Should the Army phase out Specialist Rank?

2014-01-25T16:44:23-05:00

Should the Army do away with Specialist Rank and promote Soldiers from Private First Class to Corporal? What do you think are the Pros and Cons?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2014 4:41 AM

2014-01-25T04:41:33-05:00

Gary,<div><br></div><div>I would say Specialist only because now a days you need to be lateral promoted to Corporal so unless you have those orders I say Specialist.</div><div>V/r</div><div>1SG Haro</div>

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 25 at 2014 4:54 PM

2014-01-25T16:54:09-05:00

<p>Either that or bring back the NCO versions for MOS jobs that aren't in leadership positions, (i.e. SP5-9).</p><p><br></p><p>There are many jobs in the Army with NCOS in them that have no troops or leadership responsibilities.</p>

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Jan 25 at 2014 5:13 PM

2014-01-25T17:13:14-05:00

In a heartbeat. It's a stagnant rank. For those who are hard chargers on their way to becoming NCO's, CPL would suit them better to learn the art of leadership. Those that are only looking for a pay raise should end at PFC and ETS. <br><br>I know that's an oversimplification of our situation in the enlisted field, but we've all seen the career SPC's that become stagnant in their field. (and this is well before they hit their retention control points). It would lend more respect and responsibility to CPL's who are expected to produce NCO level work at the SPC level pay. <br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong, but every other branch of the military has NCO begin at the E-4 pay grade. I've seen USMC CPL's leading squads on patrols. <br>

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 26 at 2014 10:25 AM

2014-01-26T10:25:52-05:00

Heck no. We need to expand it back out to include SP5-7. The Army needs talent, and that talent is not always cut out for Leadership. I know we tend to over emphasize leadership, but without talented managers and parts changers, the mission would fail just as surely as it would without quality leadership.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 12:22 PM

2014-01-26T12:22:25-05:00

SFC Natta,<div><br></div><div>No and this is why. Not every E5 or E6 slot requires a Sergeant or a Staff Sergeant. Not every E4 is fit to be a Corporal. In fact, most are not. We have too many people running around with chevrons who should be SP5s and SP6s. Not everyone is a leader and not everyone has the competency to be a leader, contrary to the Army's intent. It's just the way it is from what I've seen.</div>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 8:42 PM

2014-01-26T20:42:50-05:00

If NCOs are doing their jobs then the current system works just fine. Promote those to CPL that can handle it and leave those at SPC that cant. If for some reason the highers dont want CPLs, send the SPC to the board(which should happen before CPL anyway) and make it known that SPC(P)(not CLI) out rank SPC in your section, regardless of time in grade or service. Give them leadership positions over their peers and treat them as such when dishing out rewards and punishment. Molding leaders can work in the current system NCOs just need to step up and make it happen.

I was lucky to have leadership who allowed me to become a leader. Most of my peers had 8 years in as SPC and were content with going no further. I showed myself to be a leader and I became promotable. I was charged with acting as an CPL even though I was never pinned one. The key to my success was that my NCOs expected me to act like an NCO and even more key they would have my back when another SPC disrespected my position, as long as I was in the right. By empowering your SPC(P) (in the absence of CPLs) to be treated like NCOs you allow them to grow as a leader.

Why recommend them for promotion if you are not going to mentor them to be NCOs, was my PSGs outlook.

I will always be thankful for the extra responsibilities, even though it sucked sometimes, lol, it prepared me for things to come. I can truly say after 11 months as a SPC(P) in a leadership position I was at least 98% ready(somethings you have to learn in grade) to be an NCO when I earned my promotion to SGT.

Response by SFC Bruce Pettengill made Jan 26 at 2014 9:30 PM

2014-01-26T21:30:39-05:00

in the 70's we had specialist ranks up to E-6. It was not earth shattering when the Army eliminated Spec 5&6 and made them hard stripes. It would not be earth shattering to eliminate Spec 4 rank now. I think it would also improve the quality of the NCO

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 11:40 PM

2014-01-26T23:40:04-05:00

Heck NO!  In-fact, I'm a big advocate of bringing back SPC-5 thru SPC-7.  While there are some GREAT Soldiers in our ranks…not all are NCO material.  There are a lot of Soldiers that are totally satisfied with just doing their speciality (Mechanics, Cooks, etc)…and have no desire to lead.

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Jan 27 at 2014 7:02 AM

2014-01-27T07:02:47-05:00

Never cared for the Spec. ranks. Always seemed to be a way of giving a raise to keep folks around, while maintaining their status of 'worker bees'.

I was a Spec 5 (Armor) and my duties and responsibilities were the same as a buck Sergeant - without the respect. Commander AJ'd me to Sgt after a couple months, but still...........

Follows along with the Army's 'up or out' policy. After reading an article about a 20 year Corporal in the Canadian Army, I saw the value in keeping experienced folks around doing what they wanted, and were very good at, without the pressure of advancement they didn't care about.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 12:58 PM

2014-02-05T12:58:26-05:00

SPC, I personnally think that is a great idea. You have proven yourself to the Chain of Command, now we need to give you some recognition that sets up apart from your peers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 1:28 PM

2014-02-05T13:28:25-05:00

While I agree with you on this, what about the automatic promotables? There are many who currently hold a P just because they have been in the Army long enough. Im not a fan of the Specialist rank because I feel many Soldiers hide behind the rank and use it as an excuse to either sham, or get away with things. As a Specialist/Corporal you should be looking to the next level, working to attain that higher level of responsibility. I feel that a Soldier who pins on E-4 should be either a Corporal, or if they cant handle the responsibility, taken back to PFC. Either that, or reinstate the Spec ranks.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 11:45 PM

2014-03-20T23:45:48-04:00

Imagine if Tom Brady had not been developed. He would not be who we know him as today. There are exceptions, but in the Army, it's almost impossible to find a Russell Wilson, or Colin Keapernick. I have not found one yet. I've seen plenty of Mike Vicks though: problem children who could be great leaders. Great field and work space soldiers, just can't stay out of trouble.

Response by SSG Robert Spear made Apr 3 at 2014 5:00 PM

2014-04-03T17:00:16-04:00

Absolutely. I think that there should be no "grey area" rank anywhere in the military. Soldiers should be groomed to lead from the time that they are PV1, and expected to be able to take charge at all levels. There are loads of Specialists in leadership positions in non combat arms units, who have to put up with far more than they should because of their rank, if they are in the role of an NCO, they should be an NCO, and E4 is the ideal rank to step into that role. With that being said, E4 should also not be automatic, pay grade beyond E3 should be automatic, I think that The Army would be stronger, and have better leaders.<br>

Response by SSG Vernon Hartnett made Apr 16 at 2014 6:59 PM

2014-04-16T18:59:18-04:00

No. But how about adding that rank into the structure as its own rank. CPL will be the new E5, Sergeant will be the new E6, SSG will be the new E7, SFC E8 MSG/1SG E9 and SGM/CSM/SMA E10, with CPL and SGT as Junior NCOs, SSG and SFC as the middle management and MSG-SMA as Senior NCOs .. Just a thought of mine. I am also an advocate of bringing back the SPC5-7 ranks, or at least the T designators, SGT-T, SSG-T, SFC-T. In this case the T will let people know that they are in a non-leadership slot. Of course, if they go into a leadership role, they can just remove the T designator ... JMO from a soon to be retiree ...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2014 10:08 AM

2014-07-25T10:08:06-04:00

Great idea SSG Camacho, this in turn will ensure you have a much more polished NCO in the CPL ranks which will carry on as they get promoted.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jul 25 at 2014 10:24 AM

2014-07-25T10:24:37-04:00

This debate is as old as the Specialist rank itself. Many of us remember the Specialist ranks going up to 7 or 8. Some things to consider:
Will all of those SPC positions be converted to leadership positions (as they are designated in Infantry for example); or would we have a new group of NCOs who are not leading anyone?
Another consideration is will this, in effect, give us 'too many Chiefs and not enough Indians' as a result?
What about those who aren't selected to CPL (or who don't wish to compete); would they be forced out at PFC RCP vs. SPC/CPL RCP? Not everyone comes in to the Army for a career, or to become a leader (and that's OK).
Not saying it's a bad idea, but one that could have enormous collateral effects.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jul 25 at 2014 10:26 AM

2014-07-25T10:26:22-04:00

Don't think eliminating SPC at the lowest level would be a solution, but requiring Soldiers to compete for and hold CPL if they want to be a promotable could separate our future leaders from the pack.

Here's that discussion:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-corporal-be-a-requirement-for-promotable-e-4s

Should 'Corporal' be a requirement for promotable E-4s? | RallyPoint

Let's take a look at TRULY separating the E-4s in the Army.When a SPC is recommended and attends a promotion board and is recommended for promotion (becomes 'promotable') to Sergeant, should the Army empower our junior leaders by laterally promoting them to Corporal?

Response by PFC Zanie Young made Jul 25 at 2014 11:10 AM

2014-07-25T11:10:14-04:00

I, personally think that they eliminated the spec 5-7 ranks for a reason: conflict and confusion. Technically, using the spec 4 rank for example, they rank above PFC, but below CPL, though they have the same pay grade as a CPL. Historically speaking, the conflict comes in as this: senior specialists (say spec 7) often have a lot of conflict with staff sergeants. Why? Spec 7s had the same pay grade as a SFC, whereas SSGs have the pay grade of E6. More often than not, the conflict is caused by one pulling rank over the other. Should Specialist rank be eliminated? That would be a tough question for me to answer because the Army is unique with specialist rank but it would eliminate the rank-pulling between ranks of the same pay grade. Then again, you don't see MSGs and 1SGs pull rank with each other, nor any sergeants Majors.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2014 12:58 AM

2014-08-01T00:58:47-04:00

I don't feel SPC should be phased out. Pros of it are you have someone in a very unique position: an individual who is not an NCO, yet can be mentored and placed in an NCO's position to prepare them for becoming one. Yet should that individual prove to be undeserving or undesirering of crossing that threshold, you can let them mosey on until they ETS, provided they are not an oxygen theif. Attaining CPL is a way for E-4s who have the drive to succeed and advance to separate themselves from the rest. Cons: As I mentioned before, it is someone who is not an NCO, yet can be placed in those lower level leadership positions, and currently is an automatic promotion. I highly disagree for a number of reasons, but that's another discussion. If you happen to be in an MOS/unit like mine where E-4's make up almost your entire Co, you are bound to have worthless people that due to one reason or another (usually bad ones) end up in those positions of responsibility and authority and have no idea how to properly handle it.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Aug 1 at 2014 2:10 AM

2014-08-01T02:10:23-04:00

Yes, they should. If a person is not ready to be "hard striped" as a corporal, IMHO they are not ready for promotion to E4. This is especially true in the combat arms and combat support units.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Aug 1 at 2014 7:00 PM

2014-08-01T19:00:55-04:00

This topic has opened a new question for me. What happened to all of those SPC 5-9 that were in the Army. Looking at the old charts it seemed as if the all fell between Corporal and Sergeant but were not really in the leadership loop at all? When those positions were eliminated, what paygrades did they assume? Were they all reverted to E-5, E-4 and did they all loose pay? Save Pay? Just curious if anyone knows these answers. Thanks.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Aug 3 at 2014 1:35 AM

2014-08-03T01:35:32-04:00

It depends on the career management field, CMF.

For combat arms MOS I would recommend the change to Corporal.

For combat support and combat service support, CS, CSS units, I recommend to keep the Spec 4 rank and reinstate Spec 5 through 7.

Eventhough the SPC ranks are ranked equal in pay as compared to the Hard Strip ranks, their responsibilities are very diverse with shop facilities, maintenance and service support of equipment, nurses, cooks, and musicians predominately wore the Spc ranks. Spc 5s to Spc 7s served in the military traditionally as technical advisors and trained technicians in their craft and by specialty. In the late 70s and 80s the Army expanded the Warrant Officer Program and the Spc 5 and Spc 6s were offered this path. Spc 6s, 7s, Spc 9s were eventually phased out, leaving the Spc 4 and Spc 5 aka bird sergeants left over.

What happened after this move was there were more so called warrant officer technicians that were responsible for not only their specialty but many more MOSs within their CMF. In the early 80s, Warrant Officers did not have Command Authority. Why? They fell in the rear of the formation if they were there at all.

In a Signal unit with Ordnance MOSs and back in the 70s and 80s, I remember the SPC 5 to SPC 7 ranks had shared responsibilities with the Hard Stripe Staff NCOs...Squad Leaders, Platoon Sergeants. Both would meet in the 1SGTs office. Back in the Shops, that was the SPC 5 -SPC 7 world.

The Hard Striper did not have much authority in the shop area with a SPC 5 to SPC 7 NCOIC present. Then came the Warrant Officers, no work bench and no tool boxes. They became Shop and Detachment OICs. 2nd and 1LTs were phased out at the shop levels; my era.

With the down-sizing of the military, wait and see who is left then propose changes in the ranks. But if you ask me, I really miss the SPC 5 and SPC 7s because they were that good, IMO; technical SMEs, personal and professional leadership were beyond reproach. They got my respect.

When the Warrant Officers in Signal and Ordnance came, the culture and climate changed in the shops. The real technicians were the SPCs because they knew their stuff and got dirty and greasy along with everybody else. SPC NCOs were not afraid to work side by side; physical labor. In 1977, when I had a technical or personal problem, I would go to my section chief, SPC 6 Carter... IMHO.

Response by Sgt Andrew Pouliot made Aug 7 at 2014 2:29 AM

2014-08-07T02:29:47-04:00

Well Sergeant, the Marine Corps does it all the time ... Specialist really just seems like a useless rank to other service members, no disrespect to the rank or anyone who holds it. Why be a specialist when you could be a corporal? In the Marine Corps, people get promoted to E4 all the time and let me tell you, a lot of them are not ready for it. My dad (he's been in the army for almost 15 years) told me that specialists are made specialists because they aren't ready to be NCOs yet. It seems kind of redundant really. If I had any say in it, I would probably do away with it, but the Army has a totally different culture than the Marine Corps does, so really, what do I know? If it works for the Army, then by all means continue with it hahaha that's my two cents

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 7:04 AM

2014-08-07T07:04:48-04:00

Absolutely, it is a worthless rank that people hide behind. Sure those in the past that wore the SP5-7 ranks were good at their jobs but just didn't want to be leaders but I believe in the move up or move out mentality.

Response by SFC Walter Lovett made Aug 7 at 2014 12:16 PM

2014-08-07T12:16:14-04:00

My opinion has always been to bring back the MOS Skills Qualification Test to compete for the technical levels of SP5-SP7, weed out the NCOs who are in technical positions and do not know their job. Then separate leadership and technical positions by grade and responsibilities. Assign NCOs to leadership positions and SP5-SP7 to the highly technical positions that do not require leadership development.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 12:54 PM

2014-08-07T12:54:27-04:00

My thoughts: Keep Sp-4, return Sp-5&6. At the same time, require those wanting to go from shield to stripes to promote laterally only after at least 50% of the time in grade requirement. So, a Sp-4 who wants stripes needs to wait until half the time before they'd be promotion-eligible to Sp-5, then they can compete/apply for a lateral to CPL. Do the same for Sp-5 to SGT and Sp-6 to SSG. Once you go stripes, though, you shouldn't necessarily have a path back to the shield.

Now, here's the hard part: have some sort of rating system for the SP-Track, like an NCOER crossed with an AER, to determine who should be eligible to transfer over at any given rank (as well as promotion within the track). That way you're not avoiding giving those Soldiers ratings just because they're on a different track, and you can weed out bad Soldiers from advancing.

I'm of the opinion that E4s shouldn't avoid proper evaluations just because they aren't an NCO. If they aren't performing as a Sp-4, they shouldn't advance either laterally or directly. The only way to ensure that is by rating them, though.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made Dec 5 at 2014 10:25 PM

2014-12-05T22:25:51-05:00

I think it's silly to have to separate ranks at the 4 level. Better that corporal is kept but removed from the NCO designation. We can get rid of the full-bird private. And then for everyone, there should be a requirement for leadership and technical expertise that fits the MOS. If someone is infantry, it should be mostly leadership. If someone is MI, it should be mostly technical. It is just as bad to have a paper-pusher leading infantry as it is to have a 300-PT bulldog with limited technical knowledge leading an office of intel analysts.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 19 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-02-19T10:21:30-05:00

Not only no, but I think they should bring back the senior Spec ranks (Spec5-8). Just because you are talented at the technical aspects of your job doesn't mean you are a leader. An NCO (which a Corporal is) is a LEADER. We need career tracks and promotions for soldiers who may be technically competent and want to retain, but don't want to put into key leader positions.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 19 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-02-19T11:29:51-05:00

No the SPC Mafia will not tolerate....'

In all seriousness no Specialist E-4 is a good landing spot for many soldiers who do not want to become NCOs. I agree with others that we need to expand it back especially since not all Specialist want to become NCOs or Warrants but want to continue serving as subject matter experts which the specialist ranks provided in the past.

Response by SPC Neil Hood made Feb 19 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-02-19T17:42:36-05:00

Never!!!!

Response by MSG Gary Browning made Feb 25 at 2015 5:01 PM

2015-02-25T17:01:19-05:00

bring back SP

Response by SPC Tim McKenzie made Feb 26 at 2015 5:29 PM

2015-02-26T17:29:13-05:00

Expand the Specialist rank. There is merit in it.

Response by SGT Micheal Adams made Mar 1 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-03-01T14:31:21-05:00

No way, no sir, spec ranks should be added. Some men will never lead so enters the spec 5&6 pay grade even 7. Good at their jobs just do not need to be leaders.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Mar 28 at 2015 3:32 PM

2015-03-28T15:32:28-04:00

After scanning this thread the one idea that appears to have been overlooked is not having "Specialist" as a rank at all.

Why not have "Trade Qualification" levels instead?

That way you could have a (for example) Pte (TQ-8) working under a Cpl (TQ-2). The Private would know how to do the tasks better than the Corporal, but the Corporal would know how to organize/prioritize the tasks better than the Private.

Of course the Pte (TQ-8) would probably make more money than the Cpl (TQ-2), but the odds are that the Pte (TQ-8) had been in a lot longer than the Cpl (TQ-2) and the odds are also that the CPL (TQ-2) was going to be making (then) more money than the Pte (TQ-8) was making (now) when the CPL (TQ-2) had been in as long as the Pte (TQ-8) was (now) - if I haven't sufficiently confused you, I apologize.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 6:36 PM

2015-03-28T18:36:06-04:00

Absolutely not. If you look at the size and scope of our Army, and the manning requirements to keep her functional, the rank of Specialist serves a very valid and necessary function, providing the the backbone of the vast majority of MOSs. The rank of Corporal, by design, is intended for for those promising young Soldiers who have demonstrated an ability and an aptitude to lead early, often in advance of their eligibility for advancement to SGT/E-5. If we were to do away with the SPC/E-4 rank, and promote everyone to Corporal upon their eligibility for advancement to E-4, what have we really accomplished? Have we strengthened our NCO Corps? Will every Soldier now suddenly be inspired to carry out his or her duties professionally because he or she is now, suddenly, an NCO? Doubtful.
Granted, there are plenty of commands that do an injustice to the Corporal rank by not utilizing it properly. But rather than dummy down yet another proud aspect of our Army heritage, let us call first for a renewal of the proper utilization of Corporals in units from Company through Battalion-Level before we call on the Army as a whole to do away with the Specialist pay-grades and ranks.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 8:21 AM

2015-03-29T08:21:58-04:00

Keep the SPC rank and make them all promoted to CPL prior to SGT. Some units, like my first one, never had the CPL rank. I believe it has its place and should be used as time to prove oneself prior to becoming an NCO.

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Apr 2 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-04-02T21:40:43-04:00

I'm not sure if the Army could function without the specialist mafia

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-09-11T13:57:10-04:00

I think that the rank system should stay as is. Here is why: with the Specialist rank in place, Corporal is a rank to be competitive over. It is an NCO rank for those who dont quite meet the requirements to pin Sergeant. But it distinguishes them as a highly motivated and competent soldier. the rank of Specialist is nothing more than E-4. I consider Corporal to be E-4B, as it is on a slightly higher level, but still in the same pay grade.

Response by MSgt Joe Tafoya made Sep 12 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-09-12T16:09:47-04:00

The UN seems to be very inept at controlling aggression. I think considering they are supposed to be peace makers and not combat troops they are taking a lot of responsibility for just showing up. You want combat troops, send combat troops.

Response by MSgt Joe Tafoya made Sep 12 at 2015 4:14 PM

2015-09-12T16:14:11-04:00

I was a Spec4 in the army in the artillery. We had the E-4 rank but none of the respect of the upgrade in rank If we are receiving the same pay why isn't the same respect given.

Response by SGT Leigh Barton made Oct 8 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-10-08T14:41:43-04:00

I've had the unenviable distinction of serving in both capacities, both as a hard stripe communications NCO and a medical specialist. As a communications NCO, pushing troops was a requirement, as it was for a clinic NCOIC in a hospital. The specialist rating for a soldier that earned hard stripes was the greatest professional insult I've had to endure. Either way,

Response by SGT Mathew Husen made Mar 3 at 2017 1:42 PM

2017-03-03T13:42:28-05:00

No, a lot of specialists aren't ready or capable of being a NCO.

Response by Sgt William Margeson made Mar 3 at 2017 2:13 PM

2017-03-03T14:13:23-05:00

No, that E-4 position is important stepping stone to higher rank. If, in infantry, the E-4 is hard stripe. This is an emportant strp in the learning curve. To do away with it, would more than likely result in unqualified people attaining E-5, reducing the effectiveness and readiness on the force. In the 60's the Army tried basically the same with the so Called NCO acadamy. Start as E-1 grad., as E-6, in 6 months. It was less than successful then and does not promise to be any better today.

Response by SGT Luke Wooster made Mar 3 at 2017 3:40 PM

2017-03-03T15:40:02-05:00

Fine rid the Army of SPC rank and do away with NCOERs as well. No one will ever speak the truth to Officers or Senior NCOs again. SPCs are the dirty janitors of the Army who know what is taking place!

