Many of the mid to senior NCO's were rifted officers of WWll who were putting in their time for retirement as they would retire at their highest rank. Many were not interested in being great NCO's. I was in HAWK missile CW Radar Maintenance at the Battery level and it was considered combat arms. As many of the NCO's were not interested in a tour of Korea in 1964 we had only one SSgt and four PFC's in my Batttery. As the senior PFC I was made assistant section chief and signed for the radars and test equipment and had a minor change at the end of my MOS number. I still walked guard and worked everyday and was promoted to SPC-4. As a SPC 4 I was pulling SGT of the Guard as none of the NCO's above E-5 ever pulled any of this duty. When I returned to Ft Bliss in Oct 1965 I was again put on the SGT of the Guard roster as a SPC-4 until promoted to E-5 in Dec 1965. My battery commander noted my mos number called for SGT stripes but the orders were for SPC5. I told him I did not intend to re-enlist so it didn't matter to me so he decided to just give me the orders. At the time I was the lowest ranking member of my section which had 27 men , yet I was an acting platoon SGT as no one else wanted to do the job. We were a school battery that only trained operators of the radar system and the equipment was never brought up to full radiate so therefore needed little maintenance.
The Army of 1966 was a bloated, lumbering herd looking for the exit. I trained my fellow PFC's well enough in Korea that we were named the "Best Hawk Battery" in the Pacific in 1965 (A Battery 2nd Missile BN. 71st ARTY, 38th Brigade) and I went on to supervise and manage a major airline station for 35 years before retiring at age 55. I guess I consider my self as a "leader".

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 10:25 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:25:41 -0400

So you mean to tell me I could make as much as I do right now, and NOT have to spend my own personal time visiting Soldiers in the hospital, writing counselings, doing PT Plans, and the myriad of other things leaders are supposed to do? Where do I sign up!!!???

OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN'T BRING THAT BACK.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2014 3:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:24:19 -0400

I think that the Army rank of Spec 4 needs to be retired in favor of corporal, like in the USMC, and like in the Army for most of its existence so far. I don't recall any Spec-4s at the Battles of Gettysburg or Trenton.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 12:51 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:51:10 -0400

As a warrant officer, I take exception to the assertion that we do not lead. We are the SMEs and we manage Army systems and lead the Soldiers who operate those systems.

Warrant officers are commissioned at CW2, and we can command specialized platoons, detachments, companies, and other types of units.

I myself was a Section OIC, and am under consideration for command of a specialized detachment sometime in the mid-term future.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Aug 12 at 2014 4:54 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:54:55 -0400

I think the Specialist jobs, are contracted out now in a lot of places, but also in a diminishing environment, where officers are getting fired, and people are either being forced to re-class, or not allowed to re-enlist, it is vital that we keep people who are not only subject matter experts but also good leaders. I don't think we should waste time and money training someone to do half a job. If you are not a good leader, you shouldn't be an NCO, and if you have technical ability deserving more money, you shouldn't be in the military.

That's just how I feel about it, probably unpopular opinion, but I have a lot of those haha.

Response by SFC Clark Adams made Aug 14 at 2014 1:27 PM

SFC Clark Adams — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:27:31 -0400

The Army Medical Department is a classic example of why these ranks need to be restored. I recall that the Medical platoon of my Rifle Bn was authorized 15 E-5 Company Aidman , 1 E-6 and 4 E-5s in the Aid Station and 1 E-5 along 6 E-4 Ambulance drivers in the evac section with an E-7 as Platoon Sergeant. You can tell just how rank heavy that one platoon could be with NCO's. back in my days the PLT SGT & Evac SGT were the only "hard stripes" the rest including the E-6 were Specialist. When I was assigned to the Intensive Care Unit of a MEDCEN we had 6 SP/6s in the section and one SFC along with a few SP/5s. Yes I was a SP/6!

Response by MSG(P) Michael Warrick made Aug 14 at 2014 11:26 PM

MSG(P) Michael Warrick — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:26:37 -0400

I do not agree that we should bring it back. Soldiers need to work at becoming a NCO who is the technically and tactically proficient.

Response by TSgt Terry Hudson made Aug 15 at 2014 3:11 AM

TSgt Terry Hudson — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 03:11:00 -0400

Let me know if this has already been stated but doesn't that defeat the purpose of warrant officers?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 11:49 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:49:25 -0400

I think if their technical expertise is so valuable they should get there degrees and try to go Warrant Officer. Warrant Officers are the Subject Matter Experts in their fields. Additionally, as LTC Stoneking said, leadership is learned. As a leader in the Army you take on more responsibility, and you should be tactically, and TECHNICALLY proficient. What these Soldiers are doing is hiding from responsibility. That, to me, sounds like the real issue here. In our efforts to continually progress, and push others to progress; are we promoting too soon, and are our evaluations inadequate?

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Aug 15 at 2014 4:59 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:59:03 -0400

Yes, they should or perhaps bring Technicians back since the Army seems to want every one E-5 and above to back a NCO. Specialists ranked between PFC and CPL, at least back in the 1960s when I came in.
Most I dealt with, above SP4, were either cooks, mechanics or medics and their ranking never really came into play for details, as their jobs made them exempt.
As far as their relationship to other ranking folks, it was kind of like WOs. They rank between SGMs and 2LTs, but WO1 & CW2 were treated like company grade and CW3 & CW4 like field grade. SP4-6 were like NCOs and SP7-9 like Senior NCOs. Never laid eyes on an 8 or 9, but saw a lot of SP7s at hospitals.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Aug 16 at 2014 6:23 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:23:05 -0400

Looking back, the SPC ranks SPC5/7...faded into history because the everyday service, duty and pay of a SPC and Hard stripe rank was the same.

SME's were all about perception, as one day a SM is new to the unit, listens and learns the unit's mission then in time becomes the subject matter expert, SME or Go-To person because of tenure, resourcefulness and craft specialty.

SPC ranks were both technically and tactically proficient, and shared leadership responsibilities, in my era of service.

If SPC ranks were to return and fill in the ranks, it would make an interesting cultural change for that branch of service.

Reminds me when the beret was retired, buried, forgotten and then resurrected.

Leaders are change agents, whether they are SPC or hard stripe.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Aug 22 at 2014 12:39 AM

MSG John Wirts — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:39:22 -0400

When I joined the specialist ranks went form E-4 through E-9. There were very few E-7 through E-9. The reason I was told for eliminating the Specialist ranks, was that no one could give a specialist an order that was a violation of his/her specialty. The Story was that a General wanted a specialist do do something out side their specialty, and they refused. So the dismantling of the specialist ranks began. I waver on this issue, if the specialists are given back their duties and are just that Specialists and fall under the NCO ranks, that is below a corporal in the chain of command,because they will not be NCO's, it might be worth exploring. I have lost good men to separation from the service because they were not leadership material, but they were excellent in their MOS. But if we cannot separate leadership from the higher enlisted ranks, I say eliminate the Spc rank entirely and convert all Spc to Cpl. We are the only branch to make this distinction by virtue of the MOS.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 23 at 2014 9:02 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:02:06 -0400

I've had some helicopter mechanics that I wouldn't trust to keep me alive with their tactical prowess, but they could make an aircraft dance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 11:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:56:08 -0400

No, I do not believe it should return. In this current modern age, we need more personnel who are leaders instead of just followers. While everyone isn't meant to be a leader, there are nevertheless many who can be. What I believe should be instituted is the ability for a service-member to stay in as long as they want in whatever rank they desire. This is similar to what the English do where a person can stay in 20 years as a Private.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 7:31 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:31:08 -0400

I like the idea of a SP5 rank. Some people want to do their job - and they're very good at it - so I say let them do it, and reward them with a chance for promotion, even while they continue doing their job, but not leading Soldiers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 11:32 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0400

In my opinion, the army should do away with the Specialist rank completely. Either you are a private , corporal, or you are a Sergeant...you either lead or you follow.

The introduction of additional ranks have caused way too many problems in regards to perfomance of duty. In the Regular Army, soliders can get away with blowing a SPC off, and even if you put a SPC in charge, they really have no authority anyway.

The concept looks good on paper but is non-existent in real life.

At the same time, I hate the "move up or move out" mentality. If someone is doing their job, say a supply PFC, and they do not want to lead, then fine, let them stay in that PFC positiuon, they will know their job and just get better and better over time, which would save the Army a lot of money of not having to promote them.

I am also up for the Tech Sergeants versus Leadership positions...I mean in the Signal Corps, being a Sergeant you never really have any authority anyway, all the SSGs and SFC treat you like a private anyway...I hate Regular Army.

Well I am off my soap box for today, how is everyone doing?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 7:32 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:32:17 -0400

No. Such things encourage a mindset that there are "soldiers" and there are "others". It discourages synergy and unity of effort by keeping people in separate categories with different standards. There should be one standard for being a soldier, one standard for being a leader--and then many opportunities to be both. While not everyone is or should be a leader, some are better than the rest, some better than the best. They should get promotions. There should not be anything wrong with being the best soldier you can be at a certain rank, such as a truck driver. Long ago we had people who were excellent truck drivers who were happy being truck drivers and they were happy to retire as a Staff Sergeant with 20 years. Then the up-or-out mentality made some of them terrible motor pool sergeants. We lost experienced truck drivers.
In my field you had to fight to be a Buck Sergeant rather than a SP5. As a result we didn't get some of the basic leadership experiences a Sergeant needs, such as during guard duty. No, a SP5 could drive the guard truck, but not command a relief. And then you made SSG and didn't know what to do...as SP7 was a legal clerk or a stenographer, and yet they would magically become a Master Sergeant or Sgt Major...sometimes in over their heads when it came to being a Sergeant. Of course, let's not paint everyone with one brush. Some of us sought higher responsibility, and learned the ropes. However, not everyone had the opportunity to be a green tab leader. Our Army cannot afford to shut those doors.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Oct 30 at 2014 11:59 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:59:14 -0400

The Specialist ranks were listed up to grade E-9. I've only seen a 'Spec 6'...In the early 1980s I was in an Airborne Combat Engineer Battalion. Upon making E-4 everyone became a specialist vs. Corporal. Every MOS upon promotion to E-5 became SGT. with the exception of the truck drivers in the platoon. They would become a 'Spec 5'. It was ridiculous because they became a Staff Sergeant when they made E-6. Maybe clerks, cooks, medical and a few other MOSes should be 'Specs'. I think it was 1988 the Army did away with 'Spec 5' and above.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Oct 31 at 2014 12:30 AM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:30:59 -0400

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Oct 31 at 2014 3:02 PM

SSG Genaro Negrete — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:02:05 -0400

Being a leader and a proficient technician are not mutually exclusive. It seems like we are getting technical proficiency confused with technical expertise. Some of the other reply's on this thread hit the nail on the head, Technical Experts are warrant officers.

I firmly believe an NCO can and should be both a qualified leader and technically proficient in their chosen MOS. The business of NCOs is to train soldiers for and lead them in combat. That is were the technical knowledge and experience is required.

With the asymmetric nature of most modern battlefields, any leader may find himself or herself having to take tactical command of their element. Granted the likelihood of this may be slim for some, it's still a situation that needs to be trained for.

Response by MSG David Johnson made Nov 2 at 2014 1:04 PM

MSG David Johnson — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:04:05 -0500

When I joined they still had SPC-7, and they were phasing out SPC-8. The SPC-8 rank would no longer be promoted into but those who were in that rank kept it til retirement, or promotion.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Nov 3 at 2014 12:17 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:17:06 -0500

On the surface, this seems like a good idea. But to me it would raise questions. What about soldiers that advanced to SP6 rank and were then eligible for promotion? With little to no leadership training, they would be thrust into the senior NCO ranks.
If that wasn't the case, you would have people that were technically proficient and worthy of promotion to SP5 and SP6, but no further. It seems to me there would have to be some leadership training along the way to make sure that when the soldier did make the transfer from SP5 or 6 to a leadership role, that soldier would be prepared.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 4 at 2014 5:09 PM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:09:23 -0500

Sir, are you prior service? The last two specialist ranks SP5 & SP6 (besides the current SPC/E-4) were done away with in 1985.

I'm one of the folks that's going to come down on the other side of this issue. I think part of the problem was when someone was SGT or SSG and placed in charge of a SP6 or SP7 respectively, there was a tendency for the higher pay grade SPC to feel as if they weren't outranked by the NCO. I'm sure the same thing still happens between CPL & SPC when assigned together. Personally, I think the last SPC rank should go away and we should train people to lead or move them along in favor of people who will. Shortsighted? Maybe, but it's been working for the Marine Corps for an awful long time.

Edit: Just to add more dates to the timeiline: SP8 & SP9 were phased out in 1968, and SP7 was phased out in 1978

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 6 at 2014 3:03 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:03:42 -0500

I'm surprised these were removed. In my current civilian job they have enacted a new system similar to this for those who are true IT guys to move up and not have to worry about management.

Leadership and management is not for everyone, but you want to keep your experts improving, happy, and well paid.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Nov 6 at 2014 7:18 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:18:43 -0500

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SPECIALIST RATINGS DID THE ARMY HAVE AT ONE TIME...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 8:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:52:37 -0500

I've thought of this on occasion and am all for it. It would be a large incentive which I think would help keep a lot of guys with experience in the military to stay in the service.

Response by SFC Dave Joslin made Nov 8 at 2014 11:43 AM

SFC Dave Joslin — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:43:29 -0500

I completely agree with this. I believe that my MOS (My old MOS, it still hasn't sunk in that I'm retired...after two years) is a great primer for this topic - as medics, you have solders that excel in medicine; earn their Paramedic license, achieve extra training and credentials that make them a more advanced and skilled practitioner, who can function quasi-independantly as a medical provider.....but couldn't lead themselves out of a fight against a Brownie Troop!

I would support a technical pathway of advancement and career map. I think then you would have a focus on retaining the technically proficient skill masters that drive the undertone of getting things done, done right and done proficiently - while still maintaining a leadership pathway and career map to focus on people who can actually lead Troops. It was my experience during my service that not every Medic made a great Leader, and not every Leader made a great Medic! I am sure this is true for many other technical skill sets.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 2:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:25:15 -0500

I'm a SPC now sir and have been told by ncos in my unit that they wish the rank would have stayed because they see soldiers like myself not leaders but know there skills well enough to deserve it I don't know other thoughts but I see one point leaders and big army didn't like paying a SPC a SSG pay

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 5:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:12:25 -0500

I concur with bringing back the Specialist ranks. I have seen many Soldiers that we're outstanding in their field but lacked in leadership. Even though it is instilled in us as Soldiers to always excel in all aspects of being a Soldier, there are those that strive harder to be the best in their MOS. The Army would benefit greatly in keeping this Soldiers to help maintain our proficiency as a fighting force both technically and tactically. Not everyone is meant to be a leader.

Response by CPL Rick Stasny made Nov 9 at 2014 1:00 PM

CPL Rick Stasny — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 13:00:00 -0500

Bring back the rank. Here is why. The Army spent a lot of money to train a tech geek. Some could not lead the way out of the chow hall. In this case keep him employed, because there is a private firm that sells that system to the government, and will pay the non-leader more. So why not sweeten the pot and keep technically skilled soldiers serving. Just my opinion.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Nov 20 at 2014 6:53 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:53:57 -0500

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 21 at 2014 8:37 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:37:25 -0500

It was before my time but it would be well appreciated in the aviation community. My crewchiefs lived to work on their acft and were happy to be left alone to be with their girls.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 10:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:19:09 -0500

Speaking purely from the perspective of a combat medic, this would be amazing. Line medics are always SPC and below (except in very rare and unique circumstances), and once a 68W gets promoted to SGT their days of running around with a platoon are pretty much gone. If the two tracks had been available to me I would have without question taken the SPC5+ track as opposed to SGT so that I could continue to do the job that I loved. I'm immensely proud that I left the Army as a SGT, but it never replaced what I lost when I had to give up being a line medic.

Response by CW4 Kenneth Berninger made Nov 22 at 2014 12:37 PM

CW4 Kenneth Berninger — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:37:47 -0500

Yes, some people can be technically experts but poor Leaders. I made E7 before WOCS, and took a pay cut to be a WO1. If you are broke down in the middle of nowhere I am sure you would appreciate a good Mechanic showing up. Some can be both, and deserve Hard Stripes, some want to fix your Vehicle, no matter what it takes.

This is just my perspective on the matter, don't mean to offend anyone.

CW4 RET

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 9:31 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:31:48 -0500

Yes, it would make sense. Like alot of people have been saying everyone isnt a leader but they may be technically proficient at their jobs. What should happen is they should all be capped at SPC7/E-7 and make less than their counterpart who is a SFC/E7.

Response by CW4 Ray Montano made Nov 27 at 2014 11:11 PM

CW4 Ray Montano — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:11:18 -0500

I strongly disagree. As an enlisted CID agent, I was a SP5. I wanted to be a leader, but could not. In fact, I recall attending BNCOC and being under the supervision of a SGT who had less time in service than me. CID finally rid themselves of the "soft rank," but by then I had gone warrant. To be a soldier is to be a leader. I see no value in a soldier that does not want the opportunity to lead. Once I became a warrant, when I turned a CW2, we became commissioned, allowing me to administer NJP at the company level. This allowed us to hold positions as both technicians and leaders. I served as both the special agent-in-charge, and commander, of two of our company level organizations in Ansbach, Germany, and Fort Jackson, SC. It is possible to do both.

Response by CW3 Robert Busby made Nov 28 at 2014 11:34 AM

CW3 Robert Busby — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:34:42 -0500

When the Army CID was a stove pipe organization it did not matter if we had a specialist rank, we were assistant special agents and got paid well for the times and those ranks confused the heck out of everyone else in the Army. I was a little shocked when I left 42nd MP Gp Customs for my life in the CID and had to turn in my SSG stripes for SP6 curves and eagle, but I got over it. Some fields have specialist, CID has specialist, so yes, bring back the specialist ranks, heck I did not know those ranks were gone. When I was promoted to SFC I wore SFC stripes, but when I had my records updated the Army admin folks insisted I should be wearing SP7 rank and that is how records were anotated. I mentioned SP7 was not even a rank anymore but they said YES IT WAS. We wore civilian clothes except for offical pictures and such, so it did not impact me much...Smiles

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Dec 5 at 2014 5:45 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:45:45 -0500

I agree, the military should definitely be bring back the Specialists ranks. Not every Soldier is leadership material

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 10:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:58:50 -0500

I have to say, this idea has some merit. Back in the day when my dad was a SP7, there was a way to award technical skill with a higher paygrade, without giving them the responsibility inherent in an NCOs "hard stripes". Often, technical jobs don't lend themselves well towards developing leader skills. I think anyone can lead, with proper development, but many don't get that chance because they always work in a shop environment.
I myself had more Soldiers as a Corporal than I did as a SFC. It made me have to work a lot harder when I got a Detachment and had to build a team. Previously, I only had to train a replacement. Now I had to figure out how to blend a team.
Every NCO has to learn this at some point, but for me it happened a lot later in my career because I spent so much of my career in S- shops. I probably should have been a SP6 instead of a SSG.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Jan 8 at 2015 10:59 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:59:02 -0500

Good observations. What I think is that instead of redoing our rank structure, just strengthen the existing one. When we were deployed to two fronts, it was difficult to fill some slots at that time and some may have gotten promoted that maybe shouldn't have.

As we start to regroup and shrink our forces, I believe that we should be taking the time to mentor NCOs, officers, and make sure they exhibit the culture and traits that our military needs.

Response by SGT Philip Popa made Feb 25 at 2015 12:09 PM

SGT Philip Popa — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:09:22 -0500

I also remember the Specialist ranks. Some soldiers do not make good leaders and some who are leaders shouldn't be leading at all. The problem I seen was NCOs that were leading but knew next to nothing about their job. How can a person lead if he doesn't know what or why he is doing it? I think it would be a good idea to bring the Specialist rank back. Proficiency is sometimes better than telling someone else to do it.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Feb 25 at 2015 12:21 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:21:46 -0500

I know that there are two completely different groups here. I will have to join the "NO" group. As a matter of fact, I think Sp4 should be done away with in favor of CPL.

As most of you know, I have time in the Marines and the Army. One of the concepts I really liked about the Marines was that every Marine was a rifleman. It is one of the things the Army use to share. As in the movie "Battle of the Bulge", the General tells the cook he was now a rifleman. We need to be able to rely on every member to perform at a competent level as a ground pounder. But as in the Corps, you can separate the senior technicals from the leadership. Instead of going 1SG, you would be a MSG. Instead of SGM they could be a SMS (Senior Master Sergeant). They would still be leaders, but at the section level and not at the command level. Don't turn the Army into a corporation operation like the Air Force has done. It does not fit the mission of the Army. The Air Force can get away with it due to its structure, but the Army cannot. The same should apply to WOs. They should be sufficiently trained to take over combat leadership roles as a platoon leader if it became necessary. The Marines have a special name for those WOs. They are called Gunner. Why couldn't the Army do the same? It would only reinforce the Army's ability to fill slots in a combat situation with all available personnel.

Just my opinion.

Response by SSG James Wilcox made Feb 25 at 2015 12:22 PM

SSG James Wilcox — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:22:36 -0500

If you look back that is basically what the warrant officer corp is now. In my opinion.

Response by SGT Patrick Jackson made Feb 25 at 2015 12:22 PM

SGT Patrick Jackson — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:22:39 -0500

YES YES YES... as my dad always told me "Some times a truck driver just wants to be a truck driver." I was initially promoted as a SP5, then it was eliminated. This dded a lot of pressure to my life even though I was doing the same job as a non-troop pushing soldier. I believe this stress is un needed because we all know many people are not cut out to lead. Bring the Specialist ranks back!

Response by MSgt Jim Pollock made Feb 25 at 2015 12:36 PM

MSgt Jim Pollock — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:36:18 -0500

The answer is fairly easy if you look to history.

Number one premise: The military values leadership above all other traits. You may disagree rationally, but the fact remains, leadership is held in highest esteem within military culture. This will never change.

Technical tracks occur during times of military buildup. During WWII, there were technical sergeants that had no authority over subordinates. They disappeared after the war.

We are in a drawdown period and personnel are a limited resource. That resource will be utilized to satisfy the greatest perceived need--leaders. There are no surplus personnel to be technicians. Like it or not, if you wish to be in the military today, you'll have to lead because that is what is valued.

Perhaps someday the military will be large again, and be able to afford keeping non-leaders on the books. In that event, the specialist track should return.

Frankly, I don't see it happening.

Response by SGT Kelly Ward made Feb 25 at 2015 12:57 PM

SGT Kelly Ward — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:57:27 -0500

I think the current enlisted promotion systems needs a major overhaul. During my time in, I was witness to many "promotion boards". These boards seem to lack an element to technical knowledge in lieu of general Army knowledge. A supply specialist for example, that could not recite a regulation from the 190-11, but could recite the Soldiers creed to a T might be promoted ahead of other technical experts in their field. While I have no time in the Army active duty side (Active duty Marine), the National Guard side needs to re-think the promotion and boarding system. Furthermore, many of these boards consisted of book-smart, but often lazy soldiers. I myself was happy where I was, I would have loved a specialist rank and title as I spent most of my time leading small groups focusing on technical expertise rather than general Army Knowledge.

My favorite example:
Question asked during a board "What is the maximum range of the M2HB?"
Book answer: ~who cares~
Technical answer: Wherever the bullet lands, and depending on what it goes through first.

The book can give you a number, only expertise can tell you the truth.

Response by SPC James Pfost, Jr. made Feb 25 at 2015 12:58 PM

SPC James Pfost, Jr. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:58:37 -0500

I think they should. While I was in it was just after they got rid of all of them except for SP4. I was a SP4 for a long time because I didn't want the promotion with the leadership, I just wanted to do my job & do it well without the hassles of being in a leadership position.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:10:48 -0500

Seems like a touchy subject, but I believe in some way they could be brought back. Personally with CPLs disappearing in which my Section should have (1 E7, 2-E6, No E5s, 10-12 E1 to E4s) it would help both retention and quality control.

Some MOSs can benefit by paying Soldiers more to stay in their career field (ones that have no upward ability). Some of these jobs in the civilian side pay a quite a difference and we may loose very qualified Soldiers. Should they want to be promoted eventually they should be afforded the opportunity.

I am also for written and practical exams for promotion. This way you can ensure those that know their duty are moving forward and have the ability to train/mentor/lead Soldiers. This can also be accomplished by stopping promotions of Soldiers before they have attended WLC. Deployed, you have 6 months to go to School once you return or you lose the rank.

Response by SGT James Hunsinger made Feb 25 at 2015 1:17 PM

SGT James Hunsinger — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:17:27 -0500

I served from 1988 to 2001 in the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps in electronic warfare. In that time I lost several highly skilled analysts because they only wanted to do their jobs that they were good at and not be "leaders".

Not every soldier is meant or wants to be a leader but still should be able to earn more rank and pay for their prowess at their given MOS. The current system breeds discontentment and also breeds much incompetence in the leadership. A soldier that loves his job and is great at it, under the current system, is forced into leadership positions if they wish to continue being a soldier. Again, a soldier who might be a great SIGINT Analyst might not be cut out to be a leader. So he/she is forced into the leadership position or they leave the service. In one hand we gain a leader that either does not like to lead in which case we have someone who will more than likely not put as much effort into leading at best or might simply end up being a piss poor leader. Otherwise they leave the service and the Army looses a very MOS competent soldier that not only performs their job brilliantly but might also later impart their knowledge, skill and experience to younger generations of soldiers by instructing or mentoring.

Bringing the specialist ranks back, especially in today's technologically advanced military I feel could only benefit the Army in retaining those specialists in their job and allowing them a career progression rather than forcing them into a position that could cost the Army those same great specialists in their field and/or create poor leaders.

I do not believe leaders are created or born. I think it is a balanced mixture of the two. Yes, you can teach someone to be a leader. It does not mean that they will enjoy it or want to do it. Human nature shows that that person will never reach their full potential as a leader because their heart simply isn't in it.

Response by CSM Denny Shoopman Sr. made Feb 25 at 2015 1:20 PM

CSM Denny Shoopman Sr. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:20:25 -0500

Yes! Do away with the Specialist rank, all solders should be leaders. I was a SP-4, SP-5 & SP-6, Treated the same as the NCO rank. Then I was a SFC.

Response by CPL David Markham made Feb 25 at 2015 1:44 PM

CPL David Markham — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:44:37 -0500

Never thought much about this when I was in VN (66-67) but thinking on it now, being Infantry I would have much preferred the stripes than specialist designations.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:49:02 -0500

I have the opposite view. Do away with the SPC rank at E-4, make Corporal a real NCO in the Army and don't promote to CPL until they are ready.

Response by SGT Craig Johnston made Feb 25 at 2015 1:50 PM

SGT Craig Johnston — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:50:42 -0500

The chain of command, this is everything in the Army, in the military. If the highest ranking NCO is killed in combat, the next highest assumes his or her responsibilities and leads the remaining soldiers. If this NCO is killed and there are no other NCO's, the highest ranking still assumes this responsibility, if they are a corporal, PFC, etc. This is how we are trained, this is how we continue with the mission at hand. Everyone must train to eventually be a leader. No, in my opinion, the Army is no place, has no place for someone who does not wish to be a leader, or look forward to being a leader. Again, my opinion...

Response by SP5 Richard Maze made Feb 25 at 2015 1:52 PM

SP5 Richard Maze — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:52:52 -0500

I'd be happy if they just brought the specialist five rank to RallyPoint. I was a Spec. 5, not a sergeant.

Response by CSM Tee Oden made Feb 25 at 2015 1:53 PM

CSM Tee Oden — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:53:57 -0500

Yes, they should bring it back but, with modifications to fit today's military needs. No one with equal rank/TIS/TIG should be subordinate or treated less than someone of equal qualifications. All leaders are developed and as we all know, everyone doesn't meet the standards of a leader.

Response by CPL William Valenti made Feb 25 at 2015 2:06 PM

CPL William Valenti — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:06:39 -0500

I was a Spec 4 (Chinese linguist/translator) in the early 1970's, and noted that the "Specialist" rank was not even offered as a selection when I registered for RallyPoint. So I am incorrectly identified as "Corporal". Not losing any sleep over this (or maybe I just couldn't find the check box for this?)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:17:27 -0500

Heck yea!!!

Those good at their MOS, but are not cut out as a leader, stay in their MOS. Think of the SPC pac-clerk. Really good at doing the paperwork. Effective writer, never loses a DA31. So one would think, send them to the board. They board well. They get promoted, then they Get moved to a different Battalion within the Brigade. Now they have additional responsibilities as a Noncommissioned Officer. As an NCO the spotlight on them is refocused, not as a stellar Pac Clerk. But as a bad NCO.

I've been doing this for 20+ years (active and reserve), Ive served under former SP5, SP6, SP7. They all said getting rid of the Specialist system was bad then. Sure, in the Army everyone can be a leader, but not everyone should be a leader.

Response by SSG Brett Jones made Feb 25 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSG Brett Jones — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:17:54 -0500

I wasn't aware they had done away with it! I retired in 2007 and I am amazed at the changes that I am hearing have taken place since then! I even heard that soldiers are paying for their meals! Please tell me that's not true! And if it is, when did that start?

Response by SPC Tanya Glover made Feb 25 at 2015 2:20 PM

SPC Tanya Glover — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:20:20 -0500

Yes they should...

Response by SPC Tito Castillo made Feb 25 at 2015 2:23 PM

SPC Tito Castillo — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:23:52 -0500

Do away with it. I often saw specialists taking on role of leaders within their MOS. It's not needed. bring back the corporal, sgt, ssgt... etc.... we are all soldiers first. some are moved from their MOS to perform whatever duties are needed by their unit. there should be no differentiation between a specialist E-4 or a Corporal E-4 or SE-5, and so forth and Sgt E-5 and so forth.

Response by MSG James S. made Feb 25 at 2015 2:27 PM

MSG James S. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:27:53 -0500

Not all soldiers are born leaders, instead they are technicians. Specialists/WO are a special breed of people that are "experts" within the field of expertise, once done away with the "Specialists" were required to ruck up and fill NCO positions and were rated as NCO's where in fact they are specialists in the field and should be given that position.

Bring back Specialists - once at the 7 level they should go to a WO position.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 2:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:34:08 -0500

I believe it should be brought back. As for "glorifying the grunts" as someone put it, I look at it this way. You learned a technical skill that makes you a specialist in that field. Many of those fields translate to something in the civilian world. My specialty as combat arms is leadership. That's all I have that relates to any othe job, short of police work. The fact that some think it'll lead to a divided Army... Guess what? It already exists. There are many combat arms NCOS that think less of non-combat NCOS, and vice versa. Bringing back a ranking system to show how much of a specialist in your job is a good thing.

Response by SPC Arnab Das made Feb 25 at 2015 2:37 PM

SPC Arnab Das — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:37:02 -0500

I don't understand the hostility to it. How different is this from a MSG and 1SG?

Response by SFC Bradley Wortinger made Feb 25 at 2015 2:41 PM

SFC Bradley Wortinger — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:41:16 -0500

Nö way, was still around when I came in and all I saw was Problems with it.

Response by SSG Jay Flores made Feb 25 at 2015 2:50 PM

SSG Jay Flores — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:50:08 -0500

Yes, it should be brought back. When the switch was made I was a platoon Sergeant in Berlin, Germany and it served no purpose whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it created hostil environments among some enlisted members when their "rank" went to their head when the former Specialist now tried to "pull rank" on the Specialist. . There are certain MOS's where the Specialist is that, a Specialist and a NCO an NCO. However, that is not say that every junior NCO has the knowledge or ability to perform the leadership duties of the Noncommissioned Officer. As newly appointed junior NCO's they were given the responsibility as such and could not control a squad, assume authority, call cadence, etc. nor have the knowledge to solve minor problems within the Platoon. Some were eager to learn while others would have rather kept their status as Specialist; ad that is what they were Specialists in their field. Many were picked on and given additional duties as NCO's and could not perform due to their knowledge of subjects. Many perferred the new insignia and corporal stripes but that was all they cared about. It became a problem is Junior Commissioned Officer vs Specialist. Yes, Yes, Yes, it should be brought back, or create a new academy for the newly appointed Sergeants.

Response by SPC Marcelino Gomez made Feb 25 at 2015 2:52 PM

SPC Marcelino Gomez — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:52:24 -0500

Yes they should.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 3:12 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:12:35 -0500

Totally agree. There are soldiers who are absolutely outstanding at their jobs but are not leaders of men. They have no desire for responsibility nor do they possess leadership qualities and abilities. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nor anything to be ashamed of, it's just how people are. Some have the personality. Some do not. Bring them back. SPC 5-7. And you shouldn't be allowed to be a CSM, 1SG or higher if you came up the SPC ranks

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 3:16 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:27 -0500

If we need enlisted ranks of this nature then the same can be said for officers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Response by SSG Arthur Williams made Feb 25 at 2015 3:20 PM

SSG Arthur Williams — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:20:15 -0500

Only in certain MOS'S, not all jobs require specialist rank, The two MOS'S that I had you could got Sp 5 in one the would require an NCO

Response by SFC Jay Needham made Feb 25 at 2015 3:23 PM

SFC Jay Needham — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:23:48 -0500

Yes bring it back, When I was a corporal as an NCO I out ranked a Specialist 6 there are certain MOS that they don't need to be NCO;s to progress and eating up the slots at BNOC/PLDC and PNOC the bulk of the slots for those schools should be reserved for combat arms.. MOS's

Response by SSG John Bacon made Feb 25 at 2015 4:09 PM

SSG John Bacon — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:09:03 -0500

Yes, There are plenty of Soldiers out there who have no leadership ability but who are outstanding performers. Or bring back the Technical sergeant same situation there.

