Posted on Jan 28, 2014
Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?
952K
3.85K
1.21K
1.3K
1.3K
2
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?
Should the Army bring these ranks back?
Rank
Promotions
Specialist
Soldiers
SP6
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 708
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Totally agree. Also, technical mos skills are being devalued in place of training every soldier to be an infantryman.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG Leo McArdle
Also we do not dozens of NCO’s in one shop. Example is mechanics. Twelve in the motor pool and only two NCO slots. Eligible for promotion but slots are filled and those guys aren’t moving so you have to get out?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ted Strachan
Respectfully disagree. There is and will be an ever-increasing need for soldiers that specialize without the need for additional leadership duties. That is apparent now more than ever.
(0)
(0)
1SG Nick Baker
Who is going to train the specialist? Who is going to further that knowledge? Someone will have to train and develop that skill, e.g. an NCO or Warrant Officer. Why do we need another rank for the same pay?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1SG Nick Baker - One example would be all the maintenance and repair technicians or every flavor, stuck at E4. We need them, and we need them to know their jobs well. But those huge shops they work in only need 1 CWO Maintenance officers and maybe only a couple of shop supers and leads. There is not a wide enough ladder for NCO type progression and expansion of technical proficiency in those environments. Ever looked under the dash of a M1081? Every one of those hundreds of wires is white. Troubleshooting crap like that is a time sink, and it takes a lot of time for most to get good. Running a crew or a shop is not anywhere near the same skill set. Developing and retaining those that can grow into those types of jobs is. Retaining those people that can do the technical jobs and requisite paperwork while not having a way to compensate them fairly for their work because you can't promote them because their aren't slots, and if you can promote them, they are bumped up into the scheduling and reviewing end of the job, so they are then trying to teach intuitive technique to the noob that moved into their old job. We don't have CWO slots for diagnosticians in the shop, and the slots we do have aren't conducive to babysitting senior privates on the finer points of repair, hell it would be tough for those on the floor to get the most basic of advice from their BMO/SME. Up or out means constant turn over at the bottom so that we aren't getting the most timely and effective service possible. The opportunity for UP in a non-supervisory line provides the space we need to grow and properly compensate those that do the technically difficult jobs that can't be done by CWO SMEs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No. I think Specialist ranks were an overkill. Every soldier is "technical" within their MOS
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google