Response by CPT Bruce Dow made Mar 3 at 2017 4:23 PM

2017-03-03T16:23:30-05:00

A specialist is to the enlisted ranks what a Warrant is to the officer ranks. You can keep a qualified individual in a slot that fits him, use his talents where they are most useful without requiring him to be a leader and still reward his abilities

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2017 6:33 PM

2017-03-03T18:33:44-05:00

I don't think that getting rid of the Spc 4 rank would do any good. I do believe that before that specialist can get pinned to Sgt he or she should get laterally promoted to Cpl. I was a specialist for five years before I made corporal not because I was a "bad" soldier but because I just never pushed for the promotion board. Many times my NCO's would put me in charge of a detail or other some duty; such as CQ; because I had showed that I could do the job. In my case I just wasn't ambitious enough. All I wanted to do was do my job/ duty to the best of my abilities and be left alone. I didn't seek praise or recognition. In 2003 when my 1SG commented that my name kept coming up on the promotion roster and asked when I had been promoted to Spc he couldn't believe that I hadn't already made Sgt. He basically made me go to the board because I was indifferent to it.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Mar 4 at 2017 12:42 AM

2017-03-04T00:42:02-05:00

and I've seen a fair number of really senior guys that should have been Spec-8/9s

Response by CW3 Kim B. made Mar 4 at 2017 7:20 AM

2017-03-04T07:20:48-05:00

Leave the rank structure as it is. The SP5-7 ranks went away because they were were pulling.the same duties as the NCO (E5-E7) ranks were pulling but were outranked by hard stripers with less TIS. If the Army could keep Soldiers working ONLY in their MOSs then it might work. Maybe some MOSs could restucture their duty positions if they feel they need more senior specialist ranks.

Response by CPL Kevin Howe made Mar 4 at 2017 2:39 PM

2017-03-04T14:39:55-05:00

As an ex-spec, I think the rank is appropriate and should be expanded through E-8, though many spec-4s were field soldiers, it's appropriate for a technical rank. "Hard stripes" indicate a combat-arms leader. There have always been "two armies" and the technical fields are more likely to yield a full career than combat arms, where few can continue to maintain the physical condition they need to continue as combat leaders

Response by SPC Tim Neat made Jul 21 at 2017 12:24 PM

2017-07-21T12:24:59-04:00

No without the e4 mafia nothing would work right

Response by Cpl Scott McIntosh made Jul 21 at 2017 3:22 PM

2017-07-21T15:22:39-04:00

Spec4 is a useless rank! Same rank/paygrade as a corporeal whose an NCO but without the authority of an NCO

Response by SP5 Greg Allen made Jul 21 at 2017 5:40 PM

2017-07-21T17:40:53-04:00

I was a SP-5 with special training in UH-1 Bell Helicopter repair and maintenance. I also had the normal Army training for combat infantry. Do not see a problem with Specialist rank. Just like Warrant Officer rank. They were specialty trained pilots for the helicopters that was the war effort predominately in Vietnam. Found it problematical being a SP-5. E-5 hard stripes tried to pull rank---did not work for them. Finally got all that worked out.

Response by 1SG Maxie Coody made Jul 21 at 2017 6:56 PM

2017-07-21T18:56:58-04:00

No, we need more specialized people, not everyone is a leader, open the specialist ranks back up through SP/7

Response by SPC David Janssen made Jul 21 at 2017 7:06 PM

2017-07-21T19:06:02-04:00

Response by GySgt Mark Devlin made Jul 21 at 2017 7:17 PM

2017-07-21T19:17:31-04:00

No offense but I don't much care either way..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2017 7:42 PM

2017-07-21T19:42:16-04:00

I had a lot of discussions with veterans that served back when the SPC-5,6,7 were around and they all told me there was friction between the SPC's and the SGT's overall. One example I was given was even though the SPC-7 was an E-7 the SGT E-5 was in a leadership position asked the SPC-7 to do something and always got blown away. Anyone on here know why the Army got ride of the SPC's?

Response by Cpl Billy Nichols made Jul 21 at 2017 8:18 PM

2017-07-21T20:18:21-04:00

The corps has been doing it forever and it works out just fine. It would also instill so ambition to the e4 rank in the army by giving them some leadership responsibilities right now specialist is just a dead end holding spot

Response by SGT Lyester Billhymer made Jul 21 at 2017 8:56 PM

2017-07-21T20:56:18-04:00

Not at all, but when a qualified leader presents him or herself, they should be allowed / chosen to become an NCO. I was very fortunate to be a Sp4 but an acting SGT and was presented my stripes

Response by SP5 Donald Casteel made Jul 21 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-07-21T22:08:33-04:00

Yes, get rid of the soft rank. I had a new guy Corporal try to do several things wrong on Berm duty at Ben Hoa. He did not want us to go past the wire to check that the claymores were pointed the correct direction and hooked up. I was a SP5 at the time. Had to pull a Sargent in from and adjacent bunker to straighten him out.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2017 11:45 PM

2017-07-21T23:45:48-04:00

They have all but killed the Corporal rank for most places, so what would the E4 be called? And to echo many of the other responses, not every Soldier is NCO material. Should not have done away with the higher level Specialist ranks

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2017 12:49 AM

2017-07-22T00:49:18-04:00

First, I'm retired so it doesn't affect me either way. But here's the opinion of a crusty old Master Sergeant.

NEVER get rid of the Specialist rank. expand it.
Back in the day here we're WAY more "Specialist" style ranks, like tech Sergeant and Spec-6, etc. I feel the Army should bring back that type of rank structure for non-combat MOS's. That way if you're a mechanic, or a cook, or any MOS where you should be good at your job but not necessarily good at LEADING TROOPS and you go up in ranks, you'd be a Spec-5, 6, 7, or 8. You could still get paid at the higher RATE, just not have any higher RESPONSIBILITY. So there would be two branches of enlisted ranks, one that took care of Soldiers (NCOs) and one that took care of beans and bullets ("tech" or "Spec" ranks).
I believe that this would give all Soldiers a chance at advancement without having Soldiers who don't belong leading others in that type of position. And if you realize or someone above you realizes that you SUCK at leading others, you can always move to the OTHER branch, and if you're a truck driver and it's found that you're a natural leader, you can move over to THAT branch.
Oh, and get rid of Officers completely. They're a throwback to a time when we all had to stand in a line with our muskets and the rich guy on horseback would shout at us to fire. Their time is over.

Response by MSgt Rick Childress made Jul 22 at 2017 2:56 AM

2017-07-22T02:56:50-04:00

Yes SP4 does not sound quite right where corporal goes back before this country was ever founded

Response by SSG Chuck Wires made Jul 22 at 2017 3:44 AM

2017-07-22T03:44:25-04:00

I agree being a Specialist is a waste of time. Train them E3's to be a Jr. NCO. give them more responsibility and weed out the weaker Soldiers.

Response by SCPO Craig Bennett made Jul 22 at 2017 12:20 PM

2017-07-22T12:20:39-04:00

They really should get rid of Major. It seems like the highly motivated and sharp LTs loose it at that promotion and the bad ones get worse

Response by MSG James Hughs made Jul 22 at 2017 12:23 PM

2017-07-22T12:23:34-04:00

The skill set to be a Specialist is very different than the skill set required of a Sergeant..... While a few can be both.....both ranks would be done a dis-service if we combined them

Response by SCPO Fred DuPont made Jul 22 at 2017 1:09 PM

2017-07-22T13:09:24-04:00

The only comment I have is: Isn't this covered by MOS?

Response by SGT Michael Murphymd1037@aol.com made Jul 22 at 2017 1:32 PM

2017-07-22T13:32:37-04:00

No, Specialists are needed, they preform special skills in their MOS's

Response by LTC Don Ayers made Jul 22 at 2017 3:02 PM

2017-07-22T15:02:02-04:00

Yes

No

Response by SGT Gary Severson made Jul 22 at 2017 3:39 PM

2017-07-22T15:39:24-04:00

Response by Richard Pyles made Jul 22 at 2017 4:09 PM

2017-07-22T16:09:07-04:00

Yes

Response by SFC Michael Roberts made Jul 22 at 2017 5:00 PM

2017-07-22T17:00:26-04:00

I don't think so. Not everyone is ready to go straight to a leadership role. There is alot more to being a CPL then just wearing stripes.

Response by SGT Robert Agee made Jul 22 at 2017 5:24 PM

2017-07-22T17:24:02-04:00

Hard stripes denote command authority. Most E-4' do not have Command Authority. When I was in the Specialist ranks went all the way to Spec 6.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2017 6:18 PM

2017-07-22T18:18:06-04:00

Yes they should. Works for the USMC.

Response by GySgt Frank Holtz made Jul 22 at 2017 6:23 PM

2017-07-22T18:23:54-04:00

That is why you have a rank. Then your mos. Makes it simple.

Response by PFC David Mead made Jul 22 at 2017 6:31 PM

2017-07-22T18:31:47-04:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2017 6:43 PM

2017-07-22T18:43:53-04:00

No I think that would be a huge mistake! If anything expand the spc. Being an e4 myself I cannot even think of the horrible leadership that would happen from going to a Pfc to corporal! These kids are not ready to be put into that kind of position and even some of my fellow spc aren't ready. Then there are the spc(like myself) who just aren't ready to step up into that leadership. However some of the leadership I have seen, it almost forces spc to take that step up so there will be better leadership.

Response by PO2 Jackson McDaniel made Jul 22 at 2017 7:12 PM

2017-07-22T19:12:39-04:00

Perhaps they should take a clue from the Navy, an E-5 is and E-5 whether he is a Electrician's Mate, Machinist's Mate, Boatswain's Mate, etc. Add the Spec symbol but require the same Military standard.

Response by SSG Michael Raysses made Jul 22 at 2017 8:27 PM

2017-07-22T20:27:15-04:00

Well guys.... coupla schools of thought here on this one.... first of all.... if the USA/USAR, and the Guard as well still use them?.. fine... keep them going.... but.... only if your going to bring them ALL BACK.... not just "Spec-4"... bring them all the way up to "Spec-NINE, baby!.... as only the "Specialist MOS's".... should wear those rankings..... on the other hand.... the grunts, the admins pogues, the MP's.... the inspectors/instructors.... all wear the "Hard stripes".... HOOAH?... just sayin us all... Sgt Michael "Mikey" Raysses... 92G-30, USAR-Ret....

Response by CW3 Wc Krohn made Jul 22 at 2017 8:45 PM

2017-07-22T20:45:36-04:00

NO. In accordance with several of the previous posts, I also believe the need to bring back SP5 - SP7 ranks. Specialists are, in fact, SPECIALISTS. Just as in the officer ranks where there are Officers and Warrant Officers - the Technical Specialists of the Officer Corps. Additionally, the "up-or-out" mentality is also outdated. I have know many folks who just wanted to be a mechanic or a cook or an admin specialist or a medical occupation specialist or a squad member or whatever. None of them EVER wanted to be in charge nor lead. They just wanted to do their job - which they generally did VERY well. We lost a lot of good folks when they were promoted and then 'tanked' as leaders and were put out of the service or barred from reenlistment. Those that WANTED to be leaders sought out the correct pathway to do so and then excelled in those positions. My nickel's worth!

Response by SGT David Greth made Jul 22 at 2017 9:30 PM

2017-07-22T21:30:44-04:00

No and as a former Tech MOS (33P) in TDA units, the SP ranks should have been kept. If I wanted to be in a TO&E environment I wouldn't have been a tech!! :)

Response by LTC Ray Grant made Jul 22 at 2017 9:34 PM

2017-07-22T21:34:21-04:00

NO, should be brought back. Not everyone is leadership material but a lot of talented soldiers have been force out. It cost a lot to train people and then we figure out how to get ride of them. A lot of engineer MOS's require talent and in the current system these soldiers are promoted/discharged right out of the job they were trained to do.

Response by SFC Bryan Johnson made Jul 22 at 2017 10:18 PM

2017-07-22T22:18:08-04:00

I'm ok with SPC 4. I think hard stripes for E5 and up is good. In technical fields where a section could have numerous E5s working the one with Date of rank is in charge. In combat or
due to illness the man or woman with the next date of rank is now in charge . If
already wearing stripes business goes on as usual . My first 6 years in Army I was a wrench . Our motor pool had several E5s in it and believe me we new our place in chain if needed. We did have a detachment about 50 miles away and it was ran by a Sgt E5 . He was a good wrench but his poor appearance, military bearing was awful . Yes he should have been dealt with but he eventually had to ets due to retention control point . I guess I'm saying if at any time you may have to be the boss wearing the stripes along with good mentoring is the ticket. I was selected to be a recruiter and a DS . Did well at both . Had ample opportunity to fail .

Response by AN Stephan Gall made Jul 22 at 2017 11:32 PM

2017-07-22T23:32:09-04:00

No to what end? If you need an electrician you should get on, not an ordinance specialist.

Response by CSM Terry Boline made Jul 22 at 2017 11:44 PM

2017-07-22T23:44:30-04:00

The rank of specialist when implemented was given to soldiers with certain technical skills. Corporal was a rank that came with an amount of command authority and typically in combat arms MOSs. There are still a number of MOSs that have technical aspects and specialist is still a good fit. As well, corporal still fits in combat arms, with it's command authority.

Response by SSG John Clemons made Jul 23 at 2017 6:32 AM

2017-07-23T06:32:24-04:00

Yes get rid of it

Response by SSG Richard Mccurdy made Jul 23 at 2017 6:49 AM

2017-07-23T06:49:44-04:00

No, there needs to spec 4_6 that are good at their jobd

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Jul 23 at 2017 7:38 AM

2017-07-23T07:38:27-04:00

NO, I will put my point towards needing to bring back SPC 5 and 6 at least and maybe even the 7, for the same reasons others have put forward. My own observation from several units that I was in, is that we are loosing talent unnecessarily with the up or out policies we had in place. I saw more than a few, with 1 in particular, guy worked for me, was hands down one of my best most reliable troops, who wanted nothing to do with leadership positions, was happy (and efficient) working behind the scenes. refused to appear before the board. hit his 8 year mark and we lost him. The point for me is that there are some who want responsibility, and some who do not. On the flip side, there are some who never actually mature into being real leaders, or they are very poor leaders indeed.
As for the Spc4 vs Cpl, When I was in, Cpl was awarded usually to someone who was marked and a future strong NCO who for whatever reason could not get their SGT stripes right now (TIG/TIS/or schools) or because they were going to be filling a leadership position for a while (Team Ldr usually). but same things, there are some who have and will refuse to grow up and mature, but are still really great workers who can and will get things done when told what to do.

Response by Don Tuttle made Jul 23 at 2017 10:45 AM

2017-07-23T10:45:49-04:00

Response by Don Tuttle made Jul 23 at 2017 10:46 AM

2017-07-23T10:46:22-04:00

Response by MAJ Sam Sessions made Jul 23 at 2017 10:48 AM

2017-07-23T10:48:41-04:00

You should be on track to be an NCO. Either you're a Corporal on your way to E5 or you're not. E4 , you're just hovering.

Response by PFC Brenda Melander made Jul 23 at 2017 11:29 AM

2017-07-23T11:29:48-04:00

As my son is currently a specialist I am torn, but yes.

Response by SGM Ronald Mumma made Jul 23 at 2017 1:47 PM

2017-07-23T13:47:53-04:00

agree. Should be groomed to lead at every level.

Response by Sgt Warren Terch made Jul 23 at 2017 1:56 PM

2017-07-23T13:56:52-04:00

Doing away with the rank would be a grave mistake! All the lower ranks look to the E5 for instruction and guidance, E4's don't provide that. CO's also look to the E5 for their input.

Response by CPT David Sizemore made Jul 23 at 2017 2:08 PM

2017-07-23T14:08:14-04:00

No should bring back Sp4-Sp7

Response by 1SG Doc Rega made Jul 23 at 2017 3:58 PM

2017-07-23T15:58:38-04:00

I can argue both sides however, I tend to lean on the side of doing away with Spec 4.
As leaders it's our job to train, mentor, and motivate our successors. Those who can't lead, weed themselves out.

Response by SFC James L. Woodling made Jul 23 at 2017 4:03 PM

2017-07-23T16:03:39-04:00

You are treated different, less respect yet still expected to give 100%,

Response by MAJ Javier G. made Jul 23 at 2017 4:04 PM

2017-07-23T16:04:07-04:00

Not everyone is cut out for college or the trade. Not everyone who graduates from college is a leader/manager, just as those who go into a trade. I believe the same applies to the military since it is a reflection of society. After VN, the Up or Out program became the norm as part of force reduction. I don't know the outcome of the quality of the Forces after that, but I venture to guess the Army lost years of experience because not everyone is a leader/manager.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 4:12 PM

2017-07-23T16:12:47-04:00

Yes

Response by COL Purdy McLeod made Jul 23 at 2017 4:36 PM

2017-07-23T16:36:47-04:00

Col. McLeod. Let's put stripes back on fatigues so we can ascertain the rank with out having to peer and stare. Rember how badly the NCOs hated the pussy stripes after WWII. Those were the little stripes you had to look hard to find.

Response by SFC John Goodman made Jul 23 at 2017 4:50 PM

2017-07-23T16:50:30-04:00

Yed

Response by SPC James Morrill made Jul 23 at 2017 5:12 PM

2017-07-23T17:12:15-04:00

Response by SGT Chuck Cribbs made Jul 23 at 2017 5:23 PM

2017-07-23T17:23:50-04:00

I never liked the SP-4 designation. It is like kissing your sister. Go back to Corporal. We are soldiers, not functionaries.

Response by SPC Ryan Priegel made Jul 23 at 2017 6:29 PM

2017-07-23T18:29:05-04:00

I only spent 4 years in the Army but I left as a SPC. I did notice that there seemed to be a little bit of a dead end at E4 unless you wanted to make the leap to NCO. I personally felt the rank of CPL was very much under used. I am sure there is a reason but I never understood why an E4 squad leader SPC couldn't just recieve a CPL rank. I was a squad leader for a year as a SPC, often having to deligate to my peers. I feel my situation would have gone a little smoother with a CPL rank.

Response by SPC Doug Binder made Jul 23 at 2017 6:34 PM

2017-07-23T18:34:12-04:00

No. Having a specialist allows promotion above private for experienced soldiers who are non team leaders. Though a corporal is just a lateral promotion and is the same pay grade as a specialist, a specialist is not a non-commisioned officer. There are many good and knowledgeable soldiers out there who deserve rank above private, that just arent cut out for leadership roles. Its good to have a distinction.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 6:44 PM

2017-07-23T18:44:13-04:00

Specialists run the army...

Response by 1SG John B. Enlow made Jul 23 at 2017 7:35 PM

2017-07-23T19:35:11-04:00

I would say, no. As a Combat Medic, I went through the specialist ranks from E4-E5. I didn't like it, but I wasn't in leadership positions like corporals or sergeants in other career fields.

Response by SP5 Harold Teague made Jul 23 at 2017 8:21 PM

2017-07-23T20:21:19-04:00

As a former SP5 back in the day, a technology industry leader for several decades, both military and industry needs a dual career path. Otherwise you end up promoting people into people leadership due to their technical expertise who are neither prepared nor desire such a role. As more technology enters both our businesses, the need for technical expertise increases. If these folk don't see a path forward doing what they are good at, they become easy targets to be lured into industry.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 8:50 PM

2017-07-23T20:50:50-04:00

Been in both the Corps and the Army, seen this from both angles.

The Corps has it right. The Specialist rank has got to go. If you're making an argument that "not everybody is cut out for leadership," you're accepting a lower standard from yourself and your fellow soldiers. No offense intended. Just how I see it.

Response by PVT Charles Needs made Jul 23 at 2017 8:58 PM

2017-07-23T20:58:34-04:00

Absolutely. Same pay grade e4 is corporal period

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-07-23T21:06:25-04:00

I came from another branch as a corporal. Cpl was my goal as a pvt. that was all I wanted. I joined the army and they gave me spec four. Basically cut my balls off for a few years, and then threw five on me and expected me to perform. I still haven't completely recovered from that. On the flip side... there are way too many people who should never be promoted into positions of authority (maybe myself included) that have say in other people's careers. A few years ago I had an ID card that said my rank was Spec Five. I have come to terms with the possibility that I won't advance further than I am now, but I wouldn't mind staying in and stepping aside to allow someone younger with more "hooah" the opportunity to fill that position. So, bringing back the full string of spec ranks would be interesting

Response by SGT LeRoy Phelps made Jul 23 at 2017 9:22 PM

2017-07-23T21:22:36-04:00

We should keep the Specialist ranks in non-combat arms MOS positions, because, these folks are Specialist in only one field.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 9:32 PM

2017-07-23T21:32:46-04:00

Well, I don't know how things work for the Army, but in the Marine Corps, E-4 marks corporal and all corporals and senior Lance Corporal's are all expected to be able to lead Marines and accomplish the mission. Where talent is important remember that the military is more concerned with mission accomplishment and success for the nation. No less should be expected. As a Corporal who has socialized with Specialists, without the "NCO" mindset being established there before they become a Sergeant, you're setting up tomorrow's military for failure.

Response by SPC William Rhoda made Jul 23 at 2017 9:41 PM

2017-07-23T21:41:30-04:00

Yes I agree. That way you keep a structured chain of command.

Response by TSgt Glen Davis made Jul 23 at 2017 10:41 PM

2017-07-23T22:41:19-04:00

Have never quite grasped the specialist rank period.

Response by Christine Coultas made Jul 23 at 2017 11:50 PM

2017-07-23T23:50:49-04:00

I believe theres a reason for the ranking. One should prove they worthy of being a officer and have the capability to handle the stress in phases.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2017 11:53 PM

2017-07-23T23:53:17-04:00

I believe that specialist is a rank, corporal is a recognition of a leadership skill, for the specialist that stands up among his/her peers.

Response by LTC Kenneth Millsap made Jul 24 at 2017 12:12 AM

2017-07-24T00:12:37-04:00

Yes. Never was sure which was the higher rank. Shouldn't have been any difference but some seemed to think corporal was. The rest of the specialist ranks are gone, so this one might as well go too.

Response by LTC Silviu Bora made Jul 24 at 2017 12:19 AM

2017-07-24T00:19:46-04:00

Response by Sgt Richard Jones made Jul 24 at 2017 12:30 AM

2017-07-24T00:30:26-04:00

I was never in the Army. I thought that Specialist was a title, not a rank.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 1:25 AM

2017-07-24T01:25:46-04:00

Fuck no snake. A lot of idiots don't need to be given nco status because they aren't leaders.

Response by 1stSgt Richard Wallner made Jul 24 at 2017 7:59 AM

2017-07-24T07:59:47-04:00

I am a former Marine to me a Sergeant is a Sergeant, a Corporal a Corporal so these make no sense to me.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 8:06 AM

2017-07-24T08:06:17-04:00

No. Furthermore, the Tech Specialist ranks should be brought back. I'm a GEOINT NCOIC in a BCT S2, which means I don't do my job as much as I act like a platoon sergeant, but I'm not rated as one. I work like a mule because my Soldiers are always busy doing nerdy things, so that pretty much makes me a SPC7.

Response by CW2 Fred Baker made Jul 24 at 2017 8:45 AM

2017-07-24T08:45:52-04:00

Specialists are as necessary as the rank designation. With experience and training, leadership becomes the next level. The Army has, for a almost 100 years now, specialist officers called warrants. In just the past few decades, they have recognized that leadership among their Warrants needed to be developed. Leadership with the technical background can bring unique solutions and should be cultivated. To eliminate the specialist rank will eliminate a valuable perspective (IMHO).

