Posted on Jan 28, 2014
MAJ Student
952K
3.85K
1.21K
1.3K
1.3K
2
E 5   spc5 copy2
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?
Avatar feed
Responses: 708
SFC Signal Support Systems Specialist
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
LCDR Aerospace Engineering Duty, Maintenance (AMDO and AMO)
LCDR (Join to see)
>1 y
It's not even no -desire- to lead, but the Army may not NEED them to lead.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Criss M.
SGT Criss M.
11 y
If everyone was a leader, we'd have a pot full of Chiefs and no Indians.
(4)
Reply
(0)
1SG Michael Dochterman
1SG Michael Dochterman
11 y
I was a PSG in the MI field I had a high number of NCO's that I just couldn't give leadership jobs to because there wasn't anyone to lead. Only 2 SPC and one PFC in the entire platoon. The problem with hard-striping everyone is that SR leaderships wants to develop them, rightfully so, but at some point who is going to do the work. Many have said let them be warrants but you know they don't always have the right set and how many warrants do you see sitting rack? Bring them back.
(2)
Reply
(0)
MSG John Wirts
MSG John Wirts
>1 y
TSgt (Join to see) - I was in when Specialist ranks were Sp-4 through Sp-9. The specialists were just that specialists! In the more technically advanced military s of today the need for technicians has never been greater! Imaging if say all auto mechanics had to become shop managers to keep their jobs, we would soon have a severe shortage of auto mechanics. The military is no different, the corporal is a NCO in combat arms. non combat arms the E-4 is a specialist. I see great advantage to returning to SP-4 through SP-7, there never were many SP-8 or Sp-9 mostly medical field. If someone could make a case for SP-8 and Sp-9, I would even support that. But outside the combat arms, I do not see the desirability or need for the current up into the NCO ranks or out!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Shane Hansen
2
2
0

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?

(2)
Comment
(0)
SGT Richard H.
SGT Richard H.
>1 y
SSG William Martin: Here's a dumb question, did a SGT (E5) techinically out rank a SPEC4-5 or higher?

MAJ Patrick Walsh: Just SP4 & SP5. SP6 or SP7 out ranked a SGT/E5.

I'm not calling either of you out, just using this Q&A to cite an example of the problem here (as I see it). Many have mentioned that the SPC ranks were for people who are "technically proficient, but not leaders". So let's examine this: A SP7 outranks an SSG. The SSG worked his butt off to get there AND is a leader....but he's outranked by a guy who knows his job but is not a leader? kind of seems like a kick in the teeth to the SSG, who does both. Personally, I think this is why the SPC ranks were done away with...because of the muddying of the leadership roles. If it's about pay, why not leave the person as a SP4 and add a "technical proficiency adjustment" or something along those lines. In this way, it could be handled much like jump or combat pay.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Mike Angelo
SSG Mike Angelo
>1 y
SPC ranks were rated both technically and tactically proficient in their EERs/NCOERs in the 70s. SPC ranks are also included in PltSgt meetings and 1SGT meetings too. It depends on the units mission and organizational structure. For example, a SPC6 could easily been slotted in a SSG/E-6 slot or SFC/E-7 slot. Back then, unit PACs were influenced by their 1SGTs of the leadership slots.

It is all different now.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LCDR Aerospace Engineering Duty, Maintenance (AMDO and AMO)
LCDR (Join to see)
>1 y
In theory, a SP6 would be more technically proficient than an SSG. In exchange for not spending time doing "chain-of-command" work, they would further develop their skills in their trade - a side effect of not having to split their time and efforts.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Richard H.
SGT Richard H.
>1 y
1SG Carl McAndrews - In theory, though, couldn't a SP6 or SP7 be subordinate to a SGT, since they aren't "leadership" ranks?
In a perfect world, that's how rank vs. pay grade works, but let's face it...as a 1SG, you know people look at you a little different than a MSG. Imagine the difference if you add 10+ years of age and experience and a pay grade or two to that.
Personally, I stand by my opinion that if someone is going to in for a full, they should be a leader. I just don't see the wrong in having a force with that extra edge of professionalism.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO2 Builder
1
1
0
The Army needs the specialist ranks brought back.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Gary Reed
1
1
0
No. Leadership IS learned. If you want the rank and the pay, accept the responsibility that goes with it.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Donald Moore
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Ruben Marin
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Shannon Holmes
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Retired
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Electronic Warfare Technician
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG Ted Strachan
SSG Ted Strachan
>1 y
100% agreed.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Chester Beedle
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG Ted Strachan
SSG Ted Strachan
>1 y
Absolutely, and to throw out the 'tech-proficients' just because troop/combat leadership is a waste of training time and money. Leave the focus on leadership where it belongs- in true troop leadership positions.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close