Response by SPC Nathaniel Singleton made Feb 25 at 2015 4:17 PM

SPC Nathaniel Singleton — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:17:05 -0500

Yes, I do agree that should bring back the E-4 rank.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Feb 25 at 2015 4:31 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:31:21 -0500

We do not need WE in the enlisted ranks, Soldier up or move on. We have WO and I do not think they are needed in the Army ranks either. A good E-7 or E-8 or a CPT. is all the Expertise and Power we need. A soldier not eligible for leadership does not need a career in an organization that is built on a chain of command. MSG and 1SG designate a Job title not a persons ability or desire to lead.

Response by SPC Keelan Southerland made Feb 25 at 2015 5:13 PM

SPC Keelan Southerland — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:13:05 -0500

I agree the Specialist Rank should be brought back. There are so many people within the military who should not be an NCO or any form of leadership. If the rank were to be brought back you would have many more people who were proficient in their job, but were not ready for a leadership role or did not want one in some cases. This would get the turds out of the COC and the dead weight would be gone. I hate to break this to some people, but not all positions within the Army need an NCO. To illustrate this point; think about the enterprising Specialists (E4 Mafia) who got what you could not during a combat deployment.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 5:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:14:10 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member - I think it has its usefulness. It may help keep some that are technically proficient into positions, and could serve an added benefit of preventing those Soldiers from being placed into areas of leadership that they are otherwise unprepared for.

From the medical standpoint, it is often very confusing for some of our troops to understand the chain of command. We almost never have a PFC or PV2 unless they are a dirtbag that got knocked down a rank or two, and likewise, Soldiers are getting promoted to E-5 to fill the slots, but they are still inexperienced in leadership roles. Use of the SPC5/SPC6 could help to provide a clearer chain of command with the SGT/SSGs being placed into the leadership roles and the Tech 5/Tech 6/etc being clearly established as being a subordinate rank.

While I fully agree that we should all be able to lead, the realities of a medical unit is that it's dropping people into a funnel. There's a definite chokepoint, but it is often a challenge to ensure that every Soldier gets an opportunity to lead when we are so rank heavy in medical units.

I rather wish that they'd do the same for the officer's side of the house as well, as we have people that are joining us as MAJ/LTCs because of their civilian experiences and expertise, but they still have virtually no concept of leadership in a military capacity. I know that won't happen either, but it doesn't mean a man can't dream!!
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by SGT John Galbraith made Feb 25 at 2015 5:17 PM

SGT John Galbraith — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:17:37 -0500

Perhaps what really needs to happen is technical testing to make rank. Everyone wants to make that E-5 SGT but it seems they should have more responsibility than doing PT and writing counseling statements. In today's Army, all you need to be successful is pass your PT test, pass height and weight, get in with the cool crowd (show up, shave, and have a positive attitude), rack up points by cheating on correspondence courses, and memorize useless knowledge to get you through the promotion boards. You can have a basic understanding of your job, if that and be just fine. These people get the promotion and depend on the guys that want to know the job and arent interested in the promotion or are flagged and are stuck at Specialist for 10 years. The next problem is that when they finally do make that E5, they think it is hands off the job and start losing the MOS knowledge. So, the real question here is, do you bring back the SP5-7 ranks back or do you start holding NCOs responsible for being experts in their MOS and keeping current? Fortunately, this is not the case 100% of the time and there are some great NCOs out there that know their jobs. There are entirely too many that don't though. I say test the NCOs and retrain if needed.

Response by SGM Lee Baleme made Feb 25 at 2015 5:48 PM

SGM Lee Baleme — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:48:34 -0500

Concur!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 6:05 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:05:19 -0500

I abosolutely agree. This was a great position. Some are not meant to be leaders but are great at their job. I have met veterans that served in these position and they did very well. Institutional knowledge has value!

Response by SGT Nolan Stubbs made Feb 25 at 2015 6:35 PM

SGT Nolan Stubbs — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:35:21 -0500

I would have loved to be able to move up faster. I stayed at Spc for a long time just because of the point system. In my MOS the points would stay maximum for a long time. I got my first squad as a PFC. when the points finally dropped so that I made SGT. i was working in a position two pay grades above my rank.

Response by SGT John Howard made Feb 25 at 2015 7:10 PM

SGT John Howard — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:10:38 -0500

If my fading memory I remember that some members of the U.S. Army Band at Fort Myer, VA, had three stripes up and three down with the Specialist patch in the middle. In '67 all members of the Army Band started at the SP5 rank. I've always wondered if there ever was a Specialist One rank?

Response by SFC James Holtsclaw made Feb 25 at 2015 7:13 PM

SFC James Holtsclaw — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:13:27 -0500

Yes I thank they should bring back the Specialist Rank. I new a lot of Troops that were great in the MOS they were in but were not troop leaders. they should have the opportunity for advancement for pay. I new Sp6s and 7s who were great at there jobs but could not march a troop in a straight line nor did the want the jobs of an NCO.

Response by SPC Thomas Lema made Feb 25 at 2015 7:25 PM

SPC Thomas Lema — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:25:06 -0500

kinda wished they kept the spc levels at least till e5 because i was kept at E4 until someone retired or died'

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:23 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:23:24 -0500

Yes, definitely. The rank of SP4 is an important rank. A SP4 can show leadership to a PVT. 1, PVT 2, and PVT 3 ranks. It can also help in becoming an NCO starting with Sargents E-5. I don't understand the military. Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Feb 25 at 2015 9:24 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:24:46 -0500

Who wants to be call a chicken SGT. That what spec 5-7 were called. They had no problem letting you know they were a grade higher, my experience.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:35:52 -0500

SP4's often took over leadership roles in Vietnam when there was nobody else because they were wounded or dead. SP-4's were in the infantry and in the bush. Often they had to do an NCO's job and got a field promotion to SGT E-5. That's exactly how I made SGT E-5. I was up next as soon as someone went home or died. I replaced a SGT killed in a Huey on an air assault. It was a strange feeling being in charge of guys I served with in combat. They gave me a hard time at first, but then respected my promotion. I was still a door gunner and my crew chief was a SP-4. Nobody tried to outrank anybody in the crew. We respected our pilots and they respected us. You might say we were their lifeline.

Response by SFC Royce Williams made Feb 25 at 2015 9:49 PM

SFC Royce Williams — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:49:09 -0500

I don't think it would be a bad idea. Especialy in the more technical mos's

Response by SSG Ricardo Avila made Feb 25 at 2015 10:22 PM

SSG Ricardo Avila — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:22:20 -0500

Funny question, As I think college does not in itself make a leader. I Feel the Officer ranks of the military is based largely on a military of days gone, when the average citizen had little to no education. I think as one reaches E-7 P, one should then apply or be selected to become an Officer.

As to the Specialist rank, I have never heard of it....I do remember reading about a technical rank....the picture in the literature showed an Army SSG in his greens, his rank had a letter T in between the chevrons. I think a rank of specialist or technical Sergeants would work in areas like CIF's or ASP's since those areas are usually run by civilians.....usually civilians that are ornery as fuck and tend to mouth off and disrespect Soldiers on a daily basis.

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Feb 25 at 2015 11:12 PM

SFC Walt Littleton — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 23:12:57 -0500

No need for specialist. I was assigned to the 101st AB as a Spc5 and I think I was the only one on post except for the hospital. My first day at my unit my 1Sgt gave me Sgt stripes and told me congratulations Sarge you are in the Army now. I had more time in grade than most SFC's. I hated being a specialist. One Army as I see it. When I was going through the reception at Ft Campbell I treated like a private. They didn't know what to do with me. I was proud of those Sgt stripes and green leadership tabs on my class "A".

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 12:05 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:05:25 -0500

Maybe not bring back the SP5-7 ranks but get rid of the boards. just try things the way that the air force and navy do with having test for promotions on your mos specific skills and general army knowledge. Boards don't always show who the best soldiers are to lead. Implement bi yearly test for your specific MOS if your gonna do a job why not get tested every once in while.

Response by SPC Alex Shiflett made Feb 26 at 2015 12:43 AM

SPC Alex Shiflett — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:43:19 -0500

Specialists are the best medics. I knew more NCOs that were shit medics. A lot more. Admin and Medical skills do not go hand in hand. I knew many, many medics that protected their SPC rank because as soon as you got promoted you no long got to touch patients. A fear of skill degradation. As combat medics the SPC ranks should go all the way to E-9 with a red cross in the middle.

Response by SPC Alex Shiflett made Feb 26 at 2015 12:45 AM

SPC Alex Shiflett — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:45:47 -0500

And FYI anyone who says specialists aren't leaders is a fool, and either didn't spend anytime as one or was in a crap MOS and got promoted faster than needed.

Response by SSG Brian MacBain made Feb 26 at 2015 1:49 AM

SSG Brian MacBain — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:49:13 -0500

I guess I will be the odd ball here. I disagree. Do not bring back those ranks, SP5-7. Even though they might be "job smart" they also will have to be a leader. If they cannot lead, do not promote them. Also, within the ranks (and that is all ranks) to those that are SP5-7 will not be taken seriously and look down upon. If they cannot be a good leader, but is MOS job smart, those would be good candidates for Warrant Officer. This is not a hit on WO's but look at this way. WOs are the expert in their field. They do not have to "punch that ticket" for CO CDR, BN CDR, BDE CDR, you get the drift. They come to work and go home. So, I would have to disagree of bring back the SP5-7. I honestly think that the Army should get rid of SPC rank.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Frusha made Feb 26 at 2015 3:00 AM

SPC Jeffrey Frusha — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:00:54 -0500

I got stuck as a Spec 4, where there was no up, or lateral promotion room. I think the very idea is appalling. It's an excuse to give someone a feel-good promotion without equal authority. If a person warrants a bump in grade, then they should be given the same respect and authority as the pay-grade, not left to rot in some dead-end because they were good enough to get the pay, just not good enough for the rank. It's a way to dodge giving earned stripes, when there are too many local hard-stripes. If there's no room for promotion, move them somewhere that there is, AFTER you promote them, so they can get there with their new-shiny, instead of having to move, then being in rank too long, so no promotion, no extension, no re-up.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Frusha made Feb 26 at 2015 3:17 AM

SPC Jeffrey Frusha — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:17:16 -0500

It's wrong. It creates a 4th class section, worth less to the system You have Warrant Officers that seem to answer to their coffee mug and beer-call, Enlisted that already work, and Officers above both. Specialists end up on a dead-end siding, when it would be better to just not let them re-up, bump them as you hand over their last award, so they can go home with a stripe they earned, but the Army couldn't pay for.

Response by SGM Debra Bradshaw made Feb 26 at 2015 3:40 AM

SGM Debra Bradshaw — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:40:51 -0500

I agree. Not all Soldiers make good leaders but we have members with many skills that should be put to good use. Promotions are good for morale and studies show morale is imperative to get the best results. It goes hand-in-hand with needing to do away with mandatory retirement at age 60. These are well seasoned personnel with invaluable talent.

Response by SPC Eugene Rife made Feb 26 at 2015 5:47 AM

SPC Eugene Rife — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:47:21 -0500

I didn't reali they had removed the rank. I've been out since 2002, but thought it was still a rank, that stinks!

Response by Sgt Matthew O'Donnell made Feb 26 at 2015 7:51 AM

Sgt Matthew O'Donnell — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:51:21 -0500

I was never a Specialist, I made it to Sergeant in the Marines. But when I reenlisted for the Army, my rank transferred over. But giving someone the ability to avoid making hard decisions in a leadership position is a bad move. What happens to these soldiers that make it past the senior Specialist rank? Do they become automatic leaders?

This is true that not all soldiers are good leaders, but that is the chains weakest link. It's not all that soldiers fault, his leadership failed to give him the tools to lead.

Response by SPC Matthew Morris made Feb 26 at 2015 9:50 AM

SPC Matthew Morris — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:50:22 -0500

Bringing back the other Specialist ranks would be an important tool to maximize efficient time use of NCOs. I don't feel that junior NCOs are best served working in the training room, on CQ or staff duty, or in S-Shops (Specialist, to me, does not mean a lack of leadership capability, but rather a lack of MTOE slots. "Not a leader" does not mean "irresponsible".) Furthermore, far too many quality NCO candidates are not promoted because "needs of the Army" is a reenlistment option instead of a requirement for promotion. Use the Air Force as an example: Promote the most qualified candidates Army wide, and only the best candidates stay in their MOS. Enlistedmen are supposed to be branch immaterial anyway.

Response by SFC Joseph Vovchik made Feb 26 at 2015 9:51 AM

SFC Joseph Vovchik — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:51:47 -0500

I first joined the army in 1979 and just retired in Jan 2015, so I have seen the senior specialist rank go also. From an NCO stand point when they should have done away with specialist all together and put corporal on all TO&E''s. During the times when there were senior specialist's with hard stripe NCO's the Army also had different leadership courses also, I.E. PNCOC/CA, which all Combat Arm's soldier's went to and the Non-Combat Arm's went to PLC. Today the Army has all soldier's going to the same leadership training across the board. Instead of bringing back senior specialist's the Army should focus on bringing back annual Skill Qualification Test's to validate that the NCO's being promoted are proficient in their Skills, instead of Promotion Boards making decisions on Civilian Education, (tweeted) NCOER's and Awards. That way the Army can see what the soldiers actually know about their jobs also, instead of relying on what is being written about them by other soldier's and the awards they are written up for.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 10:04 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:04:30 -0500

I totally agree. We have SGT and SSG that are technically proficient but not capable of leading. Give them the opportunity to be recognized based on their expertise.

Response by SPC Neil Hood made Feb 26 at 2015 10:27 AM

SPC Neil Hood — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:27:02 -0500

They should bring it back to SPC6 in my opinion.

Response by SPC Jeremy Morgan made Feb 26 at 2015 11:04 AM

SPC Jeremy Morgan — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:04:16 -0500

Is the Spc5 and up considered NCO's ? I know Spc4 is not but corporal is. I also know you have to be combat arms to make corporal.

Response by CW2 Eric Scott made Feb 26 at 2015 11:16 AM

CW2 Eric Scott — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:16:04 -0500

YES please bring back the SP5-7 ranks. Too many NCOs, who while making TIG/TIS requirements, are not ready to be in leadership roles. Leaders being held hostage to promote someone based on the achievement of time should be able to have options to keep subordinate leaders open to leadership potential personnel.

Response by SFC Edwin Watson made Feb 26 at 2015 12:50 PM

SFC Edwin Watson — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:50:37 -0500

Some of the problem is that too many NCO's have re-classed into an MOS in which they have no military or civilian related background in that job area, and they fall way short on the technical expertise needed to do that job. If you have a legal aid that makes E5 and re-classes to be a mechanic to make Staff Sergeant, then gets deployed and a Private comes to him with a technical question, all he can give him is dumb looks. I saw too many Motor Sergeants who couldn't even do a good job of changing their own oil in charge of a hundred vehicles maintenance. Maybe add one or two more SPC ranks, but I can't see going beyond SPC 6 if the Army does bring back more Specialist ranks. There is value to both sides of the argument: 1. A Soldier is a rifleman first, his MOS second. 2. We need Soldiers who have technical expertise and capability to sustain the force, but some of those Soldiers may not have the capability or desire like others to lead. The system often forces Soldiers to spend more time taking care of their career and less time improving their technical skills.

Response by SGT David Lewis made Feb 26 at 2015 1:21 PM

SGT David Lewis — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:21:16 -0500

After my last deployment I was diagnosed with a life-threatening medical condition that gave me a permanent P3 profile and a forced medical board. Against all expectations, I was found fit for duty. This was 2009.

For years afterward, I was always at the top of the order of merit in my unit, and despite being commandant's list at NCOA, I was still never recommended for promotion. It was demoralizing that I was being denied access to pay and respect based on my experience and qualifications. I would have gladly accepted an advanced specialist rank in lieu of a leadership role.

Eventually I was assigned to a WTB and discharged medically. This entitled me to a promotion on my last day in service, so at least my DD214 has some respect for me.

Another recommendation I have is to stop thinking of an NCO as leader alone, but also a technical expert. From my experience, they are generally either/or, with some exceptions. SGTs should be considered working supervisors and work right along with the privates, while SSGs are the leaders, because they have to manage the most junior of these. I have seen so many of both of these ranks that are obese and lazy.

The other services have tests that measure technical skill prior to promotion and I think the Army needs to take a page out of that book.

Response by CPL Richard Anderson made Feb 26 at 2015 1:26 PM

CPL Richard Anderson — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:26:31 -0500

I think this is a great idea for those who aren't first line leaders, but they have the knowledge, experience, and years of service to warrant these kind of grade increases.

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Feb 26 at 2015 1:32 PM

SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:32:07 -0500

I enlisted when the Specialist grades were slowly on the way out. I do not mind if the Specialist grades came back, but what are you going to do when you have medics and clerks assigned to combat companies and battalions?

By virtue of authority, a corporal out ranks a Specialist 6. There must be a breaking point some where. Working with TO&E units, everyone needs to be wearing stripes; not Specialist ranks. I would accept schools and TDA units, but not TO&E units.

Continuous lateral transfers add confusion to the individual soldier. One day they are an NCO, the next day they are a Specialist. I do understand that some individuals prefer not to lead and are happy to become that expert in their MOS. We should all understand that each individual must become an expert in their MOS.

What about comeraderie? Does a Specialist 6 get to go to the NCO Club? Or, are they relegated to the EM Club, or are they left out? What about the Enlisted command structure? Do you put a Specialist 9 in charge of a hospital, or school? There are a lot of things to think about when bringing the Specialist grades back.

In my opinion, when the Specialist grades phased out, all of them needed to be phased out. That means no more Specialist 4. Most of the time they are over paid privates doing a sergeants' job. And, some of these people actually do a better job than the sergeant.

What I am bringing to this conversation is: be aware that this could have implications and could very well backfire. NCOs who were NCOs, now a Specialist have lost that authority and would be embarassing to take orders from a Corporal when they used to give orders to Staff Sergeants. Food for thought.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 26 at 2015 1:41 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:41:33 -0500

One of the biggest mistakes the Army did when it took the SPC ranks away. NOT ALL SOLDIERS ARE LEADERS. No matter how much the Army wants to think every soldier needs a hard stripe, not all are leaders. Everyone of us has seen those with stripes who are not leaders, but know their jobs. The SPC ranks enabled these soldiers to progress up the ladder and yet not have the responsibility they can't handle.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Feb 26 at 2015 3:18 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:18:43 -0500

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. The "specialist" rank has been tried and abandoned at least 2 times. In WW2 era there were T sergeants, in the post WW2 era there were specialist. Each time the Army decided the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. Doing it again would only be... repeating what does not work... which is the definition of insanity.

Response by SGT David Emme made Feb 26 at 2015 3:24 PM

SGT David Emme — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:24:40 -0500

I would disagree with this. Maybe it is just me but it just seemed like I fell in with a good group of soldiers. Had our share of turd-birds in the NCO and Officer ranks-they were truly the exception and not the rule. Worked with six different 1SG's and truly only one I despised and hated. All the rest were good leaders(Was a supply Sgt in a CAV Scout unit and so always worked with them and Commanders/XO's and then a couple years at Medhold in Walter Reed). Most PLT Sgt's SFC's were pretty good and never had one over me I thought was a bad leader.

Response by MSG Dallas Williams made Feb 26 at 2015 3:30 PM

MSG Dallas Williams — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:30:30 -0500

They should bring it back. It is ludicrous to think everyone who makes the Army a career is capable of being in a leadership role, or even want to for that matter. I've known plenty of good hard workers that have left the service because they had no yearning to become an NCO...

Response by MSG Dallas Williams made Feb 26 at 2015 3:36 PM

MSG Dallas Williams — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:36:40 -0500

Your logic doesn't hold water. Specialists would be the equivalent of what Warrant Officers are to the officer ranks, but to the enlisted side of the house...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 4:34 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:34:01 -0500

In a downsizing force that is embracing the reality of doing more with less, now is not the time to be entertaining the reintroduction of a concept by which we do not get the maximum out of our enlisted force. Those who are not competitive to advance in their careers as NCOs are those that must be cut from the force in the years to come. However, in an expanding force, as we had 10-12 years ago, I think the idea has some merit to it.

Response by 1SG Timothy Trewin made Feb 26 at 2015 4:48 PM

1SG Timothy Trewin — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:48:04 -0500

I fully support bringing back the SPC ranks. I know the Army won't but it would be a huge way to save money. They could be the technical experts in their respective fields, thus removing the need for the Warrant Officer Corps which is where some of the savings comes from. This allows for those enlisted personnel who are not cut out for leadership a route for advancement. This also allows for the Army to promote its best leaders through the leadership ranks while letting the SPCs to focus on being technically great.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Feb 26 at 2015 5:30 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:30:01 -0500

I agree, there are some folks out there who just really enjoy doing the technical nugget work of their MOS and never wish to write the counseling statement and lead from the front. I had the opportunity to learn this as a young Sergeant when I was trying to get one of my Specialist to go to the board. I will never forget his name, SPC Garby. He said it exactly as I have said it and the RCP gets rid of a lot of hard working Soldiers who frankly don't want the stress of leadership. There are things for them to do and it is rather inexpensive.

Response by SGT Leigh Barton made Feb 26 at 2015 5:30 PM

SGT Leigh Barton — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:30:16 -0500

That question rates a resounding NO from me. In the Army OR Marines, EVERYBODY IS A GRUNT. Technical specialties are in addition to the duties of taking a fight to the enemy. That means ALL of it's members need to be capable of command. Technical specialties are simply another weapon to be deployed in defeating an enemy. Even medicine. In short, they are nothing more than special weapons qualifications. Far too often in history cooks, mechanics, and even medics have been handed a rifle and assigned to defend a position or mount an assault. It's the nature of the beast. Soldiers are technicians in their own right. The weapons get more complex, and even basic marksmanship is getting more complex. The days of the "stupid grunt" never existed. It's time to face that fact.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 5:37 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:37:26 -0500

Better than the specialist designation, go a little futher back to the Technical Sergeants.

Response by SPC Kevin Schober made Feb 26 at 2015 6:42 PM

SPC Kevin Schober — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:42:06 -0500

If they had brought them back I may have considered staying in. I chose not to be a leader because to be honest it was just not my thing. I would have much more preferred to do my job and do it well. I had no problem following the orders of anyone that was higher rank . It did not make me any less capable of doing my job and if anything it made me more capable. I did not have to worry about what a bunch of troops under me were doing and I was able to focus more clearly on the job at hand. Before I get hurt at work and became disabled I was a darn good diesel mechanic and used my military discipline and work ethic at my job. I went into work and focused on the task at hand and did not worry about what anyone else was doing but was always happy to help someone out and be part of the team when needed. Not everyone is cut from the same cloth and not every one wants to be a leader BUT they can still be a very valuable member of a team and make the team function better by being part of that team.

Response by SGT David Lamont made Feb 26 at 2015 7:17 PM

SGT David Lamont — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:17:35 -0500

Specialist are a important stage of military life, it shows who is going to be a good leader and who maybe a good tech. I agree a good soldier (who may not be a good leader) should be able to serve a specialist 4-9. The Army would have access to subject matter experts . It would also keep good soldiers on active duty and give the soldier the pay they need to raise a family.

Response by SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD made Feb 26 at 2015 7:32 PM

SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:32:53 -0500

I believe so. But will it be recognized in terms of a leadership rank? As an SPC, I was continually told what to do by a Corporal, who lacked leadership. Often times, I was thrust into his position for the aforementioned reason. My take on it. Blessings.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Feb 26 at 2015 9:03 PM

SSG John Jensen — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:03:44 -0500

my happiest time in the army was when i was a sp5 medic in the 82nd avn bn, i was a leader for the sp4s and pvts in the med plt- when i retired from the nat'l guard as a ssg in a truck co. my position was technically would have been a sp6 position, my leadership was my knowledge of the job and my mechanical expertise in training the junior drivers, and i was just happy with that

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 11:12 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:12:01 -0500

I agree! There are many enlisted technical experts who deserve SPC-8 or SPC-9 who do not get the pay due to what is required or available for MSG/1SG or SGM slots.

Response by SSG Peter Muse made Feb 27 at 2015 4:03 AM

SSG Peter Muse — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 04:03:59 -0500

As an 64C (88M) if we were assigned to CSS we were SP5 squad leaders but if we ever went CS we got hard stripes and if we went back to CSS we kept the stripes and that created the disparity that usurped the whole leadership development concept. Tactical and Technical proficiency apply to all soldiers then and now. It didn't work in the post Vietnam structuring and won't work today especially with the modern battlefield having no structure.. leaders must be everywhere and in all specialties.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 10:56 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:56:00 -0500

Absolutely! It definatly provides more opportunities within your MOS and field. I've known some excellent mechanics that were E4 or below, simply because they didn't want the leadership. Other senior mechanics didn't know half of what they were talking about. The whole idea of the specialist ranks was based upon this. (In my opinion)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 10:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:56:27 -0500

MAJ Patrick Walsh, I completely agree. Not everyone is going to be a leader, however, there are positions where someone does not need to be; i.e. supply, commo, dental, etc... where the Army could recognize their experience and reward them for it, but keep them out of Sergeant/Leaders positions that they don't want to be in. The current system forces people to move up or (eventually) out so you get soldiers in NCO spots that neither want, nor necessarily deserve to be there. As a bonus it would make identifying just who is who a lot easier when you walk into a TOC; as an Infantry Squad Leader I have absolutely ZERO interest in being in a TOC at any point and I would rather not have to walk between 9 E6s looking for the one who is actually in charge; 5 of them being SPC6's would make my life easier.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 11:18 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:14 -0500

My mother was an SP6...a cook. She was not leadership potential...let's just put it that way. She was a hell of a cook though. There were SGT's with more leadership potential and they were in charge. She was a technician at the enlisted level. Kind of like a chief warrant officer. Why do we have CWO's? Why don't we just make them all commissioned officers. We don't need technicians right? We just need leaders. Sounds similar.

Response by SPC Anthony Davis made Feb 27 at 2015 1:02 PM

SPC Anthony Davis — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:02:37 -0500

I was a power tran technician in helicopters. I was able to reach spec 4, after that I had to sit back until a E-5 position opened. I held the position for five years intell I was discharged for medical reasons. I was told by my Company, Battalion Commander the only way I could get moved up in rank is to keep pushing go another MOS.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 1:05 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:05:25 -0500

They should.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Feb 27 at 2015 2:44 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:44:48 -0500

I never saw the point in it and at E8 you went to the traditional up and down anyway.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Feb 27 at 2015 3:01 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:01:31 -0500

That's why they still do it for the E-4s.
Separation of classification with the same pay.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Feb 27 at 2015 3:06 PM

SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:06:18 -0500

Specialists were meaningless since NCO rank wasn't connected to leadership ability then, just MOS. You'd convert to NCO at the first grade above where specialist stopped, anyway. You could be an Sp5 one day and outranked by a CPL, and the next day be an SSG, and outrank him/her.

Response by SPC Richard Walsh made Feb 27 at 2015 6:20 PM

SPC Richard Walsh — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:20:45 -0500

I had the honor of being spec 4 but I hate to tell you I had green tabs and did my job well I was light infantry and don't agree with your negative impact I lead troops and trained them also but was specialized in sensitive fields as well so why would you say a spec should have less rank or pay I believe it should be the other way specs should hold rank over general rank due to the fact that they go above and beyond general rank skills and specialized in a critical job that general rank doesn't have the skill or training to fill the Army's need for these people.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 7:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:06:45 -0500

You don't have to be an NCO to be proficient at your MOS. And since we are fully engulfed with the Participation Award Generation, why not give a reason to keep a Soldier who comes in and gets work done everyday, but has the leadership skills of Homer Simpson.

Response by SPC(P) Micah Lavigne made Feb 27 at 2015 7:16 PM

SPC(P) Micah Lavigne — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:16:25 -0500

It doesn't matter if we bring it back or not. All Specialist that get promoted up fall into the following categories. 1 they want the pay. 2 they want to do little work and more overseeing. 3. They want to have a say in what they think is right. Very few have I seen fell into the last category 4 They want to be and were ready to be NCOs.
I am a SPC and have been for a while. I wanted to be a Sergeant for quite some time but had to wait. I knew I was nor ready. A Commissioned officer leads by doctrine. A Non Commissioned Officer leads by experience. He is a mentor to the Junior Enlisted and the Advisor to the Commissioned. Now a days it seems the specialists fast track and upon promotion with no knowledge or care for their two most responsibilities accomplishment of the mission and welfare of their Soldiers. I remember sergeants with no patch trying to train Soldiers in STT or their job quoting regs and FMS not showing them how it's done or mentoring them. I see Sergeants clinging to their profile while telling Junior Enlisted it's frowned upon to do the sanme. I did not want to be like that so I took the time to figure out who to be a great leader. By that I had to gain experience. I obey my orders but I rarely respect sergeants who have no clue what it means to lead but managed to impress their superiors with "300" scores and Verbatim knowledge. And only try to lead when they are watched. However I respect the NCO who knows his stuff not because doctrine dictates but because he did it. And if he didn't can swallow his pride and give the Soldiers that do the Chance to share their knowledge. It doesn't matter if a SPC comes back. What matters is knowing a Specialist literally specializes in his job. And an NCO mentors his Subordinates from the knowledge and examples he/she gives. I feel that the Army has gotten too political over the years and someday we may pay a hard price for not seeing the big picture and looking ahead 20 years. But then again I'm just a SPC. With 5 years experience of service.

Response by CW2 Bruce Greiner made Feb 27 at 2015 7:43 PM

CW2 Bruce Greiner — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:43:07 -0500

I was in the Army in the period immediately after the withdraw from Vietnam. It was the first time that the Army instituted the "up or out" policy. We had people who had been in their ranks for decades and were either forced out or retired. These people knew their jobs and how to make things work - we lost a lot of domain expertise and I think it took a long time for the Army to recover from that period. We also lost focus on doing the job well and instead the goal became the next promotion. I think there is value in letting people who do their jobs well stay in rank where they can do the most good whether it is a specialist rank or permanent Sergeant.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 8:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:42:20 -0500

Everyone is def not a leader in the army, thats for sure! But, a trained proficient soldier on a job certainly would yield benefits i feel in the long run. If you implemented an aptitude skills and knowledge test for these ranks i feel it would be a beneficial.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 9:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:18:02 -0500

Yes

Response by SGT Tim Tobin made Feb 27 at 2015 9:25 PM

SGT Tim Tobin — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:25:55 -0500

I was a specialist to start and converted to Sgt. I never minded nor did it change how I was treated I was still Doc to my troops!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 9:57 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:57:01 -0500

Bring back MOS testing and the rank. It will help much with dead end MOS, for example Firefighter (12M), it is nearly impossible to make a career in the army with such MOS because there is no advancement nor officer opportunity. After your first term is up you are faced with the option of changing your MOS or E4 for another contract. The issue is not about becoming a leader, is about leading others withing a job you do.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Feb 27 at 2015 10:17 PM

SPC Carl K. — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:17:48 -0500

I honestly believe having SPEC 5 and SPEC 6 ranks would be a good thing (again) for the army. There are many who do not want to be forced into the NCO Corps. There really is no reason to force someone into a sergeant position if they have no desire, but are excellent in their MOS. To force someone out after x amount of time because they did not make sergeant or staff sergeant is ridiculous. SPEC 5 and SPEC 6 ranks can be put in charge of maintenance shops just like sergeants and staff sergeants can. A comparable example is the Warrant Officer Corps. They are experts in their particular fields. There is no reason why there should not be enlisted versions of Warrant Officers.