Response by SSG Raymond Gilbert made Jul 24 at 2017 9:32 AM

2017-07-24T09:32:14-04:00

One as a Combat Medic our training was intense and you needed all the skill you could muster.Each situation is critical and could be life threatening if the wrong decision is made. Being a specialist is a blessing.

Response by SPC Eddie Glassford made Jul 24 at 2017 9:38 AM

2017-07-24T09:38:25-04:00

Absolutely not! Too many clowns that worked in HHC got promoted just for the sake of getting promoted. If anything, bring back SP5 - SP7. Everyone deserves a chance to move up in some way if they prove themselves competent, but not everyone is cut out to be a leader.

Response by SPC Doug Streetman made Jul 24 at 2017 10:16 AM

2017-07-24T10:16:41-04:00

Without people in the Specialist rank....nothing would ever get done. The Specialist field should be expanded from Spc 4- Spc 7.

Response by SSG James Sherrill made Jul 24 at 2017 10:24 AM

2017-07-24T10:24:47-04:00

Yes

Response by CPT Tim Hicklin made Jul 24 at 2017 10:51 AM

2017-07-24T10:51:46-04:00

As in Civilian life there are individuals who do not want the responsibilities of management and who want to stay as individual contributors. The same holds true in the Military. Keep the specialist ranks.

Response by PO3 Michael Durban made Jul 24 at 2017 11:43 AM

2017-07-24T11:43:01-04:00

keep the specialist ranks. some people don't want the politics of leadership. their reviews should be performed by higher level specialist also as the regular leadership usually doesn't know what their job requires.

Response by SP5 John Morrone made Jul 24 at 2017 12:00 PM

2017-07-24T12:00:44-04:00

This is a difficult question. My personal experience, back in ancient times, ( 1966-1969 ) must have been typical for a maintenance unit. As SP5s we were expected to function as NCOs since there were no corporals or E5 Sargents in the unit, and only a few SSGTs. We were expected to perform such duties as, CQ,, Sargent of the guard, and lead work details. It was good training. I can see both sides of the arguement, but it seems the consensus is that there is a need for more specialists since the ranks above E4 are now leadership as opposed to technical. It's a very different Army than it was back during my service. For some reason the other services don't seem to have the same problem their E 4 and above are expected to be both leaders and technically competent.

Response by SGT Gary Stemen made Jul 24 at 2017 12:29 PM

2017-07-24T12:29:41-04:00

Save the specialist grades.... use the nco ranks for positions of leadership, the specialist ranks for signifying levels of expertise in their particular fields....

Response by CPL Cruz Cuellar made Jul 24 at 2017 1:00 PM

2017-07-24T13:00:41-04:00

Yes

Response by Cpl Jimmy Red made Jul 24 at 2017 1:19 PM

2017-07-24T13:19:00-04:00

No , but shouldn't give out rank like candy or "participation trophies "either

Response by SGT Lamar Atkinson made Jul 24 at 2017 1:30 PM

2017-07-24T13:30:58-04:00

Nope. Some soldiers have important skill sets but are not good at leadership. Need to keep the distinction between high skills and NCO's.

Response by SGT Patrick Reno made Jul 24 at 2017 1:42 PM

2017-07-24T13:42:49-04:00

So would you wait to promote to E-4 until they are ready to be an NCO. A lot of Spec.4 are never ready to be NCO's. So does the mean they will just always stay PFC's? Because I was a Spec.4 but got a lateral promotion to Corporal. There were a lot of Spec4's but I was only one of two Corporals in the whole Battalion.

Response by CW5 John Carnell made Jul 24 at 2017 2:00 PM

2017-07-24T14:00:38-04:00

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 2:11 PM

2017-07-24T14:11:40-04:00

How about do away with corporal...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 2:49 PM

2017-07-24T14:49:47-04:00

They should bring back the Spec 5-7

Response by SSG James Thomas made Jul 24 at 2017 2:57 PM

2017-07-24T14:57:01-04:00

No. This is why we have people in leadership positions that do not belong there. Some of these people I wouldn't follow to a damn ice cream shop much less in combat.

Response by Capt Maurice Mayben made Jul 24 at 2017 3:18 PM

2017-07-24T15:18:52-04:00

Corporal rank should be issued to those in combat arms and combat support units who display both technical competence and leadership abilities. Specialist ranks should be used for those with technical skill which merit a higher pay rate.

Response by MSG Arthur Ross made Jul 24 at 2017 3:35 PM

2017-07-24T15:35:17-04:00

No there are jobs in the Army that require a technical knowledge to get things accomplished. I went from E-1 to Sp4-Sp5 then SSG-MSG, I did not serve in combat arms

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 24 at 2017 3:41 PM

2017-07-24T15:41:07-04:00

No they should keep it, these are people that really don't want the headache of being Jr. NCO's.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 5:46 PM

2017-07-24T17:46:30-04:00

I think they should keep it. I also think from a reserve point of view they should have soldiers go to blc or a school kinda like that to be promoted to corporal. That way they are better equipped for promotion to Sgt

Response by SSG Kenny Wright made Jul 24 at 2017 5:54 PM

2017-07-24T17:54:28-04:00

Corporal & Sergents for combat arms.
SP4, 5, 6, 7, MSP/1SP, SPM for Support.
Maybe that will help define & reinforce the CONCEPT of their role/purtpose of "support."

Response by SFC Sfc Darwin Maring, USA Ret made Jul 24 at 2017 6:05 PM

2017-07-24T18:05:41-04:00

It needs to be expanded all the way up to Spec-9 like it originally was. Or, they could go back to Tech Seargeants but either way, there needs to be a technical field.
ALSO: Enlisted Officers need to be addressed that way. It appears to me that NO ONE recognizes that the O in NCO means Officer.

Response by CPO Thomas Verrett made Jul 24 at 2017 6:28 PM

2017-07-24T18:28:02-04:00

One of the dumbest things that the Army ever did was get rid of Specialist ranks above E4.

Response by PFC Adam Murray made Jul 24 at 2017 6:42 PM

2017-07-24T18:42:29-04:00

No. I'd say get rid of Corporal. Specialist exists to mark the transition from junior enlisted to NCO. Corporal only exists because they couldnt make Sergeant...

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 24 at 2017 7:03 PM

2017-07-24T19:03:17-04:00

Hell no, I had always wanted them to go back to Spec 5,6,7. More so now as we get more technical and less discipline directed. Make Corporal an automatic thing when you pass the E-5 Board, that way the young E-4 gets a chance to be "separated from the heard." Give them a chance to lead, and grow, and no longer one of the pack.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 7:06 PM

2017-07-24T19:06:18-04:00

NO, getting rid of corporal and bringing back SPC5-7 is a more logical solution. The Army still needs talented trained and skilled soldiers who aren't necessarily leadership bound but they're skills and abilities and presence bring value. This offers progression and UMR slots and doesn't create road blocks for others. Corporal while valid isn't generally recognized by NCOs as truly being an NCO, despite what the reg and tradition may dictate.

Response by Roger Houston made Jul 24 at 2017 7:19 PM

2017-07-24T19:19:18-04:00

No. Nor should we do away with Warrant Officers.

Response by SSG John Degi made Jul 24 at 2017 7:30 PM

2017-07-24T19:30:47-04:00

No should expand

Response by PO2 Michael Sayre made Jul 24 at 2017 7:35 PM

2017-07-24T19:35:47-04:00

There's an advantage to expanding the "specialist" rank(s). For instance; any service that is contracted out to contractors could be done by a non-deployable specialist. Maybe offer them different benefits and certainly develop different training requirements; but expand the role.

It could have the affect of improving recruiting efforts, raising manpower numbers, and effecting transition issues that are being discussed in other posts.

Response by SSG Stephen E. Murphy made Jul 24 at 2017 7:45 PM

2017-07-24T19:45:59-04:00

CPL is a rank of a non commissioned officer. I would offer, that not every PFC is prepared to become an NCO and the SPC RANK is appropriate.

Response by SrA Jacob Leaming made Jul 24 at 2017 7:48 PM

2017-07-24T19:48:03-04:00

Keep it simple, always works.

Response by SPC Charlie Severance made Jul 24 at 2017 7:53 PM

2017-07-24T19:53:44-04:00

No. Corporal is NCO/Leadership... not all are cut for it

Response by SPC John Chambers made Jul 24 at 2017 7:54 PM

2017-07-24T19:54:42-04:00

I think the Specialist rank is redundant. Unlike the E8 or E9 ranks where it is based on the position held rather than just a promotion, SPC/CPL are on the same wavelength except one is considered an NCO and the other is not. The point behind the SP4-SP9 ranks were they were Specialists in their chosen fields similar to the Technical ranks from WWII and Korea. When the Army decided to axe the Specialist ranks they should have taken all of them out not just 5-9.

Response by SPC Robert Nightingale made Jul 24 at 2017 8:25 PM

2017-07-24T20:25:34-04:00

I have no opinion

Response by SGT Rickey Williams made Jul 24 at 2017 8:39 PM

2017-07-24T20:39:27-04:00

Sure it's not going to change the pay, just adding more responsibility I think that would be a great change.

Response by MAJ Dean Thompson made Jul 24 at 2017 8:58 PM

2017-07-24T20:58:25-04:00

Specialist ranks should only be in combat service support units!

Response by SPC Lawrence Sampson made Jul 24 at 2017 9:04 PM

2017-07-24T21:04:25-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Taylor Pettit made Jul 24 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-07-24T21:06:37-04:00

Yes they should it's a nonsense rank always was

Response by SGM George Thomas made Jul 24 at 2017 9:13 PM

2017-07-24T21:13:25-04:00

Eliminate within combat arms; retain in specialties

Response by CPL Larry Allen made Jul 24 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-07-24T21:21:35-04:00

I favor doing away with that.

Response by SPC Michael Ruby made Jul 24 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-07-24T21:23:07-04:00

I served for two years as an Speacialist 4 class. The one problem I had during that time period I was the section chief without the rank. This might have an impact on my leaving the Army instead of staying in for twenty years or more.

Response by 1LT Robert Boyes made Jul 24 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-07-24T21:23:35-04:00

I had troops who took pride in explaining their specialty and why they were allocated this rank versus other ranks at peerage. Thought it was pretty cool at the time that they were empowered by it.

Response by CW4 Don Nicholas made Jul 24 at 2017 9:29 PM

2017-07-24T21:29:38-04:00

NCOs are leaders, or should be. A specialist, not so much.

Response by SCPO Thomas Young made Jul 24 at 2017 9:37 PM

2017-07-24T21:37:29-04:00

Keep it. It's good to know who the specialist's are.

Response by GySgt David Ellison made Jul 24 at 2017 9:44 PM

2017-07-24T21:44:30-04:00

The Army has 2 E-4 ranks, why. I know as a Marine it did not make sense to me and still does not.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 9:50 PM

2017-07-24T21:50:03-04:00

I beleive once a specialist has been to promotion board the they should be corporal, SPC is the rank between Privates and NCO'S and should always be, never get rid of it ever

Response by SP5 Ronald R Glaeseman made Jul 24 at 2017 9:54 PM

2017-07-24T21:54:36-04:00

The Specialist grades above E-4 should have never been eliminated. They defined a career path for those who did not want to become NCOs.

Response by SSG Kaliko Jones made Jul 24 at 2017 9:59 PM

2017-07-24T21:59:36-04:00

I believe it depends on MOS. Some MOS' require leadership in all involved.

Response by SPC William Bryan made Jul 24 at 2017 10:25 PM

2017-07-24T22:25:18-04:00

No the Army should not. They are skilled in there job and do it well. They are not Infantry, Armor or any of the other Combat MOS's. They are support, they are easily recognised and they have no problem with a Corporal, even if they do give them crap from time to time.
I also agree with many of the Vets on here they should bring back the Spec 5 and 6. They are ranks we wore with honor and we did what we were supposed to do. Sorry but not all of us had time to track down PFC Rock head and make sure he made his bed and cleaned his quarters. We had common down that needed repaired, we had radar units that were fried, we had supplies that needed distributed and meals that need cooked. It is a rank of a soldier and like it or not without them no one is going anywhere or doing anything. Imagine no commo, no rations, no fuel and no bullets??? How do you think that gets to you?? There is alot involved and a lot of personnel that dowhatever it takes to get it done.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 10:35 PM

2017-07-24T22:35:12-04:00

Bring back the spc ranks.

Response by CPL Kenneth Norris made Jul 24 at 2017 10:39 PM

2017-07-24T22:39:14-04:00

Hell NO!

In fact, I say bring back Spec 5 - 7. Because let's face it, there are a WHOLE lot of E5-E7's that are anything BUT NCO's.

It takes a lot to lead men (and women), and even more to lead them into AND back out of combat. I was around when they phased out the higher specialist ranks and it was a mistake then just like it is a mistake now to assume that someone has what it takes to lead because of a bit of metal on their collar.

Let's stop the PC BS and get real.

One quick look around at all of the incredible ethics violations of todays military prove my point.

Response by HN Eric Bechtel made Jul 24 at 2017 10:45 PM

2017-07-24T22:45:10-04:00

Keep the specialist rank I agree not all are cut out to be NCO ,

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 11:04 PM

2017-07-24T23:04:07-04:00

Specialists E-4 to E-9 or at least E-7. We've become so tech heavy that maybe only the combat arms needs hard stripes. Otherwise, dump the Specialist.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 11:18 PM

2017-07-24T23:18:41-04:00

Why not just promote to CPL once promotable? If you are promotable, you should be given, and often are, some added responsibility. Why not include the promotion to CPL at this point.

Caveat...please do away with it being possible to ENTER as a SPC. This does nothing but blur the lines of rank structure. If you want to add some rank to a SIT due to college hours completed, fine, but it needs to stop at PFC. Soldiers spend AIT around all these E-4s that are, essentially, the same rank as them, or at least it ends up working out that way, and then they get to their units and assume that it works the same way with the E-4s that have earned their rank truly.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2017 11:31 PM

2017-07-24T23:31:35-04:00

There should always be specs. In the service because they are that in their field.

Response by LCpl Ryan Eggers made Jul 25 at 2017 12:16 AM

2017-07-25T00:16:20-04:00

I would do What Marines do which is Private ,(slick sleeve) PFC, Lance Corporal (Criminal), then corporal and do away with specialist, which is also E4:

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 12:31 AM

2017-07-25T00:31:34-04:00

E4 Maria HOOOOOOOAH

Response by CSM David Porterfield made Jul 25 at 2017 12:52 AM

2017-07-25T00:52:42-04:00

Since CPL is an NCO and would be a Team Leader you would have to have less E4's overall. Can't have a team full of corporals.

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Jul 25 at 2017 1:01 AM

2017-07-25T01:01:49-04:00

It is a remanent rank. Either the SPC rank needs to return to its full structure, or fully eliminate it completely.

The PFC is the most senior of the Privates. The Corporal is the most junior of the NCOs. It is our duty as Non-Commissioned Officers to train our replacements, beginning with both, the PFC and the Corporal.

Leaving the SPC rank alone, places a detriment on good PFCs to be passed over. We as NCOs need to be diligent in identifying our PFCs to become the next junior leader and ensure our Sergeants are training them to succeed. The SPC has run its course, it is time for all of our senior NCOs, plus the SMA to do something with this rank.

Response by SGT Rodney Long made Jul 25 at 2017 1:59 AM

2017-07-25T01:59:15-04:00

I was a SPC and by a fluke was promoted the week before I went on leave for ETS. I just wanted to work on Aircraft not babysit kids. I was 25 when I joined and got out 6 years later. Due to a hand injury and later a head injury I was promotable but unable to go to PLDC. Although promotable on paper with points as long as the requirement to go to PLDC or the ability for the comand to send me in 5 months ( that maybe wrong on the time) tjat kept me right where I wanted to be, working on aircraft and training others.
So no they shouldnt mess with the rank.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Jul 25 at 2017 3:08 AM

2017-07-25T03:08:48-04:00

GET RID OF IT---Keeping a rank to hide substandard soldiers makes no sense. As far as keeping a specially trained individual---What special skill are you trying to keep? Specialist is a throwback to a time when the enlisted ranks were divided into line soldiers and technicians. It also gave individuals an excuse not to have basic soldier skills and still be in the Army. When I first started in the military, in 1966, we still had guys who had ten or twenty years in, and kept getting busted back down to E-1. Finally around 1967 the rules changed, to stay in they had to achieve a certain rank in a given period of time---We got rid of a lot of bums that way. As far as retaining the rank of specialist---Don't make an excuse for a substandard soldier. As a first Sergeant you're the father of the company, and responsible for the safety of your men. An E-4 should be trained to do the job of a Corporal---not retained as a Specialist because he's substandard.

Response by SSG Kenny Gomillion made Jul 25 at 2017 5:16 AM

2017-07-25T05:16:39-04:00

No, I've known many career specialists and they were not fit to lead. If being a specialist is s problem to specialists then do the requirements to be promoted. PFC to CPL is a bad idea simply because time in grade to PFC is not enough experience to be s leader, hince the specialist.

Response by CPL Todd Albert made Jul 25 at 2017 6:04 AM

2017-07-25T06:04:48-04:00

A Corporal in the infantry was an E-4 who was in a leadership role. This is just like the difference between a Master Sargeant and a First Sargeant or a Sargeant Major and a Command Sargeant Major. I say keep the rank of Specialist 4.

Response by CPT Justin Kennedy made Jul 25 at 2017 6:14 AM

2017-07-25T06:14:56-04:00

Agreed with the other posters. Enlisted ranks are unique in that there is a very clear need for two separate paths, leadership and followership. While I was in, the Army over-emphasized the idea that every Soldier could be (and should be) a leader. It's simply not true. Within my limited scope, what I saw this lead to was forcing good followers into the "leaders" mold and subsequently ending up with sub-standard results. A clear career path for Soldiers to follow that emphasizes expertise and execution over leadership would help retention, morale and the quality of our enlisted leaders.

Response by SGT Aaron Hall made Jul 25 at 2017 7:53 AM

2017-07-25T07:53:45-04:00

Get rid of the E4 paygrade. SPC is a shamming rank and Corporal gived SGTs excuses to not do their job.

Response by SGT Lutu Peni Brown made Jul 25 at 2017 7:57 AM

2017-07-25T07:57:27-04:00

The U.S. Army should keep and maintain the "specialist" ranks.....the corporal rank is the leadership rank over the spec 4 rank....which comes secondary in the leadership roles in the absence of the E-4 hard stripes in certain Military Occupational Specialties.

Response by SGT Jim Ramge, MBA made Jul 25 at 2017 8:04 AM

2017-07-25T08:04:38-04:00

Damn fine question... In short order, this is the rank that are soldiers that don't want to be NCOs. This is also a good predatory rank for those wanting to be NCOs, to learn from before they get permanent marks on their careers. It's the one learning area they can have to lead, make mistakes, but not pay for them dearly! The only real problem with doing away with is that not every squad is designed to have sections/teams, nor is their a need for CPLs. Just my thoughts on the matter...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 8:09 AM

2017-07-25T08:09:08-04:00

CPL needs to be either scratched or treated as a true NCO. I would have loved to see SPC4-7 be reintroduced because some Soldiers, through no fault of their own or their seniors, simply do not and will never possess the qualities of a leader. Rather than hit RCP and discharge an experienced specialist with 8 years time in service, we should be paying them for their experience and technical ability. But, there would be absolutely no confusion about who outranks who; a SPC7 would in no way outrank a SGT.

Response by SGT Rick Eul made Jul 25 at 2017 8:31 AM

2017-07-25T08:31:36-04:00

Hated being a spec 4 in combat arms. As stated we were just another worker bee. It was used as a holding place until and if you were chosen to go to the board.
I do feel it time to either bring back spec 5-7 or go back to having "Tech" Sgt's.
With all the computer and office jobs it's a way to promote and retain those who are in non-combat jobs and are good at what they do. Why not have a E-6 Tech who works on computers/anyalist/hospital/mechanic. These folks simply want to work without having the added responsibility of being in charge of troops.

Response by SSG Robert Jones made Jul 25 at 2017 8:47 AM

2017-07-25T08:47:01-04:00

I was around In the 1980s when the Army eliminated SP-5, 6, and 7 rank. Instantly, a lot of great technicians were shoehorned into leadership roles. Some did well but others were like fish out of water. They just wanted to do their jobs, and be left alone.

Keep the SPC rank.

Response by SPC Jonny Filkins made Jul 25 at 2017 9:16 AM

2017-07-25T09:16:45-04:00

No. In fact they should bring back SPC5-8. Why? Some that are really good and knowledgeable with their job and deserve a promotion, but absolutely suck as a leaders and shouldn't be a NCO.

Response by SGT Michael Mastroianni made Jul 25 at 2017 9:36 AM

2017-07-25T09:36:42-04:00

I've been a veteran for quite a while but I seem to remember the specialist ranks denoted a non-command position. When I first went in, I even saw a spec 5.

Response by PO2 Joseph Lucas made Jul 25 at 2017 9:37 AM

2017-07-25T09:37:29-04:00

Man, I'm so glad I was in the Navy. Army ranks are too complicated.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 9:38 AM

2017-07-25T09:38:00-04:00

Yes and no! I believe we make the requirements to E-4 SPC as well to CPL higher. I feel as though there is an abundance of lackadaisical E-4s and the motivation to be NCOs aren't to lead and to keep others alive or our needs above their own. On the other hand eliminating the Spc will give is the chance to evaluate our PFCs and show them how to lead early and build them into better NCOs. There is no room for stagnant soldier and I've seen more 20 yr E4 than I can take. The Army needs strong leaders and will power. If there is no need for progression in the ranks; they can take that shit to the fast food joints.

Response by SCPO Kelvin Sealy made Jul 25 at 2017 9:49 AM

2017-07-25T09:49:09-04:00

No.... it is not taking away the rank.
It is a category or career path.
You still attain the rank of E4

Response by MAJ Benjamin Miller made Jul 25 at 2017 10:29 AM

2017-07-25T10:29:33-04:00

No. There is a need for in the military. Positions that require fewer leadership abilities and more technical abilities.

Response by SGT Chad Wilcher made Jul 25 at 2017 10:35 AM

2017-07-25T10:35:31-04:00

Spec 4 Mafia why get rid of a great group that controls privates behind the scene.

