Should the Army continue regarding NCOs as Sergeant or by their actual rank title?
The question is whether anyone has an opinion if the Army should continue regarding its NCOs as Sergeants or by their actual rank title. Army NCOs, from the time that they pin on E5/SGT are referred to as Sergeants. This continues until the NCO reaches E8/1SG as there are a few Army MSGs that I have seen referred to as "sergeant" and they were not offended. The other services (Navy, USMC, USAF) refer to each of their ranks by their actual rank title; the USMC E6/Staff Sergeant is referred to as a Staff Sergeant while a E6/Tech Sergeant in the Air Force is referred to as a Tech Sergeant. The Navy uses rates such as Master at Arms (MA) 1,2 or 3 to signify rate and rank but still, its not just MA. As I am not offended by being referred to as a Sergeant by others as a SFC, mostly out of years of repitition, does anyone think that the Army should enforce rank references that reflect the actual rank title (eg. Sergeant or Staff Sergeant for an E6 and so on)?
Although I do realize that when an Army NCO is in a ceremony or similar formation, they are referred to by their actual rank however; when a Soldier, another NCO etc. needs to speak with Staff Sergeant Doe, John/Jane, they are acknowledged only as Sergeant. What do you think?....
Just my opinion on it.
I'm currently stationed on a Navy base. The Sailors I meet typically call me Master Sergeant even though the in the AF Sergeant is fine E-5 to E-8. I don't say anything because it's correct and if that's what they have been told to say I don't want to undermine their leadership. I've been working with the Navy's Color Guard and the Sailors refer to themselves by rate, HM2 for example.
I'm curious if "Gunny" is an approved title. There are many in the AF that call E-8s "Senior", which isn't official. It's not that I don't think they are worth it; they are in the top two percent of the enlisted force. With logic, we come back to everyone is referred to by their full title...

NCOs
Rank