Response by CW3 Stephen D Vasey made Feb 27 at 2015 10:21 PM

CW3 Stephen D Vasey — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:21:38 -0500

I am reading a lot of comments from people who never severed when we had SP-4 thru SP-9s.
I can remember standing in formation in the 16th Quartermaster Bn. in Nov. of 64 at Ft. Bragg, with SP 5,6,7,and 8s and a corporal out front because he was the senior NCO. SP4 and above could not go to the NCO club. I never heard one of the senior Specialist complain. Prior to the specialist grades we had the Technical ranks, corporal and above with a T below the upper three stripes. In both instances the systems work. You will always have poor leaders be the hard Sgt's or specialist.
If I judge the army today by the sloppy soldiers of all ranks I see running around off post in duty uniform outside of Ft. Riley Ks. during duty hours , I think leadership needs to be revisited as a concept

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 11:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:44:08 -0500

as a E-5 SGT i know my limits as a leader, but as a wheeled mechanic i'm tip top (or so i've been told) being a SPC 5 i could do my job and teach others to do the same without the mind boggling hassle of the leadership paperwork. as a leader if i were to lose a soldier in a hostile situation i would absolutely lose my mind, knowing that that person died and i was to blame. it's bad enough to lose a battle buddy, but to know it was your subordinate, someone who you were directly in charge of and you FAIL them. i just don't think i have what it takes. lose and engine, ok, break a tranny, fine, screw up another soldier's life, i wouldn't be able to look myself in the face let alone anyone else. some people are natural born leader, others like myself and a few other i know just let us work to make the leader look better

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:30:06 -0500

I have read several of the responses and it would appear that a great deal of them are based on anecdotal evidence, "I knew a Soldier who was a great technician..." It just seems that advancing a Soldier financially and not requiring that Soldier to take on any additional responsibility is a bad message for the Army. Successful organizations don't stay successful by rewarding mediocrity. Regarding enlisted promotions, the USMC seems to have the correct stance, if a Marine wants to be a Corporal (E4) they have to earn it by demonstrating both technical and tactical competence. There are a whole lot of former Marines that did 4 or more years that are out of the service and never made it past Lance Corporal (E3). It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to "advance" Soldiers to a higher pay grade and not require them to become leaders. The majority of our budget goes to Soldiers' pay and benefits so why throw that money away on a Soldier who can't or won't take on the challenge of leadership.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:38 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:38:17 -0500

100% agree ,the military should bring back all the specialists rank,not every body like a leadership positions to lead soldiers,this ranks should be bring back motive all technicians ,Excellents soldiers that work hark everyday repair equipments that are the back bone of the technology warfare ,is the same as the warrant officers positions and just get more salary or like the master sargents rank ,are soldiers with not leadership skills ,but still working for the military and with higher salary.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 28 at 2015 1:15 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:15:28 -0500

Yes. We have often discussed this. Not every MOS needs, or person is a leader, or wants to be a leader. Some people and specialities, should be specialists only. Being a Corporal should be a only those in leadership roles. Sergeants as well. In my branch, that would be a team leader or squad leader in a line unit. If you are traffic guy, investigator, dog handler, and not in a leadership role, why not have specialists? I think you should also be allowed to stay and serve if you do not desire to be a leader and just to work.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Feb 28 at 2015 4:13 AM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:13:02 -0500

I think this would be awesome! I prefer to mentor Soldiers than lead them. I have been fortunate that all of my Soldiers didn't require the need to be 'lead'. This would allow those like me to excel in the Army, goes to my belief that we should be tested in order to be promoted.

Response by SPC Kevin Burgess made Feb 28 at 2015 6:08 AM

SPC Kevin Burgess — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 06:08:55 -0500

Either keep them, or get rid of them forever. By removing the higher SP ratings, many who could not lead were put in that position, and many who deserved promotions by merit of knowledge and effort were unable to be promoted.

Response by SPC Christopher Cramer made Feb 28 at 2015 7:56 AM

SPC Christopher Cramer — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 07:56:59 -0500

This would have been great for me while I was on active duty. The points to make e5 were maxed out and continuing on the spec path would have kept me on active duty if that option was available.

Response by SGT Michael McKeown made Feb 28 at 2015 10:38 AM

SGT Michael McKeown — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:38:09 -0500

I served in the Army from 1989-1993 ended with the rank of Sergeant. What struck me in my four years and especially through PLDC, was the difference between those who were combat arms; 13B, 13M and 11B, 11C to those who were medics, cooks, mechanics, etc. The Combat arms wanted to learn how to be leaders, the rest were going through the motion and mostly complained about map reading, night maneuvers and infantry tactics. It was then that I questioned WHY the army took away the specialist ranks. Before that they were called Tech Sergeants. Bring those ranks back.

Response by SP5 John Clyburn made Feb 28 at 2015 11:28 AM

SP5 John Clyburn — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:28:36 -0500

Yes, I had a critical MOS. The HQ Bn section had four E-5 slots and four E-5 plus some E-4 for clerks. Also had Proficiency Pay P1 and P2 for E-4 and up.
Specialist Ranks allowed for pay grades to be reached without too many NCO Sgt E-5 and Cpl E-4. If a SSgt or SFC was not assigned to the HQ section or detachments, a Sp/5 was moved into the Sgt E-5 to have a NCOIC.

When I was TDY, some locations in Germany 1961-63, considered a Sp/4 or Sp/5 equal to the Cpl E-4 or Sgt E-5, and could join the NCO Club.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 2:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:12:05 -0500

If have to disagree...I can't see why a Soldier should receive the same entitlements of a NCO when they just want to be technically competent...if you bring back SPC rank you have a divided Army...we come up in the to train and lead in our MOS and in Army military training...what's the point of sending everyone through Basic Training if all they will be are tech experts...and they surely shouldn't receive the same pay grade as an individual that has taken on more responsibilities by becoming a NCO...the Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer states, I strive to remain tactically and technically inclined...so as a NCO we have to competent in our technical skills as much as our tactical skills...so why are we promoting individuals who can only lead and don't know their job...and vice versa...what I'm getting at...if you are one of those who doesn't want to lead but you're a SME...go Warrant...otherwise get out of the for those that want to lead and train

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 4:27 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:27:04 -0500

This would be a great idea. I believe that if this were to come back that the ranks would be in better shape. My SSGt and I discussed this my Last BA. If this were to happen it would make things easier then we would have a set of labor ranks, as well as an admin set. It will also construct a newer sect of personnel in the Army. The new soldiers coming in can witness which way their career should go if they would like to focus on developing the skills within their branch or taking charge as a leader among the ranks. This can also help them more if they so choose to get out and want more experience in their branch for better job qualification.

Response by SSG Red Hoffman made Feb 28 at 2015 6:33 PM

SSG Red Hoffman — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:33:11 -0500

I agree! Hard Stripe = Leadership. They are a different breed who also have technical skills. Some soldiers have the technical skills, but are the type that would have difficulty taking the reigns when it comes to directing soldiers what to do. Bring the Specialist rank back...right up to SP6. ...and YES let them earn their rank based on their contribution to the mission from a technical standpoint.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 8:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:06:36 -0500

Like everything there will be its ups and downs on it. When I was SPC, I was not looking forward to wanting to be an E5. I greatly enjoyed my MOS and it was to easy for me to do what I was told to and be at the right place in right in right uniform and at the right time. I didn't want to take on the challenge of dealing with everyday soldiers issues. I had no problem mentoring the new guys who wanted it but to have to find a way to do it for the others as a leader, I didn't want to. I know a plenty of guys, even under me, that are great soldiers but don't want to be leaders. I also always thought it would be great if I could do 20 years as SPC then retire. So I'd give two thumbs up and say yeah, it would be great to bring that system back.
With that being said though, there needs to be a way to control it so that there are not any lazy soldiers some how doing 20 years with out doing a dang thing. So maybe one way is for leaders to know their soldiers and make their counselings accordingly. If they have an outstanding soldier who does not want to be a leader, just note it in counseling. If they have a lazy soldier, then they need to address that to a soldier on paper. If soldier doesn't fix them self, then it's time for them to put their uniform on a hanger.

Response by SPC Paul Wilbert made Feb 28 at 2015 8:32 PM

SPC Paul Wilbert — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:32:15 -0500

Yes bring back. I got E4 SPC. I think the SPC 4-6 would be an honor as much as a SGT or higher

Response by SP5 Andy Downs made Feb 28 at 2015 9:58 PM

SP5 Andy Downs — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:58:16 -0500

yes I do believe that they should bring this rank back all the way to the 8 level to be precise. I was spec 4 for along time and then got promoted up. I truly believe that if yr a spec that you have to go to schools to up yr grade level 10/20/30 and then you have to do pldc bnoc and anoc that is a ridiculous way to look at it. not everyone is a leader. as a e-5 sergant this is not a leader he's just someone new learning how to lead. I think it would be great if they did a change back to specs it would be a great step forward. as I see my own son in the army now I think of this fact of spec grades again and its a better option for all soldiers. it gives the new soldier a option to stay and future their carrear rather than all the stressors that accompany pldc anoc and bnoc. so all in all I think it would be a better step forward for the army to bring these ranks back.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 11:10 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:10:36 -0500

I believe there's a misconception here in thinking the SPC ranks wouldn't be responsible for Soldiers.

If I learned my lessons right, the Specialists could and would end up as shop chiefs. So the S1 NCOIC would become a SPC 7. The PLT SGT would be the green tabbed leader and the SPC ranks would essentially be section managers. They would still be responsible for managing Soldiers in their daily duties and be de facto leaders; managers instead of leaders.

The interesting part is that a SPC 8 wouldn't be authorized to use the NCO club, and a CPL (who would be hanging out at the NCO clubs) would march a platoon before a SPC 7 would.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 11:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:48:01 -0500

I find nothing wrong with the specialist rank, I served most of my years as a specialist. I did not need the Sgt stripes to lead soldiers when I needed to lead. I got the respect of a Sgt from my NCO's and Officers, and soldiers below me as well as the same rank. I got that respect because of what I knew and how I carried myself. I'll admit I don't care to lead, but if I had the knowledge and the timing was right I lead at that point in time.

I was an 88 M most of my carrier, I knew my job. Soldiers fallowed me because of that knowledge, and there were times were I was put in charge of and NCO because I knew my job better than that NCO. So to bring back the Specialist ranks would be a good thing. Just because a soldier either chooses or just not meant to lead don't mean that you should get rid of that soldier.

Also have people who get the rank of Sgt who just never should have had the rank. Those are the book smart but don't have the ability or have the common since of a leader. Just because you get the rank of a leader don't make you a leader.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Mar 1 at 2015 1:21 AM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 01:21:59 -0500

Not at all, earning rank, one should know how to lead, the Specialist Rank system, came many abuses. Leadership may have valued these soldiers expertise in their respective MOS's, but they did not value them in their rank scheme. Myself being an Aviation Electrician/Avionics technician, I was very good at my MOS and led my soldiers in this same endevour, there is more than one way to lead. As long as you lead from the front. If you want to discuss bringing back a rank structure for technically inclined personnel, let's look at the old Tech Sergeants from WW2. They were good at their jobs and were good leaders. I've seen officers that didn't want to lead, what should be done with them? Leadership in most cases is taught, I have met a few who came by it naturally. But, in this day and age of mediocrity, people need to be taught to lead, and the benefits of leadership. Good leaders should be mentoring future leaders in all fields, to bring for the desire and ability to lead. I think from this the Army should look at what Good Leaders in the past did. When I was in we had Train the Trainer skills that were developed over time. I think the Army should follow the Marines lead, something the Army did within the Aviation community years ago, We are ALL Infantry first, and our MOS next. We should all know the job of the man above us, and so on.

Response by PO2 Christopher A. made Mar 1 at 2015 2:31 AM

PO2 Christopher A. — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 02:31:13 -0500

I never knew the specialist rank was discontinued. But I am glad it is gone. As a prior service member (USCG). I thought everyone E-4 and above was a leader. Coming from a small service every one of us were technicians of some sort or another and every one of us were expected to progress into leadership positions. When I transitioned to the Army as a specialist I felt like a second class citizen. It let me know that I was never "expected" to lead as a soldier and I'll just be a glorified private no matter how far I go. It was one of the biggest factors in deciding to leave the army after one hitch.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 10:30 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 10:30:16 -0500

Sounds like a good idea given that not every E5 is in a leadership role.

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made Mar 1 at 2015 11:54 AM

SSG Byron Hewett — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:54:13 -0500

No, As a recently retired Army NCO and having seen the changes first hand to the enlisted structure I believe that it would hurt things more within the Enlisted ranks Army wide.
The Army has tried many new things over the last several decades and many have worked and many have not or are still in the testing phases but will eventually fail such as the SSD education system that why we have school houses for hands on training. Using a system that takes the soldier out of the class room and forces the solder to use the "Virtual classroom" while yes is very cost effective to do it from home is not always better because distractions, the school house provides the structure and mentoring needed to produce excellent leaders and effective combat troops. Going back to the old SPC rank structure would further slow down the promotion system and bog things down like the SSD education. This is why we train and train hands on so we can be effective and go to the school houses to better our selves and train to be leaders that's why we had PLDC, BNOC, ANOC, and other schools that have supposedly become obsolete, those schools are nowhere close being obsolete. What it boils down to is don't fix it if it isn't broken some things that are around for a very long time are the thing that work. The SPC ranks didn't offer that chance for the development of leadership or to really show some one the potential they posses and challenge the soldier to develop their leadership skills because everyone has them its just a matter of getting under some skin to get those skills out to become an effective NCO the backbone of the Army.
Let the Officers play with the virtual class room, let the enlisted and the NCO corps train the way they have trained since the revolutionary war effective soldiers, leaders, mentors and highly trained combat troops. And Yes technology is big part of it when its use right and not slow down an effective way of producing leaders.

Response by SFC Joe Germain made Mar 1 at 2015 1:36 PM

SFC Joe Germain — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:36:53 -0500

Disagree, as some soldiers with excellent leadership skills get locked into the specialist ranks and never reach their full potential, unless they are permitted to either change their MOS. The Army needs to do away with the "up or out" policy. In my 20+ years of service, I have seen many good soldiers (enlisted & Officer) whose career was ruined by a promotion. Example, an outstanding battalion staff officer (Major) promoted to Lt. Colonial was worthless as a Battalion Commander. Should have been left as a Major as a staff officer.

Response by SSG(P) Matthew Bisbee made Mar 1 at 2015 1:43 PM

SSG(P) Matthew Bisbee — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:43:01 -0500

The US Army has had a history of recognizing technical specialties. From as far back as 1776, individuals that held a higher level of technical knowledge and thus responsibility in thier field were designated by different colored rank insignia or other identifying insignia. Specific rank differentiation was eliminated from 1920 to 1942. From 1942 until 1955, the Army had the technician ranks denoted by a T in the field between the stripes and rockers for the ranks Technician 5th class (corporal), Technician 4th class (sergeant), and Technician 3rd class (staff sergeant). From 1955 to 1985, there was a specialist rank structure that covered E-4 to E-7 and for awhile up to E-9. I was in basic trainig at Ft. Jackson when the mess specialist-5 was laterally promoted to sergeant. I have served in a technical field (aviation maintenance) off and on for half of my military career and infantry for the other half. If there was a specialist rank structure, I would have been able to advance instead of staying as a staff sergeant from 1992 until 2008. I actually appeared before a promotion board for an aircraft armament platoon sergeant (E-7) position. The board ended up selecting the other E-6 boarded because he had more technical expertise where I had more actual leadership experience. I think they made a good choice, but they wouldn't have had to make that choice if they still had SP7 rank. Having a different rank insignia with different duties and responsibilities should be brought back to retain technically proficient soldiers. As a technical inspector, I had no specific leadership responsibilities over other troops, but was valued for my knowledge in my field. The only NCO in my section that should retain hard stripes was the section sergeant that was in a leadership position over us. Brink back the specialist rank structure.

Response by SFC Donald Neal made Mar 1 at 2015 3:19 PM

SFC Donald Neal — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:19:16 -0500

Yes. This would allow for better career progression in low density MOSs where the system is clogged with SSGs, SFCs, and MSGs. Why punish them, when they'll only get to lead themselves and possibly one other person over the course of 2-5 year period. Let them move up technically and excel at their core MOS associated job.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 3:52 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:52:26 -0500

I agree. Especially because based on points, people can't always get promoted to Sgt. That doesn't mean they should not get paid for their experience and their commitment.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Mar 1 at 2015 5:17 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:17:48 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, I have a tremendous amount of ambivalence about this topic, so I'm not sure that I have an answer. I enlisted on 9AUG69, so I actually became a Specialist Four before I was laterally appointed to Corporal. The highest specialist I actually saw in service was a Specialist Seven.
I also recognize the need to retain technical expertise. I wonder though, how do the other services maintain their technical expertise without having a dual system? I would think that the Navy's and the Air Force's technical requirements are greater than those of the Army. How do they succeed in balancing the retention of technical expertise and providing leadership, yet still have a single ranking system?
I like SGT Richard H.'s comments also. The Marines have been getting along without a dual rank system for a long time and it seems to work.
Even if the specialist rank was reinstituted, where does it stop? I personally wouldn't want it going beyond E-6. E-7 and above need to be able to lead.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 1 at 2015 5:23 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:23:36 -0500

I believe that the Specialist rank is even more important today inasmuch as the armed forces require many more highly skilled people to maintain and operate the systems needed to move, shoot, and communicate on the modern battlefield, specialists who are not necessarily leaders.

I'd hate to see the enlisted ranks become awash in non-commissioned officers filling non-leadership roles as the officer corps has become awash in commissioned officers filling non-leadership roles. Indeed, outside the combat arms, I have often wondered how many commissioned officers would be better classified as warrant officers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 6:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:06:28 -0500

I hear so many of our soldiers say that they just want to perfect there craft and not be burdened with additional leadership duties so yes bring it back

Response by SPC James Powell made Mar 1 at 2015 6:59 PM

SPC James Powell — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:59:31 -0500

Hooah hooah

Response by SGM Eric Lobsinger made Mar 1 at 2015 8:09 PM

SGM Eric Lobsinger — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:09:41 -0500

Interesting conversation. An aspect that I have not seen discussed here is what happens to the SP6 when he/she goes to compete against SSGs for the rank of SFC? Would you, in fact, be limiting those extremely capable Soldiers by having them compete for promotion to a senior NCO position versus those who have leadership experience?

I served as a Specialist 4 before the Army converted the rank to Specialist and remember the day that Soldiers serving in the ranks of SP5 and SP6 were converted to the NCO ranks of SGT and SSG. The change was a significant one in that many found they were now directly responsible for the Soldiers since most were more senior. Some performed great ... and it took others a while to adjust their mindsets-if they ever did. The point is, that a majority of those who were outstanding before the change were, or became, outstanding after the change.

I also find it interesting that so many people refer to Soldiers as their pay grades, i.e. E4, E5, E6, versus their Army ranks: SPC, SGT, SSG, etc. To be quite blunt, it is very insulting to refer to a Soldier based on what the Soldier is paid. The same would be true for any who refer to officers as their O-grades: O3, O4, instead of CPT or MAJ. Just a thought.

Great conversation.

Response by SFC Dean D. made Mar 1 at 2015 10:45 PM

SFC Dean D. — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:45:02 -0500

I joined about the same time as the demise of SP7, then SP6 & SP5. I thought it was great because if people are going to be paid at those grades they should be able to lead as well as do their job. I was young and naive. Within 10 years I realized that many SSGs I knew would have been great SP6s because they were horrible leaders. The best way to understand the whole idea of the specialist line is like in the civilian world we have many workers but only a few leaders. The Army expects all NCO workers to be leaders, but it just isn't so. The specialist line is a realistic way to address leadership vs technical skill in the largest service of our nation's military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 12:42 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:42:01 -0500

yes the Army should. A lot of soldiers don't get the credit that they deserve for the experience that they have and deserve.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 1:51 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 01:51:48 -0500

Speaking as a SPC/E-4 facing the fact that I might end up getting booted out because I won't get promoted in time. I would like to see these ranks come back do to the fact that yes I know my job very well and many other MOS in the same branch with my time in. As for leading others I can do it and will if needed because the mission comes first, but I much rather do just my job and train others to do it as if not better than myself.

Response by SPC Richard White made Mar 2 at 2015 4:28 AM

SPC Richard White — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 04:28:24 -0500

I think they should bring back Specialists ranks.It is similar to warrant officers in that they are specialized in a particular field and they should be paid and awarded accordingly.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 12:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:37:15 -0500

Sir, I have known some excellent Soldiers but they were bad leaders. The Army wants to have a move up or move out mentality but there are many who are jusst not cut out for leadership. Most of the Service Support MOSs do not need stripes to do thier jobs they are tecnical specialists in thier field.when you take them out of thier field they are dead weight or worse to mission success.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 5:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:37:07 -0500

Who cost the Army more? An E6 with 16 years, a GS-12 , or a 120k a year Contractor? Add the fact that the civilians get overtime for working late. The SPC ranks can be used to save money and keep soldier sthat the army has already spent a lot of money training and certifying. I mean should we stick to what we have now? Depend too much on lazy, disrespectful contractors that are usually E4's that maxed out and go from E4 to 90k. (By the way the army paid for the training that made them worth 90-120k year). Add that to the fact that You can literally eliminate most GS and contractor positions with SPC 5,6, and 7's with WO's in Charge. I mean in this new technical army, it doesn't make any sense to not adapt we have fallen behind China in the cyber realm and we will never catch up unless we have soldiers that don't have to worry or be burdened with "NCO" duties. Also if you do have that bone headed SP5 that wont listen to a CPL, bust him to SP4. It;s that simple, if you choose to be a tech and not a leader, live with it.

Response by SPC Sherrie Chapman made Mar 2 at 2015 7:22 PM

SPC Sherrie Chapman — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:22:19 -0500

I said no to being promoted to SGT, because I had no interest in the duties of a SGT. I preferred to do my regular job (which RallyPoint doesn't have, strangely), and be awesome at it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 6:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:59:43 -0500

Definitely. Would you also increase the use of corporal?

Response by SSG John Jensen made Mar 3 at 2015 5:31 PM

SSG John Jensen — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:31:14 -0500

my great-uncle was a tech-sergeant(how many people on this site are mis-spelling SERGEANT??) on an army tugboat in Alaska in WWII (in WWII the Army had more ships than the Navy) as a tech-sergeant he participated in the operation at Dutch Harbor of shooting down a Zero with rifles, and he ended the war as a CW2 driving the tugboat - another CW2 ship operator of the war was the perennial bad-boy of American Literature and massive liberal guy Gore Vidal

Response by SGT Kevin McCourt made Mar 3 at 2015 7:22 PM

SGT Kevin McCourt — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:22:51 -0500

Yes. I admit, I wasn't a great leader. I would have been better suited as a SP5-6-7.

I was a Squad leader more as a Sp4 then I ever was as a SGT.

The Army is too top heavy. I knew many that as soon as they became an NCO squad leader, on up. Just assumed that their butts needed to be in a chair. Save that for the Plt Sgts.

Retention control should be addressed also. I know plenty of older retired SGT E-5s that put in 20 years. Some soldiers would be better off not having command responsibility.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 10:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:02:56 -0500

100% yes, it should be brought back. Additionally, the rank of Corporal should become the norm and not the exception - and given the full authority and respect as a NCO rank. No more SPC(P). You go to the Promotion Board for SGT, you pass the Board, you are laterally promoted to Corporal on the spot. Either that or completely do aeay with the rank of Corporal, for in the half assed way it is currently used, it is seen (and for the most part treated) as a bad joke.

Response by SGT Kris Larsh made Mar 4 at 2015 8:13 AM

SGT Kris Larsh — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:13:11 -0500

I had heard about this from some elders in the Army. They liked the Spc 4-7, but one thing I think they need to get rid of is the automatic E-4 to SGT promotions and E5 to E6 automatic promotions. I had a NCO who made his E6 and never went to a board, and I'm here to tell you he was ate up. I knew PFC's that could lead troops better than him.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 8:57 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:57:44 -0500

From my experience I have encountered NCO's whose MOS did not require them to truly lead soldiers, and where then put in leadership postions i.e. Drill Sergeant. As they had a lack of time in real leadership they did not perform as would be expected of an NCO. It is my opinion that the SP ranks need to be brought back to pay some accordingly, and to allow those with an upbringing of leadership to lead.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 9:40 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:40:46 -0500

They need to bring them back, forcing all soldiers into leadership roles had been bad for the force in the long term. I believe is directly related to the toxic leadership problems the army faces today. It also contributes to a brain drain, where soldiers leave the service to advance thier field without having to deal with the extra work leadership comes with.

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Mar 4 at 2015 11:40 AM

SGT Justin Singleton — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:40:15 -0500

How did this ever work in the past? I have always been confused. Would an E4 Corporal be higher than a Spec5 since one is an NCO and the other is not?

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Mar 4 at 2015 2:06 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:06:05 -0500

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Mar 4 at 2015 5:30 PM

SFC Benjamin Varlese — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:30:40 -0500

Absolutely! I have been saying this for years, especially after having been saddled with an E-6 that is about as useful as a poop-flavored Popsicle and more concerned about when chow and rack time are than some of my Joes. It disgusts me when guys like that who are a drain on the institution take up slots that more qualified and deserving guys should be getting promoted into. Bring back the SPC 5 & 6 and make these undeserving NonComs riflemen, supply clerks, cooks and truck drivers, and make room for the real leaders to advance.

Response by SPC Lukas Jones made Mar 4 at 2015 10:37 PM

SPC Lukas Jones — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:37:41 -0500

I completely agree sir! There is a vast group of Specialists in the Army who are stuck at the E4 level due to no E5 Slots available in their MOS. Allowing SPC to advance to S5-7 would allow us to be compensated for our time and expertise in our given fields while we await the ability to become NCOs. I maxed out my path ease several years ago and would love the ability to continue to be compensated fairly as my responsibilities grows with my TIS.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 12:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:05:26 -0500

If the process is based on technical knowledge or expertise in a particular field, why not make a 'rank' structure based on that? For example:

Technical Sergeant.
Senior Technical Sergeant.
Master Tech Sergeant.

The reason I say do this at the Sgt. level is that, if you're genius at something, or have measurable textbook knowledge of a particular field, you SHOULD be able to teach it to someone else. If you can teach it, then you have leadership qualities, thus the NCO rank.

When many think of what a 'leader' is, too many think it's a drill sergeant type barking orders all day. Well, that's a drill sgt. Everybody's not a drill sgt., but that doesn't mean they're not good leaders.

Response by SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. made Mar 5 at 2015 12:40 AM

SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:40:13 -0500

Yes sir, they should be brought back. I knew many technical skilled soldiers who weren't leadership material. However, they weren't worth losing either. I knew many Spec5, Spec6, and Spec7's. They loved it. Could concentrate and focus on their MOS and the specialty skills they needed to maintain. When they were hard striped, several didn't transition over so well. It was very hard on them to make the change over to becoming an NCO. Quite a few retired earlier than they'd planned to do so initially.

So, yes, I'd recommend the Soecialists ranks return. Great question.

Response by SPC Greg Cowen made Mar 5 at 2015 2:21 AM

SPC Greg Cowen — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 02:21:40 -0500

I was a SP4 when I left the service; as far as I understand it, it was below E-6, comparable to a CPL, without ghe command duties

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 12:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:14:48 -0500

Especially as we draw down we need soldiers who can A) Be technically proficient at their job B) Lead soldiers and C) Meet training and physical requirements. If you are unable to do so there are others who can.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 10:48 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:48:52 -0500

Honestly I am not entirely sure why we have the current SPC rank, much less the legacy ones. Why not just have Corporals and be done with it? Do we really need two tiers of enlisted personnel?

Response by SPC James Bailey made Mar 5 at 2015 10:54 PM

SPC James Bailey — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:54:23 -0500

Absolutely, sir.

Response by 1SG Clifford Barnes made Mar 9 at 2015 7:07 AM

1SG Clifford Barnes — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 07:07:34 -0400

I agree all soldiers are not leaders and still provide upward mobility

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 4:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:18:15 -0400

I don't know if this is the perfect solution, but it's much better than how it currently is structured. The Army as a whole is very focused on developing leadership, but sometimes I've seen where that results in some Soldiers being overlooked that don't typically fit what the mold is. When a junior Soldier who is excellent and doesn't want anything more than that, it shouldn't be a slight or be a detriment to their value to the military.

I think by reorganizing the rank structure to acknowledge their skills should be considered, but perhaps not across all MOS. This would be a much more relevant solution to jobs which were a specialty like MPI or CID (in my MOS specifically), but would be somewhat disastrous in combat arms or other similar support elements where decisive leadership is in much higher demand.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Mar 11 at 2015 10:06 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:06:16 -0400

When I first enlisted I felt like the Specialist classification was something akin to segregation. Later I realized that I wouldn't want a radio relay operator, which was what my MOS was, leading me in the field. It just was not a good idea to have a radio man or maybe a soldier who's training was meant for a job in an office, distributing supplies or the like put in a position to lead in combat. I think the Specialist classification is not only desirable but necessary. If I were an infantryman I wouldn't want a supply clerk leading me into battle. It just doesn't make sense to have someone at the helm who's not trained to steer the boat, so to speak. I didn't know that the specialist classifications had been discontinued but I definitely think they should be reinstituted. The pay increase for a particular specialty I disagree with. If you're going to pay anyone more for their service I think it should be the men on the line. If you want more money choose an MOS that will be functional after you've completed your enlistment and then use the training to better serve in civilian life.

Response by SP5 Michael Rathbun made Mar 13 at 2015 1:23 AM

SP5 Michael Rathbun — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:23:15 -0400

The US Army, along with many other similar organizations, including especially some large corporations, has long sought a way to decouple pay grade from rank. You really want to pay this troop with the special knowledge or skills well enough to keep him around, but you sure don't want him leading a squad, platoon or company in a combat situation.

The results over time have always been, as far as I can tell, a bit worse than mixed. The lines nearly always become blurred for myriad reasons, and the scheme is eventually abandoned.

My Dad came back from Europe as a T-5 (Corporal Technician -- two stripes with a 'T' below).

I came and went to Viet-Nam as an SP5-E5.

In theory, we both were close to the bottom of the pecking order. Everyday life was different. Fortunately, I had an informal block of instruction in this matter before it became a serious life issue.

The Old Guy said:

If any of you manage to graduate from this course, you will become an ESS PEE FIVE DASH EE FIVE. By the Book, you and all your bird-and-arc buddies are junior to the nearest CPL. In Real Life you will find that what really matters is who goes where on the Duty Roster. And behold, the day will come when you find yourself Sergeant Of The Guard, and your nearest CPL actually reports to you.

You will probably get used to it. What matters to that dude in the Orderly Room or over in Battalion is "how many E-5s do I have?", not "how many buck sergeants do I have?" That's not how it was supposed to work, but supposes are cheap.

Response by SP5 John Clyburn made Mar 18 at 2015 1:26 PM

SP5 John Clyburn — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:26:58 -0400

1962 The Army instituted the Proficiency Pay program for selected critical MOSs. P-1 to P-4 @ $30 increments. My MOS could get up to P-2.
Passed the test in mid-1962 and was awarded P-1 ($30/month) for 3-months, then P-2 ($60/month). Later the regulations changed, Pro Pay only for re-enlistments, but for those awarded, would be kept in place for 12-months.
Awarded P-1 Sept-Dec '62, P-2 Dec '62 until separation Dec '63. Base pay as a Sp/5 $180/mo, plus overseas pay plus P-2, making more than a 2nd LT. Base Pay.
John Clyburn, 319th USASA Bn, Germany 1961-63

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 5:22 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:22:07 -0400

I had more to say about this that would fit into the thread, forgive the link away from this discussion. http://www.ncoguide.net/bring-back-the-specialist-rank/

Bring back the Specialist Rank?

I was recently browsing througha 1-year old topic that is trending again on a military forum that I belong to wherea member posted the oft asked (and not seriously studied) question “Why do…

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Mar 20 at 2015 12:05 AM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:05:46 -0400

Response by SFC Edwin Watson made Apr 3 at 2015 6:02 PM

SFC Edwin Watson — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:02:19 -0400

Actually, after careful reflection, I am against having 2 ranks at the same E grade. We should either have a Specialist, or a Corporal rank, not both. The Army should also decide whether to keep the First Sergeant rank or the Master Sergeant rank, but not both. Time to start lightening up the load.

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Apr 3 at 2015 6:47 PM

CPT Bruce Rodgers — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:47:31 -0400

The specialist mafia strikes again

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 7:44 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 19:44:06 -0400

For all of you who are Army, and saying "If someone doesn't want to lead, let them go Warrant", shame on you. Warrant Officers *are* leaders as well as technicians. We are integrated with the Officer Corps, and are expected to lead. We are Section OICs, company and detachment commanders. Even when not, we are expected to be leaders.

Response by SSG Jay Flores made Apr 20 at 2015 2:07 AM

SSG Jay Flores — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 02:07:41 -0400

Yes, the Specialist rank should be brought back. There are many MOS's that do not require so many junior NCO's. While still on active duty, the change was made. Many didn't want it and were not leaders, per say. One young female soldier took it heart that she was a better soldier since she had been converted to the NCO ranks. After so many complaints about her behavior, I assigned her as a Squad Leader in one of the platoons. She fell flat on her face when she was in charge of moving the platoon, cadence, PT above her MOS duty assignment. She couldn't handle the leadership, and basically because she had to training as such. I scheduled her at the Battalion's Junior NCO Academy. The academy was originally set up for all promotable E4" and recently promoted junior NCO's. She failed the course; the biggest problem was her attitude. Unfortunately, she was later reduced to PFC for striking a Barracks Sergeant (SSG), one evening after a night of NCO clubbing. Moral of the story? Some soldiers, not only female, cannot accept the responsibilities of the NCO rank and duties, while other did everything they could to excercise the duties of their present rank and were very successful at it, Prior to the conversion, all soldiers entering the NCO ranks should have the opportunity to attend a junior NCO Academy abd not just walk around with a chip on their shoulders because they now NCO's

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 7 at 2015 8:28 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:28:10 -0400

Absolutely. And I'll raise y'all one. We should be making more use of the warrant officer ranks. We commission far too many officers who are "specialists". I'm tempted to go so far as to say that commissioned officers should be limited to the combat arms just to see what kind of response I get.

Response by SPC Richard Walsh made Jun 11 at 2015 1:11 PM

SPC Richard Walsh — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:11:18 -0400

I was a spec 4 and I had green tabs was Co.C 1/410th 205th 6 Id. As a light infantry team leader I did my job well and do not know what the deal saying your not a leader . Last time I checked combat arms is lacking in special skills so watch what you ask for there is a need for specialist .