Response by SFC Herbert Gay made Jul 25 at 2017 10:36 AM

2017-07-25T10:36:14-04:00

Some soldiers are trained in certain fields to do specific jobs, some are trained as professional soldiers, so I say the SPC and NCO ranks should be kept...............some Spc just want to do their job, just like a Warrant Officer..........how ever they should not expect the same rights as the NCO's, they do one job, NCO's multi task

Response by Paul McIntire made Jul 25 at 2017 10:44 AM

2017-07-25T10:44:15-04:00

I believe in a strict rank structure. It worked for years. Why did they change it to begin with. I also think they should flip-flop the ranks of Major & Lieutenant Generals. A Major out ranks a Lieutenant, so why does a Lt. General out rank a Major General? I understand that the original rank was Sgt. Major General, and they dropped the Sgt., because it was an enlisted rank. What would it hurt?

Response by SSG Jc jr Smith made Jul 25 at 2017 10:52 AM

2017-07-25T10:52:53-04:00

No, in the '60, most of the CPL's I knew were busted back NCO's, weren't that many in 9 years.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-07-25T11:19:46-04:00

Seems to me that the army is the only ones who do this specialist rank stuff. The navy and Marine Corps dont have specialists and we seem to operate just fine so why cant it work for the army too.

Response by SPC Ray Seppala made Jul 25 at 2017 11:22 AM

2017-07-25T11:22:22-04:00

Not everyone wants a leadership posstion and would be happy serving and retier as a specialist

Response by SFC Michael Spellman made Jul 25 at 2017 11:34 AM

2017-07-25T11:34:46-04:00

We (the Army) are not the Marines! We use the rank of Corporal to let others know that the person wearing it is in a leadership position and is being held responsible for that particular position. Giving all E-4's corporal rank will cause a problem bigger than you could imagine. The only benefit of making all E-4's corporals is now you have the largest amount of personnel who can be put on a DA-6 roster for duty! If it's not broken, don't try and fix it!

Response by SPC James Jefferson made Jul 25 at 2017 11:40 AM

2017-07-25T11:40:14-04:00

No, specialist is needed because even though corporal is an NCO position. I agree the specialist positions needs expansion.

Response by SGT Sean Moore made Jul 25 at 2017 12:19 PM

2017-07-25T12:19:11-04:00

Hell yes. Phase it out and make Corporal a rank to be earned like they do in the USMC. Not just a time in grade/time in service "give me" rank/pay grade.

Response by SGT Jim Roberson made Jul 25 at 2017 12:25 PM

2017-07-25T12:25:12-04:00

Cpl. needs to be a NCO. Was asked to be an acting jack E-5 in Germany, said no. Responsibility without pay, same as a Cpl. The Army needs the specialists ranks, they specialize in one certain MOS.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 12:26 PM

2017-07-25T12:26:36-04:00

I think army needs to bring back Spc5-7. Reason being as someone already said. We have awesome leaders but some are not cut out to be NCOs. Now on the other hand I feel Spc4 should be cut out of the Infantry as a ret. Grunt myself I have seen Spc4 put into team leader slots and have to do NCO meetings do everything a team leader has to and not pick up E-5 or lat moved to Cpl. I can see pog units using Spc4-7 bc they need it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 12:59 PM

2017-07-25T12:59:08-04:00

Coming from the Marine Corps, I never understood the Spc rank anyway. It's the equivalent of a Lcpl in every way, you're just paying them more because they are a higher grade. I say do away with it, especially since you already have a CPL rank in that grade. I agree that not everyone should be an NCO so that CPL rank should be it's own grade and those new Corporals should be treated like a NCO.

Response by SN Zechariah Clark made Jul 25 at 2017 1:07 PM

2017-07-25T13:07:28-04:00

Not sure, I was in the navy for 8 years, I would first have to get a better knowledge on the ranking of the army before saying anything about it

Response by PO2 Glenn Small made Jul 25 at 2017 1:17 PM

2017-07-25T13:17:33-04:00

Yes

Response by SP5 Terance Grant made Jul 25 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-07-25T13:24:19-04:00

My feeling is they should bring back the SP5 7 ranks. These were for individuals who had special skills. I served from 68 - 71 and was the Control Specialist in the 3rd Armored Division Finance Office. Although not an NCO I did have the authority to have individuals stay past regular work hours to correct any mistakes in the payrolls that they handled. We had 150 payrolls for 15000 personnel and had a monthly payroll of $2,000,000. My job to make sure all payrolls were balanced.

Response by Sgt Dwight O'Dell made Jul 25 at 2017 1:30 PM

2017-07-25T13:30:12-04:00

Promote from private to corporal.

Response by CW3 John Hawk made Jul 25 at 2017 1:32 PM

2017-07-25T13:32:28-04:00

Absolutley not. They should actually bring back SPC 5, 6, 7 and 8. Not everyone has leadership atributes and are good followers. There is nothing wrong with following, but forcing someone to be one based on the rank structure does the Army no good and causes problems.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-07-25T13:40:46-04:00

I can't speak for soldiers, but in our tiny Marine Corps, we're doing fine without a specialist rank. With us, if you aren't leadership material, then you're stuck at Lance Corporal (E-3). The only way to climb our ranks is to prove yourself as a potential leader who can take more responsibility and mentor subordinates while at the same time becoming a technical expert in your field. The usually results in a high and stressful work load, but then again, we're known for doing more with less. With the up-or-out philosophy, retention has been hurting due to the fact that we don't keep many LCpls with over four years of service, Cpls with over six, or Sgts with over 10. Not to mention the constant pressure to perform better than everyone else combined with more lucrative and less stressful opportunities in the civilian sector. With all of these factors, you could say that our rank structure is like a double-edged sword.

If it works for you guys, stick with it. If the Army does phase out SPCs, then your leaders should first look at how we do things and then tailor it to suit the Army's needs.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 2:14 PM

2017-07-25T14:14:00-04:00

The cpl rank was ment for the combat arms units mostly. I actually went from a specialist to cpl in a lateral promotion. I was a medic in the Txarng for 9 years where we had mortars, scouts and tankers. It helped us fill those E5 and E6 spots that needed to be filled but they we're not really filling them.

Response by SGT Tim Summers made Jul 25 at 2017 2:17 PM

2017-07-25T14:17:53-04:00

I agree. There are people who are not worthy of leadership roles, and should be a specialist 5-7

Response by SGT Kenneth Mabry made Jul 25 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-07-25T14:43:15-04:00

I think we need to keep it. When I was a specialist, I was in a hurry to go to PLDC to learn how to lead. I know many that didn't go. Some people are born leaders and other are not.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 2:53 PM

2017-07-25T14:53:02-04:00

I believe so. I have seen both arguments for 1. more leadership, 2 plain E4 and it just brings pain and division. Id be the first to move it out!

Response by SGT Gary DeFelippo made Jul 25 at 2017 2:54 PM

2017-07-25T14:54:59-04:00

Only in combat MOS

Response by CPL Rebecca Edwards made Jul 25 at 2017 3:23 PM

2017-07-25T15:23:57-04:00

Not really sure. I was PFC straight out of Basic. But because I had been a LPN as a civilian, my MOS was changed to 91C. 91B was field medic and my experience exceeded that, so was automatically bumped up to 91C. At the time, there was no other option for medical personnel. I feel there is room for specialty designations when a service member has dedicated much time and effort to excel in a particular area.

Response by SPC Vince Birtel made Jul 25 at 2017 3:52 PM

2017-07-25T15:52:08-04:00

No should be even more grades. Way to many sgts that shouldnt be. To many clueless people that are "leaders" that I wouldnt trust to clean the toilet.

Response by SPC Todd Rogers made Jul 25 at 2017 4:03 PM

2017-07-25T16:03:35-04:00

Specialist until they've completed PLDC and then lateral promotion to Corporal rather than being "E-4 (P)"

Response by SFC John Peel made Jul 25 at 2017 4:18 PM

2017-07-25T16:18:35-04:00

I agree eliminate Specialist rank.

Response by PV2 Donald Rhodes made Jul 25 at 2017 4:19 PM

2017-07-25T16:19:53-04:00

No because some people need more time to be an NCO

Response by SFC Jock Titterness made Jul 25 at 2017 4:30 PM

2017-07-25T16:30:48-04:00

Only in combat arms. The non-combat MOSs do not need an unbreakable chain of command. They can get by without team leaders and section leaders to do their daily business.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 4:34 PM

2017-07-25T16:34:52-04:00

I would disagree with it, I believe that you gain most of your experience as a Specialist. That's the time you use to start truly learning about leadership skills and how to utilize them. I believe that Corporal should be reserved for E4's who are truly ready to lead but cannot be promoted to E5 yet.

Response by CSM Ed Hepler made Jul 25 at 2017 4:42 PM

2017-07-25T16:42:24-04:00

No. SP5-SP7 should be brought back. As stated prior, some people are better suited to technical expertise, but have absolutely NO leadership capabilities. It is an injustice to expect them to succeed in a leadership position, but the Army sure needs their expertise. .
Ie: helicopter mechanics, crewmembers, computer/IT experts, etc.

Response by SP5 Nancy Waters made Jul 25 at 2017 4:42 PM

2017-07-25T16:42:46-04:00

Too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 4:45 PM

2017-07-25T16:45:34-04:00

There is no "grey" area.. how many 4 year SPC go in and get out of active duty are there? Tons! How many national guardsmen spend 20 years at E4? Plenty of those too. Keep The Mafia Alive. We need it to run the details that no SGT wants to do.

Response by SGT Eliyahu Rooff made Jul 25 at 2017 4:46 PM

2017-07-25T16:46:45-04:00

I spent three years as a SP5 before receiving a lateral promotion to Sgt. The fact is, as a medic I had no real interest in being a leader. I did, however, feel that I should be in a pay grade commensurate with my skills, and if we want to retain skilled people in specialties, it would be smart to restore the higher specialist ranks, up to and including SP8 and 9. There's really no reason a skilled pharmacy tech, x-ray tech, bandsman or finance clerk needs to be ready to lead troops into combat, but when their skills and experience increase, it's only fair to promote them into positions where those abilities are recognized and they are compensated for them.

Response by COL Rich McKinney made Jul 25 at 2017 4:58 PM

2017-07-25T16:58:30-04:00

Be careful with that. A Corporal, by definition, must be a leadership position. So by making all E4 into Corporal they take that first line leadership job away from the E5 Sergeant. Then all the non-leadership E4 get demoted to E3. Speak too much about Corporals and some beauacrat will calculate how much money can be saved and it will be shoved down our throats.

Response by CW3 David Cartner made Jul 25 at 2017 5:09 PM

2017-07-25T17:09:24-04:00

No. Bring back spec 5-7.

Response by SSgt Jack Gilbert made Jul 25 at 2017 5:26 PM

2017-07-25T17:26:37-04:00

Seems like a redundant rank. If the Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard can function without a specialist rank, then why can't the Army?

Response by CPT Craig Mathison made Jul 25 at 2017 5:38 PM

2017-07-25T17:38:16-04:00

Even though I myself was a prior member of the E-4 Mafia. It is a rank that should be done away with. Our goal is to develop leaders so we should start with CPL across the board. Anyway whether your CPL or SPC the very next rank for both is Sgt. So if someone's a SPC they need to start developing leadership skills because next step is Sgt whether they're leadership material or not. So, as long as their is no SPC 5 - 7 there is no need for SPC 4. The ONLY reason SPC 4 may be somewhat useful is for short timers who will get out of the army as a SPC and don't intend to make the army a career.

Response by SGT Keith Lusk made Jul 25 at 2017 5:42 PM

2017-07-25T17:42:09-04:00

Not everyone is ready for Jr. NCO. You may have great qualities. But that doesn't make you an NCO for leadership.

Response by COL William Oseles made Jul 25 at 2017 5:51 PM

2017-07-25T17:51:19-04:00

If the army is going to keep Specialist for technical expertise they need to bring back the technical pay allowances as well.

Response by SGT Milton Ragsdale made Jul 25 at 2017 6:02 PM

2017-07-25T18:02:34-04:00

Pro: A Specialist is a technical pay grade based on skill as opposed to NCO training. During WW2 the Army had Technical Sergeants to differentiate them from combat NCOs.

Response by CPL Sergiusz Joskow made Jul 25 at 2017 6:02 PM

2017-07-25T18:02:51-04:00

i think they should bring back spc 5 and 6. I had a technical job and I was more knowledgeable about the job than anyone else in my platoon but i wanted to do my job not paperwork. I did not want to be plt sgt but the rank equivelent of E6 and pay would have been nicce.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 6:03 PM

2017-07-25T18:03:34-04:00

Keep specialist,Force soldiers to reach corporal to be promotable and if E-5 and above aren't NCO material then put them out.

Response by SGT Eric Kelsheimer made Jul 25 at 2017 6:31 PM

2017-07-25T18:31:40-04:00

Corporal is a command role, which not everyone is cut out for. I was the first Corporal in the 3/37 F.A. back in the 70's when it was brought back. Myself and Corporal Heard stood side by side while the pinned our Corporal stripes on us. Later on I made SGT. When I re enlisted I changed my mos. From 13B20 to 91E20 in the hospital dental clinic there was no need for me as an NCO. I was working in a specialist capacity with hard stripes, however I had command experience. There is a need for both. A specialist grade is not a gray area. Just a specific duty or specialist outside the area of command.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 6:39 PM

2017-07-25T18:39:16-04:00

Absolutely not. If you want to improve this stagnant rank dont go straight to Corpral, as it is a NCO rank, one of authority and responsibility. Instead, bring back the spec ranks spec 5 to 7.
There are good soldiers that know their jobs. Good soldiers who follow orders and are a benefit to the force, they just aren't leaders or comfortable facing the burden and responsibility of leadership. There's no reason to delete the force in that way, by saying "if you don't promote to a job you don't want and won't succeed at...you're out".
Strengthen our force by developing our soldiers in their strengths . Allow good soldiers to remain good soldiers, recognize the longevity of their service, but allow them to continue to serve in the best capacity they can and keep them as good soldiers, don't force them to become bad leaders.

Response by SSG Terry Murray made Jul 25 at 2017 6:52 PM

2017-07-25T18:52:49-04:00

In this day and age it's hard to find that one person that is worthy of wearing chevrons.. it's not an automatic like officers, troops need to prove themselves.. and with the snowflakes these days that's hard..

Response by MAJ Dick Farnsworth made Jul 25 at 2017 7:09 PM

2017-07-25T19:09:00-04:00

Sure, why not? The other branches do not have an "intermediate" rank between private and NCO. The Specialist was an offshoot of the "technical" sergeant ranks of WWII for soldiers who had no leadership but had significant technical skills. I was caught in the "specialist trap" when I was promoted to SP5, assigned to KP on the roster published before the promotion results were announced. Since I outranked the corporal who was "in charge", the senior cook--an SSG--had to work. Later the rank structure was changed and Specialists were subordinate to any "hard stripe" NCO. That was hard on the SP6 I worked with and would have been harder on SP7s--but I never knew any of them. The need for those technical skills is still present but commanders can disregard leadership issues on EERs if the soldier is technically superior.

Response by SPC Keith Bond made Jul 25 at 2017 7:26 PM

2017-07-25T19:26:20-04:00

I was a SPC-4 in the Army. I think from my perspective I would have liked to have been a CPL to allow me a chance at more of a leadership role. You can get pigeon-holed as a SPC-4 when trying to get Sgt. I do not think it should be done away with, but I think that those whom possess leadership qualities should be transitioned to CPL.

Response by SPC Emil Raab made Jul 25 at 2017 7:27 PM

2017-07-25T19:27:48-04:00

I think the Army did itself a great injustice in eliminating the higher Spec ranks. And even though some of us may not desire a leadership role, does not mean we can't lead. I would have stayed in service if they had been available when I ETS-ed

Response by SFC Larry Heidel made Jul 25 at 2017 7:28 PM

2017-07-25T19:28:08-04:00

As a Spc 4 Spc 5, I had to go through the same schools' boards and point gathering rigors any Corporal or Sergent. I did not get the same respect or privileges

Response by SGT Donald May made Jul 25 at 2017 7:39 PM

2017-07-25T19:39:29-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Michael Reyes made Jul 25 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-07-25T19:40:08-04:00

IMO, Combat Arms if anyone should preserve the Spec Four rank. E-4, Corporal should be earned as always by demonstrating outstanding leadership potential. Some E-4's are not striving for the NCO Academy experience or the NCO title. This is most obvious when the thick gets its thickest.

Response by MSG Zack Yo made Jul 25 at 2017 7:42 PM

2017-07-25T19:42:27-04:00

Fuck no i miss when i was a specialist all the respect none of the responsibility

Response by SSG Roger Miller made Jul 25 at 2017 7:54 PM

2017-07-25T19:54:03-04:00

Corporal is specific to the Infantry. If they want the rank, go to Infantry School.

Response by SGT Chuck Wilson made Jul 25 at 2017 8:10 PM

2017-07-25T20:10:54-04:00

Bring them back.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Jul 25 at 2017 8:16 PM

2017-07-25T20:16:36-04:00

Why not, the "Specialist" E-4" is the last remnant of a time when Non-Combat MOS's needed promotion slots. At one time the "Specialist" rank went as high as E-7 however, someone with "Hard Rank" CPL to SFC outranked the equivalent ranks of SPC to SPC-7 regardless of TIG. There are a number of us "old farts that hold 2 promotions to E-5,E-6, or E-7; when DA decided to eliminate those particular grades we received "Lateral" promotions to the "Hard Rank" appropriate to our Specialist grade

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 8:17 PM

2017-07-25T20:17:56-04:00

No, as a matter of fact, I think they should bring back the Spec 5 and Spec 6 ranks. Too many times I have found you have people who have rank but no real experience or technical expertise. Let the NCO rank lead and the Spec ranks perform more like Warrant officers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 8:20 PM

2017-07-25T20:20:53-04:00

Absolutely not. What sense would it make to go from a Private to what is considered an NCO? At the PFC level you are barely given any responsibility and are just breaking out of the "in new" phase. The Specialist rank allows Soliders to begin getting some responsibility and become accountable for others. I would honestly do away with the Coporol in my honest opinion. It holds no weight and generally whoever holding that rank is just thrown all the details or taskings a Sergeant doesn't want to do. Develop future leaders at the rank of Specialist and assign more responsibility so that they can pin the rank of Sergeant and start leading.

Response by SPC Jason Jordan made Jul 25 at 2017 8:30 PM

2017-07-25T20:30:08-04:00

The Mafia will not stand for this.

Response by SGT Leo Mason made Jul 25 at 2017 8:37 PM

2017-07-25T20:37:35-04:00

I knew before reading the article of the referenced rank. I can see both sides to the argument, I never thought very highly of acting jacks (you know those Specs with the stripes tacked on), my thinking was why not just make him a Corporal.

Response by SFC Bruce Cole made Jul 25 at 2017 8:37 PM

2017-07-25T20:37:49-04:00

They need to bring back SPC 4,5,6. Just like the warrant officer they are subject matter experts or are suppose to be. Not everyone can lead. SFC (Retired)

Response by James Crossen made Jul 25 at 2017 8:46 PM

2017-07-25T20:46:04-04:00

I feel (I being a civilian) if our Country is to remain the greatest in the world we still need to keep all of the current ranks in to make sure the people who eventually will be helping keep our Country safe have totally learned how to and have earned the right to proceed to the next rank.
Granted I am a civilian but I come from a family that has members in the military from the present (currently a niece and her husband are lieutenant colonels in the Army) with the exception of the Spanish American War (1898 and the Mexican American War (1846?) back to the American Revolution. I had two 3rd great grandfathers who died in the Civil War. One from illness and one from being shot by Confederate Guerillas outside of Pittsburgh in October 1864.
I am proud of our military and don't believe in any short cuts in our ranks. We need to be able to have the strongest in all of the ranks. The stronger ones will move through the ranks without jumping/skipping one of the ranks

Response by SSgt Ben Cavell made Jul 25 at 2017 8:59 PM

2017-07-25T20:59:35-04:00

get rid of it

Response by MSG James Williams made Jul 25 at 2017 9:03 PM

2017-07-25T21:03:03-04:00

Corporal should only be awarded for E-4s in leadership positions. If an E-4 is the squad leader of a mortar squad, he should be a corporal. If he is gunner or assistant gunner and an E-4, he should be Specialist 4. Corporal is supposed to be the lowest NCO rank with leadership authority. The lack of differentiation between Specialist 4s in terms authority., leads to endless BS at the squad level

Response by SSG Randall Ford made Jul 25 at 2017 9:04 PM

2017-07-25T21:04:26-04:00

Specialist maintained for an average performer and corporal to those expanding themselves in leadership and education

Response by CPT Steven Johnson made Jul 25 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-07-25T21:06:15-04:00

I say the opposite. Not all Specialists are ready for the NCO responsibilities. I say keep Specialist and get rid of Corporal. If your not going to pay them to do the job of an NCO, don't give them the responsibility. Bring ack Spec5-7 and if/when theybare ready and willing to be an NCO, they c go in front of a board to get the chevron and the pay.

Response by SSG Richard Maattala made Jul 25 at 2017 9:12 PM

2017-07-25T21:12:18-04:00

Yes

Response by PVT John Williams made Jul 25 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-07-25T21:23:25-04:00

What's so special? The Army had Corporals long before they had specialists. E-4 = Corporal

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-07-25T21:23:41-04:00

Hell no! NCO is an EARNED title! If the Army wants to do away with Spc. And move straight into Corporal...that's fine BUT, that promotion must be earned by way of residence schooling, evaluations, recommendations/boarding and leadership experience/positions held! Just as it is now with these specialists who want CPL or even SGT stripes.

Response by SFC Walt "Butch" Deal made Jul 25 at 2017 9:36 PM

2017-07-25T21:36:50-04:00

The only rank I could see eliminating is CSM. I have never understood exactly what they did.

Response by SGT James Mayes made Jul 25 at 2017 9:43 PM

2017-07-25T21:43:50-04:00

I would say Defiantly NO, I have known a lot of Spec4 who love their job, and have no real desire to Move up. With the policy move up or out, many chose out. This hurt the Army in many ways, mainly the talent and experience and then all the money training these individuals.

Response by 1SG Michael Normand made Jul 25 at 2017 9:52 PM

2017-07-25T21:52:23-04:00

You can be a specialist in your field, but necessarily, an NCO.

Response by CPL Charles Sumter made Jul 25 at 2017 9:57 PM

2017-07-25T21:57:59-04:00

No both positions are needed. As a Corp. when I was in I could sign for equipment , 548 howitzer etc. A Spec 4 could not. A spec. 4 could not be a Howitzer crew chief, I could. I went to the leadership schools and usually that was a sign I wanted to be a NCO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 10:03 PM

2017-07-25T22:03:31-04:00

I believe the SPC is not only imperative, but also the only transition in between PFC & CPL. There are several SPC's out there that are the best in their MOS, but aren't quite ready to be an NCO. I agree with those that say SM's get stagnate at that rank and hold it as long as they can, but there's a solution to that. A simple bar to re-enlist stops those who are just riding it out for a paycheck. It is too easy to flag and bar a soldier for "failure to progress". If you have a E-4 that's been a SPC for 2-3 years that shows he is ready to become that NCO that your looking for, then knowing their goals for career progression, start prepping them to take the necessary steps to promote to that CPL-SGT rank. SPC are those "specialists" in that field, or as others would say SME to an extent. Not everyone is wired for the responsibilities of an NCO (I.e. Babysitting those young soldiers, teaching them, planning their day to day activities, taking the brunt of it so that work/activities go on as they should instead of everyone E-4 and below making mistakes because they are too stressed.)

