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
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The other services do not have a separate insignia. the Navy/CG shows your rate (occupation) but it doesn't show one rate or as being hard stripe vs soft stripe.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Barbara Matthews
I agree. I was an HM1(E6) in the Navy. I was basically the same as a BM1 although I never worked on the deck other than medical support. On a ship there are many other rates that make that ship sail but not me. I made sure that the sick and injured were taken care of.
All Petty Officers are the same regardless of their rating (job). I couldn't imagine using a different system. Does not compute. Even when I worked with/around Marines we had equivalent ranks. I was equal to a Staff Sergeant and treated the same.
Why would you have some E6's who were less than other E6's... And how would that work when having inter-service duty?
All Petty Officers are the same regardless of their rating (job). I couldn't imagine using a different system. Does not compute. Even when I worked with/around Marines we had equivalent ranks. I was equal to a Staff Sergeant and treated the same.
Why would you have some E6's who were less than other E6's... And how would that work when having inter-service duty?
(0)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
That opinion is the reason for the loss of many good men! Good technicians are as necessary as good solders and good leaders. Drive them out and go back to the lensatic compass and the M-1 rifle!
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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?
(4)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
I remember when I was a private back in the day (late 90's). I had a PLT SGT who told me that when the SPEC ranks were around, the hard stripers always out ranked the SPEC ranks despite time in service or grade.Â
(0)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
As a SP/6 I always got a kick out of "Buck" Sergeants thinking they outranked me! In my section or office the only NCO that outranked me were my PSG or 1SG patients and visitors held no authority over how my section was run.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
Might be thinking of Technicians. A Tech ranked under the rank that was worn, but above the next lower. For example, Tech 4 outranked a CPL, but was below a SGT. The Specialists ranked between a PFC and CPL. I was told that by a NCO who had been both. He said that during the war, you had Techs trying to tell line NCOs that they outranked how to do their jobs even though they new little about the job, say a communications Tech 3 telling an Inf SGT how to attack a position. Do not know whether true or not, but had no reason to doubt him.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jeffrey Frusha
No disrespect intended, I went in a PFC for College, had higher scores than my superiors and got stuck in SP4 for 3 years, and, now, aparently life, since this page won't accept my TSG rank as CPL, or even the CPL they made me in TNG, because they didn't HAVE SP4 rank, then gave me an honorable discharge, because they lost ALL my files. SP4 was the workhorse, when they couldn't GET PFCs, CPLs and SGTs to work. We earned and worked for the stripes we never got, and the excuse was ALWAYS that we had too many NCOs and nowhere to promote, even laterally.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
MAJ (Join to see), 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.
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.
(3)
(0)
MAJ David Vermillion
I have never liked the dual system, because it sends the wrong message to the other ranks. The specialists ranks are like civilians in uniform. The one rank system would eliminate bias.
(2)
(0)
SPC David S.
I'm curious if the other branches just don't hire contractors as needed to execute their mission. I see this easier executed in the Air Force but seems like all branches would apply. This gets a messy once its outside the garrison but I know a number of overseas contractors making good money doing this.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google