Response by SFC Edwin Watson made Jun 26 at 2015 7:44 PM

SFC Edwin Watson — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:44:24 -0400

I have seen many Soldiers who were actually technically superior in skills and knowledge of their craft to many of their seniors before they graduated AIT, very capable Soldiers, but sucked as leaders. During times when the Army needs more troops, such as from 2001-2006, these Soldiers are in high demand. With the current drawdowns we are having, perhaps they are better off in the civilian market. Perhaps the different Specialist ranks can be used as a temporary stopgap (say promote an E4 to SPC5) in country to fill shortages during times of heavy deployments, then upon return to garrison send the Soldiers to NCOES and if they can cut it, laterally promote them, if not, let them transition to civilian life.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 3:27 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:27:57 -0400

Sir, my thoughts are that, with the Army drawing down, leadership is a characteristic that is even more critical now than ever before. With a smaller Army, the standards for job expertise should be high, regardless of rank. However, at some point, our nation will go back to a large-scalee war and the Army will scale up its recruitment. At that time, the soldiers who were a part of the "smaller" Army will be in senior leadership positions and, thus, will need to be competent leaders, not just technical experts. In my humble opinion, I would say that, if someone cannot lead, they shouldn't even be in the Army, let alone reach a rank above E-4. This, of course, coming from an E-4. :)

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 2:37 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:37:15 -0400

Seems like a great idea

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 2:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:41:03 -0400

I believe that tech specialist frequently got paid more that the CSM, I can't say I disagree but how would you address the pay scale, and where would they fall in your team/squad. Them having advanced technical knowledge for certain MOSs would essentially put them in step with warrant officers, wouldn't it?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 2:51 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:51:12 -0400

In this time of number crunching and force reduction, I don't see the addition of ranks that promote soldiers that specialized. Do more with less seems to be the way of the future. Although I don't dispute the merits, trying to sell soldiers that are not leaders is difficult.

Response by SPC James Burkett II made Aug 8 at 2015 2:51 PM

SPC James Burkett II — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:51:38 -0400

The SPEC ranks should be brought back we lose so many great soldiers who are techanical masters at their mos and replace them with new soldiers making the mission slow down or even fail because we lost years of gained knowledge over more aspects of being in the Army than just their job. Radios, BFT, MTS, troubleshooting, just an example of skills lost.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 8 at 2015 2:59 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:59:36 -0400

How do you determine who gets the specialist rank?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 3:00 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:00:02 -0400

I've had this discussion or a similar one with several people from different services.

I know some of the best technicians in the world that only want to continue to be a technician, but instead we promote them out of their expertise. Some of them would happily serve for 20-30 years as an E-4 or E-5 but end up being miserable as E-6s or E-7s and get out before or at 20, contributing very little. (to be VERY clear, this is not knocking on the quality of CPOs, I have worked with some of the very best. However I know some who have personally told me they would have loved to continue to be able to work with their hands and not manage).

This goes the same for officer ranks. It's most notable with pilots in my opinion, in that many would love to just be able to fly for their entire career. Ironically we spent a ton of money training them to do so, but the better they do at this, the less they get to fly, and instead are transitioned to roles they never wanted to fill, and sometimes don't excel at. The Army does it will with the Warrant Officer pilots who are more specialized to "just fly."

I could type about this forever but basically I am in favor of technical specialists of all ranks. We lose great people who are exceptional at their jobs because they don't want to be in charge. This shouldn't be treated negatively.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 3:15 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:15:59 -0400

Very true CH (MAJ) Private RallyPoint Member, a leader without followers will have a hard time getting anything done. I also see this as a potential to create a knowledge gap, one where leaders are not as proficient at their jobs and less effective because of it. Just my humble opinion.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 8 at 2015 3:27 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:27:27 -0400

The ranks eventually went to SP9. I was a SP5 (although they didn't have that rank selection at RP) I was a 63C20 TVM but reclassified to tanker SP5s were gunners. I was promoted to SGT ( yes I had to go before a board) as G3Air SGT. SP6s in a Tank Bn were in the Mess Sect and the Aid Station, I believe a SP7 was too. Not everyone is NCO material, so SP ranks were useful.

Response by GySgt John O'Donnell made Aug 8 at 2015 5:02 PM

GySgt John O'Donnell — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 17:02:27 -0400

Through I respect the rank and service of our brethren of decades past, modern warfare, where there are no clearly defined front and rear areas can no longer allow an individual to be a "specialist only". Each branch of service has leadership training opportunities that helps even those who must only lead themselves to achieve success. If in the end an individual only wants to be focused on their occupation specifics and not the unwritten expectation of leadership, then I would recommend to them to not reenlist and move on to a civilian job that doesn't expect an individual to make intangible growth, as they gain tangible increases in pay an opportunity within their occupation field.

Response by MSgt Alan H made Aug 9 at 2015 2:29 AM

MSgt Alan H — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 02:29:04 -0400

Excellent concept and it works! In the Air Force, it only happens with flying officers. Deals are cut, I'll continue to fly as an 0-5, but I don't do evaluations, I don't rate anyone, I don't March at retirement ceremonies, etc etc etc. and of course I will not make O-6.

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Sep 4 at 2015 10:16 AM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 10:16:58 -0400

I agree. I would've much rather have progressed up through the Specialist rank structure. I really hated being pulled away from the technical work.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2015 3:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 15:32:57 -0400

I agree. Because some MOSs are not geared to make leaders for combat and some once you get certain ranks you are far away from performing your specialty. Like LPNs. We need them in patient care but so many elevate past patient care quickly and have to in Oder to remain competitive with promotion in NCO ranks

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Sep 8 at 2015 1:12 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:12:56 -0400

MAJ Patrick Walsh, In 1974 when I came in, we had Spec 7, working in the hospital in various vocational fields, Lab, X-ray, Physical Exam, ER. The ARMY needs to bring these Vocational Specialist Ranks back? The Specialist Mafia! Why the down vote SPC Frusha?

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Sep 8 at 2015 1:25 PM

CW3 Eric W. S. — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:25:28 -0400

Completely agree. We have many soldiers that are very good at their technical jobs, but do not have the inherent capability to lead. There are others that don't want to lead. Many I know enjoy their jobs and would prefer to be able to move up and continue to do their jobs without all of the administrative tasks associated with "leading troops". Let's face it, find a Platoon Sergeant that actually has time to train troops. You can't because there isn't one, too busy with paperwork - regardless of specialty or military occupation.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Sep 8 at 2015 2:32 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:32:31 -0400

I served and was taught by SPC 5-7 in the fields of medicine and intel, they were the best of the best and stayed in their lanes, I survived Colombia in 1985 and three Afghanistan deployments thanks to them.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 8 at 2015 6:04 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 18:04:51 -0400

Yes as some really should not lead troops but are technically savvy.

Response by SGT Leigh Barton made Sep 17 at 2015 2:49 PM

SGT Leigh Barton — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:49:24 -0400

One point brought up was the retention problem for technical assets. The additional compensation for special skills needs to be attached to the skills involved. Like combat pay in a hostile fire zone or quarters allowances for married service members, but the possibility combat action requires training EVERY service member to command at the appropriate level in a conflict. The technical capacity is an additional job, not a primary function.

Response by CW4 Kenneth Berninger made Sep 18 at 2015 6:43 AM

CW4 Kenneth Berninger — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:43:01 -0400

In todays high tech Military we will need this rank to keep things running. No one thinks of Maintenance till crap breaks.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Oct 10 at 2015 12:25 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:25:55 -0400

I was an SP5 laterally promoted to SGT when reclassified. I had been a TVM and reclassified as an armor crewman! SP5 was a good rank in that you were paid for your skill as a mechanic while your supervisor handled the NCO responsibilities . MAJ Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SGM Debra Bradshaw made Oct 16 at 2015 1:29 PM

SGM Debra Bradshaw — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:29:41 -0400

The Specialist is just that, he/she specializes in the field of assignment. The problem is that the almighty dollar controls the size of our armed forces and, therefore, the ability to even have people who cannot function in the strategic world of combat no matter the MOS. So while I empathize with those who do not wish to occupy leadership positions, we may not be able to afford them. The hard truth.

Response by SSG Foster Harrison made Oct 25 at 2015 11:00 PM

SSG Foster Harrison — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:00:20 -0400

Yes

Response by CW3 oSteve Bailey made Nov 11 at 2015 11:53 PM

CW3 oSteve Bailey — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:53:29 -0500

I also believe we need to bring back the specialist rank 100%. As a Warrant Officer in the maintenance field for 22 years, I also seen some great soldiers leave the army because they didn't want a leadership role but otherwise were great at there MOS and could teach other soldiers well. Giving them the incentive to stay in the army and make rank and better pay.

CW3 Bailey, USARMY retired

Response by SP5 Clarence Toland made Nov 12 at 2015 12:14 PM

SP5 Clarence Toland — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:14:55 -0500

Yes I agree that the specialist ranks should be brought back

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 15 at 2016 11:20 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:20:40 -0500

I think they should. In my field as an 64C now 88M, I enjoyed driving trucks and was good at it, but didn't necessarily want to get promoted to take me away from my truck.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 4:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 16:49:15 -0500

I know a great number of NCOs who are very proficient at their jobs but should never have been awarded stripes. If we're not going to revive the various grades of Specialist, we should get rid of the SPC rank entirely. SPC / E4 as a standalone rank is probably the most useless rank in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2017 10:53 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 22:53:34 -0500

I vote yes.
I think there are good Soldiers out there, who are good at their job but not necessarily a good leader or that they may not even want to lead.

Response by SFC George Smith made Jan 1 at 2017 11:41 PM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 23:41:39 -0500

Yes They Should
There Are Several Soft Skills That The MOS's Could Maintain The Expertise Of The Utilized The Specialist Ranks as Opposed To The Hard Skills/ Combat Arms...

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2017 11:44 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 23:44:53 -0500

Absolutely

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 12:05 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:05:01 -0500

As much as I liked the specialist rank, I disagree. This will be providing an easy route, a path of "least resistance" to many Soldiers, who otherwise will have to get out of their comfort zone and become leaders. The US Army is an army of soldiers, warriors, and not of technical people. Perhaps the Air Force can afford that, but at the end of the day, fighting is what we train to do, and everybody needs to train to lead. when I was a junior enlisted, it made me sick how pathetic were so many NCOs as leaders. Bringing back the specialists ranks will only make the supervising of Soldiers worst. I can already hear them "Well, I am only a technician, not a sergeant!". I say "NO!"

Response by CMSgt John Momaney made Jan 2 at 2017 2:38 AM

CMSgt John Momaney — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 02:38:34 -0500

I am Air Force but reading on this subject appears bringing back the SP ranks is justified. It again has a place and time. As you say not everyone desires to lead some are happy to follow leaders.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 3:37 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 03:37:46 -0500

I think it could help however if it's from a financial standpoint then no because that's what TIS raises are for

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 3:43 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 03:43:59 -0500

I would definitely like to see this come back. I agree that some people excel greatly by their perfession however they lack in leadership. But I've also seen people lack in their profession but are great leaders and then you have some that have the advantage of excelling in both aspects. To promote where it needs to be would be outstanding.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jan 2 at 2017 8:25 AM

SFC Stephen King — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 08:25:28 -0500

No, I have heard this debate for over 20 years. In the time we actually had these ranks it was a necessity. Today's society would not lend to the aforementioned specialist ranks. Keep the NCO corps strong by providing purpose in your mission, Motivation to serve regardless of rank and Direction to those you lead.

Response by SP6 Charlie Kastens made Jan 9 at 2017 12:25 AM

SP6 Charlie Kastens — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:25:13 -0500

you bet. Some guys just are not born to lead. I've seen good soldiers fail when put in charge but they were some of the best techs around. It's hard enough to repair some of this military equipment so leave it to the experts and let the sgts. lead.

Response by SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD made Jan 10 at 2017 12:48 AM

SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:48:53 -0500

As a SPC4, I hated it when my Sarge would ask me to assemble a guard detail. We used to argue about it. I didn't have time, as I was constantly needed at my specialty, not as a leader. For one thing, some of my brothers didn't want to be led by me. The SPC title should be reinstated.

Response by SP6 Thomas Stout made Jan 20 at 2017 11:53 PM

SP6 Thomas Stout — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:53:58 -0500

I could see SP5, maybe SP6 for certain fields; Medical, Admin, Legal, supply, etc... Mostly Non Combat Arms...Hard stripes in Combat Arms and E7 and above...Jmo. lowly E6

Response by SSG Joe Vendetti made Jan 22 at 2017 10:11 AM

SSG Joe Vendetti — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:11:34 -0500

I say yes, like you said all men do not make good leaders.

Response by SGT Sherrie Fanning made Jan 26 at 2017 12:07 PM

SGT Sherrie Fanning — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:07:43 -0500

Definitely not. E6 verses Sp6 ,.There would be some controversy on who's rank is a leadership rank..Same as Corporal and E4. Just more bull the Army doesn't need. Y'all have to many other fish to fry..

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2017 12:43 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:43:52 -0500

No doubt that not everybody born to be a leader or not everybody want to be a leader and be in front of high responsibility position ,so in that case nobody should be discriminated to allow to service USA as technician specialist and still working in one o many different areas that is not a leader position ,the rank of SPECIALIST must be bring back as soon as possible because the military are losing very good Technicians and they are human resources that the army money on them to their education and formation as Techs ,But this is just politics should change .

Response by Elvis Sequeira made Feb 2 at 2017 8:00 PM

Elvis Sequeira — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:00:15 -0500

no I hate it bring corporal and leave it as an e 4

Response by SSG Arthur Williams made Feb 9 at 2017 1:53 PM

SSG Arthur Williams — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:53:04 -0500

In admin, medical, cooks those fields

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2017 9:53 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:53:34 -0500

I don't know if a picture representation has been done, but this is essentially what it would look like.

Another question though, say you have a Corporal who doesn't want to go Sergeant and want's to go Specialist 5 instead, would that be an option if this were redone?

Or by the fact that the Soldier became an NCO is slotted for the NCO track unless they go Warrant or Commission?

Response by SP6 Donald Dickerson made Feb 12 at 2017 9:40 AM

SP6 Donald Dickerson — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:40:35 -0500

Yes

Response by SP6 Donald Dickerson made Feb 12 at 2017 9:41 AM

SP6 Donald Dickerson — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:41:04 -0500

Yes they should

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2017 8:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:14:58 -0500

No unless there was a WWII type of war.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Mar 30 at 2017 12:39 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:39:37 -0400

I have probably answered before, but stagnate E-anything causes a blockage for young soldiers to move up that may be good leaders, each Unit is authorized only so many E-4, E-5, or anything else. I am totaly against SPC rank and Warrant Officers. The senior NCO should have the technical ability to do what the WO does. Just my retired, experienced, opinions, I was a wheeled Vehicle Mechanic

Response by MSG Jim Hawthorn made Jul 23 at 2017 10:11 PM

MSG Jim Hawthorn — Sun, 23 Jul 2017 22:11:06 -0400

Bring them back! It use to go all the way to SP9. Only ever met one, he repaired medical equipment. Like it has already been mentioned, some folks are incredible technicians and don't want the headache of leadership.

Response by SP5 Ronald R Glaeseman made Jul 24 at 2017 9:57 PM

SP5 Ronald R Glaeseman — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 21:57:01 -0400

Definitely

Response by SPC William Bryan made Jul 24 at 2017 10:39 PM

SPC William Bryan — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:39:40 -0400

Yes they should, myself being a support MOS as a communications repairmen I didn't have the time to study for boards or even college classes. I had a work schedule but was also on call 24/7. I took MOS qualifications tests every year, that was my job. I could not get advanced because I could not go to PLDC since I had a job to do. So they always sent the guys that were extra, or didn't really have a job.
This in turn made it so in all actuality that the only path I had was out of the Army because I could not make rank fast enough for my time in service. Spec5 and 6 would make it were the Army could keep qualified personel longer.

Response by SFC David Radabaugh made Jul 25 at 2017 7:35 AM

SFC David Radabaugh — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:35:55 -0400

As a former sp6 I was not fully qualified when promoted to SFC and felt totally unprepared to be in a leadership role. I did however adjust but in the meantime I felt that I wasn't doing right by the men under me.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 2:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:44:58 -0400

Yes i was a squad leader at spec 5.

Response by SP5 Bill Griswell made Jul 27 at 2017 5:54 AM

SP5 Bill Griswell — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:54:29 -0400

Yes, I was a Spc 5 , held 2 Mia's wanted to be great at my jobs, not so much leading foks

Response by SGT Charlie Thrush made Jul 27 at 2017 12:08 PM

SGT Charlie Thrush — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:08:00 -0400

The specialist corp is like warrant officer Corp. The are very good at the job they do. Why not do away with warrant officer too?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 7:00 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:00:37 -0400

Yes, bring back the SP5-7 and get rid of Warrant Officer's, except for Aviation.

Response by SGT Jay Richardson made Jul 28 at 2017 6:46 PM

SGT Jay Richardson — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:46:31 -0400

When I first received my sp4 I thought it was great. I was working in a field that was on the technical side, but I soon found out that I was in a no man's land. Lower ranking enlisted don't listen to you be cause you are not considered as an nci, and the nco's looked down on you because even though you were both e4, e5 , or e6 because they had hard stripes they out ranked you as a specialist. So the question is , is it good or bad I guess it just depends on what side of the hard stripes you are on.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 8:28 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 08:28:37 -0400

Cheif I'm with you, put the skills test back in. On your comment about the infantry, maybe I'm a bit off base here but in many respects infantry is a technical MOS. Here is my point on that. If it weren't a technical MOS , why bother with the EIB? While all are required to be a basic infantry soldier. The is a point where we have to admit that not all would be successful as an infantry soldier. After being a retired infantry Sgt there were some that should have picked a different MOS. Todays technology requires an infantry soldier to be much more than in days past. While one very important thing cannot be taught, instincts. However each soldier may have those towards their MOS. I'LL use a cook as an outside analagy. While the manual may say this amount of time is needed for proper preparation of a particular item. A cook's instincts may be correct in changing the preparation time for a better flavor, therefore increasing morale by serving better chow. An infantryman can know that the SOP says enter a room this way. His instincts may tell him do it this way, improving the effectiveness of his team. Therefore bringing one more soldier home and improving morale.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 3:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:41:53 -0400

Yes, bring them back!

Response by SSG Tym Perryman made Aug 1 at 2017 4:18 AM

SSG Tym Perryman — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 04:18:06 -0400

Yes, I was around when we had these ranks and it was much more efficient.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2017 9:58 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 09:58:59 -0400

While there are some NCOs that earned the title of PV9 or Spec-9 through neglect of soldiers or abuse of rank, the army has far too many demands on it and not enough people do to pay people not to get the most out of them. We already have ranks for people unwilling to lead, specialists and privates.

Response by SGT Jeff Marshall made Aug 3 at 2017 5:01 AM

SGT Jeff Marshall — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 05:01:05 -0400

For sure!!!you have the chiefs & the Indians!!!

Response by SPC Prentice Watkins made Aug 3 at 2017 10:48 PM

SPC Prentice Watkins — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 22:48:15 -0400

Yes.

Response by SSgt Mark Paige made Aug 4 at 2017 3:20 PM

SSgt Mark Paige — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:20:46 -0400

Response by Justin Pasters made Aug 4 at 2017 5:59 PM

Justin Pasters — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:59:48 -0400

Yes we need to do it. Because people do more training for that special job that they need that rank and title

Response by SPC Paul Davis made Aug 8 at 2017 10:48 PM

SPC Paul Davis — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 22:48:39 -0400

Ok. could someone being me up to speed.on the Spc.rank debate? I must have been under my rock taking a long nap over the last 20 plus yrs. I left in 96 as Specialist( E-4). Did the DOD change rank structure with spc- corp.ranks? Thanks all

Response by SSG Ray Murphy made Aug 9 at 2017 11:32 AM

SSG Ray Murphy — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:32:04 -0400

Never should have done away with any of the Specialist ranks. SO many shit NCO's that would have made great specialists in the military these past 30+ years.

Response by SPC John Decker made Aug 9 at 2017 11:38 AM

SPC John Decker — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:38:24 -0400

yes

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 11:40 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:40:00 -0400

The military doesn't want to pay you at all, which is why they force many good NCO's out, to make room for lower paid personnel. So my question is, whether a leader or not, why would they want more personnel attaining a higher pay grade? It seems the current promotion system is prohibiting that already. They need to pay Lockheed, Boeing and Oshkosh... Just my thought.

Response by COL William Oseles made Aug 9 at 2017 11:43 AM

COL William Oseles — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:43:32 -0400

Back in WWII you had Sergeants and Tech Sergeants for much the same reason. But the Tech Sergeants while being junior to the Sergeants of the same grade got paid extra for that technical expertise.

Just as re-enlistment bonuses for highly technical specialist fields were higher thank for hard stripes.
Give it a couple more decades and the technical/specialist ranks will be back under a new name and with new insignia.

Response by SFC Oddie Brown made Aug 9 at 2017 11:48 AM

SFC Oddie Brown — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:48:12 -0400

I can see bringing back Sp 5 and Sp 6. I could see 5s still being utilized in positions in combat arms. I would only use 6s in clerical or technical positions like computers, finance or the medical field. It would also be another way to keep the "manning numbers" up. I would NOT have a Sp 7. I think at that level it is earned by time and position and experience. I saw too many people go from E-6 to E-7 that couldn't lead a 3 man section to the mess hall and back. If you can't do the job find a place for them behind a desk as a Sp 6, let them finish their current enlistment then send them home. Retiring at 20 years should not be a given if you cannot lead and I saw it first hand too many times.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Aug 9 at 2017 11:52 AM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:52:35 -0400

I used to be in signals intelligence in the first half of my career. Keeping the specialist ranks would have been great. We had many people that were excellent in their MOS. Top experts in their jobs. Nope, the Army switched the system & forced many out of their jobs & into leadership roles. Many were never suited for that & especially in the intel field, expertise was lost. I used to work jointly with the British. They used be able to go up in pay grade & not necessarily in rank. It was nothing to see a corporal with 25 years of service but they were the expert on a a particular aspect of their mission. With so much being sunk into cyberwarfare today, this may be a great option to keep our experts on the job while still increasing their pay rates.

Response by CSM Michael Sweeney made Aug 9 at 2017 12:36 PM

CSM Michael Sweeney — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:36:52 -0400

I used to think so, but not anymore. I've been retired for 18 years, but I did serve as a DAC at the installation level for years after. I came up the ranks as a Specialist (4, 5 and 6) before being converted to SSG in 1975. I do believe that there were otherwise good soldiers at the PFC and SPC(4) level that would have been overjoyed to remain at that rank. I used to say that the Army needs happy ditch diggers. Perhaps just longevity raises. Anyway, as a NCO Academy Commandant for PLDC (now called something else I think), I felt that we were forcing young Specialists to become leaders too soon in a lot of cases. Then putting out otherwise good soldiers just because they were not leader material. I never believed in up or out. I always felt that some could just stagnate as long as they did what they were supposed to do and let others jump around them. I have no idea how things are now, so don't blast me, but that was my opinion then. I am old enough to know that things do change. Spoon 7 out.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 12:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:41:43 -0400

Yeah they need to bring it back

Response by SSG Diane R. made Aug 9 at 2017 3:06 PM

SSG Diane R. — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:06:39 -0400

I think the Army should give it serious consideration especially because of the challenges of acquiring highly competent technical people. An IT professional recruited from civilian life to fulfill a critical position is not necessarily a good leader and thus giving them a specialist rank would be ideal.

Specialist would be recognized by their grade and expertise, and nuts and bolts that hold together the technical aspects of the service. Experts in that field, but not necessarily leadership potential. For thumb the burden of command is just too high but they can make excellent technician and they may be well content with that.

In our highly complex military we need to recognize it now more than ever.

Response by PO3 Scot Fahey made Aug 9 at 2017 4:15 PM

PO3 Scot Fahey — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:15:42 -0400

navy pay grade, and MOS or Rating are two things. Your are pay grade E 5 , then another job of equal pay grade, time in service, is not a superior non com. Spec 5 senior time in grade is not the Junior non com, chain of command, is how we operate

Response by CPL Phill Kelley made Aug 9 at 2017 8:09 PM

CPL Phill Kelley — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:09:57 -0400

Spec 4 only in non combat arms Mos. E-5 and above, no specialist.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 10:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:03:25 -0400

No, because it was done my mos and not by leadership ability. Any nco could give a lawful order. A specialist cannot.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Aug 10 at 2017 2:36 PM

CPT Tom Monahan — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:36:14 -0400

Bring back the Tech SGTs and know that they are techs first and leaders second. Basically the Warrant Officer rate in the enlisted service. Many MOSs would benefit from this: Vet Corps, Medical Corps, Finance, Chemical, Cyber, Signal, Legal, Mechanics, Calibration, etc.

Response by PO3 David Davis made Aug 10 at 2017 4:36 PM

PO3 David Davis — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:36:48 -0400

I didn't know they did that. Yes I thing they should bring them back. However leadership is important. They should get all of the responsibilities of their rank. Why should furthering education or have a specialty be looked down upon.

Response by SP5 Jaime Soto made Aug 10 at 2017 6:18 PM

SP5 Jaime Soto — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:18:32 -0400

No, I was an SPC 5 and I hated it

Response by PO2 Don Behrens made Aug 10 at 2017 7:39 PM

PO2 Don Behrens — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:39:27 -0400

Yes

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Aug 10 at 2017 8:15 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400

Good idea that didn't translate. Perhaps the Technician stripes

Response by SP5 Wilbert Jennings made Aug 10 at 2017 10:56 PM

SP5 Wilbert Jennings — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:56:22 -0400

The thing about many not wanting to be a leader would make one think the sepecialist class wasn't trained soldiers. I enlisted when drafted for a meter test set tepair because I qualified for any school I eanted. I was injured in basic and ended up in Nam as a pay disburser and eventually medvaced to Jspan thsn to Walter Reed due to injury csusing severr pain to arms and legs.I eventually had to have my neck fused 360% but not by the VA . they weren't thr same VA they are today.The difference in E5. and Sarg. Creates a devision to some degree while it also points out the unique difference.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 6:52 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:52:24 -0400

Tech sgt 5-7 is another route the army could go

Response by SPC THomas D. LoBianco made Aug 16 at 2017 12:59 AM

SPC THomas D. LoBianco — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:59:26 -0400

As a veteran, spec E-5, I do believe the specialist ranks should be reinstated. A leader is a leader regardless of what type of stripes are on your sleave. One that does specialize has the privilege to lead and or provide support functions . I again, do believe there is a special place for specialist !

Response by SPC Scott Klein made Aug 16 at 2017 2:20 PM

SPC Scott Klein — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:20:26 -0400

With spec ranks you have soldiers who specializes in tech and other fields other than combat!yes should bring it back with same respect and grade as a hard striper!

Response by SP5 Gary Warren made Sep 27 at 2017 6:13 PM

SP5 Gary Warren — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:13:10 -0400

I would have loved a written test, does away with favoritism it's all in black and white!
SGT NOT SP5

Response by SPC Gerard Curtis made Dec 26 at 2017 3:35 PM

SPC Gerard Curtis — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:35:18 -0500

I think this is a great idea!!! When I was in I refused to go to the promotion board because I didn't want the responsibility of leading others. I was a good soldier but I didn't wanna be accountable for other soldiers actions bit it would have been nice to be able to progress through the pay grades due to my professionalism and skill rather than being forced to be in charge of a bunch of folks with less drive that are considered "a reflection of their leadership"

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2017 12:47 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:47:44 -0500

This is a very old argument, and I'm torn on it. I hate seeing Soldiers that aren't qualified or even mediocre at their craft being placed in charge of anyone. A SSG that isn't technically proficient can ruin a shop full of competent Soldiers any day. I find Warrant Officers reaching down past their NCO to manage and develop subordinates because of this. There is too much focus on the wrong categories for promotion and not near enough on job competency. I switched over because I love my craft and did not want to be a random interchangeable cog in the machine. I didn't like the thought of filling an S-shop position that is essentially MOS immaterial because of the time and effort that I had spent perfecting my craft. I don't think everyone feels this way though. Everyone feels like they have to do a staff position to make SFC or MSG. I don't know for certain, but I didn't want my career to follow that logic, so my decision to change over was easy. We don't need to necessarily bring back the SPC ranks, but we do need to promote Soldiers that own their craft as opposed to Soldiers that are good at getting promoted.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 27 at 2017 1:30 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 01:30:48 -0500

One of the biggest mistakes the Army ever did was taking away the SPC ranks (5 and up). NOT EVERYONE IS A LEADER. There are lots of great technical people out there who have left the Army because they didn't want a leadership position, they just wanted to do their job. I have seen piss poor leaders who never belonged in the position because there was no place to put them.

Response by SSG Craig Newton made Dec 27 at 2017 2:30 PM

SSG Craig Newton — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:30:41 -0500

Absolutely. Not everybody has leadership ability but as their technical expertise increases they should be rewarded with promotions.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2017 4:58 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:58:58 -0500

When I joined the last of the Specialist (5&6) were leaving (Ft. Lewis). I had the opportunity to process in with a gentleman that was a Spec 6 we talked for a few hours as I waited to get my ID appt. After that I've always felt that the spec 4-6 rank should be reinstituted. Certain. M.O.S.'s would benefit from that ranking system terribly. While others would find that it increases their ranks and maintains soldiers time in service rather than having them RCP out. I fully agree that they should be reinstituted.

Response by Sgt Michael Caldwell made Dec 27 at 2017 8:01 PM

Sgt Michael Caldwell — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:01:59 -0500

I don't understand this fascination with always making a New Rank or Beret!
Just make everyone the same Rank and at E-8 they decide reather they stay Field (M/Sgt) or Admin (1st/Sgt).
It sounds like the Spec rank is for people who want to Hid and Slide, don't wish to Command but want the Rank! Give me a break. Your just making a Special Group of Soldiers that have no Comand over anyone under them? Why don't you just give them a different color Beret and Uniform...

Response by 2LT Mark West made Dec 27 at 2017 10:37 PM

2LT Mark West — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:37:04 -0500

Good point

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2017 1:32 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 01:32:53 -0500

The "every soldier a leader" idea imho applies well to combat arms. Technical MOS's not so much. In combat arms, there isn't a great deal of technical skill involved, but the ability to lead small units is the key factor in lethality. 25U soldiers however are prime candidates for being specialists at higher grades.

Response by LtCol Stan Hendrickson made Dec 28 at 2017 8:40 AM

LtCol Stan Hendrickson — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:40:06 -0500

Not necesssry...marine corps has specialists too and uses same rank structure throughout the corps with no problems

Response by SGT Christopher Robinson made Dec 28 at 2017 2:19 PM

SGT Christopher Robinson — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:19:01 -0500

Yes

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2017 9:16 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:16:40 -0500

i think they should.

Response by SFC Greg Bruorton made Dec 28 at 2017 9:35 PM

SFC Greg Bruorton — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:35:28 -0500

The major consensus in the remarks on this topic is, "Bring back the Specialists' ranks." I agree on that because, as so many have said, not every soldier wants to be a leader, but simply a specialist in his/her field.

What can be done at this point? None of us are in a position to make such a recommendation except by the higher ranking active duty soldiers. CSMs and colonels on this forum might get a say-so toward the Pentagon, plus the one Brigadier and Major General on board as well. Surveys and signed petitions won't work in this case either.

Another question for consideration . . .

Response by SPC Matthew Errickson made Dec 28 at 2017 9:47 PM

SPC Matthew Errickson — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:47:51 -0500

As a young army brat I remember when this was still going on while my father served. Honestly, this should be brought back.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Dec 29 at 2017 7:58 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:58:10 -0500

Actually they were subordinate to a Corporal, a fact my SMJ reminded us of whenever one pissed him off. He would chuck them out of the NCO Club and put them on guard duty

Response by SGT Philip Keys made Dec 29 at 2017 8:24 PM

SGT Philip Keys — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:24:08 -0500

Well if they bring back these ranks what would be a good solution for officers that couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water? These super techs that know more about their MOS than anyone else we used to call them Chief. I don't think bringing the rank back would be beneficial for the army

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2017 8:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:36:41 -0500

No, it will diminish the drive to seek out leadership positions. It would be easy to be a technical and tactically proficient Soldier with zero Soldiers under your charge. If we have so many worth while Soldiers with these proficiencies but little to no leadership ability, treat as the CW Officer world expand into more various fields, and pay based on proficiency, and create a steady RCP to decrease stagnation. NCOs, should be administered exqms as well, but due to responsibility, should not have their authority diminished by someone who is not an active leader.

Response by SPC David Glines made Dec 29 at 2017 9:11 PM

SPC David Glines — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 21:11:43 -0500

I agree with that I for one didn't serve while this was in effect but had family that did and they said the Army should not have gotten rid of it

Response by SPC Robert Donner made Dec 29 at 2017 11:03 PM

SPC Robert Donner — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:03:02 -0500

I say bring it back. I probably would of stayed in if the Spec track was still here.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2017 2:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:51:51 -0500

If you have McD's that are not technically proficient in their specialty they should getting counseled and rated as such and thereby pushed out. The problem with leaders isn't necessarily the system...it's THEIR LEADERS.

Response by SFC Wayne Theilen made Dec 30 at 2017 7:18 PM

SFC Wayne Theilen — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:18:53 -0500

I’m retired. Do whatever you want...

Response by SFC Mark Russell made Dec 30 at 2017 9:26 PM

SFC Mark Russell — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:26:10 -0500

yes, with so much Hi-Tech equipment now, we need to have troops that are more concentrated on the IT or Technical side, so those that do not have the Tech Background can be the Hard Stripe leaders

Response by CPT Robert Bretherick made Dec 31 at 2017 4:53 PM

CPT Robert Bretherick — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 16:53:39 -0500

Yes, there is no difference than a Doctor getting Captain bars. Has no authority outside of his Bailly wick. Better chance for promotion.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Dec 31 at 2017 6:07 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:07:01 -0500

Hell yes, too many people wearing stripes who have no clue what do with them. Many people into days technical fields are great technicians but not great leaders.