To sum it up, not everyone is made to be a leader, or capable of their day to day duties with the added upkeep of the extra things an NCO is responsible for. Especially after only serving 2yrs. If it was up to me, an OFFICER wouldn't promote to 1st lieutenant until they hit a minimum of 5 yrs. I only say that because I think they should have a minimum time in service to that of the average time it takes enlisted to promote to SGT. that's just my opinion though.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 10:15 PM

2017-07-25T22:15:28-04:00

As a recently promoted E-5, I believe that there is a need for SPC. My MOS is in aviation, and most of my squad are E-4s. What is the point of making all E-4s CPLs? That is having to many chiefs, and not enough indiana. Also, I know a few E-4s that are good at their jobs, but I would not trust them to lead a horse to water, let alone some impressionable 19 and 20 year olds

Response by PO1 Jeff Grahl made Jul 25 at 2017 10:27 PM

2017-07-25T22:27:02-04:00

No. Knowledge takes not only training, but time.

Response by SP5 Dennis Russell made Jul 25 at 2017 11:02 PM

2017-07-25T23:02:44-04:00

Yes

Response by SP6 Robert Hopple made Jul 25 at 2017 11:03 PM

2017-07-25T23:03:31-04:00

No the specialist rank should not be phased out.....Corporal is a hard stripe NCO and I can remember to many soldiers who may have been eligible to be an E-4 but were not ready to be NCO's

Response by TSgt Walter Thalacker made Jul 25 at 2017 11:12 PM

2017-07-25T23:12:40-04:00

I think not. As an USAF individual who worked around the Army, I thought the system (Spec and WO) was fantastic. I saw it mentioned earlier where battlefield and support functions were discussed and agree wholeheartedly.
The guys in battle have to have a clear chain of command and as such should run up the ranks. Specs work well in tech MOSs or careers. You can't beat the knowledge of a 15 year mechanic, electrician, comm maintainer or the like in other areas. These folks should be the trainers and knowledge base. I realize they won't make 15 as a Spec but a master mechanic isn't made in 3 years. If the Army has high year tenure then the Spec has to cross eventually. What happens in the AF is folks not ready to lead are forced to or they intentionally hold themselves back via the performance report and shoot for high year tenure and get paid to separate. 10 years experience hands on (especially if they are getting certs via college/votech) in general fares better than 2 years hands on and 8 years supervision with a two year underwater basket weaving degree.

Response by SGT Kevin McMills made Jul 25 at 2017 11:15 PM

2017-07-25T23:15:26-04:00

Yes they should do away with it! I was a corporal in the Marine Corp and transferred to the Army and.they took the corporal status away for almost a year it was terrible.

Response by MAJ Herschel Collins made Jul 25 at 2017 11:38 PM

2017-07-25T23:38:56-04:00

They used to have all the way from SP4 to SP9. I think we should go back to it.

Response by Cpl Chris Buck made Jul 25 at 2017 11:49 PM

2017-07-25T23:49:44-04:00

Specialist is Army equivalent to L/Cpl in the Corps. I believe it is a necessary stepping stone to becoming an NCO. Straight from PFC is too fast.

Response by CPT Fred Berhalter made Jul 26 at 2017 12:15 AM

2017-07-26T00:15:42-04:00

I believe the Army should keep the specialist rank in certain fields. In combat arms do away with them because it serves no purpose. But certain jobs in the combat arms should have a specialist rank ie clerks, mess halls ( cooks) and supply specialists. This will take time to change and a detailed study of classifications.

Response by SGT Preston Lickey made Jul 26 at 2017 1:09 AM

2017-07-26T01:09:58-04:00

I was both so I know that there is a major difference.

Response by SSG Robert Cosper made Jul 26 at 2017 1:43 AM

2017-07-26T01:43:31-04:00

Specialist ranks have a purpose. Hardstripe rank is command, specialist is admin.

Response by SSG John Hazlett made Jul 26 at 2017 2:09 AM

2017-07-26T02:09:54-04:00

Yes, because there was the lack of authority conferred to the SPCs, it also caused confusion and resentment.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 3:02 AM

2017-07-26T03:02:03-04:00

No. There aren't always leadership roles available to go into. A good soldier shouldn't be punished and held up from behind recognised as a result. They should also have the ability to move from any SP role to a WHY should the leadership opportunity become available.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 4:38 AM

2017-07-26T04:38:23-04:00

Getting rid of ranks won't unfuck the Army. If you want things to run smoother, try more Ammo -67 and SSD....it's hard to imagine how we ever won a war without that steamy shit pile.

Response by SSgt Harlan Estrem made Jul 26 at 2017 6:11 AM

2017-07-26T06:11:24-04:00

Corporal indicates leadership ability.
Specialist allows someone to gain rank/pay for their experience, but they may not be ready for leadership.
Keep the rank

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 6:30 AM

2017-07-26T06:30:37-04:00

USMC here...we have "E4's" and we have Corporals. The Corporals are put in charge of the E4s and below. We have E5s and we have Sergeants....same deal.

Just because they wear the rank doesn't mean they are cut out for leadership at that point. With proper guidance and mentorship they can become an effective leader.

Those that don't usually cull themselves.

By keeping a rank, that is purely MOS driven rather than driven by both leadership and MOS, you are giving that individual an out...i.e. It's not my job, I wasn't in charge so it isn't my responsibility, ask soandso they are the boss, so on and so forth.

Response by SPC Bill Mc Clelland made Jul 26 at 2017 7:03 AM

2017-07-26T07:03:59-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Rick LaBonte made Jul 26 at 2017 7:08 AM

2017-07-26T07:08:18-04:00

I was a spec4 and I believe it to be the dumbest rank ever dreamed up! We have Corporal that is an NCO rank, I got payed the same but wasn't ? Yet Sergeants delegated authority to me to oversee privates. The Spec4/Corporal split at E4 is unfair to both rank insignias

Response by SSgt Jonathan Shue made Jul 26 at 2017 7:17 AM

2017-07-26T07:17:49-04:00

As long as everyone is throughly trained as a basic rifleman to backup their primary MOS.

Response by Sgt Michael Postava made Jul 26 at 2017 7:31 AM

2017-07-26T07:31:08-04:00

The Marine Corps does very well without having a specialist rank, as does the Navy.

Response by SrA Larry Potts made Jul 26 at 2017 8:05 AM

2017-07-26T08:05:09-04:00

Yes spec are needed. As said not everyone wants to be a NCO. But to only have one career path is wasting good talent. When I discharged in 1973 I was hired by 3M company as a electronics tech. After a few years I noticed that great techs would leave and I asked why. The common answer was more money. 3M wanted to keep them but the only path to higher wages was to become a manager. Finally upper management day down with techs and middle managers and developed a dual career path. What they got was better skilled seasoned techs who were always keeping up with technology and managers who could focus on that skill set and not feel that the sharp new kid would be promoted over them.

Response by SSG Spero Bowers made Jul 26 at 2017 8:08 AM

2017-07-26T08:08:12-04:00

Corporal is a leadership position and a vast majority of e4s have no clue as to being a leader. They are specialists in their field not leaders

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:30 AM

2017-07-26T08:30:37-04:00

Maybe a SPC(P) should just be a DA promotion to CPL. It also clears up the controversy between E4s since CPL establishes that individual as a JR NCO the non promotable E4s must recognize as do NCOs. All I hear between E4s is that CPL is just a lateral promotion. You're still an E4.

Response by SSG Dennis Mackey made Jul 26 at 2017 8:31 AM

2017-07-26T08:31:29-04:00

Corporals are normally the better soldier of a group of E4 grade soldiers and to eliminate Sp/4 rank would possibly make them want that other stripe faster just as long as with stripes comes more responsibility .....

Response by SFC Benjamin Linduff made Jul 26 at 2017 8:44 AM

2017-07-26T08:44:33-04:00

Maybe they should consider going back to Technical grade

Response by SPC Michael Mead made Jul 26 at 2017 9:17 AM

2017-07-26T09:17:50-04:00

Keep it. At the Specialist level, a Soldier is, well, a specialist at the MOS-10 level, but may not yet be of leadership caliber. The Army has too many bosses as it is, and compelling Soldiers to assume authority they may not be ready for would be ill advised. This recalls the Army's "rank up or out" practice.

Response by PO2 Marc Gunter made Jul 26 at 2017 10:45 AM

2017-07-26T10:45:49-04:00

I'm just an old Squid so maybe I'm talking out of turn here but....

I fully agree with most here that not everyone is cut out to be a leader, myself included. I'm a talented technician and a stellar safety specialist...but a really crappy supervisor. I know this because my last employer made me a supervisor for a short period of time and it didn't go well for anyone involved. Not me, not my employer and what I feel the worst about is I was not an effective supervisor for my direct reports. Some people just aren't meant to lead others directly...but they can lead by example and may make great technical/professional mentors.

Response by SPC Michael Cooper made Jul 26 at 2017 10:55 AM

2017-07-26T10:55:12-04:00

I think no because the thing I wittnessed was that there was to many soldiers who didnt even know or understand the job. Oh they did well on PT weapons school and the board but the job. What is a soldiers job. To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over them . When I was a SPC 4 and we were deploying to Kosovo. A young NCO didnt want to go so I Volunteered to go in her place . Now is that an NCO. I say no we need to focus more on what it is being an NCO knowing your job. I didnt rush to the next rank because if I had to show a Senior NCO their job in my opion I lost respect

Response by CW4 Steven Talbott made Jul 26 at 2017 11:08 AM

2017-07-26T11:08:49-04:00

no, I think the Army made a huge mistake when they got rid of the rest of the specialist ranks. I knew a lot of good Soldiers throughout my career "forced" out of doing the job they loved and were very good at, to become an NCO. It helped no one.

Response by SN Dee Messinger made Jul 26 at 2017 11:16 AM

2017-07-26T11:16:20-04:00

I was a SP4 when I was in the Army. To me it meant I had the technical knowledge to do my job (Finance Specialist). As an 18 year old was I prepared to be a leader and take charge if warranted? Not really. I actually think SP5 should be reinstated as they are leaders in their speciality.

Response by CSM Dennis Baver made Jul 26 at 2017 11:51 AM

2017-07-26T11:51:07-04:00

No. A corporal is a special rank for leaders. Specialist is just that,someone who specializes in a certain field. I was both during my career.There is a difference which you can tell if you were ever one.

Response by MAJ Larry Letzer made Jul 26 at 2017 11:54 AM

2017-07-26T11:54:53-04:00

I feel the Army has a need for the specialist rank. Our military has gotten so task specific that we need technicians to keep the equipment humming. I am definitely in favor of expanding the specialist promotion system to include E5's through E 7 as it used to be. I was a damn good photo officer, but the Army felt I needed to be rounded to someday be a division commander. I was not division commander materiel, but could lead and operate all audio visual personnel on activiies.

Response by SGT Brian Packer made Jul 26 at 2017 12:28 PM

2017-07-26T12:28:19-04:00

E3 to NCO? Nope. You need experience at the lower levels to be effective and efficient. Good leadership needs to be cultivated and developed. I already feel as if soldiers are being promoted to quickly and I have seen scores of snot nosed, clueless, NCO's that are ineffective and in way over their heads. This leads to micromanagement and the dumbing down of the NCO Corp.

Response by CSM Ralph Hernandez made Jul 26 at 2017 12:37 PM

2017-07-26T12:37:55-04:00

No, it should not be phased out! As a matter of fact, I think that they should bring back Specialist rank back all the way up to E-7. A Corporal is a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) and not all Soldiers are NCO material, NCO's are Leaders of Soldiers. A Specialist is a good rank because lots of Soldiers are really good at there jobs but not at leading or being NCO's. I say again they are good at there jobs and are even good Teachers but not good at leading. There are good SFC's that are great at there jobs but not good Leaders, and making them Specialist is not a bad thing it just means that there are great at there jobs, they are Specialist in there Career fields. Just my thoughts!

Response by SSG Don Wilson made Jul 26 at 2017 12:42 PM

2017-07-26T12:42:05-04:00

They need to bring back the SP5-7 again for technical roles. There are and we're too many sgts and not enough NCOs.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Jul 26 at 2017 12:50 PM

2017-07-26T12:50:59-04:00

Dill way with a specialist only corporal

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 1:03 PM

2017-07-26T13:03:34-04:00

No, keep Specialist as others have said. I've led lots of great soldiers that were content doing their job well without taking responsibility of leading. I wish I had MORE of them as a leader because that competence means less micro management and more time to focus on other important tasks. When I joined and grew up in the infantry corporals were non existent. 4 years in, myself, and one other guy were the only two in our brigade. Keep Specialists, use corporal to give promotable only E-4s a chance to get some NCO responsibility prior to promotion to E-5.

Response by SGT Justin Johnson made Jul 26 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-07-26T13:24:39-04:00

Keep the rank!

Response by MAJ Angel Delgado made Jul 26 at 2017 1:29 PM

2017-07-26T13:29:06-04:00

Maj. A. Delgado: During the Brown Shoe Army years (wwII/Korea) there were Specialist but were call

Response by SPC Stephen Hodges made Jul 26 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-07-26T13:40:24-04:00

I would have to say no specialists like all tanks have their own job and being a specialist is like being an apprentice it gives you time to learn the job of leading soldiers as an nco

Response by SPC Stephen Hodges made Jul 26 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-07-26T13:40:45-04:00

Ranks*

Response by PFC Michael Falderoff made Jul 26 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-07-26T13:44:10-04:00

Absolutely, it's a worthless rank going back to the technical rank structure. Other branches have NCO's at E-4....

Response by MAJ Angel Delgado made Jul 26 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-07-26T13:45:25-04:00

During the Brown Shoe Army years 1940-1957 there were Specialist but were call Technicians the same NCO structure was used a T was added to the chevron.

Response by SPC Beverly Mulvey-mccutcheon made Jul 26 at 2017 1:46 PM

2017-07-26T13:46:13-04:00

Go back to the old way. I don't think specialist ranks were ever needed.

Response by SGT David Cairns made Jul 26 at 2017 1:48 PM

2017-07-26T13:48:40-04:00

I think the Army should just make E4's corporals and get rid of the "chicken corporal"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 1:49 PM

2017-07-26T13:49:51-04:00

Not everyone is meant to lead others, but possess talents and abilities the military needs. The problem with making everyone leaders is the need for manual labor. I have worked with too many "leaders" who think they have "put their time in" and think they have earned the right to sit on their butts in the office all day. Meanwhile, their Soldiers endure the extreme heat, cold, rain, snow, etc.

I agree with others who have responded, in that that the military should reinstate ranks of SP5-SP7. I wasn't in the Army during that time, but it sounds more efficient. With today's "Move up or move out" reality, the military loses an abundance of knowledge and experience needed for continued success.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 1:51 PM

2017-07-26T13:51:16-04:00

This may upset a lot of people but if this were to happen its due to poor leadership. Leadership is something that is learned and evolved over time with experience at different levels. When it comes to splitting the ranks you run in to the issue of I am better than you. I agree we have some horrible NCO's. We need to stop being lazy and mentor these Soldiers to become Leaders or help them find their way out of the Army.

Response by SMSgt Leslie Campbell made Jul 26 at 2017 2:42 PM

2017-07-26T14:42:23-04:00

what difference does it make as long as pay grades are e-1 to e-9.....you wear an insignia of ran so what...we talking about pay grades with little or no authority...just responsibility,,, when the army had specialists it was a little crazy, specialist had responsibility in doors and hard stripes had responsibility outside....

Response by SGT Brandon Leuck made Jul 26 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-07-26T14:43:42-04:00

I believe all Specialist ranks should be in effect. Not everyone is capable of being an NCO

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-07-26T14:43:42-04:00

I think it is a case by case thing. I know some SPC that act like PV1 and I know some SPC that act as a SGT or SSG. It depends on the mentality and responsibility of the SM them self. It wouldn't work as an across the board thing.

Response by SFC Randy Collins made Jul 26 at 2017 2:52 PM

2017-07-26T14:52:37-04:00

You have leaders and followers

Response by PFC Gordon Swartwood made Jul 26 at 2017 3:06 PM

2017-07-26T15:06:00-04:00

I was a medical specialists 91B I attained the rank of spec 4 there were other 91 B's(combat medics) that I knew that were attached to infantry units that held the rank of corporal they earned the hard stripe I didn't. I think the specialist ranks are good for hold overs till they have their time in to retirement sometimes rank and
Pay grades don't go together

Response by SSG Carl Spivey made Jul 26 at 2017 3:09 PM

2017-07-26T15:09:36-04:00

Being a Corporal was rough, not for everyone...

Response by Sgt Dustin Wight made Jul 26 at 2017 3:38 PM

2017-07-26T15:38:22-04:00

I looked into the Army before going to the Corps. Because of my trading as an EMT, I would have shipped to Basic as a Specialist. Not have earned anything yet but already an E4. I do not agree with that. I earned Sgt of Marines instead.

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Jul 26 at 2017 3:39 PM

2017-07-26T15:39:04-04:00

No. What about x-ray techs, personnel folks, dental techs, folks who work away from combat arms?

Response by SPC Steven King made Jul 26 at 2017 3:53 PM

2017-07-26T15:53:22-04:00

I don't think so - and as many have stated, I'd like to see a return of the SP5+ ranks. Honestly, I can't say that would have kept me in service, but it would have helped the odds. In an MOS (96D) where talented soldiers regularly bail for big civilian dollars, I might have at least re-upped once if I had had somewhere to go other than the ranks of the NCOs. Personally, I enjoyed my job doing imagery analysis, quite a bit in fact. For me, promotion to E-5 meant less doing the part of my job that I liked and more of the stuff that I didn't. I saw getting promoted to E-5 and the responsibilities that came with it almost as a punishment. I had a (brief) conversation with my Battalion Sgt Major in which he asked why he hadn't seen my name on the promotion board list after I had spent sufficient time in service/time in rank and my honest answer to him was that I enjoyed my job doing imagery work and didn't want to move into a position where I'd spend less time doing that. He nodded and said that was a reasonable answer.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 3:54 PM

2017-07-26T15:54:34-04:00

No, Corporal is for Infantry leadership positions. If your not good enough or ready for Seargent you stay at E-4 Specialist. If it's not broke don't fix it.

Response by PO2 Hauke Powers made Jul 26 at 2017 4:04 PM

2017-07-26T16:04:09-04:00

do away with the Specialist ranks..had so many U S Army family members complain about the specialist ranks...the other service branches do not have them...let's be equal...from private to corporal, you learn your MOS by heart and soul. ]You literally sleep with your study book and the weapon of your study...just my opinion...one among many..GO ARMY AND NAVY !!!!

Response by MAJ Shawn Fox made Jul 26 at 2017 4:08 PM

2017-07-26T16:08:19-04:00

Specialists are a needed rank for soldier advancement. Not all soldiers are cut out to be leaders. Nor all leaders are cur out to be specialists. We need both. We should probably expand on the specialist ranks if anything.

Response by SPC Billy Long made Jul 26 at 2017 4:22 PM

2017-07-26T16:22:27-04:00

Unsure. When they phased out the Spec 5 it made me as a Spec 4 just a Spec(k). A nobody.

Response by SGT Matthew Mark made Jul 26 at 2017 4:25 PM

2017-07-26T16:25:04-04:00

I don't think they should. I believe you actually have two classes of soldiers those in combat arms and those who support combat arms or more of a clerical nature. An example would be a computer technician gaining the rank of specialist versus an infantry Soldier gaining the rank of corporal. Well I appreciate everyone's time and service and the effort they put forth I don't believe that every job classification needs a commanding rank. If anything I think they should expand back to using all of the specialist ranks. If the soldiers that are being turned out today can't understand the difference between the specialist ranks and the NCO ranks then what kind of soldiers are we actually producing these days.

Response by SPC Stan Laughlin made Jul 26 at 2017 4:51 PM

2017-07-26T16:51:53-04:00

As an ex Spec 4, Company Clerk, I think it depends on the position and job to determine rank. Would I have been happier as a Corporal? Darn right I would have been. But the Specialist ranks still have their place in my opinion. As stated earlier, not everyone is a leader or capable of command. Got to have skilled specialist.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 5:03 PM

2017-07-26T17:03:25-04:00

Yes. That way, they stand up and lead or stay a PFC until their enlistment ends. Make only Corporals and above eligible to reenlist.

Response by SSgt Norman Wellerman made Jul 26 at 2017 5:07 PM

2017-07-26T17:07:51-04:00

Yes phase them out use ranks for all

Response by LCpl Joseph McCloskey made Jul 26 at 2017 5:11 PM

2017-07-26T17:11:09-04:00

Yes!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 5:21 PM

2017-07-26T17:21:38-04:00

No, expand the specialist to be enlisted warrents. We need to reward the soldiers that chose a position that requires expertise yet still being a soldier.

Response by CPL Anthony Jones made Jul 26 at 2017 5:23 PM

2017-07-26T17:23:49-04:00

Really you people think your ideas are truly the answer... "Oh, I think soldiers who are great soldiers don't have what it takes to lead." You know whose fault that is... yours. As leaders yourselves you need to help soldiers transition into leadership roles and if you are not then that specialist will leave and your army will pay more money to train another stalled out careerist which definitely remeinds me... while I sat 4 years at specialist I would have pissed on someone who promoted me to spec 5 spec 6, I didn't get a single chance to go to the bored and got promoted to Cpl in a combat area just to have to give it up because knuckle heads like you think that the lack of leadship skills rests on the soldier. You idiots are still singing the same old songs. You may say I'm salty and you're right because I was over looked and put on the back burner for a guy who joined the army and went from e-1 to e-5 in less than three years. You see it's not the soldiers who aren't ready, it's the ncos in charge who pick favorites and choose to help and that's " why I got out" screw the military, met great people, did great things, screw the Nco corps and all it's corrupt Mumbo Jumbo. I live happily on my VA 90% didn't have to retire me but and can work if I want or if I don't it don't matter. I got mine fellas. Cpl Jones out.

Response by CPL Ed Bookman made Jul 26 at 2017 5:36 PM

2017-07-26T17:36:27-04:00

No. Keep it. Specialist meant you were trained for a specialized field.I was only a Spec.4 Infantry. Trained as a mortor man. Just as wearing the blue cord signifies the infantry.

