Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?

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.

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

MAJ (Join to see): 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.

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.....

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.

MAJ (Join to see): 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.

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

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"

Nope bad idea, you have to be a leader in the army not a follower

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)