Response by SFC Gerald Halbur made Dec 31 at 2017 8:58 PM

SFC Gerald Halbur — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 20:58:03 -0500

Hell yes and they should also do away with mandatory up or out policy, As long as a person/soldier has no problem taking orders and following themfrom somebody younger they should be sllowed to stay. There are some people that should never be in charge oore than 1 vehicle or weapon or wheelbarrow

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2017 10:14 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 22:14:47 -0500

Yes it would make a more experienced military

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2017 10:34 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 22:34:25 -0500

I’ve been saying that all the branches need to institute this for a while now.

Response by 1LT Paul Wilkerson made Jan 1 at 2018 12:09 AM

1LT Paul Wilkerson — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:09:03 -0500

This is why we have warrant officers

Response by SFC Timothy Wieboldt made Jan 1 at 2018 8:18 AM

SFC Timothy Wieboldt — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 08:18:38 -0500

Some soldiers just don't have the personality to be a leader, but do their job verywell. I was in during that time and it worked well. They do need to bring it back.

Response by CPL David Blagrove made Jan 1 at 2018 8:20 AM

CPL David Blagrove — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 08:20:57 -0500

When you reach a certain age within ranks, you are a leader, and in the event of war, the young soldier is going to look to you for direction! The Specialist ranks are trash! Marines don’t have them, not even the Airforce, Navy, or Coast Guard have Specialists! Keep them in the trash!

Response by SSG Ross Lapointe made Jan 1 at 2018 8:24 AM

SSG Ross Lapointe — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 08:24:19 -0500

Yes. It was a terrible mistake to loss so my much talent and expertise.

Response by CW3 Bill Katz made Jan 1 at 2018 11:49 AM

CW3 Bill Katz — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 11:49:40 -0500

For all of you who think the technician should become a leader, think of it this way: There are FOUR non-NCO ranks and FIVE NCO (read: leadership) ranks. Now, I get there are more junior enlisted than NCO’s, but it seems like there are too many chiefs and not enough indians. I agree with the guy that said, “Why waste all the money we spent training them only to have them separate and do the same job (for more money) as a civilian. Buy what do I know? I only did 8 years enlisted and 12 as a CWO.

Response by LCDR Tim McKenzie made Jan 1 at 2018 4:55 PM

LCDR Tim McKenzie — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 16:55:17 -0500

Not

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2018 8:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:11:41 -0500

Yes I've seen plenty of really good soldiers get R C P out of the army and watched leaders who know nothing about there MOS get promoted

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2018 11:11 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 11:11:45 -0500

I think that they would need to cut the pay for enlisted grades E-5 to E-9, and provide a special pay to those who wear stripes to make up the difference.

Response by SFC Lowell Johnson Sr made Jan 2 at 2018 12:22 PM

SFC Lowell Johnson Sr — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:22:40 -0500

I’ve known a lot of good men that were great soldiers but was not leaders of men. These men got out of the service because they were not able to advance in rank. They should bring back the specialist ranks just for this reason.

Response by 1SG Leo Leal made Jan 2 at 2018 12:59 PM

1SG Leo Leal — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:59:56 -0500

While an E7 is a SFC and maybe a PSG not all SFCs are PSGs. The same applies to SPC and CPL. SGT/TEAM LEADER and SSG/SQUADLEADER. EVEN 1SG/MASTER SERGEANT I have seen many (leaders) fall flat on their face while trying to lead but were the Super Sergeant on the tech side. Bring the spec rank back. It will also more promotion opportunities

Response by SPC Ryan Crater made Jan 2 at 2018 1:27 PM

SPC Ryan Crater — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:27:03 -0500

Sure

Response by SSG Patrick Williams made Jan 2 at 2018 3:41 PM

SSG Patrick Williams — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 15:41:51 -0500

Many soldiers were forced to leave the military because they loved their jobs, but were forced into positions they didn't want. I understand slots have to filled, but fill it with people who want It, like they use to.

Response by SSG Jason Clark made Jan 2 at 2018 3:42 PM

SSG Jason Clark — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 15:42:46 -0500

Yes! Just because a Soldier doesn’t have leadership potential, doesn’t mean they aren’t a technical expert. I’ve had Soldiers who knew their jobs better than many NCOs, however weren’t leadership material. They weren’t good at leading, counseling, separation from lower enlisted, but were a valuable asset. Don’t RCP these Soldiers. They’ve earned their place in our Army and deserve the chance to retire.

Response by PO1 Barbara Matthews made Jan 2 at 2018 4:14 PM

PO1 Barbara Matthews — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:14:52 -0500

I have been in the Army National Guard and Navy. Personally I think it is better to have NCO ranks than Specialist. In either Navy or Marines you are a Petty Officer it NCO from E4 and up. There is over path for all and everyone is pretty much given the same responsibility, accountability, and authority based on rank.

Response by PO1 Barbara Matthews made Jan 2 at 2018 4:19 PM

PO1 Barbara Matthews — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:19:31 -0500

Furthermore I feel that the Spec4 is a joke. Why can't all E4's be Corporals? How do you expect someone to learn leadership before they make Sergeant? The E4 should be the place to have limited leadership roles so you can be prepared to take on more later on.

Response by Pvt Jim Gaudet made Jan 2 at 2018 4:54 PM

Pvt Jim Gaudet — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:54:35 -0500

In the USMC, there is really only one specialist/tech rank. MGySgt.

Response by SFC Robert Adams made Jan 2 at 2018 5:19 PM

SFC Robert Adams — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:19:24 -0500

Bring them back. When I was in we had SP4 to SP7, for the technical non combat arms MOS. They did away with the SP6 and SP7 when I was still in. I served proudly as a SP4 and SP5. Retired Army SFC E-7.

Response by MAJ Micah Duke made Jan 2 at 2018 5:35 PM

MAJ Micah Duke — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:35:11 -0500

Been out a few years but had the opportunity to lead and command both combat arms soldiers and specialized Intelligence soldiers. I also had allied soldiers attached to me. Several of our commonwealth allies have career corporals. This system works very well for them and has been around a long time. It allows for soldiers/marines to stay doing what they love and not be faced with our system of advance or out. I'M of the belief that something along those lines and mixed with some of the old specialist /technical system would go a long way to helping retention and maintaining institutional knowledge.

Response by SPC Tim Burke made Jan 2 at 2018 6:12 PM

SPC Tim Burke — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:12:52 -0500

not for nothing but a rank does not qualify you as a leader, that was the goal but not the reality. specialists were experts in their field originally but became the military's way of bridging the gap between junior enlisted and nco. it's a sorry state

Response by MSG Loren Tomblin made Jan 2 at 2018 6:32 PM

MSG Loren Tomblin — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:32:11 -0500

I agree. I was so disappointed when the Army said "Up or out". It was though it was forcing soldiers to their level of incompetency. I once served with a company commander that love doing that. He was forced out by that rule. I also knew professional privates that loved their job. I also witnessed troops in the transportation MOS as truck drivers being promoted to Truck Master positions which did not cover their driving status. All they wanted to do was drive. They got out and re-enlisted at a lower rank. Convoluted logic at best to lose so much talent.

Response by COL William Oseles made Jan 2 at 2018 9:41 PM

COL William Oseles — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:41:15 -0500

They should bring them back as Technical Sergeants.

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Jan 2 at 2018 9:42 PM

1SG Frank Boynton — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:42:39 -0500

This has been debated since the end of the Vietnam war. To me it depends on how high the specialist rank will go. Spec 5 ok. But Spec 6 no. Because a E-5 Sergeant could be in a leadership position over him. In reality that’s like a 2nd Lt being in a leadership position over a 1st Lt. That just doesn’t work in the hierarchical structure of the military. And by nature of the specialist rank you can’t place a Specialist over a Sergeant. So the dilemma goes on. If the Army changed its up or out policy and limited the specialist to spec 4/5 and would allow a good soldier to go the 20 years for retirement I say go for it.

Response by Capt Joseph Schvimmer made Jan 2 at 2018 9:54 PM

Capt Joseph Schvimmer — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:54:37 -0500

Will that lead to soldiers theowing away their weapons when confronted?

Response by SPC Darcy Miller made Jan 2 at 2018 10:20 PM

SPC Darcy Miller — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 22:20:49 -0500

Absolutely! I was a Spc4 and had leadership abilities that were recognized. You don't have to be an NCO to be a Ieader. I ran a messhall and loved every minute of it

Response by SPC Dakota Stafford made Jan 3 at 2018 1:43 AM

SPC Dakota Stafford — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:43:39 -0500

Are we talking about participation trophies?

Response by 1LT Erin Berg made Jan 3 at 2018 2:00 AM

1LT Erin Berg — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 02:00:41 -0500

I think it would be a great idea to bring them back. It allows the Army to retain people they've spent millions training.

Response by SPC Joe Conti made Jan 3 at 2018 8:09 AM

SPC Joe Conti — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 08:09:02 -0500

Specialists are as important as sgts. but pay grade should be equal!!!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 9:14 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:14:49 -0500

I think that in order to progress in rank you should demonstrate some leadership. Why would someone get the same pay as me but be mediocre?

Response by SPC Stan LaCount made Jan 3 at 2018 9:18 AM

SPC Stan LaCount — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:18:48 -0500

Same as enlisted warrant. Still have warrant officers don't we.

Response by Sgt Gerardo Casteleiro made Jan 3 at 2018 10:28 AM

Sgt Gerardo Casteleiro — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 10:28:15 -0500

Technical proficiency and leadership capability are not mutually exclusive. I think expecting both in order to meet a rank raises the bar. And it keeps things simple. That’s my “outsider” perspective.

Response by A1C Michael Gersley made Jan 3 at 2018 10:40 AM

A1C Michael Gersley — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 10:40:05 -0500

Even in civilian life, you maybe the best in your job. But not management. Do not push people beyond their ability.

Response by SrA James Cannon made Jan 3 at 2018 11:00 AM

SrA James Cannon — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:00:15 -0500

Absolutely the Specialist ranks should be brought back. They should bring them back all the way to Spec 9 like they once had.

Response by SSG John Farvour made Jan 3 at 2018 11:02 AM

SSG John Farvour — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:02:08 -0500

I say yes! It would be good for all of you non- combat mos and some of those guys that are good infantrymen or scouts or tankers that are not cut out to lead. Also bring back the SQT! I know plenty E7 thru CSM that were garbage at their jobs and still advanced due to the nicer good ole boy system

Response by COL Brad Welch made Jan 3 at 2018 11:29 AM

COL Brad Welch — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:29:09 -0500

Short term solution to a long term problem. That long term problem is maintaining strength numbers in a widening pool of a non-qualified population. More and more 18 year olds are finding themselves unfit for service due to character issues, drugs, physical fitness, etc. This reduces the pool for recruiters to pull from, having a detrimental effect on end strength due to retention (both selective and promotion based).

The Army is already lowering entrance standards which is abhorrent to me. If we can maintain strength levels by bringing back an old system and keep standards where they ought to be, I'm all for it!!!

Response by SrA Robert Hubbard made Jan 3 at 2018 11:33 AM

SrA Robert Hubbard — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:33:08 -0500

I say no, because in order to progress, you mist take on responsibility. That means leading others with increase in rank/grade. If your not ready/responsible/ or want to lead others then you don't deserve the privilege of being promoted. Stop crying and wanting a handout grade. It's the military, you fall under the needs of the army. Army doesn't need a bunch of pussies in it. The army is not a safe space for libtards. Man up, do your job, and take the responsibility that comes with it.

Response by PO1 David Richardson made Jan 3 at 2018 12:37 PM

PO1 David Richardson — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:37:25 -0500

Yes, it should be a track available to all services as the Navy has lost countless proficient technicians.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 12:39 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:39:39 -0500

I think we should for more technical fields and make it like Warrants for enlisted

Response by LTC Jim Carman made Jan 3 at 2018 1:44 PM

LTC Jim Carman — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 13:44:17 -0500

I have no problem with bringing back specialist ranks, although it is not essential. All grades should be proficient in their MOS skills, but should also understand basic tactics and leadership skills. While they are not expected to fill leadership roles, support troops have throughout history been put in unexpected roles where they have had to step up and fill a combat role. Unless things have changed, everyone's secondary mission is to fight as infantry when required. Whether they wear stripes or spec rank, they need to have the wherewithal to pick up the flag and move forward when required. The benefit to having spec ranks is to ensure that highly skilled technicians are not indiscriminately thrust into leadership positions they do not fit, and vice versa, except as a last resort; just my opinion. Saw all too many unskilled guys in Vietnam get promoted to positions requiring specialized skills because they were good soldiers and those were the only promotable slots available. When some of a company commander's key NCOs need to be told by their platoon or company commander how to do their job, rather than vice versa, there is a major problem. Again, just one man's observation/opinion. LTC (Ret) Jim Carman

Response by SP5 Christopher's Frames made Jan 3 at 2018 2:22 PM

SP5 Christopher's Frames — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:22:07 -0500

For specialty skills
Cooks, Maintenance now we have
Computer technology mos that they don’t always require to be leaders. Would be ok

Response by SFC Glen Economy made Jan 3 at 2018 3:11 PM

SFC Glen Economy — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:11:57 -0500

No no no.. it was a mistake to begin with...

Response by SSG Raymond Valles made Jan 3 at 2018 3:32 PM

SSG Raymond Valles — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:32:33 -0500

I've known great soldiers that were great at their job but just didn't have the leadership bone.

Response by SPC Jd Shadwick made Jan 3 at 2018 3:47 PM

SPC Jd Shadwick — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:47:29 -0500

When did they get rid of the SPC rank? Back in '08 at time of discharge, that's the rank I held. Just on the promotable side

Response by Faith Martin made Jan 3 at 2018 4:06 PM

Faith Martin — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:06:36 -0500

I think they should. There are many valuable skills that are important. Leadership is only one.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 4:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:56:23 -0500

Absolutely! As the title suggests...a SPECIALIST. Promote based on skills demonstrated, some people want to serve in a support capacity, they have no desire to assume the mantle of responsibility of leading troops....some don't have the presence (command/leadership) to lead. However, that does not mean that they don't know their job like the back of their hand and for that reason they need to be kept around. RCP's prohibit these talented soldiers continuing to serve our country and therefore weaken our Army as a whole, as young soldiers are limited on exposure to mentorship in their chosen field

Response by MSG Ralph Coggins made Jan 3 at 2018 5:26 PM

MSG Ralph Coggins — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:26:11 -0500

SGM (Retired)
Specialist grades are a neccessity. Who was the desk jockey that decided to do away with Specialists. There are thousands of very intelligent, knowledgeable and efficient Specialist that couldn't lead a "Pig to Shit" as they say, but they were, or are very essential to completing the mission!

Response by SSG Roy Boykin made Jan 3 at 2018 6:03 PM

SSG Roy Boykin — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:03:21 -0500

Well said chief.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 6:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:56:20 -0500

Bring the rank back!

Response by SGT Chester Beedle made Jan 3 at 2018 6:57 PM

SGT Chester Beedle — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:57:46 -0500

Most definitely. Some people are great at a job, great followers, but bad leaders. If someone is the best damn tank mecha if in the world why force him out because he isn't a leader? Or an MP who is an awesome cop. Or the cook. Or the sniper who can hide in the middle of an enemy Batallion, take.out the leaders, and make his way back to his platoon entirely on his own.

Response by CWO4 Frank Williams made Jan 3 at 2018 7:24 PM

CWO4 Frank Williams — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:24:28 -0500

Everyone doesn’t want to be a leader and if they are great at their technical specialty, keep their nose clean and dedicated to their service then why not keep them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 7:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:33:58 -0500

Absolutely! Some Soldiers deserve a pay raise, but don't need additional authority.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 7:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:40:10 -0500

I think they should get rid of all specialist rank.

Response by SSG Christopher Horton made Jan 3 at 2018 7:45 PM

SSG Christopher Horton — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:45:35 -0500

No. As a matter of fact the Specialist rank should be discontinued also. The Army needs leaders. Not soldiers who just know their technical job

Response by SPC Jon Quist made Jan 3 at 2018 8:06 PM

SPC Jon Quist — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 20:06:34 -0500

Keep the ranks as they are except E-4p should be given Corpral strips.

Response by SPC James Cooper made Jan 3 at 2018 8:47 PM

SPC James Cooper — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 20:47:06 -0500

I have to agree whole hearted with the CW4 , I have had NCO's E-7 as section leader that knew nothing about that platoons mission! They were just holding a slot!

Response by SSG Bryan McDougal made Jan 3 at 2018 8:50 PM

SSG Bryan McDougal — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 20:50:14 -0500

There was one, it was the SQT test that determined if you knew your MOS. IT RAN TILL THE LATE 80'S. About the time you needed PLDC to move up in the Army, just when every unit was sending it's fu$%heads to it. Just before Desert Storm. Awesome. The next 20 years proved the need for its return especially in the post Obama Army.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 9:08 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:08:36 -0500

These should definitely be brought back. I've been saying this for years, and to help offset the cost the Army should do away with most Warrant officers, probably only keeping that rank for pilots and special forces

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2018 9:43 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:43:07 -0500

Yes.

Response by Tony Celata made Jan 3 at 2018 9:46 PM

Tony Celata — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:46:02 -0500

Why should a non-leader, “specialist” get similar pay to an actual leader? This would essentially equate to their getting higher pay without having any responsibilities; what are they, Warrant Officers?!

Response by SGT John Syler made Jan 3 at 2018 9:46 PM

SGT John Syler — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:46:06 -0500

Yes they should have retained those ranks. I retired from the National Guard after 24 yrs time in service. I am a perfect example of someone that just wanted to do a job to the best of my ability. They keep pushing promotion not realizing we are not all leadership material.

Response by SPC Norman Merritt made Jan 3 at 2018 10:06 PM

SPC Norman Merritt — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:06:05 -0500

Yes. Up to SP7

Response by SFC Douglas Oberholtzer made Jan 3 at 2018 10:13 PM

SFC Douglas Oberholtzer — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:13:31 -0500

I agree. I have seen many soldiers that make good SGTs or SSGs, on the same note there are some that would make good SP5s and SP6s. Need to clean up the back bone of the Army.

Response by 1SG Gerald Christensen made Jan 3 at 2018 10:47 PM

1SG Gerald Christensen — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:47:22 -0500

Yes, I can remember specialist ranks for depot repair personnel going 6 or 7.

Response by SGT George Smith made Jan 3 at 2018 11:02 PM

SGT George Smith — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 23:02:50 -0500

I think it would be a good thing.

Response by PO2 Tony Shapiro made Jan 3 at 2018 11:13 PM

PO2 Tony Shapiro — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 23:13:33 -0500

Sp4 to Sp7

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 12:34 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 00:34:36 -0500

Yes Bring it back! I’m a Helicopter mechanic and from what I had seen is that once one is promoted to NCO they don’t spnd as much time turning wrench’s but instead they manage/track army requirements. This leaves the floor with a bunch of E4’s who all get paid the same, only thing is some are good at their job while most are not.

Response by MSgt Frank Graham made Jan 4 at 2018 1:35 AM

MSgt Frank Graham — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 01:35:48 -0500

Too many Chiefs and no Indians these days. Part of the problem.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 2:12 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 02:12:36 -0500

I'll play both sides, as I see both ends of the spectrum in my position. Yes to the Specialist ranks, or if the army doesnt want the shields, bring back the old Tech ranks (T-5 "Tech Corporal", etc). I agree with this as I know, meaning no disrespect to NCO's above me or anything, that some NCOs do NOT belong where they are due to a simple fact that they cannot lead anyone, or that they still think they are one of the "guys" and will not do anything negative towards his friends or will only do things to better his or her self for promotion. Yes they learn the NCO Creed, but they dont follow it. But if the old specialist or even tech ranks are brought back, that would fix that divide real quick. BUT on the other hand, if the army does not want to do this and continue with the "Everyone is a leader" ideology, let them, but have the prospective promoteables take an MOS aptitude test for every promotion above E-4 as well as to be able to COMPETENTLY lead, at the very minimum, the smallest functional section that their rank entitles them to.

Response by SPC David Lewis made Jan 4 at 2018 2:38 AM

SPC David Lewis — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 02:38:05 -0500

There are a lot of bullshit responses to these. I served and seen better leaders and knowledgeable doc's that were worth more than the hard stripes that most have had up and to include E7. That goes for the stupid ads warrant comment and the sink or swim bullshit. I still work around soldiers everyday and see more and more dumbasses with stripes.

Response by Cpl Bill Johnson made Jan 4 at 2018 5:18 AM

Cpl Bill Johnson — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 05:18:51 -0500

Agreed

Response by 1SG John Ginn made Jan 4 at 2018 6:39 AM

1SG John Ginn — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 06:39:08 -0500

In the Navy every sailor is a specialist. Their MOS is in their title, which denotes their leadership status. A Corpsman will easily relinquish rank authority to a Boatsman's Mate. The Army is so rank driven and rank competitive.

Response by PVT Jay Settell made Jan 4 at 2018 7:11 AM

PVT Jay Settell — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 07:11:37 -0500

I could see this being of benefit to a lot of people in the army.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 8:46 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:46:40 -0500

I think, if this kept shit bag NCOs at a lower number... I think the soldiers might show real motivation! And might even make the good leaders in the lower ranks wanna step up to the plate... Can't have that!

Response by 1SG Robert Avino made Jan 4 at 2018 9:34 AM

1SG Robert Avino — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:34:37 -0500

Yes definitely MSG (RET) Robert H. Avino

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 10:26 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:26:25 -0500

I wasn't in during this time, but we could use this many good soliders getting out. They just aren't good leader's but know their jobs unlike many they work with.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 11:45 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:45:12 -0500

No it was a bad idea then but it was done for a reason if you can't be a complete Soldier you shouldn't be getting paid for being a complete Soldier expertise and Leadership all go hand-in-hand having knowledge and can not lead but being paid the same money for knowledge and soldier that can lead it's a bad idea again always been and a good leader can basically train any Soldier knowledge come to those who wants to learn

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 12:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 12:17:26 -0500

Needs to be brought back it worked in ww2, and Korea as technical ranks and it worked in nam up till the 80s as a spec rank. Time to bring it back. I’ve met plenty with mad technical skills but hardly any leader ship skills these ranks would be perfect

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 2:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:37:48 -0500

I have almost zero experience in the Army and want to make that clear, however I see it being worth the complications it would create to bring it back

Response by SPC Dennis Gurevitz made Jan 4 at 2018 3:28 PM

SPC Dennis Gurevitz — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 15:28:24 -0500

Never new that Specialist tank was discounted. During WW2 it was calledTech Corporal or Tech Sgt. Without those ranks then it appears soldiers are trapped to no higher than PFC unless they can make Sgt. Not good if you want talent to stay in the service.

Response by SPC Barney Kelleher made Jan 4 at 2018 4:07 PM

SPC Barney Kelleher — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:07:04 -0500

Never understood the use of SP4 instead of Corporal for "combat MOS" people.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 4:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:37:24 -0500

I would reather go back to the old days, when and ssg would work hand in hand with all lower enlisted soldiers. But now sgt are the trainers and ssg take care of admin duties, bad part with this is alot of the sgt have no clue what their doing in their mos.

Response by SPC Royce Kelley made Jan 4 at 2018 5:12 PM

SPC Royce Kelley — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:12:58 -0500

Yes

Response by 1SG Bob King made Jan 4 at 2018 5:34 PM

1SG Bob King — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:34:38 -0500

Response by SP5 Richard Dawson made Jan 4 at 2018 5:44 PM

SP5 Richard Dawson — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:44:34 -0500

SP5 Richard Dawson. I think they should bring back the specialist grade. I served in the Army Security Agency and had no desire to become SGT E-5. We were unique in that we were never going to be thought of s leaders but we were extremely good at our job (Intelligence) and provided this country invaluable information. Most of the guys I was in with were of like mind as I was. They also should bring back proficiency pay as well. If you worked as hard as we did in our MOS and performed at a high level you should be rewarded.

Response by SFC Eric Behm made Jan 4 at 2018 5:48 PM

SFC Eric Behm — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:48:18 -0500

Yes they should bring it back. Not all SGT and above are good leaders but they may know there job.

Response by SSG Anthony Balkas made Jan 4 at 2018 6:17 PM

SSG Anthony Balkas — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 18:17:28 -0500

Different levels of the sham shield? I am not in favor.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 6:55 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 18:55:08 -0500

Absolutely agree. We have formations that would greatly benefit from having more Specialists and less NCOs, and I mean that in a good way. We have so many positions that don't require any sort of leadership, but are deserving of being an E5-E7. Not everyone is a leader but can add value to the organization. When in a situation where a leader is needed you would be able to look to the NCO, not just the highest pay grade. In my mind an NCO would "out rank" (or really lead) a Specialist of any pay grade.

Response by CPT C G made Jan 4 at 2018 7:33 PM

CPT C G — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 19:33:09 -0500

YES!

Response by SGM Jeff Baker made Jan 4 at 2018 8:25 PM

SGM Jeff Baker — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 20:25:13 -0500

I saw too many SP5 & SP6 mistreated by hard stipe NCO’s. Thought they could act like asses and treat the SPC Soldiers like crap. Saw many of them pushed to their limits and fight back just to get UCMJ action taken against them.

Response by SGM Jeff Baker made Jan 4 at 2018 8:28 PM

SGM Jeff Baker — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 20:28:34 -0500

We used to take an SQT test and hands on before we went to the promotion board in the early 1980’s. They should bring that back instead of the SP5 and up ranks.

Response by SP5 Michael Kimmell made Jan 4 at 2018 8:33 PM

SP5 Michael Kimmell — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 20:33:44 -0500

I was a Spec 5 for fives years, sorry to hear they did away with it.

Response by Cpl Thomas Piercy made Jan 4 at 2018 8:56 PM

Cpl Thomas Piercy — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 20:56:04 -0500

As a Marine, I thought the Army's specialist ranks were a great idea. some people can perform a job well, but are clueless when it comes to leadership/management skills. Also control freaks make lousy leaders. Have you ever had to take orders from an E5 Sergeant with 15 years in?

Response by SPC Steven Caliendo made Jan 4 at 2018 9:15 PM

SPC Steven Caliendo — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:34 -0500

Not everybody can be an NCO, need to get the Specialist rating back!

Response by SP5 Brad Pierson made Jan 4 at 2018 9:28 PM

SP5 Brad Pierson — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:28:11 -0500

Plain and simple if you brought back that rank you might retain good troops that you didn't before give them a chance to get a good education to further on the rank and be a better leader an NCO to the military

Response by LTC Gene Kilcawley made Jan 4 at 2018 9:53 PM

LTC Gene Kilcawley — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:53:11 -0500

Great idea!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2018 10:03 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:03:05 -0500

Sure. Brings pride back into their work. Not everyone wants to be a leader so we should encourage their professional aspirations

Response by CW3 Doyle Frost made Jan 4 at 2018 10:20 PM

CW3 Doyle Frost — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:20:19 -0500

Agreed. Specialists actually serve a useful purpose, especially in the combat service support roles. The ordnance unit I ended up in had both SP4 and SP5. Before I became a SSG, I was a SP5, and moved on up in the unit as a leader, with the technical background to know both how to handle soldiers, and the mission, and support our leaders. Because of my varied background in various services, it gave me a unique experience no one else in the company could compare to, so I ended up running various sections, including being made platoon leader with the management of four motor pools during Desert Storm. Without that additional technical expertise from my time as a specialist, I don't think I would have ended up with the career I did.

Response by A1C Steven Chamblee made Jan 4 at 2018 10:49 PM

A1C Steven Chamblee — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:49:19 -0500

As an Air Force member, I agree, they should have some way of advancing even if it is in the specific field. No everyone is going to be leaders but you need ranked specialist

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 2:58 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 02:58:35 -0500

The problem with US Military that it have turned to Careeism. Being rapidly promoted and pressure to be rapidly promoted or being booted for Time in Grade causes many people who have great work ethic, being great service members, but simply have no character for leadership (severe PTSD, Anxiety disorders, no confidence in personal ability to lead, unwilling to give up on camaraderie for the sake of promotion etc.) for whatever reasons, but is great boon to US military otherwise become detrimentally thrown out. Specialist grades and Warrant Officers ranks supposed to address this problem, but there still seem to be pressure of Time in Grade and the fact that you cant just simply become Warrant out of nowhere.

This is the most prevalent problem in US Navy, where whole promotion system hinges on biannual advancement exams, instead of other services where merit have higher degree (soldier boards, recommendations from leaders, awards, qualifications, college credits). For example I know great sailor (E-3), who trained 15 workers in her command, was selected for Sailor of the Year Board, Blue Jacket, certified on everything thrown at them, had security clearance, always on time, always squared away, but didn't pass the US Navy biannual advancement exam while many sailors trained under that person got promoted to Petty Officers while that person still remains as E-3. Many of them been doing nothing but sitting with thumbs in their assholes for entire duty. - Basically being useless shitbags, but they sure as hell could study for exams. US Navy- If you can't pass Petty Officer exam then you are branded shitbags, but we'll love you if you are shitbags all the way to become Petty Officer by passing written exam. Gild and polish the turd, it will be nothing but gilded and polished turd that smell to high heaven.

When people instead of performing quality jobs are pressured into becoming Chiefs with more stripes instead of being quality Indians, the whole system ends up with shitload of inept self-serving Chief c*ck suckers and ass kissers for promotion and very few Indians who are discouraged to be the best in their career fields, but rather to make as many stripes as possible.

Response by CWO2 Bill Kerr made Jan 5 at 2018 6:47 AM

CWO2 Bill Kerr — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 06:47:07 -0500

Really? You're saying these soldiers are not leaders and technical expertise? How old is the typical specialist, how many advanced schools for his occupational specialty have been to and how may average years do they have in that specialty? You're using the word expertise with so few years in the Army and practical experience?

Leadership. I can't count the number of times I have been appalled at hearing a senior nco in the Army say, "Not my soldier, not my problem." Wtf? Where is that, "Army of One?"

Ingraining from the get go, "You're not a leader, you're a specialist." What the hell does this do to a career soldier? That soldier has not been honed as a leader throughout the ranks with increased responsibility. How do you put a specialist not a leader in with other soldiers to teach, mentor those occupational specialities without being a leader?

This has always baffled me and never understood any of it. What I personally experienced with Army NCOs was bad enough. Then to tell and not teach leadership because if a rank. It blows my mind.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 6:49 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 06:49:16 -0500

I think so. There are something exceptionally talented and skilled Soldiers out there who just aren't cut out for leadship positions but excell in their MOS.

Response by LTC Timothy O'Toole made Jan 5 at 2018 8:31 AM

LTC Timothy O'Toole — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:31:40 -0500

Yes

Response by SGT William Juarez made Jan 5 at 2018 9:09 AM

SGT William Juarez — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 09:09:50 -0500

I would have to say just the spec 4 - spec 6 and allow the spec 6 to either Ret at 20 yrs or Mandatory transfer into Reserves / Nat Guard at 15 / 16 yrs

Response by SFC Antonio Nieto made Jan 5 at 2018 10:19 AM

SFC Antonio Nieto — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:19:16 -0500

It will be a waste of time all current mos’s are highly competitive at this time Soldier’s within fields of cyber crimes and chemical warfare are by far the best trained right now, bringing back is not always good specially when it comes to the enlisted ranks is hard to make SFC for some before retirement and I find it funny officers commenting on it

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 10:19 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:19:50 -0500

Yes, yes they should! What's more, the AIR FORCE and other services should adopt a similar program for pay grades E-4 to E-7 because not all Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines are good leaders or even want to be! They want to work and do their jobs and should have the opportunity to progress and make more money based on their occupational expertise.

Response by SP5 Lynnette Rubey made Jan 5 at 2018 10:23 AM

SP5 Lynnette Rubey — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:23:59 -0500

Yes, they should be brought back. Not everyone in a leadership position is able to command troops, but their expertise in their field is just as valuable.

Response by SGT Jason Keefer made Jan 5 at 2018 10:42 AM

SGT Jason Keefer — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:42:06 -0500

I can personally attest to this. Fire Direction Specialists are taught the basics of network management, database management, computer troubleshooting, etc... with a two year degree (easily earned while serving) and that experience that FDC kid with no future as a leader in the field artillery world (because Artillery doesn’t value fire direction, for some reason pull string go boom gets all the glory) this joe can go make $50k At an entry level IT job. He has ZERO reason to stay.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 11:05 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:05:23 -0500

Yes they should no every soldier should be in a leader position. But still Be qualified to do at the highest level

Response by SGM John Barnett made Jan 5 at 2018 12:10 PM

SGM John Barnett — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:10:23 -0500

Is one's knowledge and expertise defined by a rank chevron? I think not.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 1:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 13:00:26 -0500

never should have done away with SP5 & SP6 Ranks

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 1:12 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 13:12:48 -0500

Nope. Unless they are going to be allowed to be fully tattooed and allowed to have tons of mental disorders that are waived at MEPS. Then I'm all in!