Response by SGT Daniel Flood made Jul 26 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-07-26T17:45:38-04:00

Response by SSG Tony Rifkin made Jul 26 at 2017 5:47 PM

2017-07-26T17:47:51-04:00

Have to agree with most, bring back the spc5-7 rank. Some solidiers are great at there job to not ment to lead or manage. This cause a great lose of talent for the Army

Response by SP5 Kerry Conner made Jul 26 at 2017 5:48 PM

2017-07-26T17:48:09-04:00

all combat arms should have corporal if they supervise one or more troops and technical MOS should keep specialist unless they supervise another troop member.

Response by LTJG John Stinespring made Jul 26 at 2017 5:51 PM

2017-07-26T17:51:47-04:00

Not familiar with Army business.

Response by MSG James Strickland made Jul 26 at 2017 5:58 PM

2017-07-26T17:58:46-04:00

Keeping emotion out of it - There's a difference in the expectations from a Private to a Specialist and an even better expectation for NCOs. I believe Specialist is a rank that allows a Soldier to grow and learn the skills needed to be a better NCO. Not every Solider that is promoted from E-3 to E-4 is ready for the responsibility of being an NCO. Let's face it, we've all known Soldiers in the rank of Specialist that knew their job but weren't motivated to be leaders or some that didn't have the maturity needed as an NCO. Those E-4s that are responsible and are in a position that being an NCO would actually help should be laterally appointed in accordance with the regulation.

Response by SSgt Rodney Frame made Jul 26 at 2017 6:03 PM

2017-07-26T18:03:42-04:00

Keep it, not everyone wants to do the manager thing, I'd have loved to have had the option to not ever write an evaluation on folks, and if the usaf had Warrent officers I'd have signed up immediately.

I wanted to do my job ,not wipe asses and noses, I love taking care of folks, but if I had the choice I'd have gladly skipped it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 6:04 PM

2017-07-26T18:04:24-04:00

A corporal is a soldier that demenstates the ability to work above his pay grade. If we had a platoon of corporals all you would have is a bunch of soldiers that have no respect for the soldier in charge. There must be a separation between stelar soldiers working above their pay grade and everyone else.

Response by SSgt Roger Ferguson made Jul 26 at 2017 6:05 PM

2017-07-26T18:05:59-04:00

Never undestamate the need for the working supervisor.

Response by SPC Thomas Law made Jul 26 at 2017 6:23 PM

2017-07-26T18:23:33-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 6:29 PM

2017-07-26T18:29:58-04:00

Trade an E4 for another E4
Where is the logic .
Not everyone is leadership material

Response by SP5 Rich Zigler made Jul 26 at 2017 6:32 PM

2017-07-26T18:32:48-04:00

I liked my Specialist 5th class rating. It said something about me !

Response by COL Larry Saul made Jul 26 at 2017 6:50 PM

2017-07-26T18:50:27-04:00

Having been every enlisted rank to SGT at least twice, from 1968 to 1978, I say dump the Specialist rank. Institute the rank of Lance Corporal as a way station until the novice E4 proof he is capable and able. For the rank insignia, revert to the pre-1969 insignia. Mosquito wings would revert to PFC, the current PFC, mosquito wings with rocker would be Lance Corporal (E4) and, upon proving he can be a leader, give him the Corporal rank and insignia. A Corporal should be a head-nosed, kick ass leader, not one of the boys.

Response by SFC Brian Dunn made Jul 26 at 2017 6:55 PM

2017-07-26T18:55:35-04:00

No. There are speciality ranks that are technical in nature and have little to do with corporal leadership knowledge.

Response by SSG Jim Elliott made Jul 26 at 2017 7:01 PM

2017-07-26T19:01:26-04:00

Yes, Corporal is a junior NCO rank, get them in position and trained as an NCO early instead of the limbo position of Specialist.

Response by MSG Daniel S. Rodriguez made Jul 26 at 2017 7:03 PM

2017-07-26T19:03:06-04:00

I held both ranks. Specialist 4 then Corporal as Infantryman . got out of the Army, returned, changed MOS as mechanic, promoted to Specialist 5 because of my MOS. I didn't want to be a specialist but chain of command said my MOS required it at that time (early 80's).... never saw Sergeant... went from SPC 5 to SSG. Yes keep the specialist rank for those that don't want to lead and promote those that do to Corporal. Armed Forces need more specialist nowadays.

Response by PV2 Willaim Morgan made Jul 26 at 2017 7:07 PM

2017-07-26T19:07:10-04:00

I have always believed that ! but who am I ?

Response by SSG Darrell DeVor made Jul 26 at 2017 7:11 PM

2017-07-26T19:11:32-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Greg Campbell made Jul 26 at 2017 7:21 PM

2017-07-26T19:21:29-04:00

if Spec 4 were abolished then nothing would get done, we were Spec 4 heavy. a lot of us wore 3 or 4 hats that should of been manned by a NCO. when put on detail with a bunch of other Spec4 the shit got done, but your damn sure you knew which was in charge. On days that we were given tasks Top. who wasnt dumb, gave us 3 or 4 first thing in the AM. Everything got done in a timely matter, hey we had the sham shield, and reappeared after lunch. In my opinion the rank that should be abolished is Corporal, all it does is swell heads. and just think, the lieutenants would actually have to do their own work LMAO

Response by SFC Espi Espi made Jul 26 at 2017 7:23 PM

2017-07-26T19:23:55-04:00

Get rid of warrant officers, never understood how a person who gets passed for E-7 can get picked up for wartant

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 7:46 PM

2017-07-26T19:46:41-04:00

Bring back Spec5-7. Plenty of awesome technical soldiers that career wise, are not interested in Warrant and don't want the added responsibilities of an NCO.

Response by SPC Denning Fields made Jul 26 at 2017 7:58 PM

2017-07-26T19:58:18-04:00

Especially in the combat arms.

Response by PO2 Daniel Cannode made Jul 26 at 2017 8:01 PM

2017-07-26T20:01:49-04:00

I do not think so, there is a learning curve.
Some make it some do not.
Just my opinion. .

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:04 PM

2017-07-26T20:04:23-04:00

Absolutely. No other service treats their E4 ranks as a junior enlisted. They are grooming their service persons for greater responsibility and look at them as junior NCOs. Get rid of SPC (otherwise known as the sham shield) and enforce Corporal. This way they get their NCOer and start learning how to lead. Should have been done twenty years ago.

Response by MSG James Strickland made Jul 26 at 2017 8:04 PM

2017-07-26T20:04:37-04:00

I agree, bring back the SP5-9

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:17 PM

2017-07-26T20:17:42-04:00

Should have kept SP5-9.. stay technical my friends!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:18 PM

2017-07-26T20:18:53-04:00

not without proper training

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:22 PM

2017-07-26T20:22:28-04:00

I believe the corporal rank should be taken out. Our the corporal is to assume the duties of a NCO. Than what is the need of E5.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:25 PM

2017-07-26T20:25:36-04:00

I could see it working. Make e4 corporal only, give them ncoers and get rid of some of these worthless specialists that want to MEB their entire second enlistment.

Response by SPC Tom McDevitt made Jul 26 at 2017 8:29 PM

2017-07-26T20:29:24-04:00

As a former member of the Spec 4 mafia I say no.

Response by SGT Ronnie Morgan made Jul 26 at 2017 8:31 PM

2017-07-26T20:31:29-04:00

Need rank of specialist for work, Corporals don't work

Response by SR Bennie Cady made Jul 26 at 2017 8:37 PM

2017-07-26T20:37:44-04:00

I am Navy (the only branch guaranteed by the Constitution) I don't give a crap about the army.

Response by CW4 Gary Murphy made Jul 26 at 2017 8:38 PM

2017-07-26T20:38:05-04:00

Shit spec 4 is still earning money for the army. You want to cut weight get rid of Maj, CW5, and SGM. IMHO Those are staff ranks that only serve inside HQs.

Response by PO3 Robert Wallace made Jul 26 at 2017 8:53 PM

2017-07-26T20:53:21-04:00

No they need time to learn

Response by SGT Micheal Austin made Jul 26 at 2017 8:54 PM

2017-07-26T20:54:16-04:00

Not sure because a corporal is a hard striper and a specialist is just that, a specialist in their field

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 8:55 PM

2017-07-26T20:55:15-04:00

Definitely should keep Specialist unless the Army downsized to the size of the Marine Corps. Having been a corporal, it truly sucks. More work for no more pay. Additionally, the other E-4s don't take you as serious as they would a Sergeant. I would argue that corporal should be eliminated from the Army, and greater emphasis should be placed on grooming the Senior Spcialists to become Sergeants.

Response by CPL Mart Grams made Jul 26 at 2017 8:58 PM

2017-07-26T20:58:18-04:00

I was in when we changed from stripes to specs, we hated it. Always felt it was a little less prestige, even a little less macho and military!

Response by SA Rich Frazier made Jul 26 at 2017 9:01 PM

2017-07-26T21:01:20-04:00

Leave it the same

Response by MSG John Avedisian made Jul 26 at 2017 9:15 PM

2017-07-26T21:15:43-04:00

Yes.

Response by PO2 Michael Lefler made Jul 26 at 2017 9:57 PM

2017-07-26T21:57:32-04:00

I never understood the speciality rank. When I was in the Navy you were promoted by qualification both in leadership and competency in your rating. I always thought it was an easy way to rise in rank without the qualification for that promotion.

Response by CPL Tom Duffy made Jul 26 at 2017 10:01 PM

2017-07-26T22:01:59-04:00

I was a Specialist. Should have been a corporal.

Response by SP5 William Humes made Jul 26 at 2017 10:11 PM

2017-07-26T22:11:06-04:00

When I was in the Army we had Spec 4 thru Spec 9 I believe. When i went from Sgt E5 11B to MOS 76Q40 I had to qualify in that MOS and my rank was switched to SPEC 5 E5. The privates always thought the SGT E5 was a higher rank. I believe the SPEC ranks have more then earned the right to stay as a valid rank and do show that you are truly qualified for the position you hold. Not every rank has to be a leadership position but every rank should show you are qualified for the position you hold and that you are more than capable of performing your job classification. I even got PRO PAY when i changed my MOS.

Response by MSG David Johnson made Jul 26 at 2017 10:12 PM

2017-07-26T22:12:51-04:00

Hell No!
The Army needs to bring the Specialist ranks back. Specifically E5, and E6.
In my 25+ years of service I have seen so many NCO's in the grades E5, and E6 that had no business being in leadership positions. But there is not the option any longer so you get these, I don't want to say useless, but NCO's that have no leadership skills even though they go through the leadership schools.
Does an E5, or E6 cook really need NCO ranks? They should have Specialist ranks, and those who are leadership material can step up to the plate.

This has been discussed in the ranks for years, you run into those who should not be in a leadership role, but there's no other career progression.
Catch 22

Response by SSG Gerard W. Kehoe made Jul 26 at 2017 10:27 PM

2017-07-26T22:27:30-04:00

I was never a specialist I was always a hard straight. I believe they Corporal should be left for combat arms MOS's. When we had specialist 7 rank a sergeant E-5 with hard stripes could tell them what to do in the field. Which pissed them off. Most the time that special 7 was a member of the Palace of Athena the woman's Army Corps, and all she wanted to do was play army with the real soldiers.

Response by 1SG Mike Turner made Jul 26 at 2017 10:51 PM

2017-07-26T22:51:39-04:00

Same pay. Not needed

Response by SGT Glenn Rodriguez made Jul 26 at 2017 10:54 PM

2017-07-26T22:54:16-04:00

Not yes but hell yes

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Jul 26 at 2017 11:08 PM

2017-07-26T23:08:39-04:00

Well I think that they should keep it specialist rank unless the person that is getting promoted to corporal is going to be in charge of section and has had NCO Academy that is
the way I see it . But that's my opinion beside a corporal is consider as a NCO.
SSG MARK FRANZEN
USA VET

Response by SPC Jeff Boggs made Jul 26 at 2017 11:21 PM

2017-07-26T23:21:56-04:00

no they shouldn't a Specialist is exactly how it sounds a specialist in their field a technician of sorts a corporal to is more like a infantry, tank, foot soldiers. kind a lot like Warrant officers and master Sargent's

Response by SSG Ralph Moran made Jul 26 at 2017 11:31 PM

2017-07-26T23:31:37-04:00

No because there are specialized jobs that don't require the NCO training or responsibilities but do require that specialized training. Not everyone is going to have to lead men into battle but everyone may be in battle at sometime. Before we had specialists we had T-Sgt and so on for those special jobs. That would be OK to make all Specialists tech- corporals and tech Sargent s and so on.

Response by SPC William Smith made Jul 27 at 2017 12:00 AM

2017-07-27T00:00:20-04:00

No, some soldiers are better at maintaining equipment than leading men. At least that's what I was told when I served. Spec. being responsible of keeping equipment up and ready. Hard stripe for keeping us up and ready.

Response by PFC Marlow Turner made Jul 27 at 2017 12:16 AM

2017-07-27T00:16:49-04:00

yes it is a dead end rank they do not have as much authority as a sgt.

Response by 1stSgt Lee Anderson made Jul 27 at 2017 12:17 AM

2017-07-27T00:17:37-04:00

No same as Lance in the corps

Response by Ken Blanchard made Jul 27 at 2017 12:38 AM

2017-07-27T00:38:49-04:00

Even when I had joined I wondered what happened to Corporal

Response by SP6 Steve Baldwin made Jul 27 at 2017 2:22 AM

2017-07-27T02:22:28-04:00

As someone who served in both the Marine Corps and the Army I feel the Army should do like the Marines and have soldiers earn the rank of Corporal. Just giving people rank does no one any good, especially the soldier. Also heard too many times soldiers throw out the rank, I'm Specialist promotable.

Response by SPC Ej Johnson made Jul 27 at 2017 3:23 AM

2017-07-27T03:23:28-04:00

I don't think so. There are several MOS's that don't need the leadership role of corporal. If during Wartime one is not in combat or assigned to a combat unit then I could see the justification of the Soecislist rank.

Response by Sgt Claude Michel made Jul 27 at 2017 4:53 AM

2017-07-27T04:53:48-04:00

Absolutely, a corporal is a specialist.

Response by SGT Burleson Freddie made Jul 27 at 2017 5:18 AM

2017-07-27T05:18:32-04:00

No, this leaves a chance for people in specialty MOS to advance in Pay Grade Otherwise you would have too many NCO. Some areas do not require that many NCO. You want to keep good people. If no pay grades between PFC and Corporal, no incentive for all those skilled, to stay in. When I was on Active Duty, we had Specialist Graded from SP/4-7.

Response by MAJ Frank Avallone made Jul 27 at 2017 5:43 AM

2017-07-27T05:43:13-04:00

No! The fork in the road! LEADERS & Followers!!!!! Technical Support should be recognized to E-9 level for career accomplishments!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:44 AM

2017-07-27T06:44:54-04:00

Yes... get rid of it. Why have 2 different E-4 ranks?

Response by 1SG Howard Hazelwood made Jul 27 at 2017 6:57 AM

2017-07-27T06:57:51-04:00

I am in agreement with a lot of those here, we need to bring back the SPC5-7 ranks. Keep the hard stripes for the combat arms people and the SPC ranks for the technical ones. I once knew a soldier who was great at working with weapons and was in the Arms room and could repair most any weapons system, was a Master Armorer. He was not being trained to be a NCO as they kept him in the Arms Room all the time because he was good there, but then got promoted to E-5, and was not up to the role as a leader.

Response by A1C Charles Eger made Jul 27 at 2017 7:08 AM

2017-07-27T07:08:52-04:00

Response by MSG Joseph Galloway made Jul 27 at 2017 7:45 AM

2017-07-27T07:45:15-04:00

No, I do not think that the Specialist rank should be done away with and I also believe that there is a place for, at least SP5 and SP6, but the rank designation should be personal rather than professional as when I was first promoted to E-5 it was to SP5 because of MOS, but I was officially (under orders) an "Acting Sergeant" because of my job as an instructor. Perhaps it would be worth exploring the possibility an additional rank series similar to the Warrant Officer's relationship with the Commissioned Officers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 8:25 AM

2017-07-27T08:25:06-04:00

No because even as a Private moving to Private 2nd class then to Private First Class they still sit on corporal . But if command groups put a stipulation towards gaining corporal like the Soldier had to appear in front of a board and gain there promotable status before getting advanced to corporal it would work . But then you have to worry about the CLI promotion rate and if a Soldier is 39 or 40 points in their primary's or secondary zone they won't show initiative bc they will automatically pick up but if they have to strive to make 500 or 550+ points for promotion it will balance out and let Leaders know which Soldier want to be here and who wants to advance

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 8:48 AM

2017-07-27T08:48:40-04:00

Army Times says there's talk of getting rid of W.O. rank due to the fact that there are some enlisted ranks, E5-7 that are doing the same job like Maintenance Warrant or Food Service Warrant. You could put a SP6 or 7 into that position. There are others you could replace Warrants with, that's just an example. BTW, Warrant Officers "used" to be subject matter experts in their fields. Now they are commissioned just like regular officers and are required to attain certain college degrees to get promoted. IMHO, the military screwed that up.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 9:00 AM

2017-07-27T09:00:19-04:00

I'm sure there will be some salty Marines in this thread that think it's not fair to get E-4 pay if you didn't earn the promotion like we have to when we pick up corporal (at least in the MOS's that don't promote fast)

Response by LTC Randy Readshaw made Jul 27 at 2017 9:18 AM

2017-07-27T09:18:10-04:00

This may make me a pariah but not only do I think they should keep it, I think they should bring back the other Specialist grades. The differentiation between NCO and Specialist is important and I believe we should honor those who lead with the distinction of chevrons. I always held the belief that everybody is in a leadership position regardless of rank or number of Soldiers supervised. If I was an "Office of One" I was still a leader of me. Having said that, not everybody can lead others. That is a special skill marked with uncommon character traits that set the leader apart from the led. The abolishment of the Specialist grades was a hat-tip to the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality and we are lesser for it.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Jul 27 at 2017 9:20 AM

2017-07-27T09:20:46-04:00

100%

Response by MSgt Lester Oakman made Jul 27 at 2017 9:44 AM

2017-07-27T09:44:42-04:00

No but they should expand their leadership training opportunities.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 9:45 AM

2017-07-27T09:45:28-04:00

My take on that is in my unit senior E4s are in team leader positions or are highly regarded members of their perspective fireteam some are fully ready to become sgts academicly and mentally but slots are scarce and they often get discouraged and leave at the end of their contracts. Giving them CPL stripes ( only a select few at a time mind you the ones who are ready and demonstrate the capability) helps to distinguish them and opens up more opportunities to get their feet wet as future leaders and sets them apart from the others giving them more self worth and higher sense of purpose rather than staying a shield until their promotion when their fed up. I was a Spc in Afghanistan worked my ass off proved myself and was lateraled to Cpl because the state had no slots but to me this was an amazing experience cause like I said it helped me cut my teeth for the real deal and it set me apart from other E4s which gave me a high sense of pride. I recommend it highly recommend at least using it to distinguish leaders but keep Spc around what would the world be without the E 4 mafia

Response by Lt Col Walter Green made Jul 27 at 2017 9:50 AM

2017-07-27T09:50:05-04:00

As an Air Force veteran I would never presume to tell the Army what todo with its rank structure, but I feel confident that the Air Force has had similar problems. When we equate rank with pay there becomes pressure to promote long serving people so that they can have a better standard of living and be rewarded for their developed expertise. There is also pressure to retain that level of expertise. So, because the system is limited as to how many people you can pay at what rank, we equate technical expertise and leadership. The two overlap, but they are the same thing. When I joined the Air Force we still had a smattering of warrant officers, who were highly regarded because they had been able to concentrate on the requirements of the specific job for a full career rather than shuttling from field to staff in a search for the right jobs to meet the requirements of the promotion boards. We lost something when we lost them. In the officer ranks the job requirement is that you be a leader and everyone understands that a Darwinian process thins the herd. But it seems to me that this is counterproductive in the enlisted ranks. In my career field, officers were paired with enlisted men and NCOs one on one to operate as a control team for tactical aircraft. I needed someone who was highly skilled, could do my job as well as I could (remember that I said it was a team), instinctively understood what I was doing, and could multitask continually. There was not a lot of leadership involved for that individual, but long experience and training was a huge plus.

Response by SPC Rick Norris made Jul 27 at 2017 10:05 AM

2017-07-27T10:05:41-04:00

Absolutely not. And as a Specialist in Communications, later a Combat Arms Commo Chief (MOS no longer exists) I take offense to the commenters that say Specialists are not cut out for leadership. Just because we don't wear the "up and downs" doesn't mean we aren't leaders. I lead an entire Communications platoon under a Communications Officer during the Cold War with honor and efficiency.

Response by SPC Paul C. made Jul 27 at 2017 10:10 AM

2017-07-27T10:10:28-04:00

I think Specialists are a very impotant rank. But I can see where the question is coming from. I hardly ever saw any Corporals. The more common transition is from Specialist to Seargent (E5). At least that was the case when I was in. So I used to ask a different question, why do we need the Corporal rank?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 10:17 AM

2017-07-27T10:17:11-04:00

Save a lot of money I think 50% of army is e4 and Air Force should stop calling there e4s Sgt there the farthest thing from it

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 10:50 AM

2017-07-27T10:50:14-04:00

It's already way to easy to gain rank. You can come into the army as an E4. I don't care how much college or how old you are, being an E4 before you graduate basic is unacceptable. The army throws rank at people way to easily as it is. Taking a rank away would just make it easier to become a worthless E5. We don't need to eliminate ranks, we need to only promote the best qualified and maintain structure and meaning for lower enlisted rank.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 11:16 AM

2017-07-27T11:16:04-04:00

Yes, SPC has become a joke "shame shield", "E4 Mafia". As a SM moves from PFC too SPC they address still wide eyed and motivated. Make them all Corporals so they have the charge and challenge to be what they should be, a junior leader in training.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 11:16 AM

2017-07-27T11:16:47-04:00

Get rid of corporal first. If any rank is gray area it's corporal.

Response by PO2 Steven Youngblood made Jul 27 at 2017 11:22 AM

2017-07-27T11:22:31-04:00

I think not everybody can drive the bus. Keep the system as it is. It has worked for over 200 years.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 11:40 AM

2017-07-27T11:40:27-04:00

No, as a I believe that the Army needs to bring back spec 5 and 6 for people working in highly specialized MOS's. Not everyone is a leader, but a lot of people are good workers. A lot of people get out because they don't want to be an NCO, they just want to work. Sadly those are usually the best smartest and hardest workers.