Response by CPL Chris Palmberg made Jan 5 at 2018 1:25 PM

CPL Chris Palmberg — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 13:25:35 -0500

One of the biggest challenges within some career fields, particularly outside the active component, is the lack of upward mobility in comparison to our line (Combat Arms/Combat Support) brethren.
If you figure one E-8, four E-7, twelve E-6, and 40 or so E-5 slots at the company level, multiplied by 4-5 at the battalion level, plus 2 E-9 slots and the HHC compliment of line guys in the staff sections. As a medic at the same level, we had a platoon with one E7, three E6, and about ten buck sergeants... at the brigade level there is finally an E8 slot.
Before folks start pointing out the hospitals and other brigade level elements, please recall that a brigade sized hospital usually is colocated with at least one line division... and for those of us who see our career as being in the field, a hospital assignment is a fate worth than death... or for an 11B being assigned to a drill position at Ft. Jackson... lol
Restoring SP/? ranks would allow the Army to retain highly qualified personnel who don't truly need to be leaders in order to conduct their missions.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 2:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:26:57 -0500

Yes

Response by SPC Miguel Rosario Cruz made Jan 5 at 2018 2:41 PM

SPC Miguel Rosario Cruz — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:41:34 -0500

imy self defently agree

Response by SPC Donaldhill2@hotmail.com Hill made Jan 5 at 2018 2:51 PM

SPC Donaldhill2@hotmail.com Hill — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:51:14 -0500

That or discontinue the spec 4 rank and make them corporal

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 2:56 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:56:35 -0500

Absolutely, but in limited quantities. As a medic in Germany in 1975, we had several high-ranking Specialist positions in the specialty areas of the hospital. They all knew they worked for the NCOIC, Corporal or SFC did not matter. But you don’t want to get into the position we were in at the beginning of the Korean War. We are all specialists in some way. Specialists who can not fight need to be few in this business, if we are to keep our promise to our flag and Constitution.

Response by SFC Barry Brooks made Jan 5 at 2018 3:16 PM

SFC Barry Brooks — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:16:59 -0500

No. I cause a lots of issues. Example SGT out rank SP6.

Response by SFC John Fontenot made Jan 5 at 2018 4:23 PM

SFC John Fontenot — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:23:59 -0500

The more technical the MOS, the greater the need for proficient technicians. Many are just beginning to learn the MOS when they make E-5. Some MOS's need good technicians up through E-7. The technician program the National Guard has is one reason they outshine active duty when it comes to technical capabilities.

Response by SPC Patrick Koga made Jan 5 at 2018 4:54 PM

SPC Patrick Koga — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:54:57 -0500

Absolutely. Take for example a medical corpsman. His role is not a leadership role, but it is a vital support role. Forcing him into a leadership role potentially compromises who he is.

Response by 1SG Robert Lee made Jan 5 at 2018 5:33 PM

1SG Robert Lee — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:33:32 -0500

No. I think Specialist ranks were an overkill. Every soldier is "technical" within their MOS

Response by SPC Loren Krueger made Jan 5 at 2018 5:42 PM

SPC Loren Krueger — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:42:36 -0500

It did have it's place. Not every one is good a being a leader. But are very good at their jobb.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 5:56 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:56:25 -0500

The specialist is still a rank in the army

Response by SSG Jason Greene made Jan 5 at 2018 6:05 PM

SSG Jason Greene — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:05:12 -0500

No we should not...

Response by TSgt John LaBelle made Jan 5 at 2018 7:09 PM

TSgt John LaBelle — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:09:37 -0500

Absolutely, the two MOS’s I held had no combat skills in tech school. 29M, 75F. Repaired line of sight and sat com systems. Really hard to hide 100 foot towers and 10 and 20ft dishes. The other MOS was information systems management. If I ever had to use a weapon to return fire is because the entire base was over run and all primary, secondary defenses have been breached and or failed.

Response by SGM Carol S. made Jan 5 at 2018 7:17 PM

SGM Carol S. — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:17:21 -0500

No — what happens when they get promoted above specialist — how do they learn how to be NCOs?

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 5 at 2018 7:27 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:27:56 -0500

My time as a SP6 were some of the most rewarding. Because I was respected for doing my technical MOS and did not have to deal with NCO politics.

Response by SSgt Christina N Grant made Jan 5 at 2018 8:10 PM

SSgt Christina N Grant — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:10:15 -0500

Fuck no, the atmy was founded with buck private, a mosquito wing a pfc a corporal a sergeant etc.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2018 8:53 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:53:02 -0500

Like many others say, the Spec ranks were perfect. I had an aviation Engine Spec 4 with 15 years of service who could do a Vulcan Mindmeld on a $ million helicopter engine and save $100,000s fixing the engin instead of just throw parts at it. He was EQRBed because he didn’t want lead anything more than his shop. As a replacement we received an E6 who no one ever sees because all year long all he does is work in an office and do NCOERs.

So now all we have are max of 5 years of experience working on our equipment. Because once your an NCO, your expected to lead others doing the work not do it yourself. So .......where do the mentors come from if all that’s out there working have less than 5 years of service??

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Jan 5 at 2018 9:46 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 21:46:02 -0500

It is call warrant officers. You want a specialist job, go be a warrant officer. Officers spend more time away from leadership jobs, yet they have the same rank structure. It works in the NCO ranks the same way.

Response by SSG Leevon Leggins II made Jan 5 at 2018 10:01 PM

SSG Leevon Leggins II — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 22:01:31 -0500

I think this particular thread will be a somewhat hot topic for many more years to come. Bringing back the additional Specialist ranks would benefit the present day and possible future force in many ways no matter the size. I have also seen many soldiers forced out of service due to not meeting the requirements for future retention because of promotion. The ranks could be used in the soft skilled MOS's as a definite force multiplier allowing further growth in the Combat and Combat related MOS's. For all of it to work no matter the component respect and a solid regulation would have to put out and adhered to by all. This is something that would take much getting used to and hard work to pull off. Bring them back to include a additional E-grade for the Sergeant Major of the Army.

Response by SSG Leo McArdle made Jan 6 at 2018 1:05 AM

SSG Leo McArdle — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 01:05:13 -0500

Yes. I knew many good technicians who didn’t have leadership skills, but they could fix equipment like no one else. A refrigeration/air conditioning repairman need to know hoe to do plumbing, solder/silver braze, electrical work and how to rebuild a gas engine pluse other skills. Yet he could only go to SP5. Their system sucks. I had to keep changing MOS’s just so I could get a slot for promotion. If they kept specialists ranks it would be better.

Response by CSM Vernon Nakasone made Jan 6 at 2018 2:26 AM

CSM Vernon Nakasone — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 02:26:40 -0500

Good thoughts! And the theory of specialists is much like the warrant officers. However, before re-implementing, much discussion is necessary to institute a sound program. Questions such as should the pay for the same grade of specialist and the hard stripe be the same or not? If so, why would a Soldier accept more responsibility as a leader if the pay is the same? How do you determine which Soldier is a leader or not? There needs to be a definitive program for the specialists....... does the rank cap at E7/Spec 7 or will it morph into the warrant officer program? How does a Soldier progress within the Specialist rank structure? In a particular MOS, what differentiates the SP4, SP5, SP6, etc.?The mere attendance to technical schools/courses should not be the only determining factor. A performance evaluation program with definitive gates or abilities or standards should be detailed out to rule out any inference to a "good ole boy" type of evaluation program. Should civilian technicians (contractors or manufacture tech reps) be utilized as disinterested parties?
The military (Army) spends big bucks to train Soldiers and not to capitalize on retaining good technicians would be a waste!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 3:04 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 03:04:54 -0500

Yes

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 3:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 03:42:42 -0500

How would they implement this? Are you seriously going to tell me a Spec 7 who is possibly only mediocre at his job could be paid more than a hungry technically and tactically proficient SGT. Get real. Thats far from fair. Also of that 35yr old Spec 7 with 4 kids and a wife decided he would like get off his lazy ass and lead would he have to take a pay cut. I don't think anyone's thought of that. I can see the pros to bringing it back. I just don't think it's compatible with today's competitive and fast moving Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 3:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 03:52:59 -0500

What's going to happen if a career field is filled with soldiers that dont want to lead. Will some be forced to the board. Where they will have tooi take a pay cut because there is no feasible way we can pay a Spec 7 less than an E5. The pay difference is to small.

Response by 1LT Gregory Blevens made Jan 6 at 2018 6:57 AM

1LT Gregory Blevens — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 06:57:49 -0500

How many things do we need to tinker with in the Army? I mean, it's like we're never satisfied with the status quo and are always making some new headache. The sham shield (of which I was one) was a fine rank at E-4. At E-5 an above, if you can't lead other soldiers and coach and mentor them, then you're not worth paying the extra money to. After a time, if you can't get out from under the E-4 rank, I'm not sure having some non NCO rank is a great idea.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 8:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:05:13 -0500

Yea I believe it would be a moral booster also

Response by SPC Fred Saindon made Jan 6 at 2018 9:02 AM

SPC Fred Saindon — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 09:02:49 -0500

I found it a slap in the face that as a Spec 4 I could not go in to the NCO club but a ground pounder Corpral could. Specialist ranks were for the more intelligent Soldier yet we were not given the same respect as a 11B high school drop out. Under the Russian doctrine ADA was a front line MOS. We not only had to make sure the systems stayed up and running we did all the 11B work on our sites too.

Response by LTC Amelia Johnson made Jan 6 at 2018 9:32 AM

LTC Amelia Johnson — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 09:32:53 -0500

You don't have to be a leader, but you can lead from where you're at.

Response by SGM Marcus Jackson made Jan 6 at 2018 11:16 AM

SGM Marcus Jackson — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 11:16:28 -0500

I agree when I was promoted back in the day, I had to take a test an go informed of a board to ask questions about my MOS

Response by SGM Marcus Jackson made Jan 6 at 2018 11:17 AM

SGM Marcus Jackson — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 11:17:57 -0500

Sorry driving an texting should be upfront not informed

Response by SGT Mike Starr made Jan 6 at 2018 12:05 PM

SGT Mike Starr — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 12:05:35 -0500

Nah

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 12:21 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 12:21:46 -0500

I totally agree that the spec rank should be brought back, the Air Force does this. It allows you to keep your technical experts in their field and lets face it not every Soldier should be a leader.

Response by SFC Dennis Morton made Jan 6 at 2018 12:26 PM

SFC Dennis Morton — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 12:26:36 -0500

What about making them Tech Sergeants.

Response by SGT Michael McCaffery made Jan 6 at 2018 2:00 PM

SGT Michael McCaffery — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 14:00:31 -0500

Yes

Response by SSG Cliff Karolak made Jan 6 at 2018 3:56 PM

SSG Cliff Karolak — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 15:56:35 -0500

Bullshit worst rank in the Army. I was promoted to Sgt E -5 in 1975 had 2 Sp5 type under my team. Had more time in grade than me. Their attitude fuck you. PUT me in a rock and a hard place. Then the fucking Assholes in Department of the Army. Decided our MOS will all be specialist . That was a fucking bad idea.. Period fuck that shit
11B specialist. Most fucked up shit that ever existed. How about Corporal
Don't bring that garbage back. Period

Response by LTC Paul Dulchinos made Jan 6 at 2018 5:12 PM

LTC Paul Dulchinos — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 17:12:27 -0500

There is a place for those ranks in certain specialties.

Response by SGT Brent Shires made Jan 6 at 2018 5:55 PM

SGT Brent Shires — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 17:55:37 -0500

No the sp/4 to sp/6 rank ok to have but the rank of E-7 and above need to stay hard stripes

Response by SPC Patrick Bourcier made Jan 7 at 2018 12:19 AM

SPC Patrick Bourcier — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 00:19:11 -0500

Absolutely. The expertise these soldiers bring is extremely valuable and should be rewarded for their expertise. Not all experts are good leaders and may not desire to be in leadership positions but are very much needed.

Response by SPC Joseph Rogowski made Jan 7 at 2018 7:11 AM

SPC Joseph Rogowski — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 07:11:31 -0500

Bring them back.

Response by PO2 Bob Phillips made Jan 7 at 2018 8:01 AM

PO2 Bob Phillips — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 08:01:08 -0500

A guy can be a journeyman technician but a poor manager/leader don't push him into a position of failure, Let him follow his strengths.

Response by 1LT Roy White made Jan 7 at 2018 8:39 AM

1LT Roy White — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 08:39:32 -0500

Yes

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Jan 7 at 2018 9:00 AM

SPC Brian Mason — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 09:00:21 -0500

I have been out of touch.
I go tout as an E4/SPC. So know WTH?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2018 9:48 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 09:48:45 -0500

I have to agree with bringing it back, I have an E-6 that needs not to be incharge of soldiers and is awful at NCO business but know his MOS and is very good. However, he continues to stay in trouble because his lack of ability to be a leader in terms of a NCO SSG. I have started with basics with this Soldier and he just doesn’t understand the importance of the job nor can he seem to grasp it, only leave the recourse of paper trail and removal by way of demotion.

Response by CW3 Richard Erdie made Jan 7 at 2018 9:57 AM

CW3 Richard Erdie — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 09:57:27 -0500

The way the specialist grades were originally conceived they served a need and filled a hole that couldn't be filled by NCO's who were required to fill leadership roles. Sadly as the years passed the specialist was viewed by most commanders as just a different type of NCO and were assigned the same duties as a hard striper. As pointed out by the LTC(P) the up or out concept crushed the concept completely. When I was a private in 1965 one of the instructors at school was a corporal with 25 years in the service. He had never been demoted and had turned down promotions every time they were offered. He was an NCO with all the benefits but very little responsibility. He was happy and good at what he did. I never understood why people like that should be forced into positions they didn't want and possible couldn't succeed at and then lose their careers.

Response by SGT John Belloff made Jan 7 at 2018 10:06 AM

SGT John Belloff — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 10:06:44 -0500

Yes

Response by PO1 Reece Payne made Jan 7 at 2018 10:34 AM

PO1 Reece Payne — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 10:34:47 -0500

I was not aware that the Army had done away with the specialist ranks. However, I would hope that MOS knowledge is a part of the soldiers overall evaluation. There is also a spectrum of ways to lead people and I am not sure home many ways the Army considers valuable. However, I am an outsider here as a Navy retiree and maybe look at things from a different perspective. In the the Navy one's specialty (MOS) is actually a part of his or her rank. It is called a rate. We take rating exams that are more rate intensive on E4-6 exams than the Chief's exam and there are none past that point with boards considering leadership skills more important as one progresses. This score is coverted to a standardized score, based on a t-score system and added to his or her subjective evaluation multipied by a given number with a few points for miscellaneous other things added into the final multiple. I know that there is a much greater need for overall infantry skills in the Army. However, MOS skills are important in many parts of fulfilling the overall mission. Many Navy ITs (information systems technicians), as well as other Navy specialists, such as explosive ordenance personnel have been sent to Afghanistan as IAs (individual augmentees) to support the Army in their role during OEF. Maybe it would help the Army to place more emphasis on MOS skills in determining leadership roles. However, if there is nothing on the sleeve to indicate these specialty skills, one has to carry a secure tablet around with everyone's service record--which is impractical in many ways. If they don't bring back the specialist ranks, maybe they could create some sort of MOS pin or badge for NCOs, so that they could be instantly recognized for their skills. These skills could also be considered as part of their advancement evaluations. Just two cents from an old squid. IT1(SW) Payne USNFR

Response by MAJ Larry Richardson made Jan 7 at 2018 11:48 AM

MAJ Larry Richardson — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:48:50 -0500

I was in Military Intelligence, detailed to the National Clandestine Service. I held SP4, SP5, SP6, and SP7 ranks, and was treated equally with SGT, SSG, and SFC. As a SP6(P), I even replaced the departing SFC NCO Infantry Advisor in Venezuela, while also performing my Intel responsibilities. Actually, being embedded with those I was advising was a perfect cover for conductintg HUMINT!!! I retired as a Major and I've probably been retired for too long to actually comment on whether or not the specialist grades should be resurrected. My opinion is that, whatever one is doing as his/her profession, the hard stripes appear to give one more respect and prominence that the specialist ratings.

Response by SFC Jim Eubank made Jan 7 at 2018 1:18 PM

SFC Jim Eubank — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:18:04 -0500

Totally agree. Also, technical mos skills are being devalued in place of training every soldier to be an infantryman.

Response by SFC James Shofner made Jan 7 at 2018 1:50 PM

SFC James Shofner — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:50:41 -0500

When I was promoted to E5, I was a SP5 for just a couple of months. Then my stripes were changed to those of a buck sergeant. I still believe that the SP5~SP7 ranks were doing a much needed job of providing technical competence, and more importantly, skilled trainers in the maintenance shops- especially with regards to aircraft tech's and the electricians/avionics shops. We lost a lot of knowledge when they forced so many of them out.

Response by SSG Tym Perryman made Jan 7 at 2018 2:23 PM

SSG Tym Perryman — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 14:23:52 -0500

Geez, it will only take about 75 years for the Army to figure this out.

Response by CPL William Atkinson made Jan 7 at 2018 5:50 PM

CPL William Atkinson — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 17:50:58 -0500

Lots of guys want to participate in service but are better skilled in doing support work rather than line work, so I think the Specialist program is worth while.

Response by SP5 Anthony Guion made Jan 7 at 2018 6:43 PM

SP5 Anthony Guion — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 18:43:39 -0500

Having been in the US Army Security Agency where we were directly reporting to the NSA, I can say that the specialist ranks were the only ones that provided our troops an opportunity for advancement. Many of our guys had college educations but decided to go Agency and with a four year enlistment requirement, along with high test scores and passing a TS/C clearance, the specialist rank was at least an opportunity. Once a spec. 5, you did have to attend an NCO school. I was offered staff sergeant (E6) if I re-enlisted and that would have been a "hard stripe", so there was some flexibility. (This was all during the Vietnam War and many of us were sent there.) You cannot attract or retain troops without some system of mobility and opportunity and shouldn't be constrained by passing a small number of hard stripes down the chain..

Response by SFC C Bradshaw made Jan 7 at 2018 6:58 PM

SFC C Bradshaw — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 18:58:29 -0500

Just as Warrant Officers are technical experts in their field so was the Spec.4 ,5,6,and 7 which was the first specialist rack to be eliminated bring the tech specialist back
C Bradshaw (SFC Ret.)

Response by SSG James Sherwood made Jan 7 at 2018 7:01 PM

SSG James Sherwood — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 19:01:33 -0500

No, is my opinionated answer. We need the Army to be competitive to develop quality leaders. If you are a so called 'expert' in a technical area then you should do what is needed to be promoted. SSG US Army MOS 13F (Honorably Discharged)

Response by SGT William Dolan made Jan 7 at 2018 8:22 PM

SGT William Dolan — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 20:22:06 -0500

I agree wholeheartedly that they should be brought back. There are only so many leadership positions available. It seems unfair to not reward a good soldier only because there are not enough leadership positions available. To me the specialist ranks were also a motivation factor for troops to improve themselves and their MOS skills. I would bet that retention of good soldiers is tough without the potential to gain rank.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2018 8:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 20:28:50 -0500

Nope bad idea, you have to be a leader in the army not a follower

Response by Sgt Jeffrey Fisher made Jan 7 at 2018 9:18 PM

Sgt Jeffrey Fisher — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 21:18:01 -0500

Amen

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2018 10:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:17:03 -0500

It depends completely on the MOS...

Response by SPC Michael Clark made Jan 7 at 2018 11:23 PM

SPC Michael Clark — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:23:44 -0500

Yes, I addressed this with SMA Preston back in 2006. Bringing the Specialist Corps back is the ultimate solution to retention control, as well as allowing Senior Specialists the ability to reenlist if necessary. RCPs hurt a lot of chances of going straight back to AD.

The only soldiers that need to be NCOs are the ones in leadership positions, such as Team, Squad, Section, Platoon and so on.

Response by CW4 Richard Pappa made Jan 8 at 2018 12:30 AM

CW4 Richard Pappa — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:30:28 -0500

keep the spec's on line. If they love their job, keep the asset. to many times we have looked back and said why did we do that.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2018 4:00 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:00:10 -0500

I believe so, it’s also another reason why we have toxic leadership because we have leaders that were never technically proficient in there duties. They become leaders and aren’t prepared to lead because they know nothing about the job. Some Soldiers just want to do there job, they want to work. They don’t want to manage and do paperwork all day. That’s why we have enlisted soldiers that do become officers because they want to work. I agree I think it would be great. We’ve lost a lot of great Soldiers do to the new constraints.

Response by CSM Mike Raney made Jan 8 at 2018 8:18 AM

CSM Mike Raney — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 08:18:44 -0500

Bring it back

Response by CPL Jerry Nowdomski made Jan 8 at 2018 8:30 AM

CPL Jerry Nowdomski — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 08:30:53 -0500

Yes, I can see the value that these ranks may add especially when the Army needs to fill slots in a specific MOS.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2018 10:16 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 22:16:28 -0500

Yes they should bring back the specialist titles from E4 to E7. These soldiers are technical qualified but will never be in position of having to supervise (lead) soldiers. If any consolation to their career progression, they should be given a separate school equivalent to the leadership academies that will gear toward technical leadership. As pointed out earlier, when they discontinued the specialist ranks it diminished the occupational expertise opportunity for those who aren't capable of being a NCO.

Response by 1SG Klayton W. Hayes made Jan 9 at 2018 12:35 PM

1SG Klayton W. Hayes — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:35:40 -0500

I my self would prefer The Army restoring the "T" to the chevrons to denote the Technician. Corporal "T" is a leader, a trouble-shooter, mentor, instructor, etc. The Tech NCO is just one of those lost terms "WE FAILED TO DEFEND"

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Jan 10 at 2018 10:30 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:30:40 -0500

Okay first no on specialist grade. I would say yes to Technical Grade. Now with that being said neither one will work if the Military does not try to work with those grades in the system I would say no tech's after e-7 at that point you progress to hard strip or to a warrant officer position. Biggest complaints about specialist ranks were fairness in promotion and the nick name title Spec4, Spec6, no one wanted to be called a Spec or a Bird SGT. and the Warrant Officer verses Technical Officer. Part of the major problems with Tech positions were promotions and until Leaders get on board with it there always will be a problem. Part of the problem back in the day was to find someone to board a Tech and ask Mos specific questions so they could be promoted, not to mention personnel losses which usually force higher chain of command to fill those slots with people with leadership but not technically strong that in just as many cases didn't want to be there. To bring these positions back now would be a great idea because the modern Army has become a very Technical operation. Now you will have to iron out all the details so everyone gets fair treatment. IMHO

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2018 1:04 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:04:17 -0500

They're already here. They just call them Warrant Officers now.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jan 10 at 2018 2:28 PM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:28:25 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member: I think that, by all means, the Army should bring back the Specialist titles.
I was a Squad Leader, a Graduate with Honors and a Sports Director for Dependent Youths when I was an E-4. Such that, Major Walsh, I don't agree that not all Soldiers are going to be good leaders
Most Sincerely, Margaret C. Higgins U.S. Army Retired: Coach/Photographer
P.S. Major, I served on Active Duty during the Cold War. The photograph is of a Cold War lapel pin.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Jan 11 at 2018 7:49 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:49:50 -0500

The short answer is yes, not every Soldier can or wants to be a leader.

Response by SGT Gregory Yelland made Jan 11 at 2018 7:18 PM

SGT Gregory Yelland — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:43 -0500

I'm confused. There is no question that a Spec5 is a leader of a Spec 4. I think the problem to start with was that the NCO4 was not placed in the leadership tree as being subordinate to the Spec 5. One solution to the 'I just want to do my job specialty not lead' personality would be to remove the cap on time in service / time in rank and continue the pay raises for time in service. In this manner we could end up with a time in service of 30 years MASTER OPERATOR who is still an E-4. I was a 62J2C / 62E2C when I got out of the service (General Equipment Operator/ Heavy Equipment Operator. My job as a General Equipment Operator included operating the Back hoe. While I was an E4, I was told that I was the 'Best OPERATOR of the backhoe" in the unit. When I made E-5, I was told that it now was my job to TRAIN others to become as good as I was. One GREAT thing to me about my military service is the mindset to 'train your replacement' which is different than the civilian mindset of "being irreplaceable'. As a leader IS a trainer, I do not understand the need for the Specialist rank system. Some leaders are better than others, - those should get promoted to the higher ranks. I do agree that the MOS testing should be part of the promotion system, however to me it is a better idea that the testing / promotion should be based on Capability not Potential. If a person has proven that they can do the next higher rank's job, (because they have been properly trained to replace their leader) then they should be promoted to that job, not promoted to their highest rank of incompetence due to time in service / rank. If the Specialist title system is reinstated, then the suggestion i mentioned above should also be part of it -NCOs of same rank are over Specs of same rank, but overall rank is over lower rank (E-5's are over E4's point blank. No matter if they are spec or NCO.

Response by MSG Tony Hodge made Jan 12 at 2018 5:10 AM

MSG Tony Hodge — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:10:00 -0500

We have plenty of qualified technical Soldiers who are perfectly capable of their MOS but are not leaders, not interested in being a leader, nor are they capable of being high quality leaders. They are however, VERY competent and dependable. We keep farming jobs out to civilians because we cannot keep a specialist in for 20 years and only pay them $2,596.46/month.

Response by SP6 Charles Gorman made Jan 13 at 2018 8:48 PM

SP6 Charles Gorman — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:48:16 -0500

It would be a great idea to a point an in some of the MOS's that have too many troops wanting to promote, but unable to.....

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jan 13 at 2018 10:51 PM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 22:51:26 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member: I definitely think that the Army should bring back the Specialist titles. When I was a Specialist 4, I was a Squad Leader, a Graduate with Honors and a Sports Director for Dependent Youths. I also earned the Good Conduct medal.

Response by MSG Ronald Freeman made Jan 14 at 2018 12:52 AM

MSG Ronald Freeman — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 00:52:54 -0500

I feel that As a 20 year VET 1966-1986 I saw a lot of changes in US Army. I was a SP4 an SP5 . After.going to NCO School I was made a act SGT. The units that I was in had mostly Specialist ranks. The Platoons had poor discipline . I think that it makes no drifference what the rank is all soldiers must be professional in there JOB. MSG R. B. FREEMAN

Response by SGT Mark Saint Cyr made Jan 14 at 2018 9:16 PM

SGT Mark Saint Cyr — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:16:03 -0500

While this is a good discussion, I think it brings up another valid point, simply: should the Army's up & out policy be discontinued? For frankly the same reason. You may have a number of soldiers who feel comfortable doing the job that they are doing, but the Army decides after a certain period they need to be a certain rank or get out.

Response by SFC Kevin Turner made Jan 17 at 2018 3:17 PM

SFC Kevin Turner — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:17:05 -0500

Yes as long as it has meaning for the soldiers and some strive to be the best and it takes forever for them to get recgonized to be placed into the promotion system. But it also needs to have a promotion board like for the NCO's to determine who has the capabilities to perform the job.

Response by SrA Matthew Oneil made Jan 17 at 2018 5:44 PM

SrA Matthew Oneil — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:44:17 -0500

yes, I like the rank of specialist.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2018 8:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:33:01 -0500

Subject matter experts are not always the leaders of soldiers in an NCO capacity, but these soldiers still deserve the opportunity to be recognized as such among their peers. The Specialist ranks allow this to be done, and sets those soldiers apart from the specialist who are only doing the minimum. Not all leaders are NCOs or Officers. These Specialists also provide more opportunity for NCOs to focus on other NCO tasks while that senior specialist tends to the MOS related tasks, as there are times when NCO duties can take precedence.

Response by SFC Charles E Hightower made Jan 20 at 2018 1:48 AM

SFC Charles E Hightower — Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:48:21 -0500

I was SP4 Date of rank Dec 1, 1971 and make SP5 May 1, 1973 I love ti. Yes, than change SGT\E5 Jan 1 1974.. AS SP5 no CQ!!!

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2018 11:56 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:56:28 -0500

It really depends on how the Big Army wants to operate. Do they really want skilled technicians or just bodies filling a slot and when it comes time to go into theater they will let these huge companies come in and take the workload and pay them 5 times the amount the soldier makes and the soldier is used for miniscule roles.

Response by SFC Mamerto Perez made Jan 21 at 2018 1:05 PM

SFC Mamerto Perez — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:05:52 -0500

Yes it helps some younger troops get more time to prepare for the future.

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made Jan 21 at 2018 4:50 PM

SFC Francisco Rosario — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:50:58 -0500

I would agree with this primarily for the more specialized MOSs in the medical field. Not everyone is meant to lead others, but they meant to be experts in their field. Much like warrant officers i would think. We see this in the aviation ranks, these pilots have one primary duty, to fly. So a similar thing would be great fro the enlisted ranks, the specialists 4-7.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2018 5:50 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:50:17 -0500

I agree on the SPC because the warfighter and support environment requires specialists.
Whether it happens to be within cyberwarfare, sigint, or elsewhere, a great deal of areas requires soldiers with highly trained skillsets.

Response by SGT Chester Beedle made Jan 21 at 2018 11:58 PM

SGT Chester Beedle — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:58:55 -0500

For those that say no, think about this. Listen to the complaints about poor leaders. Barely able to lead anything, but they have to be put in those positions to avoid being kicked out. They may be very technically proficient, but suck at being leaders. Yet they are now in charge of people. And the reason that good troops are getting out.
If that shitty platoon sergeant were instead a higher grade specialist, he'd be fantastic at fixing that radio, or tank gun, but without having to deal with leading people.
And no, you can't just make everyone in that job be as good at the job. Some people are always going to be better at the technical aspects. It's not possible to make sure that everyone is both and trying to do so is just plain silly.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2018 8:29 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:29:51 -0500

Definitely, in SOF we very often have NCOs as the lowest person on the totem pole, E6s who are the lowest rank in the company, not in charge of any other Soldiers, it is very difficult to rate their leadership and other sections of the NCOER when they are not in charge of other Soldiers, having a SPC rank would alleviate the problems while still allowing for the proper pay grade to hold for Soldiers.

Also, some Soldiers are awesome and deserve to move up, but they don't quite have the leadership ability. Putting them on the SPC track would still allow for development without getting a mediocre leader, or allow for a true "specialist" who has a particular skillset.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 23 at 2018 9:58 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:58:01 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner An unqualified YES. Either the Specialists or Tech Sargent ranks should be returned. Not all soldiers want to NCO's and the Army would save a great deal in not sending them for NCO Academy. As well as returning to these ranks that recognize a higher level of training then that of a Sp4 should also off annual incentive bonuses. Those that take the NCO path would have more opportunity for advance in rank. The developing problem is the minimum wage which by the early 2020's be at $15.00 and hour. This will severely limit recruiting opportunities in states that turn out better educated 18 year olds and well as recruits who have a better overall attitude about military service. The best educated the Army was the post wwII conscripted Army of two year Conscripts. Nearly all had finished and graduated from High School on it was not uncommon for a Community College AA degree, the first two years toward a bachelors degree or even to have completed a four year degree. This education achievement did produce better Infantrymen but it did produce thinking Infantrymen. The Gap tooth HS flunk or drop out of the current all volunteer military has a 20% drop out out of Basic. The old Drafted Army was less the 10%. AWALS from Traininh was only a fraction of what is now the norm.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jan 26 at 2018 8:52 AM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:52:53 -0500

If there is no alternative, why is E-4 a break. Super Private?
Make it a corporal

Response by SGT Michael O'Neal made Jan 26 at 2018 5:38 PM

SGT Michael O'Neal — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:38:18 -0500

No, it was to confusing having both the hard stripe (Corporal, Sergeant, etc.), & didn't allow Specialists in a leadership position even if they had leadership skills.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2018 1:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 01:51:00 -0500

Yes I believe that this would be a massive benefit to the taxpayers. The fact that many people know they can get a much higher salary working in the private sector discourages many very adept soldiers (albeit not leaders) from continuing their service. I know of many soldiers that should have had a much higher pay grade than they currently held, but would have been a shit leader. There are a multitude of reasons that this should be implemented again, not the least of which that it encourages keeping experience in the military and not moving into the private sector.

I think you should make this post into a Poll so it can create a better snapshot to push towards the brass.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jan 27 at 2018 9:46 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 21:46:15 -0500

BEEN THERE DONE THAT. In 66 or 67 we had more rank structures than we could sew on. There was the current structure, specialists 4-?, leftovers from the previous rank structure SSG E-5, SFC E-6, MSG E-7. There were problems everywhere. In my case there was no NCO slot because there was supposed to be an officer in charge. we wound up with neither. If I was in a Direct Support Unit I could be an E-5 SGT or I could be a Specialist. The funny thing being that I could draw twice as much proficiency pay as a SP-5 than as a Sgt E-5. I'm not sure about it

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jan 28 at 2018 5:46 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:46:39 -0500

Personally sir I see no reason why they shouldn't bring the Specialst rank back. They may not have all the authority of a hard stripe, but the are in a class of their own. This would free up those that are hard stripes to do their jobs.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2018 6:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:17:09 -0500

I agree. But if we do, let's use the technician insignia from WWII with a "T" for "Technician" to the standard chevron design that corresponded with that grade. Standard chevrons with a "T" look much better and are more in line traditional military rank insignia.

Response by SP5 Lori Pong made Jan 29 at 2018 2:36 PM

SP5 Lori Pong — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:36:07 -0500

No, It seems Major you and I joined around the same time. Spec 7 was just going away. Not all soldiers are going to be good leaders but having a Specialist title shouldn't prevent them from leading because many specialists can be good leaders. I believe one of the reasons that they eliminated the Spec 5 and above was because E5 is E5, there is no official delineation between Spec 5 and Sergeant E5 but Spec 5s were not treated with the same respect as a Sergeant. Just before I ETS'd I had to deal with a new Sergeant E5 who would start yelling AT EASE every time I said something he didn't agree with (I had a year time in grade as a Spec 5 at the time). Especially when he was wrong (which was often). He kept trying to pull rank. Hard versus soft doesn't always make for a better leader nor does it give some common courtesy or common sense.

Response by MSgt Thomas Mason made Jan 30 at 2018 10:50 AM

MSgt Thomas Mason — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:50:01 -0500

As Air Force I've known a fair number of "specialist", they seemed very competent in their field with the advantage of beginning a SOLDIER at the same time. Something we were not. We don't need specially trained soldiers on food stamps, we don't need ANY service members on food stamps! They're the defenders of the nation! If you want freedom, pay the defenders!

Response by SGM Michael Culbertson made Feb 1 at 2018 5:23 PM

SGM Michael Culbertson — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:23:30 -0500

BLUF -- In the highly unlikely event that the Army would solicit the opinion of a SGM who has been retired for 8 years, I would support the return of the Specialists. The use of Specialist ranks had a specific purpose, which was to differentiate between Troop Pushers and technical experts. That idea is still legitimate and bringing back the Specialists would fulfill the concept.
Up until 1985, when the SP5 and SP6 ranks went away, the Army made a specific effort to differentiate between NCOs and technicians. The concept still exists in the ranks CSM/SGM, 1SG, MSG, and CPL/SPC.
When the Army was born in 1775 there were only four enlisted ranks -- Sergeant, Corporal, Private, and Musician. Musicians were paid at the same rate as Corporals, because of the specific skills needed to do their jobs, but had no NCO responsibilities. Over time, more and more enlisted rank titles were added -- Saddlers and Farriers and Electricians and Quartermasters and Cooks and Engineers and many others. By the time WWI ended the Army was using 128 enlisted insignia of rank, which led Chief of Staff John Pershing to direct simplifying the system to eight ranks in seven paygrades. First Sergeant was the only rank used specifically for NCO leaders. During WWII the Technician ranks were devised, so the Army could pay experts more than privates, but the Technicians didn't have NCO duties. After the War, Tec3, Tec4, and Tec5 were discontinued. The concept returned with the ranks Master Specialist, SP1, SP2, and SP3 in 1955, which became SP7, SP6, SP5 and SP4 in 1958.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Feb 3 at 2018 3:39 PM

SSG Ray Elliott — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:39:50 -0500

With the current way personnel are utilized in the Army you could have someone who is a Specialist and very proficient in their MOS finding themselves not working in their specialty but carrying a rifle. Everyone in the Army needs to be proficient at all aspects of military service including leadership if called upon to do it. When I was a SPC4 in an Army Band unit there was always the idea that you were less of an NCO than the Corporal in another unit just because you happened to have a different MOS. Why create a separate class of NCOs just because they have an MOS of a technical nature. An E5 is an E5 whatever you happen to call him, we're all one Army lets have 1 Rank structure and not confuse the issue.

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Feb 4 at 2018 4:18 AM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 04:18:22 -0500

No,in no way.As a matter of fact,I have been for many years,against the Army use of the specialist rank.That rank doesn't mean anything,since everybody is a specialist in his/her mos.Beside that,during my 30 years of military career,I lived a great number of instances,where there were big encounters between specialists and corporals.A soldier could had more experience and time in service than a corporal,but been a hard stripe,the corporal was in charge.I also experienced a lot of discussions and confusion,since both of them were E-4's.
I really believe the opposite.The Army should eliminate the specialist rank,and establish the rank of corporal,to all the E-4 level.This way there would be more corporals in the system,giving these soldiers the standing and authority they deserve.Of course,there will be much less E-4's in the system,but a reorganization of the privates ranks should be implemented for pay purposes,based on a steps system.This way a soldier with more academic education,could gain more money in his/her rank,without the inconvenience of giving rank to someone without knowledge,skill and experience in the military.

Response by SPC Herb Jorgensen made Feb 4 at 2018 10:39 AM

SPC Herb Jorgensen — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 10:39:21 -0500

As a specialists in service 87-90 ALNG Avn,the rank of Corporal was only earned by combat service as all SP-5-6 were converted to Sergeant.The requirement to obtain Sergeant was A Noc and B no to advance.SO as the structure has changed as well as how our nation has been in a status of war on terror since 9-11,the impact has diminished the ability of retention by good people who just want to their job.

Response by SSG William Kimbrell made Feb 7 at 2018 10:08 AM

SSG William Kimbrell — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:08:47 -0500

I could not agree more.If you don't believe it works just look at the warrant officer program. These are highly skilled people.They are specialist in their field. Some may view this as a stretch for comparison , but o well.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2018 7:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:05:12 -0500

I agree, in my days when you saw a Medic with a Specialist rank, you knew for sure he knew what needed to be done.

Response by SPC Mike Lake made Feb 7 at 2018 9:58 PM

SPC Mike Lake — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 21:58:38 -0500

Yes I think it's a great idea some people just aren't leaders and should just stay in the specialist grades

Response by CW4 Glen Nardin made Feb 22 at 2018 9:17 PM

CW4 Glen Nardin — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:17:21 -0500

I was a Spec6 before I got out in 1985. We were always told that specialists were to be regarded "as an NCO," yet, we were not. The only way you could wear "hard stripes" was to be put in a supervisor position: squad leader on up. If you had some leadership to offer, you were often "pigeon holed" defined as: "assigned to a particular category or class, especially in a manner that is too rigid or exclusive." When I cam back into the Army in 1993 (8-year vacation,) I was able to have the rank of Sergeant, but I still had to attend BCT. Beginning from the time I entered BCT I was treated with more respect than I ever was as Spec4, Spec5 or Spec6.

Retired a WO and firmly believe the system works as it is. The active Army must realize that if we should enact the Selective Service System, leadership be all present will be utilized. Some say we'll begin a draft again and I say we will if we have to. If the Pentagon didn't think we would need Selective Service, then why would they last year allow females to be included.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Feb 22 at 2018 10:41 PM

MSG John Duchesneau — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:41:24 -0500

In about 1985 the Army decided that everybody E-5 and above is a leader - regardless of whether they are in a leadership position or not. In the long run I don't think it makes much difference as the Army still sees individuals as either leaders or staff/support personnel. Even in the Infantry where there are leadership positions for every rank E-5 and above there are still staff/support positions to be filled. The Army should do more to make its NCOs better rounded so you don't have an E-7 assigned to a Brigade headquarters who has only served in line units or another E-7 who has served in staff/support roles who suddenly finds himself a platoon sergeant. If the Army made sure that every E-5 had at least one year in a leadership position and every E-6 and higher had at least 2 years in a leadership position our NCOs would be better rounded and more capable. Just my opinion.

Response by CSM Elmer Feick Jr. made Feb 22 at 2018 11:01 PM

CSM Elmer Feick Jr. — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:01:05 -0500

I remember those days...I enlisted in 78' and we still had specialist ranks then....but then the Army was at 770,000 as compared to today at 460,000...the Army discontinued the Specialist ranks back in 85' as I remember, and I also remember there were two levels of NCOES...one for the green tab folks - PLC, BNCOC, ANCOC and one for the technical folks - Primary Tech Course, Basic Tech Course etc....
So now to the point at hand, the Army had issues back then with managing the Specialist ranks and that along with a downsizing Army, is what probably led to a one rank system as we know it today. I always thought there was merit in the two systems....let's admit it, the system we have now expects junior leaders to be leaders...at least in the old Specialist system, there were folks who were truly technical experts in their field and had no desire to be leaders.
We have leaders today who can't even march a fat lady to a salad bar....I make jest using this example but it does ring true. What has further exaggerated this issue is that like before using our own military history, we produced many leaders during the war years way ahead of their time.
There may be a time in the future where the Army reconsiders bringing back the Specialist rank...everything seems to be cyclic in nature, especially in the Army, but before it does consider doing that, they would need to look back and hard at the issues that the Army of 85' experienced and perhaps make the corrections of today's COE

Response by LTC Mike Johnson made Feb 23 at 2018 4:47 PM

LTC Mike Johnson — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:47:36 -0500

The Special rank should be brought back. There are too many "combat support" soldiers that have been promoted that should NEVER be in charge of soldiers. I have seen SO MANY that have no desire or ability to lead, but want/need the bigger paycheck. Let them be Specialists in their fields and leave the leadership of soldiers to those that are meant to lead! BTW, real leaders are BORN leaders, not made from books.

Response by SP5 Bob Rudolph made Mar 3 at 2018 1:08 PM

SP5 Bob Rudolph — Sat, 03 Mar 2018 13:08:01 -0500

I was a draftee, at the age of 20 I was not a leader of men and I had category 2 eye site. I would have been a mediocre Sargent but I was a damn good SP5 personnel specialist. There are a lot of young people out there today that would greatly benefit from a military experience but are hesitant because of the reputation, gained from the movies and TV, of the military command structure. The availability of Specialist ratings would be attractive to them, I think.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Mar 4 at 2018 1:37 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 13:37:36 -0500

Only on the condition that all Specialist grades have no possible configuration for automatic promotion.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Mar 4 at 2018 1:38 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 13:38:20 -0500

Add to that why not bring back the "T" technical Sergeant, and drop Specialist grades forever?

Response by CPL Jonathan Roberts made Mar 9 at 2018 12:31 PM

CPL Jonathan Roberts — Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:31:39 -0500

No. It just add more confusion, had some issues in units , where at the time I was the ranking E-4 spc, promotable sometime referred to as E4p eligible for the next higher rank grade Sergeant E-5. I stayed back on rear detachment because of a previous deployment I was having surgery done I couldn't deploy with my second unit one makes their specialist E4 rank down in that appointment comes back as Corporal and starts yelling in my face I cuss his ass out

Response by CPL Jonathan Roberts made Mar 9 at 2018 12:43 PM

CPL Jonathan Roberts — Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:43:00 -0500

In other words a specialist e-4 should not be writing Council statements for another specialist e-4. E5 should be writing the counseling statements for all his subordinates. And a junior specialist recently promoted can't write a counseling statement for a senior specialist who has more time in grade than he does I was in the unit that tried doing that crap. Didn't work with me not being a military brat and all and know the whole entire game knows how it works it almost came down to a congressional investigation, my dad a retired first sergeant wanted to know what was going on with the unit I was in and my uncle a retired sergeant major and a brother-in-law who was a major should be on his way to a lieutenant colonel by now the unit I was with wanted to pick and choose what Army regulations they wanted to go by. How I see it you can't pick and choose if you going to go by the regulation you go by the whole entire regulation front to cover you don't pick and choose to appease your benefits

Response by LCpl William Malicoat made Mar 10 at 2018 1:31 PM

LCpl William Malicoat — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:31:53 -0500

The Specialist ranks allow a soldier to remain in their MOS rather than move into administration. For example, when a Marine reaches E-8 or E-9 he/she is either a 1st Sgt or a Master Sgt (E-8), Master Gunnery Sgt or Sgt Maj (E-9). 1st Sgt is administrative while a MSgt remains in his/her designated MOS. Sgt Maj is administrative and Master Gunnery Sgt remains in his/her designated MOS. However, MSgt and MGySgt are considered NCO's and can command troops if needed unlike the Army's Specialist ranks who are not considered NCO's. I grew up as an Army brat and remember when the Specialist ranks went from E-4 to E-9. The Army eliminated Spec 8 and Spec 9 almost immediately.

Response by SGT Michael Schmiesing made Mar 11 at 2018 9:54 PM

SGT Michael Schmiesing — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 21:54:07 -0400

Only if they will never be a leader.

Response by Sgt John William made Mar 15 at 2018 12:00 AM

Sgt John William — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:32 -0400

Maybe I'm the only one that can see how this relates ~~~ When my buddy died I became the father figure to his 3 sons. The youngest saw the Army recruiter and was disappointed. When I talked to him and asked why was told "because he is somewhat of a geek and nerd. He will not fit in todays Army". He enlisted in the Marines. Fast forward ~~ he was put into aviation electronics. He has deployed and is no longer a geek but still a bit of a nerd, a nerd gunny. At least one more re-enlistment to complete 22 years. All because he enjoys what he does as a Marine even though Boeing has offered him a 6 figure salary to leave. That opportunity has been on the table a long time.

Response by SPC Trina Cox made Mar 22 at 2018 9:18 PM

SPC Trina Cox — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:18:51 -0400

Being a SPC I agree

Response by SFC Joseph Masterson made Mar 25 at 2018 7:52 AM

SFC Joseph Masterson — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 07:52:14 -0400

Absolutely!

Response by SSG Norbert Johnson made Mar 27 at 2018 3:57 PM

SSG Norbert Johnson — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:57:13 -0400

I support the return of the Specialist Ranks. Why? because the intent of the rank was based to reward personnel with higher degrees of experience and technical knowledge within the new rank as they specialized in a specific MOS. I am a little prejudiced in my view because I was promoted from PFC to SP5 because I had Civilian acquired skills and training that exceed the skill level of both the SP4 and CPL level, but did not have the leadership training and Soldier Management Experience that was required for SGT-E5. Therefore, I believe the Specialist Rank is an appropriate career field designation. In Civilian life, I was paid more than my supervisors specifically because I had a skill set that exceeded the mandates of the job and as such could incorporate two parallel jobs into one. Essentially, the Specialist Rank was similar to an incorporation of 2 closely related MOS/s or additional duties. Therefore there is an equivalence to the CORE DUTIES but a split from the leadership role. In 1985 I was laterally promoted to SGT-E5 and I requested NCO school so I could be promoted to E6. The reason I was Laterally promoted to SGT instead to SSG was specific to a "Lack of Leadership Training and Experience." However, I received my recommendation for promotion to SP6 just 2 weeks prior to the removal of the SP5 and SP6 designations. So again, I have a prejudiced view on the removal in the first place because I was within one credit of my Masters Degree which was supportive of my Primary MOS of 91G Behavioral Science Specialist; and I was too old for OCS. So YES, Bring back the Specialist Ranks.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2018 8:55 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:55:56 -0400

I've always thought so. I dislike that Specialist is earned by time, also. In a perfect world, Specialist would be earned and have a few grades to it, with soldiers that just want to do their job and be proficient at it earning their way past PFC. I was infantry, and I knew a lot of guys that just wanted to stay specialists and be good shooters. I doubt see why that is a bad thing.

Response by SGT Randall Spence made Apr 3 at 2018 11:42 PM

SGT Randall Spence — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:42:29 -0400

Why did the Army force out all that professional knowledge in the first place? Did someone at the big puzzle palace get a burr under his saddle? We, as the Army, thew away so much institutional knowledge when that happened.

Response by CW2 Jim Horton made Apr 5 at 2018 11:42 AM

CW2 Jim Horton — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:42:08 -0400

I have seen to many cases where an individual was great at his job but when given those stripes they drove more out than they inspired.

Response by SFC John Mikelson made Apr 5 at 2018 11:29 PM

SFC John Mikelson — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:29:46 -0400

I was briefly a Spc 6 Reserve medic then reduced to a hard 5 to be a recruiter .(1984 )

I say bring back the specialist

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 5:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:07:26 -0400

Yes. Especially in technical MOS’s.

Response by SFC Tony Bennett made Apr 10 at 2018 11:12 PM

SFC Tony Bennett — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:12:53 -0400

I'd have to say NO. I think it is incumbent on every soldier to pursue leadership. At any moment that role can fall into a soldiers lap. The idea of not being a leader, but a technician instead is a recipe for confusion. By all means, be a technician or what ever, but as a soldier be a leader

Response by SP5 Robert Cole made Apr 14 at 2018 8:55 PM

SP5 Robert Cole — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:55:35 -0400

As I can see it there are many specialist of many kind in all services today . Yes they need to bring it back for the sack of the men and weman that serve so proudly in there duties . Therefore give rank accordingly

Response by MSgt Rob Weston made Apr 15 at 2018 12:40 AM

MSgt Rob Weston — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 00:40:14 -0400

I agree, while I am retired AF I believe all branches should have a specialist or technician grade that follow the NCO. Not all troops are leaders, not all leaders are specialists. I also think the AF should bring back the WO corps as well.

Response by SPC Deon Holmes made Apr 20 at 2018 7:21 AM

SPC Deon Holmes — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 07:21:12 -0400

I did exactly that to a certain degree. I signed up for 4 years, and I knew from the beginning that I wouldn't make a career of the military. In my 4th year I extended my service 1 year in order to stay in Berlin. But during the 3rd year I reached my specialist rank, and in the fourth year I was told to start studying for the board. I told my leadership that I didn't want it. Of course I was asked why? I said I have no interest in doing E-5 management jobs, and that I would be getting out in a year. This perplexed some of the senior NCO's for a little while, but they soon got over it as time went by. I knew moving up another rank in our small unit meant being a paper pushing, meeting taking, manager of the people I felt dearly about. So the next E-4 got my spot. And just as I thought, the promotion took away his day to day work and replaced it with NCO meetings, paperwork, management duties, and on and on. In this case yes I would have loved to have Specialist titles, I might.... might have given another year or two.

Response by SSG Dennis Fowler made Apr 21 at 2018 10:44 PM

SSG Dennis Fowler — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 22:44:40 -0400

Yes

Response by SP5 Frank Kronen made Apr 24 at 2018 10:10 AM

SP5 Frank Kronen — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:10:19 -0400

I had a highly specialized MOS and was an E-5 Specialist 5 in 21 months.

Response by SrA Shawn McKiben made May 3 at 2018 3:43 PM

SrA Shawn McKiben — Thu, 03 May 2018 15:43:34 -0400

I would love to see that in all of the services. I'm not one to lead, and I don't enjoy management. I just wanted to do my job. After 11 years being an E4, I had to get out. I just couldn't do the management thing, though I was very good at what I did.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2018 9:34 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 May 2018 21:34:45 -0400

Yes the Army should bring back the Specialist ranks. Hard stripe is not for everyone

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2018 1:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 May 2018 01:07:00 -0400

I 100% agree. In the 24 yrs that I have been in I have beeni in many different unit's in different MOSes. One thing I noticed alot was the army has alot of Soldiers that are very technical and tactically proficient in their jobs but couldn't lead a horse to water. The purpose for this rank I assume was for exactly that they can do the job but didn't necessarily require them to be a "leader" to do it. If you think about how many NCOERs you have to write and have to muddle around with the leadership aspects of how they did their job the specialists ranks would not or may not proclude them from getting and NCOER however better guid them in obtaining leadership as a Sargeant. Think about the won technical and tactically appointment officer. Agree bring it back

Response by CSM David Porterfield made May 9 at 2018 1:04 PM

CSM David Porterfield — Wed, 09 May 2018 13:04:23 -0400

When I first enlisted we had hard stripe and specialist ranks. I agree we should go back to that or do like was done in previous years and have the NCO rank with a "T" in it to identify the specialist or technician vs the person in a leadership position. We had green leader tabs for a while to differentiate but those were only worn on the dress uniform, gortex and field jackets. What happened with that was the everyone with an NCO rank got to wear them but not everyone was a leader. Eventually that went away too. Clearly not every NCO is a lleader regardless if the Army says so or not. I lean more towards the NCO rank with the "T" in it. There's a clear difference between a leadership position and a supervisory position.

Response by 1SG Dale Cantrell made May 18 at 2018 3:30 PM

1SG Dale Cantrell — Fri, 18 May 2018 15:30:31 -0400

Not all people are created equal , Leaders are made not born

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made May 21 at 2018 12:15 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Mon, 21 May 2018 00:15:39 -0400

I was a cpl in the marine corp. I joined the army as a PFC. 15 months later I was a SP/5. I didn't like the rank because If they needed an NCO. you were an NCO. If the needed a lesser rank of E-4 or below you were treated as A lesser rank. I didn't think it was fair. I was either an NCO. or I wasn't. I went to Vietnam in 65 in an ordnance ammo. plt. I was used as a supply Sgt. because they needed one. I was offered a battlefield commission as a 2nd Lt. because of my marine corp experience and the NCO academy I had attended. Their was a shortage of veteran troops because of the large draft, so it was next man up. I was that man. I would have had to spend another year in Vietnam. I had been married about 8 months so I came home instead. A cpl. in the marine corp is equal to a Sgt in the Army. Every marine is trained to be next man up reguardless of rank.

Response by 1LT John Farkas made May 21 at 2018 2:23 AM

1LT John Farkas — Mon, 21 May 2018 02:23:15 -0400

I WAS IN COMMO in name that's all we pretty much had

Response by SPC(P) Mike Conley Jr. made May 22 at 2018 6:48 PM

SPC(P) Mike Conley Jr. — Tue, 22 May 2018 18:48:27 -0400

I wasn't around for the SPC ranks but I don't think theres any reason to change the current system. Junior enlisted already get little to no respect, no reason to give E4s an ego. I'm an spec 3 oh yeah well I'm a spec 4 you have to do what I say.

Response by Sgt James D. made Jun 3 at 2018 12:08 PM

Sgt James D. — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:08:02 -0400

ok im an old marine so I really don't have a dog in this fight however on more than one occasion I saw good tech get promoted to a grade nco they were not capable of just to keep them! at their tech job, they were top notch, but as leaders they sucked! yes I have also been a tech later in my career but I was a good nco (leader) before I became a tech! my guys would follow me to the end of the earth! I do think there is a place for tech rank so when they progress as tech they can earn more money! you have the ability to add the nco (Leader) title as they progress there too! that way a person can double down and progress faster if they choose to be leaders too! you get better leaders this way and keep good tech too!

Response by SPC Shannon Holmes made Jun 4 at 2018 2:17 AM

SPC Shannon Holmes — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:17:34 -0400

I do think the Specialist ranks should be brought back. I myself served for 13 yrs. and had no interest in being a NCO, I loved doing my job and didn't want to watch others do it while I stood by and essentially directed traffic. Not everyone is meant to be a leader and with the current structure it does not allow for those who are invaluable in their positions to progress without becoming an overseer instead of the one who get the job done. There are Officer's and CWO's who are the specialist's of their particular field, there should also be NCO's and Specialist's for the enlisted side of the rank structure.

Response by CPL Debbie Davis made Jun 5 at 2018 5:04 PM

CPL Debbie Davis — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 17:04:30 -0400

I was a Sp4 in the medical field. I was very good at my job but had zero interest in leading anyone...it's too bad they did away w it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2018 1:34 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 01:34:10 -0400

Sounds like it was a cool promotion system but I believe it should stay in the past. Here's why:

1. All soldiers should be well rounded, not solely MOS proficient. Warrants are the highly paid technicians who also have the capability to lead.. Giving soldiers the option to stay "non-NCO" I assess would and probably did foster a non desirable attitude. You want to stay a tech, go warrant, or learn your skills and move on to a firm outside the service to make that money.

2. Why should a tech not be required to have leadership skills? Wouldn't they have to run a shop in or even outside the Army? Warrants are techs but are required to lead and run shops and make more money than any E-4 to E6s that I'm aware of. A person who has no desire to lead will probably lack managerial skills. You would have to have some type of competitive/leadership style of behavior to even get promoted ahead of your peers I would think.

I know for a fact there were some awesome leaders that didn't want "the headaches" of leading soldiers. I just don't think the Army is the best place for that type of outlook. The Army needs leaders and followers who desire to fill the shoes of said leaders. I think having a warrant officer corps is the better way to go. If you don't have a desire to eventually lead, then there are great opportunities away from the military for the techs.

Response by SPC Dustin Kordish made Jun 8 at 2018 8:31 AM

SPC Dustin Kordish — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 08:31:38 -0400

Absolutely. The lack of this is basically what pushed me out of the military. I had no interest in taking any kind of leadership position - my only interest was working within the technical field of my MOS. And without this option, many who wish to make a career of the military - but either aren’t specifically suited or interested in being a leader - are forced to take the path of an NCO. And many that fast-track to NCO end up serving as a technical specialist in their MOS field without really having the technical expertise.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Jun 10 at 2018 6:11 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:11:03 -0400

Two thumbs up. In the United States Navy we have specific ratings and as you move up the ladder. The leadership and technical knowledge are hand in hand requirements. You are tested all the way up the ladder to E'7, from that point up your personal levels of leadership and technical knowledge are 1st and foremost. Your journey from E-7 and above are to not only too continue to climb higher in knowledge and experience with leadership. Your required to mentor from the beginning of the climb up E-4 to E-9 ,so those subordinates in your charge are able to carry on the tradition. So my answer is a resounding yes, if it's in the best interests of young men/women who have so proudly served.

Response by Sgt S.P. Woodke made Jun 16 at 2018 12:09 PM

Sgt S.P. Woodke — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:09:25 -0400

Not relevant....All of the branches need to concentrate on Quality vs. Quantity...the old way of doing business needs to change.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2018 12:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:49:36 -0400

I have talked to several soldiers who were around when these ranks were active. Just like this forum the results are mixed. For the most part it was deleted due to the Army's needs at the time. It is a way to keep quality soldiers yes but it is not a hard stripe rank which does cause issues. it was meant to be just for the support side but did move to the combat arms side as well. When you have current day spc e-4 "shamming" out of details and work then you would just be paying them more to shame out. While the rank structure IS a leadership among the spc ranks it would still be out ranked by a sgt e-5. With that said if you bring these ranks back the think about what you are asking your joe's to do. (sgt e-5 out ranks a spc e-7) In my opinion I would not bring them back

Response by COL Thom Brooks made Jun 18 at 2018 8:47 PM

COL Thom Brooks — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:47:10 -0400

I would fully support the return of the Specialist Ranks. I don't believe that everyone can lead, and even with training, not everyone will be a successful leader. There is a place for specialists, and they should be able to progress. Just my thought, I could be wrong.

Response by CPT Bobby Fields made Jun 19 at 2018 3:52 PM

CPT Bobby Fields — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:52:23 -0400

There are a given number of junior enlisted billets, and keeping those billets filled as E4s become NCOs mean we have to pay for the accession of new recruits. So, if you took a given billet that was filled with only two E2-E4s in a 10 year period, versus four as newly-arrived E2-E4s, the cost savings alone of not having to bring as many Soldiers onto active duty would be tremendous. Additionally, you would have more Soldiers in operational units at any given time instead of a much bigger population of new enlistees in a training status. This is even before you look at the expertise, pay, authority, etc. topics involved with reinstating the specialist ranks.

Response by CW2 Gerald Geoffrion made Jun 20 at 2018 4:50 PM

CW2 Gerald Geoffrion — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:50:35 -0400

Yes, many Army Fields are technical fields. The SP5 SP6 and SP7 in those fields were the subject mater experts. Example: a SP6 Intell Repairman that could determine what any malfunction in the equipment was, repair the problem, and explain the problem to other maintenance people. That individual was not a leader. Promoting him to SFC was a disaster!!!!!!!! The Air Force gives its technical field people the choice of staying in the technical area or becoming a people manager. (SP4, SP5. SGT, SP6, WO1 & CW2)

Response by SGM Bill Johnson made Jun 21 at 2018 10:22 PM

SGM Bill Johnson — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:22:43 -0400

It will happen. There is a demand for highly technically competent technicians that the current system of move up (to be a non-technician NCO) or get out cannot support. Just in the cyber field alone we need Soldiers with YEARS of experience that they will never get as NCOs. For the same reason they created Warrant Officers they will bring back some sort of Specialist Rank structure.

Response by CPT Ian Stewart made Jun 27 at 2018 1:37 PM

CPT Ian Stewart — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:37:18 -0400

In the late 60s, armor and armored cavalry units were chock full of SP/4s and SP/5s while Corporals were an unknown entity. When I served with 1st Squadron, 2nd Armored Cav. Regt (1/2ACR) in Germany, I was a SP/4 and later SP/5. As a SP/4, I was considered just a higher paid Private and got to do all the fun things that lower ranking enlisted types got to do - guard duty, CQ runner, KP, ash and trash detail, etc. When I got promoted to SP/5, I was allowed to continue to enjoy those little pleasures AND got added benefits commensurate to my new rank to whit - CQ, work detail leader (which alternated with being a worker bee on work details), commander of the relief (guard duty) on one tour and then being a guard on another tour. In other words SP/5s were considered "quasi-NCOs" who could be used as privates when convenient.
Because of this experience, being treated as a Private one day and expected to act like an an NCO the next, I am against bringing back the Specialist ranks especially SP/5. I can''t speak for Combat Support or Combat Service Support, but in Combat Arms, Specialist (E-4) should be the highest Specialist rank available. After that only hard stripes!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2018 12:56 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jul 2018 00:56:54 -0400

Honestly, I would like to see Specialist E-4 to go away. If anything, bring back the Technical Sergeant rank which was the precursor to Specialist that had the letter T under the NCO stripes. As a former Marine and Army Warrant Officer for over a decade, the Marines strive their non-rates (E-1 to E-3) to focus on leadership skills through correspondence and leader tasks and roles. Marines are fully prepped before pinning on the junior NCO rank of Corporal which Marine Corporals usually operate at the same level as an Army E-5/E-6. Regardless that our Army is bigger and due to push of soft MOSes as Cyber, we need our soldiers to be focused as leaders . You never know when every soldier a rifleman will come into play. Some roles as junior NCOs will require them to interact and engage senior leaders at various echelons and I do not see a SPEC5 to 9 to be the rank required for those roles. I despise the term "Sham Shield" and that last thing we need is more Specialist ranks falling under that umbrella. Just like the Air Force does not see the need for Warrant Officers, the US Army no longer needs the rank of Specialist. Soldiers should move from Private First Class to Corporal. This was talked about heavily the last decade and maybe someday, it will come into fruition.

Response by SGT Fredrick Ramm made Jul 15 at 2018 8:24 PM

SGT Fredrick Ramm — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:24:42 -0400

Oh! (A slow grown) Remember, they had The "T" ranks back in WW II? I have to admit 48 years ago, I was a Sergeant E-5, that was an over paid private (tank units, where very lucrative with rank). 1. I kept my nose clean 2. did my job: the operation of a tank battalion (my permanent job as BSDNCO) and always knew every system I was MOS Qualified in...once I had to show my Company CO (who was a bit critical of me), the difference between using a Head Spacing and Timing gage on a 50 Cal....right Calvin?!? Years later, in the National Guard; I could still, field strip that same weapon, and many others, with out any help, and still read a map and repair a track. Transferred to an NG Air Defense Unit, and my 1st Phase "SMOKED" the 2nd Phase during AT...right Raymond?!? (of course he wanted to bust me, any chance he got. I got promoted 20 years ago to E-5 at that point, and wasn't about to loose it to him.) Raymond was right about one thing: I hated drill and couldn't march troops!
At one point, during that Vietnam Era, I tried to convert my hard stripe to a Spec 5, but no go. Over the years, I heard my Marine Corps Buddies criticize The U. S. Army's Specialist System, but I knew many E-5 who did their job over 30 years (even some old WW IIs still hanging in there in The NG during the 80s), and still retired an a Sergeant E-5. Well, just an observation; leave this to the fellows with egg on their hats in G-1.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Jul 17 at 2018 10:53 PM

SSG Dave Johnston — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:53:24 -0400

NO, There was an animosity between 'Hard' stripe and 'Soft' tail NCO's, we "specialists" were not "real" leaders ergo not an NCO, so when you have a Spec 6/7 in charge of a Med-Detachment or Med Platoon we were "Rodney Dangerfield"[I get no respect].

Response by SGT Benjamin Parsons made Jul 19 at 2018 3:26 PM

SGT Benjamin Parsons — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:26:32 -0400

Nah. The army is already full of underachieving specialists. I'm not down with paying dudes more just because they've been shamming for 6-7 years. Up or out.

Response by 1SG Robert Rush made Jul 23 at 2018 3:44 PM

1SG Robert Rush — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:44:29 -0400

I agree also. I was a SP5 before I change MOS and went to hard strips. Not everyone is a leader, but may be really good at their specialty MOS. At least these individuals can advance within their fields and still be productive.

Response by SP6 Claude Matz made Aug 1 at 2018 6:52 PM

SP6 Claude Matz — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 18:52:43 -0400

I joined the US Army when the specialist ratings went to Sp9. A lot of very technical jobs were spc ratings. I was a Sp5 Helicopter maintenance inspector who was promoted to SSG. Was reassigned in the same unit from maintenance to aeroscout platoon sgt. Then in another unit as a Huey platoon sgt. Life was rough for about two years until I found my backbone. I do believe that there is still a place for higher Sp ratings.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2018 10:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:38:33 -0400

Yes, i know plenty of E4s that dont want to lead soldiers, but are extremely hard working a d knowledgeable in their MOS that end up getting out or forced out because they dont want to lead soldiers.

Response by SGT Rick Middleton made Aug 12 at 2018 10:16 AM

SGT Rick Middleton — Sun, 12 Aug 2018 10:16:36 -0400

Yes! As we would call them “hard stripes” or if you will “infantry stripes” because of the training, should always take precedence over a specialist rank “except in that specialist field” why, if it became necessary, would anybody think an E7 radar technician would be more capable and better suited to lead a group of soldiers than an infantry trained E5?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2018 12:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:06:36 -0400

From what I heard from my command, the Army is seriously considering bringing these back in the near future. Maybe it's RUMINT, maybe it's not.

Response by CPL William Vancuren made Aug 16 at 2018 8:53 AM

CPL William Vancuren — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:53:13 -0400

Yes, I agree with the statement above. The Army should bring back the Specialist. When I got out I came out as a sp/4.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2018 9:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 09:54:05 -0400

When I first joined in 1984 there were still SP4 through SP6 (I still have people ask what an SP4 is when they look at my first PCS plaque). The concept was that a specialist was not a leader. They were specialists in their field. Food Service, Commo, Engineer, whatever. Thus a "hard stripe" E5 SGT would outrank a E6 SP6. Technically even a E4 CPL outranked an E6 SP6.