Response by SFC Michael Duncan made Jul 27 at 2017 11:56 AM

2017-07-27T11:56:01-04:00

I've seen Spc 7 & 8s that worked in a Mess Hall. If you even suggested they were not leaders you would regret it. In combat arms spec rank were a way of putting non leaders or slow developers where they can do the most good. In other MOS's spec rank would be, and were the norm, leaders were the exception, or people wanting to be leaders. How about machine gunners, as spec. or auto gunners in the in the regular squad, or maybe grenade launchers as specialists. the whole leader or move out is gung ho BS. Lets develop people as they mature, real leaders know when a soldier becomes a leader and deserves a promotion to that position. I knew a lot of specialists of all paygrades, and there is a real need for Warrant Officers. Of course change is the big excuse!

Response by SGT Barry Wilson made Jul 27 at 2017 12:16 PM

2017-07-27T12:16:05-04:00

Yes. Specialist rank is an insult. SP5-SP7 have been eliminated, time for SP4 yo go.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 12:31 PM

2017-07-27T12:31:30-04:00

Wow - sounds like someone is reaching for an OER or NCOER bullet; let's focus our efforts on issues that matter

Response by SPC James Pace Jr. made Jul 27 at 2017 12:35 PM

2017-07-27T12:35:43-04:00

Never saw the point in it as a medic during Nam era. A pin or patch signifying a specialty like medic would be preferred. I'd have traded my Sp/4 for Corp stripes. Lol

Response by SSG Jimmy Cernich made Jul 27 at 2017 1:08 PM

2017-07-27T13:08:37-04:00

No it gives leaders time to see if the soldier is a true leader.I was a specialist then premoted to coporal.Specialist where sent to NCO acedamy not E-3

Response by SP5 Gary Smith made Jul 27 at 2017 1:11 PM

2017-07-27T13:11:37-04:00

Corporals have command responsibilities but no particular expertise. Why take a soldier with a year of special training and bog him down with minor command duties.

Response by CSM Bob DeMuth made Jul 27 at 2017 1:56 PM

2017-07-27T13:56:45-04:00

It really makes no sense to me why they added specialist years ago. It puts them (specialist) at a disadvantage come promotion time.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 1:57 PM

2017-07-27T13:57:26-04:00

For all that keep saying bring back SPC(5-7), that is what warrant Officers are for. Just my opinion. Have a nice day!!

Response by PFC Chris Zimmerman made Jul 27 at 2017 2:28 PM

2017-07-27T14:28:23-04:00

I think they should expand it to SP-7. The enlisted careers have plenty of non-leadership tech skills that troops can geek out to. How many of us have seen a technically proficient trooper promoted to NCO and then make a fine mess of it because he just wasn't a leader?

Besides, what's next? Eliminate the Warrant Officer ranks because they aren't in Command slots?

Response by SP5 Chuck Driscoll made Jul 27 at 2017 2:39 PM

2017-07-27T14:39:28-04:00

Response by SSG William Bighouse made Jul 27 at 2017 2:53 PM

2017-07-27T14:53:15-04:00

They phased out Spec 5-7, why not Spec 4. It's useless rank in today's Army.

Response by SPC David Dufrane made Jul 27 at 2017 4:52 PM

2017-07-27T16:52:35-04:00

yes

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 4:58 PM

2017-07-27T16:58:51-04:00

In the Signal Branch, a great technician doesn't always equal a great NCO.

Response by CW3 Lysle Seelig made Jul 27 at 2017 5:05 PM

2017-07-27T17:05:37-04:00

This was one of my biggest complaints working in Aircraft Maintenance. I had some amazing mechanics who worked for me over the years who were not NCO inclined. They weren't bad soldiers they just preferred turning a wrench to leading a squad/section or platoon. Because of the "up or out" mentality at that time many careers ended prematurely. That was one place where the Air Force out shined us in the Army. They had a career path for enlisted mechanics and technicians.

Response by SGT Hugh Guthrie made Jul 27 at 2017 5:15 PM

2017-07-27T17:15:17-04:00

It depends on there mos

Response by SGT Steven Cates made Jul 27 at 2017 5:51 PM

2017-07-27T17:51:55-04:00

Agree, All the other Specialist grades have been gone for decades.

Response by SGT Steven Cates made Jul 27 at 2017 5:54 PM

2017-07-27T17:54:49-04:00

If they pass the promotion board and PLDC by all means advance them to corporal.

Response by PFC Steven Brengard made Jul 27 at 2017 6:04 PM

2017-07-27T18:04:34-04:00

Personally I'd like to see the specialists ranks make a comeback. Too many NCOs now that should not lead men.

Response by SGT Greg Monk made Jul 27 at 2017 6:13 PM

2017-07-27T18:13:20-04:00

No leave it as it is, Spec4 and up are good at what they do , but may not have the leadership qualities.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:17 PM

2017-07-27T18:17:35-04:00

Yes the Army should get rid of specialist rank. Some say we need the expertise, but I say we need both the expertise plus the leadership. What good is the Army with separate paths? One technician and one leadership. That is why we have warrant officers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:25 PM

2017-07-27T18:25:54-04:00

No I don't think we should get rid of the specialist rank and immediately promote straight to a corporal. I have soldiers that I feel have shown they have no desire to lead and step up to the plate as a NCO or even a junior NCO. I hate that my troops that are waiting to go to BLC will get pinned corporal just because they are going. How about we use the same system as Active Army uses and use it for the National Guard? We need to have individuals who want to fight and show they know the job and want to actually lead instead of sit back and watch as others do their job for them. I have seen too many get promoted just to get pushed out of an unit because the unit doesn't want them anymore.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:34 PM

2017-07-27T18:34:34-04:00

Until they get the promotion system better. Great soldiers commanders need them . Their should be more input by the commanders. See turds and slugs get promoted faster than the good men!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:42 PM

2017-07-27T18:42:52-04:00

no, spending 26 years in the service, the last 24 as a specialist ..keep it just as it is.

Response by MAJ William Black made Jul 27 at 2017 6:43 PM

2017-07-27T18:43:34-04:00

Specialists are for technical enlisted skills. Spec4 & Spec5 ranks are needed. Spec4 & Spec5 ranks could be converted to CPL & SGT ranks with some NCO training, if they show leadership ability. Spec5 should be fed into NCO ranks for career soldiers.

Response by SSgt Peter Gonzales made Jul 27 at 2017 6:48 PM

2017-07-27T18:48:12-04:00

Yes specialists started in early 50's outdated with no responsibilities not just specialty qualification

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 6:59 PM

2017-07-27T18:59:40-04:00

Bring back SP5-7, and get rid of Warrant Officer's, except for Aviation. Anymore, a ton of Warrant Officer's are guys who can't make E6/7. I actually had a C2 try to tell me how to do my job today. I don't think so.

Response by SSgt John Tynes made Jul 27 at 2017 7:08 PM

2017-07-27T19:08:44-04:00

No.

Furthermore the Marine Corps should adopt it.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 7:32 PM

2017-07-27T19:32:47-04:00

No, the Army should bring back the Specialist tank system. There are a lot of Soldiers who are great at their job but not at leadership.

Response by SSG Larry Augst made Jul 27 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-07-27T19:40:36-04:00

They need to bring back the tech ranks.
Clarify who leads versus who manages. A finance NCO pushes paper and may have a clerk or two they manage. An Infantry NCO has troops he leads.
The IT guy is not one to be leading troops in combat. Place that tech rank on him for clarification.

Response by SSG James McConnell made Jul 27 at 2017 7:42 PM

2017-07-27T19:42:28-04:00

MOS driven, combat arms Corporal, others Sp.4

Response by Cpl Davis Gray made Jul 27 at 2017 8:00 PM

2017-07-27T20:00:35-04:00

Leadership is a unique skill that not everyone possess. I was a terrible leader but I could program in 7 languages and set up intercontinental networks. I think we need to bring back Spec5 through Spec9. Let us focuse on our specialized skill sets. You need me behind a terminal not pushing troops.

Response by MSG Stanley C. made Jul 27 at 2017 8:04 PM

2017-07-27T20:04:43-04:00

I think both ranks are a necessity but are not used in the proper format. I would promote all PFC's to SPC under the current promotion system. But here is the change, all SPC would be laterally advanced to CPL upon completion of their promotion board. I think it would be a great idea for that SPC to walk in the board as a SPC and walk out as a CPL. There would be a sense of accomplishment for the newly appointed JR NCO wearing the stripes and the passage from soldier to NCO can begin. Additionally, there wold be a clear distinction between soldier (PVT-SPC) and JR NCO (CPL-SSG). I also think it wold be great for Basic Leadership Course (BLC) , formerly WLC, to have all corporals in the ranks. Having all corporals in the ranks at BLC would clearly let them know that they are being trained to be leaders. Often these SPC go to BLC. Knowing everything revolves around money, there is no cost associated with this change to the lateral promotion system.

Response by SP5 Reginald Lewis made Jul 27 at 2017 8:26 PM

2017-07-27T20:26:08-04:00

Yes every too per should be an infantry.there fore they should be a leader.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 8:50 PM

2017-07-27T20:50:06-04:00

Really,
Why Not. . ! We have NCO's who have No education and can barely write a complete sentence, leading junior enlisted into battle. We have WO's who only have AA's degrees. And Officers who go to America's worst colleges leading CO. BN. BGD.. For anyone reading this Colleges in the South & Midwest, except three (Rice U. Univ of Texas and Vanderbuilt U.) all other Universities do not even rank or compete in the top 200 Colleges/Universities in America or the World. However, we have many officers who still get the rank and approval to lead.
Last but not least were having a retention, recruiting problem.... Why Not!

Response by SGT David Butler Jr. made Jul 27 at 2017 9:02 PM

2017-07-27T21:02:41-04:00

When I was in back in the late 70s, early 80s, the rank went all the way up to Spec 7. They were in the process at that time of phasing out all specialist ranks, but retained Spec 4. If u still have to be boarded for NCO rank, it would mean every PFC would have to be boarded to attain corporal rank. Seems it would be easier to just retain the Spec 4 rank, than go through that administrative nitemare.

Response by Barry Russo made Jul 27 at 2017 9:07 PM

2017-07-27T21:07:41-04:00

If my memory serves me, wasn't that tye progression in the Past? What was wrong with it then and what's wrong with it today? I'm not a fan of the term apecialist.

Response by SFC Mike Fritz made Jul 27 at 2017 9:14 PM

2017-07-27T21:14:09-04:00

The Specialist is just that, a specialist in what ever field his/her mos is. The origional specialist rank went to E-7 after which the hard stripe was the next step

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-07-27T21:21:22-04:00

I'm all for SPC 4-8. TIG and TIS, should be what drives it. Enlisted now have to compete against each other while Officers just wait for their turn. It's an unfair system that causes undo turmoil, backstabbing and jealousy among enlisted

Response by Sgt Daniel J. Daly made Jul 27 at 2017 9:24 PM

2017-07-27T21:24:27-04:00

As a Marine I really don't want into US Army regulations, but as a tax paying American I think there should be only one E-4 a Corporal

Response by SGT John Syler made Jul 27 at 2017 9:37 PM

2017-07-27T21:37:50-04:00

I agree with others on expanding specialist ranks. I was not cut out for a leadership position. I just wanted to be proficient at my job.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 10:10 PM

2017-07-27T22:10:33-04:00

No, not everyone is cut out for leadership but is a great technician. Bring back the Spec 4-7. They would not be in leadership. If someone wanted to move into leadership then should have a point to do so but may take a drop in rank to do this. Nice thing about being retired, don't worry about rank anymore.

Response by CPL Michael Landstreet made Jul 27 at 2017 10:10 PM

2017-07-27T22:10:47-04:00

Yes I think the specialist ranks were stupid.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Jul 27 at 2017 10:45 PM

2017-07-27T22:45:10-04:00

No, SPC is needed and those trained need to be recognized for their speciality training, their morale, pride, service

Response by SP5 Jim Nuzzi made Jul 27 at 2017 10:49 PM

2017-07-27T22:49:39-04:00

No some mos need specialists not leaders do they plan on taking out warrant officers too

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2017 11:24 PM

2017-07-27T23:24:20-04:00

Who gives a shit!

Response by SPC Joseph Ward made Jul 28 at 2017 12:13 AM

2017-07-28T00:13:12-04:00

Fuck no. Cpl is not raise in pay but with all the bullshit paperwork and regs for a NCO to have to deal with. Keep spc and get rid of cpl. No one gives a fuck about cpl.

Response by CH (LTC) David R. Penland made Jul 28 at 2017 1:22 AM

2017-07-28T01:22:51-04:00

Not every soldier is a leader or NCO - some are excellent technicians in their chosen fields. So - the Army has to decide what it values - trying to make every soldier a NCO - which is a tall task - or allowing some soldiers, especially those not wishing a career, but who only want to serve in a technical or administative area for tour or two, before exiting the service to do so.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 2:12 AM

2017-07-28T02:12:30-04:00

What on earth was the purpose of a specialist to start with?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 4:45 AM

2017-07-28T04:45:54-04:00

Yes. Because spec is getting paid the same as corporal

Response by LCpl Dennis Harold made Jul 28 at 2017 5:29 AM

2017-07-28T05:29:29-04:00

What? You mean like they do in the Marine Corps??

Response by SrA Rodolfo Gonzalez made Jul 28 at 2017 5:38 AM

2017-07-28T05:38:16-04:00

My enlistment started before the E4 SRA Rank was created. Such a disheartening feeling to know my becoming a "Sargent" was at a longer distance held by politics.
The Specialist rank is also a farce, the way ranks were originated when the United States' armed forces were established is a matter of tradition and heritage being erased to tamper with history.

Response by SPC Ward Bond made Jul 28 at 2017 6:39 AM

2017-07-28T06:39:19-04:00

Not everyone wants to be a NCO

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 7:17 AM

2017-07-28T07:17:21-04:00

We need to keep the Specialist rank. We need to do better with the promotions to Sgt, because some soldiers with the NCO rank has no leadership capability. They just qualify and gets promoted, but lacks leadership qualities

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 7:29 AM

2017-07-28T07:29:39-04:00

Absolutely not, there are Soldiers that stay in long enough to get SPC but do not deserve to be a leader or junior NCO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 9:18 AM

2017-07-28T09:18:22-04:00

Bad idea, if they want to do away with any rank it should be corporal not specialist. Some newbies come in as a PFC and even SPC, so what are they going to do? Instead bring them in as a CPL which is a junior NCO with no experience? This is another one of the dumb, stupid, ridiculous and piece of shit military we are heading to. More dumb and stupid decisions and plans.

Response by PFC Ben Kendrick made Jul 28 at 2017 9:32 AM

2017-07-28T09:32:49-04:00

As a Marine Corps vet I never understood the differentiation. . .

Response by SPC Jeffrey Moore made Jul 28 at 2017 9:35 AM

2017-07-28T09:35:53-04:00

That's a hard decision, but also an easy one, a lot of MOS' were full so points were ridiculously high, so to get promoted to E-5 was almost impossible, I think that there should be more to the E-4, because you can only stay an E-4 for so many years before they cut you.

Response by SSgt Wesley Hunt made Jul 28 at 2017 9:39 AM

2017-07-28T09:39:34-04:00

I was reading a lot of the responses, The ARMY response worries me. I was stationed on an Army Base 3 times to go to my MOS Schools. I knew SPC-5 thru SPC-7. They were great at their jobs HOWEVER, to read they were NOT Leadership Material is BULLSHIT. As a Marine, Leadership Training starts on Day 1. One guy wrote we need Parts Changers, NO you need to TRAIN your Men to Learn the Job ahead of them and to be Ready to Accept that role if needed. If in the Army a Cpl is a Leader and a Spec. is a worker, then I submit your Cpls are Bigheaded Paper Pushers, and the TRUE Soldier is hands on. This Mentality of the Army needs to change, and this change needs to start in your Officer Corps. As I stated, I read some responses to this question and I think you (THE ARMY) needs to get rid of the Specialist Rank COMPLETELY and maybe then you will train your Soldiers to handle any and all tasks they face.
Wesley D. Hunt
SSgt DAV

Response by SPC Charles Batchelor made Jul 28 at 2017 10:33 AM

2017-07-28T10:33:51-04:00

Yes, half of them are doing or sitting in E5 positions already, especially in Commo.

Response by CPL Larry Bezemer made Jul 28 at 2017 10:45 AM

2017-07-28T10:45:49-04:00

No, in fact outside of combat MOS's, they should all be Specialist to E-7. But what do I know........

Response by SFC Randall Atchison made Jul 28 at 2017 10:54 AM

2017-07-28T10:54:17-04:00

I say bring back all the specialist ranks; SP/4 thru SP/9.

Response by MSG Daniel Mansfield made Jul 28 at 2017 12:29 PM

2017-07-28T12:29:38-04:00

I say do away with cpl rank. This in itself is a rare rank as I only seen about 10 in the past 23 years. I think if you have confidence in a soldier to lead just skip the cpl and send to the E5 board. Cpl rank only has the NCO responsibility but not the pay and they don't get NCOER that stay on record.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 12:39 PM

2017-07-28T12:39:09-04:00

No way! Expand it!

Response by SGT James Michaud made Jul 28 at 2017 1:42 PM

2017-07-28T13:42:32-04:00

As a SP5 veteran, during the "Cold War" it seems we have soldiers that do not understand rank structure. A Corporal is a Hard Strip/ Junior NCO. Having been a Department of the Army Civilian who works with the soldiers for the past 32 years I have seen a lot of changes in the Army and I can't say all of it has been good. The Corporal rank is for training a younger soldier on how to be a good NCO. They are learning how to lead other soldiers. Not all E4s are ready for that responsibility. Corporal ranks were also limited to mainly combat arms MOSs. Promoting someone to Corporal was an honor given to the best of the SP4s, as they were now above their peers who were still just SP4. Keep the SP4 rank and use the Corporal rank as it is intended. To reward and promote the best to a higher level of responsibility.

Response by MSG Bill Gerke made Jul 28 at 2017 2:12 PM

2017-07-28T14:12:52-04:00

Response by SFC Sheldon White made Jul 28 at 2017 2:51 PM

2017-07-28T14:51:01-04:00

I don't think the army should get rid of SPC rank, because the beginning of leadership starts at spc ranK that a way to weed out those who don't want to lead and those who are leaders

Response by SSgt James Binion made Jul 28 at 2017 3:03 PM

2017-07-28T15:03:59-04:00

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 4:25 PM

2017-07-28T16:25:52-04:00

I see two sides to this. One is that there are good 'worker bees' who will always be just that--worker bees. They will be the best at it. One person suggests that they are good at taking orders, and not giving them. Two: I happen to like the idea that the Marines have of training for future leadership beginning day one. E-2 is Private First Class. E-3 is Lance Corporal (I assume in preparation for E-4 Corporal, which begins Marine NCO corps) This is what they have to look forward to as they progress. I think the Army could consider the merit in this system.

Response by SSgt Rick Scharnberg made Jul 28 at 2017 4:33 PM

2017-07-28T16:33:53-04:00

Useless, they got rid of the other Specialist E-5 to E-9, so why keep the rank?

Response by SFC Richard Hodges made Jul 28 at 2017 5:20 PM

2017-07-28T17:20:54-04:00

SFC Army every other branch E 4 is an NCO/ PO E4 isn't a gift it must be earned. Absolutely SPC should got

Response by SGT Ron Conyer made Jul 28 at 2017 5:24 PM

2017-07-28T17:24:33-04:00

Yes

Response by Sgt Kenneth Cole made Jul 28 at 2017 5:37 PM

2017-07-28T17:37:50-04:00

The Marine Corps is not lacking in technical skill without having a specialist E-4. All corporals are equal in rank. Talent may be another question all together.

Response by SFC Dalene Wentz-Smith made Jul 28 at 2017 5:51 PM

2017-07-28T17:51:53-04:00

It actually might make the E4 mafia want to take on actual responsibility

Response by SSG Sean Hughes made Jul 28 at 2017 5:52 PM

2017-07-28T17:52:06-04:00

There has always been a need for a junior NCO position. Good for retention and development.

Response by Sgt Damon Steele made Jul 28 at 2017 5:53 PM

2017-07-28T17:53:19-04:00

Yes

Response by Sgt Damon Steele made Jul 28 at 2017 6:01 PM

2017-07-28T18:01:30-04:00

Yes, absolutely. Keeping one stagnant at a technical level basically treats the soldier second rate because someone thought they shouldn't lead. Instead they should be made NCO's and sent to leadership courses with their peers.

Response by LTC John Rutledge made Jul 28 at 2017 6:18 PM

2017-07-28T18:18:51-04:00

A specialty talent should be recognized and rewarded separately from the leadership aspect.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 6:22 PM

2017-07-28T18:22:17-04:00

I agree in away since in these day and times Specialist are performing at SGT levels and responsibilities.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 7:09 PM

2017-07-28T19:09:54-04:00

Yes -- always been a stupid rank. They got rid of the other specialist ranks but not the SP4- it needs to go too.

Response by 1SG Donald Elmore made Jul 28 at 2017 7:10 PM

2017-07-28T19:10:27-04:00

I spent almost 11 years as a Specialist before being promoted to SFC E-7.
When I want to be promoted to E-6 it took me two months to convince them to promote me to SP6
E-6. My OIC felt that I was not NCO potential and would not recommend me for promotion. It took me two months to convince everyone that I was going up for SP6 not SSG. I was then promoted. If the Specialist ranks had not been available at the time I would have lost out on a promotion I deserved. MY nest promotion was to SFC E-7. I fully agree the Specialist ranks should not be phased out and the SP5 thru SP7 should be brought back. A good friend of mine was an SP7 before being promoted to MSG E-8. I fully believe due to his MOS that if the SP8 E-8 had been around he would have made SP8 and not MSG. He never served in a leadership position, but due to his skill in his MOS he deserved the promotion.

Response by SrA Hartford Shegonee made Jul 28 at 2017 7:37 PM

2017-07-28T19:37:24-04:00

Yes.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 8:06 PM

2017-07-28T20:06:39-04:00

Corporal is a nco leadership position.

Response by LTC Roger Huner made Jul 28 at 2017 8:34 PM

2017-07-28T20:34:56-04:00

Bring back SP5-7 especially in Guard and Reserve. Pay them for experience in technical specialities

Response by SFC Glenn Dabbs made Jul 28 at 2017 8:52 PM

2017-07-28T20:52:23-04:00

Yes, not just make them an over paid private, give them the start of leadership training.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 9:00 PM

2017-07-28T21:00:11-04:00

Hell no !!! Why should they. Let's just cut out sgt. To and make everyone coming in ssg. Jack asses

Response by TSgt Efren Tomas made Jul 28 at 2017 9:01 PM

2017-07-28T21:01:31-04:00

No change needed as long as pay is the same. Only the 1stSgt. should be the rank E-8

Response by MSgt Ken Olinik made Jul 28 at 2017 9:50 PM

2017-07-28T21:50:02-04:00

The Air Force did this already. No difference in quality, but you didn't get extra responsibility you weren't getting paid for! Get rid of it or add more money to those who where it.