The problem became that a 17 year SP6 is being told he has to follow the orders of a 3 year CPL. This caused conflict, especially when the orders of the NCO directly contradicted something the SPC knew from years of experience were the best way to accomplish the mission.

The other issue that I saw at the time was that there was a lack of NCOs and they would put the senior SPC in charge of the section. This just created it's own problems as these individuals had NO training in leadership.

All in all the previous Specialist Rank structure/program was a great idea, poorly executed.

All that being said, I would love for the Army to try again and get it right this time. I am a Career Counselor. Every day I see Soldiers that have no interest in being a leader, but love being in the Army and doing their MOS duties told that they have to move up or out. This is a terrible waste of resources from both the training dollar standpoint and the manpower standpoint.

I don't know how exactly to rectify the issues I pointed out at the beginning of my post. That is for the bigwigs at the Pentagon to wrangle, but something needs to be done to stop the hemorrhaging of talented Soldiers whose only "crime" is not having the desire or in some cases talent to be effective NCOs.

Response by CPL Johnnie H. Williams Jr. made Aug 26 at 2018 11:25 AM

CPL Johnnie H. Williams Jr. — Sun, 26 Aug 2018 11:25:54 -0400

Specialist 4 Was A Rank That I Loved, Because Of The Name! Specialist Makes One Feel, The Best At What Ever The Job One Has On Hand! Johnnie H. Williams Jr. Viet Nam Combat Veteran 199th Light INF. 4/12 (TET 1968). [login to see] http://www.helpisonthewayforveterans.net

Help Is On The Way For Veterans 1024 CORP. - Home

The Way For Veterans Contracting Co LLC in Bronx provides services in the area of building and design.

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Aug 27 at 2018 5:41 AM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 05:41:23 -0400

Totally NO.These ranks have no use,since everybody in the army is a specialist in an MOS.Beside that, all those ranks brought during those years, was a lot of confussion and bad understandings,between hard strips soldiers and specialists.There was a recurrent battle,of who was in charge of what, when a higher specialist and a lower hard strip NCO,were operating a mission.That very same problem still ocurrs today,between a less experience and skillfull corporal, and a senior more experience specialist.I myself encounter those situations,while in the active components many times.
For me the solution for this situation should be the opposite.The army should get rid of the specialist E-4 rank once and for all,and established the corporal rank as the only E-4 rank.
The army, this way,will have more privates that are more needed in traditional labor duty and greater economy in lower pay ranks.At the other side,it would bring more distintion,standing and authority, to the well historic achieve corporal rank,as an excelent preparation for every soldier prior to become a full flesh NCO sergeaMenornt.

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Aug 27 at 2018 5:57 AM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 05:57:21 -0400

That last word(sergeaMenornt),was written by the system itself, not by me.Impossible also to erase,after coming out.

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Aug 27 at 2018 7:39 AM

SPC Mike Davis — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:39:44 -0400

No! A highly skilled tech is a paraprofessional. He should have Warrant officer or Limited duty officer status. In civilian Corporations they are generally salaried non-exempt or classed with the same level of responsibility as a project manager.

Response by SP5 Norman McGill made Sep 1 at 2018 12:49 PM

SP5 Norman McGill — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 12:49:23 -0400

Absolutely they should be brought back and for the reasons stated above. Who wants to continue working at any job without a chance for advancement? I never would have become the leader of my pack if it weren't for the specialist ranks. The "spec's" allowed the recognition of hard work and the demonstration of your proficiency in your MOS to be acknowledged. At the end of my six year hitch I was offered E-6 to reup but I was young and stupid. Had I known what I know now I would have stayed in for thirty years no questions asked.

Response by PFC Carol Cleaver-Hesser made Sep 3 at 2018 7:15 AM

PFC Carol Cleaver-Hesser — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 07:15:00 -0400

Yes! They have the technical skills and needs to be recognized for it.

Response by 1LT A. Hays Town III JD made Sep 3 at 2018 6:38 PM

1LT A. Hays Town III JD — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 18:38:46 -0400

It is okay to be a master of a highly complex vocation, and that is sole objective. Having soldiers who masters of their vocation is a cost saving measure, so it would behoove the Army to bring back the Specialist rank. If they desire to move to leadership slot, then teach them, and give them the tools to succeed.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2018 6:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 18:29:28 -0400

That's why the Army is losing so much talent to the contractor side of the house.

Response by PO2 Steven Michaeli made Sep 13 at 2018 3:28 PM

PO2 Steven Michaeli — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:28:14 -0400

Maybe. When the motor pool, or flight line, chow hall or clinic gets bombed, your MOS immediately changes to 11B. If the leaders go as well, step up. If you can’t follow, you can’t lead; if you can’t lead, you can’t serve. It’s getting harder and harder to find people willing to lead but Sgts are the backbone of the military.

Response by MAJ Douglas Dopp made Sep 16 at 2018 9:44 PM

MAJ Douglas Dopp — Sun, 16 Sep 2018 21:44:28 -0400

Was Sp4 b4 Officer & unit Cdr. Always felt the Specialist was poor effort to civilianize Army. Bring the Tech ranks so absence of Sgts means there is still leadership. What's wrong with a Tech Sgt?

Response by SPC Olen Nicholson made Sep 20 at 2018 10:10 PM

SPC Olen Nicholson — Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:10:41 -0400

That was the rank I was when i got out. Dont know y they would get rid of it .

Response by PO1 David Burris made Sep 28 at 2018 8:45 PM

PO1 David Burris — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:45:38 -0400

Yes they should bring it back. The only point of TV contention would be the pay scales. Because if one takes the route of leadership should be paid more, reason is they take on more responsibility than would a specialist.

Response by CW3 Alonza Matthews made Oct 1 at 2018 10:06 AM

CW3 Alonza Matthews — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:06:16 -0400

As a Specialist in the Army of past we were treated as inferior soldiers or Someone not deserving of positions of authority as leaders.
That was wrong, because without those specialist (logistician) then the fighting forces are helpless without, fuel, food, ammunition,transportation,financed and others
As a retired CW3 I understand the importance of the Specialist rank structure.

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Oct 1 at 2018 3:07 PM

SSG Harry Herres — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:07:37 -0400

The question is why was it stopped. After E-4 you have no chance to advance unless you get stripes. How many non leading E-5 and 6s are there. What a waste of man power for those who want to stay but not command. Date of rank does not make you a good leader

Response by SPC Ruben Marin made Oct 3 at 2018 5:29 PM

SPC Ruben Marin — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400

As a soldier I would have loved to have experienced the SPEC Ranks. I was an MP and had no desire to lead soldiers because all I ever wanted to do was to be a police officer in life. I ended up promotable (with resentment) anyway before I got out. That would have gave me the much needed confidence to progress in the MP Corps as an expert in my field without having to lead other soldiers. This rank system works great for MOS's like the 31B series because it would allow the senior SPECS to do their job in an expert capacity under the supervision of one NCO, vs having to find multiple NCO's to lead teams. It would also allow for NCO's to maintain the same Joes versus splitting a team/sqd because soldiers are going up the ranks to be NCO's. The down side to this system is that NCO's would have to do way more work because there is less NCO's to supervise the unit. Regulations would have to change to allow the senior SPEC Ranks to take on delegated duties that usually an NCO would do in the unique MOS's.

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Oct 15 at 2018 9:17 AM

SPC Mike Davis — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:17:17 -0400

Before the question can be addressed one needs to ask what is a active duty technician (specialist)? If he is someone who can recognize and operate the power on button then he is probably warrant officer/specialist material. The accurate and correct definition of someone who is highly qualified in his field (a specialist.) Would first be an individual (with emphasis on "individual") who can plan all power distribution and architectural requirements for the installation of very complicated equipment. He would have a through knowledge of the theory for the correct operation of the equipment. He would have the technical knowledge and professionalism to analyze, using complicated test equipment, in correcting any fault(s) while under extreme pressure. He must perform his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and without supervision. He must expect his fellow technical staff members to be very competitive and demanding of his technical competence. He would be a salaried (professional) employee. In short a specialist would be a"Prima Donna." Such a highly qualified person is not military material. Especially when one is truthful in their logic and accepts the fact a specialist in the military is first a "ditch-digger." who may have the opportunity to "see" some equipment from time to time. I believe the military mind is correct eliminating specialist ratings. As stated above it is misleading and just plain dishonest to call someone something they clearly are not. Second: History has proven no military organization can ever expect to achieve its mission if it is staffed by anything other then mind numb robots. Thus the overwhelming need for NCO/Officer ranks. Such a comment is not an insult it is just a simple truth. Highly educated technical people are by definition "individuals." Clearly not NCO/Officer material. In sum...the military mind got this one right!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2018 3:42 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:42:54 -0400

Hey Major, what a great topic...kind of gets at the heart of the Army. I'm going to lean towards a big fat "YES" bring them back! All the way up to SP9 if we have too! When I joined we still had SP6's as well, and the SP5's & 6's were professionals in their respective field Medical, Mess, Aviation, Mechanical, etc. they all were super good at what the did...all they needed was someone to lead them to the task, and the task was completed. I had the utmost respect for them. When I was an Infantry Squad Leader in the 82d, I had a SP4 (Yes not a SPC), and one day the 1SG, told me to start prepping him to go in front of the promotion board. When he and I sat down to discuss, it was one of the most honest conversation I had as an NCO and leader. Hey told me "Sergeant, I appreciate your's and the Commander's consideration, however, I'm an M60 Gunner, the best in the unit, and I have mastered that skill, and all of the soldiers in the platoon rely on me to provide covering and suppressive fire, and that is a role I cherish very much, I would rather be the best M60 gunner, than a terrible Team Leader" and he respectfully declined being sent to the board. To this day I never forget that conversation, and wish we would have kept the SP5 rank, I would have recommended promotion immediately for him.

Response by CW5 Dennis Stewart made Nov 2 at 2018 8:43 AM

CW5 Dennis Stewart — Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:43:01 -0400

absolutely, In my early years I had many of them in my formation. They loved to cook, repair things or provide first aid. If you asked them, they would tell you they were happy doing that task and did not want to do anything else. Not everyone wants to lead some just want to be happy performing the task they enjoy

Response by CSM David Porterfield made Nov 11 at 2018 8:56 PM

CSM David Porterfield — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 20:56:06 -0500

Agree 100%

Response by Michael Clapp made Nov 17 at 2018 10:13 AM

Michael Clapp — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 10:13:11 -0500

Yes, for certain MOS's, it would make sense.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Nov 18 at 2018 5:09 PM

SPC Donald Moore — Sun, 18 Nov 2018 17:09:18 -0500

I wold say that it is a program that should never have been deleted. It should also not be required for a soldier to advance in grade beyond their desire to advance if they are doing a good job at the grade they are in. The best NCO that I ever had was an E-5 who was forced out of the military for not advancing. He enjoyed working with an Infantry squad. Leading on the ground is what he wanted to do. He did not want to advance to E-6 and be assigned other duties. He was the guy you wanted to be with in any situation, but the Army threw him out like garbage.

Response by Paul it Brown made Nov 24 at 2018 8:16 PM

Paul it Brown — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:16:10 -0500

No way...

Response by SP5 George Traylor made Nov 25 at 2018 11:34 PM

SP5 George Traylor — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 23:34:12 -0500

I was a Spc 5 but never saw my orders for such, wore sgt e5 strips till ets, was surprized my dd214 states Im a Spec 5 iand m good with it GBA.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Dec 2 at 2018 4:21 PM

MSG John Wirts — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 16:21:38 -0500

Yes although I never held a specialist title, I transferred to the Air Guard and was promoted to T Sgt before going back to the Army NG as a Ssgt. The vast majority of the Spc ranks were Sp4, and Sp5. I saw a couple of Sp6's and a Sp7 or two. I saw a Sp8 and Sp9 in an Army Hospital in Volgelweigh Germany. One of the stories I was told about the demise of the specialists was that they were out side the chain of command in their speciality and could override a NCO or officer if they tried to command them to stop doing something and retreat or advance. As in stop treating a wounded solder and defend a position or attack.I see the specialist as the same as the British Army professional private. It is g good place for those who are not or do not want to be leaders, but want to stay in.

Response by MSgt Mayo Sifford made Dec 3 at 2018 2:36 AM

MSgt Mayo Sifford — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:36:54 -0500

Absolutely! Most, if not all, organizations have leaders/directors and worker bees. Both are needed and you can/should not mix them without ensuing headaches.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2018 1:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:28:42 -0500

No. Because a SPec-6. at some point is going to pull rank on a Corporal or Sergeant. And if it was bad during the Vietnam era, is going to be worst nowadays that 20yo kids have no respect for authority. Or vice-versa with a Corporal dropping a SP-6 for even a (justifiable reason). I totally disagree. Anyways there are E6es out there in the motorpool or at the Kitchen or MPs who are really good at what they do and the 1sg or Toon-Sgt. keeps them as Lone-Ranger.

Response by SSG K Johnson made Dec 5 at 2018 10:10 AM

SSG K Johnson — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500

Yes because not all of the people promoted as NCO's are great leaders. Not saying they are bad at their job just that leadership is earned in a different fashion.

Response by 1SG Howard Addington made Dec 6 at 2018 12:12 PM

1SG Howard Addington — Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:12:55 -0500

Yes ! As a sp/5 Because my knowledge I was able to draw pro pay. Extra $ 50.00 dollars a Month and I passed my test every year. When promoted to E6/SSG I was not up to speed on the difference and had a lot to learn but the Army lost a highly respect SP in my field as a generator mechanic. Went on to become a First Sergeant 63Z5 M,H

Response by SGT Gary Reed made Dec 9 at 2018 10:15 AM

SGT Gary Reed — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 10:15:14 -0500

No. Leadership IS learned. If you want the rank and the pay, accept the responsibility that goes with it.

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made Dec 10 at 2018 5:17 PM

SFC Francisco Rosario — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:17:53 -0500

I see the "Specialist" ranks as similar version of the warrant officer. These are very specialized individuals and should concentrate their skills to that particular job, very much like the warrant officer. Some Soldiers like to lead, others just want to do their job. So to me this makes perfect sense.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2018 2:33 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 02:33:23 -0500

Hell yeah! This is the perfect solution for pilots

Response by Jerry Rivas made Dec 14 at 2018 6:03 AM

Jerry Rivas — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 06:03:49 -0500

I remember many jobs like X ray tech, and Dental assistants and Physical therapists who were SPC5' 6, even spc7 who were incredibly good at there jobs......But were not "leaders". Bring those ranks back, and let them make careers out of serving their country.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2018 7:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:59:36 -0500

For the warrant officer who thinks that we shouldn’t bring back the spec system, I think we should get rid of the warrant’s, because I guess they couldn’t handle or hack being an officer, in my book they are the same as the specialists

Response by SGT Jon Creager made Dec 19 at 2018 9:25 AM

SGT Jon Creager — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:25:07 -0500

You are right not everyone is a leader, but many great people, super with the tech end have been handed their walking papers.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2018 11:09 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:09:53 -0500

As a 91B who is constantly getting calls from my NCO's (Who are E6 and up) about things related to our MOS I agree with bringing back these kinds of ranks. Sadly, the way the army works now is based on PT and memorization of how to be a leader. What good is an NCO if they don't know their jobs first and foremost?

I'm a PFC who should have been promoted to SPC already. I had some issues that held me back. But when it comes to the job itself I'm fantastic. But because I have no desire to be an NCO I'm stuck at the E4 rank max. To quote my last few monthly counselings: "You display unmatched knowledge on your MOS compared to your peers. You are my top soldier when it comes to troubleshooting legacy vehicles."

Yet I'm ETSing OCT 2019. There is no place for me in the Army. It's like they don't want my knowledge since I'm not interested in being an NCO. But on the flip side of the coin, we have a SPC that got his P status and just got his BLC date. He himself has stated that he doesn't particularly like what he's doing as a mechanic and that he knows enough to do the job. Don't get me wrong, our NCO's are shaping him into a leader and when it comes to PT he's amazing. I feel as an NCO he'll do great. As a future mechanic leader, not so much.

Response by SGT Jim Tucker made Dec 20 at 2018 10:12 PM

SGT Jim Tucker — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:12:20 -0500

No, I would even do away with the Spec 4. The Marine Corp don’t have Specialist and they have no problem with commands. I was a Spec 5 and I always felt lower in rank than an E-5 sergeant

Response by SGT Tony Page made Jan 13 at 2019 5:21 PM

SGT Tony Page — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:21:23 -0500

Enlisted in 78 Field Artillery, E1 to E5 in 27 months. 90 percent time in the woods so wife says get a new job or get a new wife. Reenlistment to "fixed station" MOS as a Telephone Central Office Repairman (when the Army still owned the base landline operations). Handed SP5 insignia in 80 after AIT and tore off hard stripes until 85 when the rank was eliminated plus being on the E6 list same year. Super small career field with only 56 E6 slots worldwide so basically everyone knew everyone. Highly technical field so Specialist rank was fitting. RCP lost many highly trained people and yes, we were nerds for the most part buried in troubleshooting off a 5 foot schematic versus moving formations, calling cadence, etc... I ended up being on the E6 list for 7 years (cutoff scores were ridiculously high so an off day on a PT test was a make/break back then) until I was offered an early retirement from Desert Storm in 93 as E5(p) over 15. Bottom line... specialist ranks for highly technical jobs with minimal upward progression is of great value plus NO RCP. It's better to keep skills sometimes versus forcing someone out with great value to the organization.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2019 2:46 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:46:49 -0500

When I entered the U.S. Army in 1981 after serving 3 years prior service in the USMC, I believe the Specialist Ranks went all the way to SP-6

Response by SSG Lance Wendling made Jan 24 at 2019 4:22 PM

SSG Lance Wendling — Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:22:32 -0500

In a word-no. There should be two e-4 ranks: specialist for standard e-4 not in a leadership role or combat arms, and col for e-4s in combat arms or leadership roles.

Response by SFC Roger Senatore made Feb 7 at 2019 5:27 PM

SFC Roger Senatore — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:27:12 -0500

As the Army got smaller, and the need for warm bodies became less, we could afford to be more and more selective. Today, all NCOs are expected to the "technically and tactically proficient" in the same person. Furthermore, NCOs are expected to be able to take charge, and to be in charge it very much helps to have the UCMJ protections. Specialists are not NCO's and cannot give a lawful order.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2019 12:05 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Apr 2019 12:05:54 -0400

reasons why
1. Low recruiting numbers
2. Low Retention due to RCP mandate
3.RCP severance pay
4.Years of experience and specialized MOS such as aviation signal Corps cyber security
4. The turnover of skill lost between an experience specialist and a fresh AIT soldier Not beneficial to units
5. The loss of years of investment into a single soldier who transferred over to civilian sector to make sometimes twice what they made it in the military

Response by CPL Johnnie H. Williams Jr. made Apr 12 at 2019 5:39 PM

CPL Johnnie H. Williams Jr. — Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:39:02 -0400

I Was A Vietnam Combat Veteran And Love Being Called Specialist. It Is One Honor For Me This Day! When One Is Called Specialist There Is Something About It. I Am A Light Weapons Specialist And Till This Day!!! I am Still The Best!

Response by SP5 Gary Ackerman made Apr 23 at 2019 9:11 AM

SP5 Gary Ackerman — Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:11:15 -0400

There should never have been 'specialist' ranks to start with. A soldier in the field knows who his leaders are and does not have to look at someone's sleeve. The US Army did just fine for 180 years before they started this failed, confusing experiment. Why did it not involve officer's ranks? Most officers are desk jockeys who never lead - why not have a 'specialist captain' in charge of procurement?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2019 11:49 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 May 2019 23:49:43 -0400

HELL YEAH, plus the spec badges look very cool compared to basic stripes

Response by SP6 John R Diligard Jr made Jul 11 at 2019 2:54 AM

SP6 John R Diligard Jr — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:54:40 -0400

I didn't realize the site was actually called SP6, I was under the impression that you thought I held the rank of Specialist 6, and there is nothing wrong with being a specialist I was one until I made E-5 as a Track commander on a 113 APC, hope I did't rub anyone the wrong way

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2019 1:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:24:31 -0400

I knew plenty of soldiers who were great at their job, but sucked at leading soldiers. I also knew plenty of soldiers who were great at leading soldiers but sucked at their mos

Response by SPC Craig Miller made Jul 19 at 2019 1:34 PM

SPC Craig Miller — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:34:41 -0400

Yes. In the Guard and reserves especially some MOSs have such a logjam you can be in for for almost a decade without getting promoted. I passed rifle qual and PT plus took more than a few courses. I was stuck at E-4 with same amount of points as the MPs were using to go to E-6 SSG. Average wait time for a medic to go to E-5 Sgt in Ohio National Guard IS ABOUT 6 years. Am MP is about 18 months. If you are deployed and go active duty that sets you back even more.

Response by COL William Oseles made Jul 19 at 2019 1:44 PM

COL William Oseles — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:44:53 -0400

What they need to do is bring back the older "T" ranks. We used to have Tech Sergeants that evolved into the Specialist ranks.
But the 'hard' stripes did not like it because the 'Technicals' of the same grade got paid mor me due to their technical skills.
When I came in as an enlisted specialist was about the time they did away with Proficiency Pay and the qualifications to get into radar maintenance were higher than those for OCS.

Response by SSG James Oliver Nathan Jr made Jul 19 at 2019 4:29 PM

SSG James Oliver Nathan Jr — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:29:13 -0400

No. Get rid of the specialist rank? Pvt. Pfc. Cpl. Sgt. SSG. SFC. MSG. 1st SGT. SGM. CSM. SMA.

Response by SPC Kenneth Machado made Jul 20 at 2019 10:49 PM

SPC Kenneth Machado — Sat, 20 Jul 2019 22:49:21 -0400

yes

Response by SPC Kenneth Machado made Jul 20 at 2019 10:50 PM

SPC Kenneth Machado — Sat, 20 Jul 2019 22:50:17 -0400

Non combat arms.

Response by SFC David Xanten made Jul 21 at 2019 9:45 AM

SFC David Xanten — Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:45:09 -0400

I agree, the Specialist Ranks were great for the moral as it allowed CO's to promote people that were great at their jobs but not necessarily Leaders or the slot they filled was a leadership position. In my time Gunners on Tanks were E-5 Positions but no leadership was needed so it was a Specialist position. What about Support positions, a lot of them require skilled people and not leaders.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 4 at 2019 5:58 AM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Sun, 04 Aug 2019 05:58:31 -0400

Yes, I enjoyed being called a Bird Sergeant, as a SP5.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 13 at 2019 11:55 AM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:55:42 -0400

Yes, we should! Some career fields have changed their titles or names to be denoted as Specialist's in their fields! Why should they wear Hard Stripes when they are being called or titled as Specialist!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2019 11:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Nov 2019 11:35:35 -0500

The Army should definitely not bring back these ranks. We would have a bunch over over paid specialists and the Army wouldn't be able to be at full strength because we wouldn't be able to afford training. If you dont want to be a leader then it's time to move on.

Response by SGT Brad Baier made Jan 4 at 2020 9:43 AM

SGT Brad Baier — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 09:43:44 -0500

Some soldiers are not leaders but still have skills and value. I think it would show these individuals they are wanted and needed if they got the title of specialists and a pay increase. Not all enlisted are going to make good or great NCO's, but there is still a place for their skills even if they never become a leader.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Jan 14 at 2020 11:46 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:46:36 -0500

Seems to me that to add value, NCO Leadership Training should be increased, instead of sidestepping the problem that some people just can’t lead a horse to water.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2020 12:31 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:31:12 -0500

Contracting could use Warrant officers too

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Jan 14 at 2020 1:53 PM

SSG Harry Herres — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:53:38 -0500

YES, for the reasons you stated, and it you can't make the leadership requirement you will no loose great assets.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2020 2:58 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:58:49 -0500

It is a routinely visited point of discussion. I think a more nuanced personnel management system is desirable than the status quo. As an aviation officer, it is tempting to join the camp wanting to return to old ways as well. But, for every lower ranking slot that is occupied by an experienced specialist (SP4-6), you deny your team an opportunity to bring in a junior enlisted member who would someday be an excellent senior NCO. The very argument to bring back these ranks recognizes how difficult it is to find good leaders. In doing so, you would deny the Army the limited opportunity it has crafted to find the leaders it needs to take charge of the mission while caring for the soldiers. No, the Army should not bring back these ranks. That does not mean that there aren’t alternative solutions. Promotion opt-in/out vs performance retention boards are viable options in my opinion.

Response by CPL Kevin Howe made Jan 14 at 2020 3:54 PM

CPL Kevin Howe — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:54:20 -0500

Yes; been a spec, did good work, would not have done so well leading a fire team

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jan 14 at 2020 5:18 PM

SSG John Jensen — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:18:26 -0500

I loved being a Spec/5 (medic), and when I retired (truck driver) I was in the spot that would have been Spec/6, I didn't have the politics for that unit (I'm not a backstabber)

Response by PO3 Scot Fahey made Jan 14 at 2020 9:12 PM

PO3 Scot Fahey — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:12:29 -0500

In this day of JOINT commands. Army requires technical expertise, without calling upon other services.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jan 15 at 2020 6:59 AM

SPC John Decker — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:59:30 -0500

Yes. I served with some Spec-5's and -6's, though the ranks had been discontinued, there were some who had not been changed over. As you say Major, some are not leader material but their knowledge, within a limited field, should not be wasted.

Response by SGT Ken R made Jan 15 at 2020 3:22 PM

SGT Ken R — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:22:49 -0500

Had a Sp4 at Ft Bragg named Meckler. He was top shelf and he knew his stuff better than anyone else in the whole chain of command. He knew how to get stuff done and make stuff happen..quick. Thing was, he didn't put up with anyone's crap at all. He would tell anyone to go to hell in a heartbeat. Didn't care if it was officer or not. He didn't give anyone any trouble, and he would not allow anyone to push him around-period. When the Commander or CWO came down to visit, they wanted to talk to Meckler most of the time. This pissed off the chain of command big time. He is what I think of when I think of SP6. He had no desire to lead, and he was so freaking squared away it just pissed people off. We learned a lot from him. He finally got tired of it and got out. Started his own business and has more money than he can spend now. It was the Army's loss. Should have let him do his job and left him alone.

Response by SFC Anna Annelli made Jan 16 at 2020 7:45 PM

SFC Anna Annelli — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:45:29 -0500

Yes yes. I got out of the regular Army as Specialist 5. I earned that rank, went in front of a board and worked hard. As I moved up in rank I had the knowledge of what my responsibilities were and what was expected of me. I went into the National Guard after a break and I was told I was a Sergeant and that the specialist ranks were something of the past. I was hurt and up until I retired I mentioned this to officers and Sergeant Majors. They agree with me. I did retire as a SFC but when I was a new private I always wanted to be the Specialist 8. I have found that many soldiers move up in rank and have no idea what they are doing in their MOS for the rank they hold.

Response by SSG William DeCamp made Jan 17 at 2020 4:03 AM

SSG William DeCamp — Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:03:47 -0500

When I served it was emphasized that everyone must learn to lead, that's what sets the US armed forces apart from the rest of the world, being able to step in and lead during combat. Those technical ranks are useless if you can't lead and everyone can be taught to lead. If we have a bunch of tech savvy people that are only followers, God help us! Our armed forces are designed to make leaders regardless of your mos. Look back at the Gulf War, a convoy of non combat arms personnel took a wrong turn and veered off into enemy hands, a direct lack of leadership and people lost their lives.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2020 2:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:14:26 -0500

I think we should get rid of the SPC rank Completely. I have met alot of people that were great at there mos and were just couldn't lead. But I have also seen some soldiers with great leadership Potential that were stuck at SPC and could not get a promotion to CPL do to the fact of they only use it to hold E5 slots for the most part now. All most every other branchs E4s are expected to be jr NCOs why should we be any different.

Response by LTC Mike Hughes made Feb 6 at 2020 10:45 PM

LTC Mike Hughes — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 22:45:14 -0500

There were very good reasons they were eliminated. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Having a SGT supervising a SP8 just didn’t work

Response by PFC Kenneth Anderson made Feb 7 at 2020 7:51 AM

PFC Kenneth Anderson — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 07:51:22 -0500

I Think So!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2020 8:40 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:40:30 -0500

Yes.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2020 11:29 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:29:54 -0500

The Army needs the specialist ranks brought back.

Response by LTC Don Lockey made Feb 7 at 2020 12:54 PM

LTC Don Lockey — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:54:23 -0500

I agree. Although an armor officer CG cleaned house in signal bn and I was bn xo. I learned that there were many soldiers who were good technically but had no concept of leadership. The real NCOs were not always technically as proficient as their troops but could get them to do the job quickly and correctly.

Response by MSG Gilbert Berg made Feb 8 at 2020 10:14 AM

MSG Gilbert Berg — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 10:14:23 -0500

I was a SP4 in France in 1955.

Response by CH (COL) Mitchell Ackerson made Feb 8 at 2020 1:16 PM

CH (COL) Mitchell Ackerson — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 13:16:08 -0500

I agree, that they should have been kept. Some folks are great at their jobs but are not leaders. All too often I saw folks get leadership roles that they could not handle, but with up or out we put people in positions that did more harm than good.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2020 11:07 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Feb 2020 23:07:05 -0500

Yes as not all people will make decent leaders either cause they do not have the ability or do not want to be a leader. Cause not everyone can be made into a leader. But they are very good at their job. someone made a comment that leadership is learned and I disagree. I believe u have it in to to Stand up in front of people and give talks, direction or even organization. All u have to do is look at a sports team say the Bulls with Jordan and without Scotty didn't have the leadership to keep what Jordan had going. 1st off Jordan was the hardest worker on the team so that took a lot of pressure off the coach cause his best player was not slaking off and Scotty was not the best player when he was gone. Some people are leaders some can be taught to lead in a round about way and some cannot. I remember being on a run in Basic and we went past to people that were trying to remember how to do the last steps of putting their weapon back together prior to calling the DI over to inspect it. And they were almost crying. I defy anyone that those people would make leaders. they have the want to but not the ablility.

Response by LTC Frank Ganschinietz made Mar 4 at 2020 11:09 AM

LTC Frank Ganschinietz — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 11:09:48 -0500

YES

Response by CPT William Jones made Mar 22 at 2020 5:55 PM

CPT William Jones — Sun, 22 Mar 2020 17:55:45 -0400

I also agree. Not every person wants to be CSM of the Army or Chief of Staff but their should be a way they can continue to advance up the pay scale. That is part of what the warrant program is for. Specialist was for Enlisted people to be used so that a clerk, mechanic, or such person could make more money as their knowledge of their subject and skill improved

Response by Cpl Jeff Ruffing made Mar 24 at 2020 9:50 AM

Cpl Jeff Ruffing — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:50:34 -0400

I really hated being a SPC 4. It was a shock going from a hard stripe to a SPC. I felt like middle management with no pull. I still acted like a hard striper tho. So, when I was promoted to Sgt, it was a relieve

Response by SFC Sfc Darwin Maring, USA Ret made Apr 12 at 2020 6:52 PM

SFC Sfc Darwin Maring, USA Ret — Sun, 12 Apr 2020 18:52:59 -0400

If they want to keep the experts then YES. I had a SP5 that was an excelent Crypto Repairman and he did not want to be a SSG and refused to be sent to a promotion board, the Army mustered him out. What a shame. Back in 1961 I met a SP9, NM National Guard and he was with the General. They flew in to Fort Bliss.

Response by SPC Marty Kukol made Apr 27 at 2020 8:50 PM

SPC Marty Kukol — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:50:00 -0400

Yes. Keep all support personnel as Specialist and Combat Arms as hard stripes. Leadership vs. Specialized training.

Response by SSG Kenneth Ponder made Jul 9 at 2020 1:32 AM

SSG Kenneth Ponder — Thu, 09 Jul 2020 01:32:04 -0400

Hell no! Matter of fact get rid of Spec 4's. Or make a special pay grade of E4 1/4

Response by LTC James Varner made Dec 23 at 2020 12:22 PM

LTC James Varner — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:22:10 -0500

Each generation is certain that it is smarter than its predecessors.

Response by SGT Tom Recupero made Dec 23 at 2020 12:45 PM

SGT Tom Recupero — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:45:45 -0500

I like to consider myself a Master Specialist

Response by SSG John Jensen made Dec 23 at 2020 10:25 PM

SSG John Jensen — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:25:19 -0500

I loved being a Spec/5, but I was a medic.
My last position before retirement was the 2d SSG in a Trans. Squad - Not the Squad Ldr. - in the old system I would have been a Spec/6 - looking at the whole structure of the truck company - the 2d E-6 in the squad would have been the Squad TruckMaster! - in those last years, with my secondary as a mechanic That Is What I Was!

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Jan 10 at 2021 11:10 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:10:20 -0500

Absolutely

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Jan 23 at 2021 11:22 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Sat, 23 Jan 2021 23:22:39 -0500

absolutely they should. As you say, not everyone talented in their MOS is cut out for leadership.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Jun 21 at 2021 11:30 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 23:30:21 -0400

YES, they should not all soldiers are capable of leading other soldiers! We will always need expertise based on ones career path and interests!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2022 8:53 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Oct 2022 20:53:47 -0400

Yes. There are NCO's in Senior Leadership positions that dont need to be there. The specialist ranks would take care of this