Response by CPO Dennis Nugent made Jul 28 at 2017 10:43 PM

2017-07-28T22:43:19-04:00

Response by COL Herbert Holeman made Jul 28 at 2017 10:53 PM

2017-07-28T22:53:10-04:00

No specialist series is appropriate for recognizing achievement in certain skills not requiring leadership.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Jul 28 at 2017 11:15 PM

2017-07-28T23:15:40-04:00

A little different perspective, as a Coastie, we did not have the dual tier structure, nor does the Navy. Of course we also have a lot less rates, and most of our senior enlisted are more generalist. For example, as an ET-1 (E-6) I was XPO of a 10 man electronics support facility responsible for all things electronic, telephonic, and TTY in a group covering about 50 miles end to end, every piece of electronic equipment from small boats, to shore based units in that area was maintained by us. left there to assume the Leading Petty Officer position for Electronics on a 210' cutter. Same deal, if it was electronic and on the ship it was mine, Bridge, Radio, CIC, and auxiliary systems like phone and CATV. I was also expected to stand MAA and OOD duty, and was a member of the navigation team for special sea detail, taking bearings on shore features to determine our position. In both I also had to deal with the administrative stuff etc.

So I guess I don't get the whole specialist dual structure thing. It just seems needlessly complicated.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 11:22 PM

2017-07-28T23:22:04-04:00

What we need is leaders (officers who know how to plan .

Response by SSG Robert Zierler made Jul 28 at 2017 11:30 PM

2017-07-28T23:30:06-04:00

I do, a Specialist 4 and an E4 are seemingly at the same level, except the E4 has more command authority, just because someone has what the Army deems is a specialized MOS, shouldn't be the basis for that designation. It's confusing and should be phased out.

Response by SrA Kenneth Staup made Jul 28 at 2017 11:33 PM

2017-07-28T23:33:03-04:00

I agree SGM just because a SPC is promotable doesn't mean that they are readyfor the responsibility that comes with it.

Response by SPC Taylor Hohstadt made Jul 28 at 2017 11:34 PM

2017-07-28T23:34:54-04:00

I think if anything they should ditch col. It's the same rank as spc but with the responsibility of a sgt.

Response by SGT M Cory Myers made Jul 28 at 2017 11:40 PM

2017-07-28T23:40:51-04:00

Nope, just because you've got time in grade doesn't mean you should be in command chain. I.e. a Corporal is a leader. Been both in fact went from a combat MOS that had Corporal and went into the reserves and that MOS didn't have Leadership below the SGT level.

Response by CPT Robert Boshears made Jul 28 at 2017 11:50 PM

2017-07-28T23:50:41-04:00

Not completely. Corporals are a leadership position, a Specialist... even the same pay grade is more in specialized fields. Again, there are always a SPC that is SF or Ranger, please don't forget doc. It was a mess in Vietnam trying to not only to figure out Air Force ranks, but a Spec 7 was an odd one. Forget all the uniform changes, stick with one and don't mess with the ranks. It has worked for the Marines a long time, let it work for the Army.

Response by GySgt James Casey made Jul 29 at 2017 12:08 AM

2017-07-29T00:08:06-04:00

Wow after reading these comments I'm glad I'm a Marine! People are saying its perfectly OK to advance in rank without leadership skills WTF! So your saying an E7 specialist should never lead an E4 corporal great so while what you call warfighters are off fighting and the rear echolan gets over ran the leaderless parts guys as one of you put it will just run around waiting for a leader as they get slaughtered no wonder you guys put so much money into advertising college tuition and an army of one and all that shot it's like joining the biscuits and going to camp evidently from these comments

Response by SGT Chris Hussong made Jul 29 at 2017 1:27 AM

2017-07-29T01:27:55-04:00

No. Not all people are willing or want to lead. Or take responsibly...

Response by CPO Robert Reinig made Jul 29 at 2017 1:35 AM

2017-07-29T01:35:27-04:00

I honestly can't say, having spent 20 years in the Navy. But based on some of the other remarks, I would say keep it.

Response by COL Brigham Shuler made Jul 29 at 2017 2:10 AM

2017-07-29T02:10:35-04:00

Yes.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Jul 29 at 2017 2:18 AM

2017-07-29T02:18:01-04:00

Without reading everyone else's posts, I'd have to say not only keep it, but bring back SP5 and SP6 - a lot of technical MOS's lose their experienced techs because of attrition...lots of them want to stay in, but have no desire to take on a leadership role. We're pushing people that have no ability or desire to lead into being leaders just for the sake of being able to hit the 20-year mark, and losing a lot of knowledge and experience as a result.

Response by SGM Ronald Cheatom made Jul 29 at 2017 4:39 AM

2017-07-29T04:39:46-04:00

I always felt the worst decision made by the Army, was getting rid of the higher specialist ranks, and turning them into hard stripe NCOs. Now you had a group of people, who had no leadership experience, or daily interaction with leading troops, being assigned as squad leaders, section chiefs, platoon sergeants. Not every soldier is cut out to be a leader. Bring these ranks back, and let their ability decide what tract they follow.

Response by SGT Kevin Dorsey made Jul 29 at 2017 6:40 AM

2017-07-29T06:40:25-04:00

Just as Officers have command time balanced with admin or tech time at each grade, NCO's could have the same within the NCO ranks.

Response by 1SG Walter Juskiewicz made Jul 29 at 2017 6:52 AM

2017-07-29T06:52:04-04:00

They have reduced it. As a medic I was an sp5 and went hard stripe at e6. The specialist ranks allowed skilled technicians to get raises and promotions that helped retain needed skills. I knew a sp7, he was a farrier. Who does that now civilians contractors? Way worse ...........

Response by CPT Tony Hawkins made Jul 29 at 2017 8:06 AM

2017-07-29T08:06:13-04:00

I served in the Army during a period where multiple Specialist ranks existed. We felt as though soldiers with Specialist ranks, based primarily upon their MOS, were discriminated upon when it came to equal promotion consideration, e.g., when competing for promotion to SSG. My opinion is, discontinue the Army Specialist rank system.

Response by SSG John Keller made Jul 29 at 2017 8:20 AM

2017-07-29T08:20:58-04:00

No, certain mos should have this rank

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 8:21 AM

2017-07-29T08:21:20-04:00

Not so, plenty of guys get promoted directly to 1SG positions without ever being MSG's.

Response by SP5 Joseph Rayborn made Jul 29 at 2017 8:27 AM

2017-07-29T08:27:28-04:00

Keep it, I was a SP5 in Finance Corp and had been in data processing prior to Army. All personnel should be combat ready, hence basic training where all are 11B qualified before moving on to their AIT choice. I was a temporary Sgt, E5, while in Vietnam Nam, as I was in charge of a team of Specialist in the Finance Corp.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 9:01 AM

2017-07-29T09:01:51-04:00

Yes, my opinion is that there should be a corporal rank just like the USMC has done it with promotion packets needed to become an E4 and to be present in front of the promotion board etc etc. in addition, I would also like to add that Reservists, and National Guardsmen that do serve not on active duty status shall have a different time in grade/time in service prerequisite time compared to active duty Soldiers. My reason to this: full time Soldiers are evaluated by ncos on a daily basis every day while on active duty. Non active duty pv1, pv2, Pfc, are not evaluated or checked on every day and are seen maybe 4 days a month? There needs to be a longer time in grade/ service for them so they get to practice their Soldier skills and be ready to become an NCO. Please comment. Thank you.

Response by SPC Clarence Davister made Jul 29 at 2017 9:40 AM

2017-07-29T09:40:52-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 10:14 AM

2017-07-29T10:14:10-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC B Clothier made Jul 29 at 2017 10:24 AM

2017-07-29T10:24:19-04:00

Nope

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 10:36 AM

2017-07-29T10:36:46-04:00

Leave it, however make it so once they become promotable then the become a DA Corporal to which a 1SG cannot fire.

Response by SPC Nathan Michaels made Jul 29 at 2017 10:48 AM

2017-07-29T10:48:55-04:00

Response by 1SG James Wolf made Jul 29 at 2017 11:08 AM

2017-07-29T11:08:30-04:00

As a retired Army Armor 1SG. Not all soldiers are leadership material. Some soldiers are very happy doing the technical jobs and are very good at it. Keep the spec. rank. If the soldiers shows leadership quality then sure make him an NCO and send him to the NCO courses to learn how to be a leader.

Response by LCDR Fred Street made Jul 29 at 2017 11:09 AM

2017-07-29T11:09:47-04:00

Yes. They previously eliminated all specs. Except one pay grade.

Response by PO2 Daniel Kislan made Jul 29 at 2017 11:14 AM

2017-07-29T11:14:18-04:00

YES

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 11:16 AM

2017-07-29T11:16:58-04:00

I don't think they need to necessarily get rid of the SPC rank, but in an attempt to distinguish a promotable soldier from their peers and show them we are holding them to a higher standard, promotable SPCs could hold Corporal. If they don't hold up the standard or make the effort to develop into the SGT they are wanting to be, then take it from them along with their promotable status. Just a thought.

Response by CPT Sean Cohen made Jul 29 at 2017 11:27 AM

2017-07-29T11:27:13-04:00

I fully advocate bringing back the full spectrum of the Specialist ranks. I know that many have echoed this opinion and for good reason. The Army has many many good soldiers that are really good at doing their jobs, mechanics, cooks, personnel, supply, etc. that have no desire or ability to lead other soldiers. That is just a fact. I have been in and out of uniform, working for the Army for almost 20 years and in my career I can absolutely say that we have put soldiers in positions to fail. They don't have the skill sets, desire, maturity required to be effective or efficient leaders. It does them a great disservice. Many end up separating from the service because of it when they were completely capable, effective soldiers doing their jobs.

Response by CW5 Michael Vidrick made Jul 29 at 2017 11:44 AM

2017-07-29T11:44:34-04:00

No, technical ranks are critical to maintaining the more complex equipment.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 12:21 PM

2017-07-29T12:21:51-04:00

Get rid of one or the other, don't need both

Response by Col Joseph Weber made Jul 29 at 2017 12:38 PM

2017-07-29T12:38:17-04:00

Corporal makes more sense.

Response by SFC William Goble made Jul 29 at 2017 12:41 PM

2017-07-29T12:41:35-04:00

No, should be explained SPC 4-7 should be the rule. I've known a lot of good NCO's in there fields, just not great leaders. Some had been QMPed and really shouldn't have been. They where very knowledgeable and needed.

Response by SSgt Julius Bob Midgett made Jul 29 at 2017 12:57 PM

2017-07-29T12:57:49-04:00

The idea that a person could attain rank without any leadership qualities is a foreign concept to me. Being a
Marine all rank is relevant in the corps you start learning how to develop leadership qualities at the very beginning of your enlistment and you must be recommended for retention each and every time you are promoted or seak reenlistmen

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 1:04 PM

2017-07-29T13:04:21-04:00

Dump corporal, if you're ready to be a corporal you're ready to be a sergeant, give them real stripes, responsibilities, and the pay that goes with it

Response by Cpl Zack Willey made Jul 29 at 2017 1:20 PM

2017-07-29T13:20:42-04:00

No, I'd say get rid of PV1. Just make it PVT, PFC, etc

Response by SP6 Tommy Dennis made Jul 29 at 2017 1:46 PM

2017-07-29T13:46:27-04:00

Yes

Response by Sgt Sean Royal made Jul 29 at 2017 2:41 PM

2017-07-29T14:41:20-04:00

They need to do the same with the ranking system for zeroes!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 3:04 PM

2017-07-29T15:04:08-04:00

Absolutely not, bring back spc 1-5,way to many E4's making SGT without leadership skills.

Response by SPC Joseph Fisher made Jul 29 at 2017 3:13 PM

2017-07-29T15:13:04-04:00

I was a Specialist from day one because I was already an expert in my field of work "Information Technology". If I were given a chance to become and NCO I would have jumped all over it. With that said there were a lot of Specialist that had no leadership ability and forcing them to become an NCO would have been disastrous. So I would be in favor of additional SP5-7.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 3:32 PM

2017-07-29T15:32:22-04:00

If they aren't ready to lead they shouldn't be an e4 or higher. Don't lower the standards cause there aren't the members that can meet it . Help them reach that level . Or is that too much to ask of your leaders to lead and mold . Not accommodate and retain .

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 3:51 PM

2017-07-29T15:51:21-04:00

No they should not get rid of Specialist-4 rank and further more they should bring back the Spc5 and 6 ranks. Even at E8 and E9 there are more than 1 rank based on your position. If you are Staff you get MSG and GSM that was the initial reason for the Specialists ranks. The only rank (I believe) that has not had a alternate rank is E7. There are several E5s in the Army today that have no clue on how to lead Soldiers or what it is to be an NCO. There is also many people that can join the Army as an E4; doing away with Specialist rank would bring them from the street to an NCO and that should NEVER, EVER be allowed!

Response by SGT Alexander Hess made Jul 29 at 2017 5:32 PM

2017-07-29T17:32:03-04:00

When I was originally in Supply, Spec 4 was the appropriate rank given the job. My take is the Corporal rank is a lower level combat leadership role.

Response by CPL Timothy Wojciechowski made Jul 29 at 2017 5:50 PM

2017-07-29T17:50:36-04:00

Yes

Response by SSG Rob Young made Jul 29 at 2017 6:25 PM

2017-07-29T18:25:49-04:00

If you do away with SPC rank then how and who would make shit get done i had a 1SGT say to the whole company that he needed something done and done now he said where are my SPC at and said to us to make sure this is done and done now the SPC make sure shit gets done in the army

Response by CPT Sean Theiss made Jul 29 at 2017 6:32 PM

2017-07-29T18:32:36-04:00

Bring back SP5-SP7. There are a lot of NCOs from E5-E7 who have no leadership ability. That is a disservice to them and the troops they lead.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 6:33 PM

2017-07-29T18:33:06-04:00

Definitely not. CPL and SPC are not the same. You can automatically become a SPC threw time in service. But to be promoted to CPL you have shown qualities and professionalism enough to become a non-commissioned officer. You can't and should not promote someone to that rank because they have reached a certain time in the army. It is a rank earned not given.

Response by Cpl Rock DeAugustine made Jul 29 at 2017 6:41 PM

2017-07-29T18:41:09-04:00

If an enlistee doesn't want to lead they will stay e-3 or below anyway. It tends to self-sort. Now officers and priviledge are another story.

Response by Sgt Michael Raymond made Jul 29 at 2017 6:52 PM

2017-07-29T18:52:22-04:00

Yes get rid of the specialist rank because it's a time in grade/service rank anyway. Have the PFC earn the title of NCO Corporal. This will provide better leaders for the Army. That's why the Marines, I believe have a stronger "brotherhood" in there NCO corps.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 7:29 PM

2017-07-29T19:29:10-04:00

Nope! Bring back the SPC ranks as well. Plus, get rid of the automatic promotion system. They are forcing people who have no business being a leader, into leadership positions. Not to be a prick, but some people just need RCP in their lives.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-07-29T19:40:56-04:00

Yes I think it's building weak leadership by not allowing soldiers to take on more responsibility also it doesn't show the difference in tenure with soldiers if you allow them to stay in a junior position for so long in other words to much gray area and not enough black and white

Response by Maj Howard Bell made Jul 29 at 2017 8:48 PM

2017-07-29T20:48:17-04:00

I don't care, I was in the Air Force :)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 9:12 PM

2017-07-29T21:12:46-04:00

I think we should keep Specialist and put more emphasis on promoting to Corporal before going to Sergeant. This would help build the young NCO up so they aren't going in blind once they get their E5. Yes I am aware everyone should know the next rank or 2 up. But I feel some people are over qualified as a Specialist but not quite ready for Sergeant

Response by PFC Bruce Wilbert made Jul 29 at 2017 9:31 PM

2017-07-29T21:31:15-04:00

Not now, things are becoming more specialized ever day!

Response by SGT Larry Shomper made Jul 29 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-07-29T22:08:23-04:00

A spc dose not got the respect. You are just spc-4 you can't tell me what to do. You are not a NCO.

Response by SGT Slim Got-it made Jul 29 at 2017 10:09 PM

2017-07-29T22:09:59-04:00

Well corporals were given the rank if they were fulfilling the responsibility of the next rank i.e. SGT but had not yet met time in grade/service or had not made points. The rank of SPC should remain for Soldiers that have no position to fill of the next rank, but still deserve preparation for the next rank i.e. In charge of privates. So ultimately no, the rank of SPC should not be done away with.

Response by 1SG Stephen Holder made Jul 29 at 2017 10:22 PM

2017-07-29T22:22:49-04:00

I think we should bring back the entire Specialist rank structure. Not everyone is a leader.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 11:04 PM

2017-07-29T23:04:48-04:00

Yes, absolutely. When I was in, specialist went to E 9, now only E4, with no detrimental effect

Response by SFC Leonard Lovell made Jul 29 at 2017 11:34 PM

2017-07-29T23:34:29-04:00

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 12:16 AM

2017-07-30T00:16:54-04:00

I agree with a few responders. Don't get rid of SPC 4 rank, but add SPC 5-6. Adjust pay scale of NCO rank to incentivize the leadership route. Do time in

Response by SGT Lionel Gonzalez made Jul 30 at 2017 3:57 AM

2017-07-30T03:57:15-04:00

No, there needs to be brought back are the Spec 4 all the way up to Spec 8 ranks if need be. I've seen some great soldiers with good administrative skills and whatnot, but they were not cut out to be NCOs. This especially holds true to the combat MOSs, do you want to follow a proven leader or someone who doesn't know how to lead? If the soldier is competent enough or if they wish to leave the Specialist series, then there should be a means to lateral over to their respective E grades as long as they have completed the appropriate NCOES schools.

Response by Cpl Allan Raynor Jr. made Jul 30 at 2017 5:54 AM

2017-07-30T05:54:37-04:00

USMC does it that way. We do it to make our Marines grow faster into leadership roles. Yes as a Marine, the Army should get rid of the Specialist rank. The Army should take notes on how we utilities small unit leadership. It will also push up the ranks to higher responsibility. In the Marines a CPL is a team leader while a Sergeant is a Squad Leader. A SSGT is a platoon sgt and our gunnys are platoon sgts of weapons and sniper platoons or run the company for the logistical side.

Response by SGM Daniel Murphy made Jul 30 at 2017 6:35 AM

2017-07-30T06:35:17-04:00

No each rank is a sign of different levels of responsibility. Corporal is a leadership position and is special in its own right. In the infantry a corporal is given to Specialist that are ready to be promoted and need separate themselves from their peers.
Ret. CSM.Daniel Murphy

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 7:46 AM

2017-07-30T07:46:38-04:00

No jobs are necessary

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Jul 30 at 2017 8:18 AM

2017-07-30T08:18:47-04:00

No, not all Soldiers are cut out to be leaders but make great technical experts in their job. The Army needs to bring back the rest of the Specialist ranks.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 8:43 AM

2017-07-30T08:43:19-04:00

Nah, don't get rid of SPC. The rank that gets the worst rap is CPL. I've seen many people promoted to CPL and they all hate it. Useless title... except to save a career SPC from being kicked out.

Response by SFC Philip Grey made Jul 30 at 2017 8:55 AM

2017-07-30T08:55:33-04:00

No way. As a platoon sergeant, my E4 mafiosi were able to get things done with some of my problem children that junior NCOs couldn't do. Especially valuable in the field.

Response by Ladon Pearson made Jul 30 at 2017 8:56 AM

2017-07-30T08:56:26-04:00

Not sure if having so many corp.is a good idea.When I was in Army you almost never saw a corporal ,but the ones you did see had a lot more resposability then the spec.4

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 9:31 AM

2017-07-30T09:31:13-04:00

I was a spc 5 and my mos is not listed. (63H) Seems like the SPC should remain for certian fields.

Response by SP5 David Noorlander made Jul 30 at 2017 10:04 AM

2017-07-30T10:04:53-04:00

I was a spc4 that was promoted to corporal when put in charge of a fire team. Everyone is not NCO material add back spc5..7

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jul 30 at 2017 10:42 AM

2017-07-30T10:42:46-04:00

Personally - I think that the distinction between "worker" and "leader" that the SPC/CPL distinction provides is an artificial one. Everybody is both a leader and a worker, at some point every day. Declaring somebody "not a leader" sort of creates a "free pass" when non-leader behavior occurs.

Response by SPC David Stowe made Jul 30 at 2017 10:43 AM

2017-07-30T10:43:59-04:00

This is asinine. We need to bring back Spc 5 and 6. You need soldiers in technical MOS's that can focus on being subject matter experts in the job without being pulled away for every crap junior nco detail that they would surely get stuck with.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 11:25 AM

2017-07-30T11:25:30-04:00

No, I don't think the army should do away with the Specialist rank, but they should make better use of Corporal rank. Just like the Air Force ought to bring back an NCO rank at the E-4 level.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 11:36 AM

2017-07-30T11:36:19-04:00

No, they need SPC rank as a mid point between becoming the technical expert of their MOS and the demands of eventually using those skills to organize and employ a team. The CPL rank has found itself unused in many units, and it really isn't needed in most units.

Response by SFC Mark Sr made Jul 30 at 2017 11:47 AM

2017-07-30T11:47:37-04:00

No. There is a place for a non supervising soldier at this level. And some soldiers are not ready to be a leader yet.

Response by 1SG Donald Elmore made Jul 30 at 2017 12:34 PM

2017-07-30T12:34:22-04:00

The Specialist rank should not be done away with. I recommend bring back the Specialist ranks E-5 through E-8. Too many soldiers are passed over for promotion because there is no slot available. If a soldier is deserving of a promotion due to their skills in their MOS, they can be promoted without the need for a slot. If promotions are only to the NCO ranks, then there will be too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

Response by SP5 Joey Baker made Jul 30 at 2017 1:16 PM

2017-07-30T13:16:29-04:00

They should go back to old army and make specialist almost like a warrant officer rank structure

Response by SSG Scott Wilson made Jul 30 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-07-30T13:45:48-04:00

Response by 1LT Herbert Smith made Jul 30 at 2017 2:01 PM

2017-07-30T14:01:32-04:00

Yes

Response by SGM Albert Brodeur made Jul 30 at 2017 2:14 PM

2017-07-30T14:14:58-04:00

No - in fact, I would recommend the Army bring specialist 5 and 6. There are many MOS that allowing promotions for proficiency would be advantages without the leadership component.

Response by SSG David Jared made Jul 30 at 2017 2:20 PM

2017-07-30T14:20:45-04:00

Yes. It's a grey-area rank and unnecessary.

Response by GySgt John Epstein made Jul 30 at 2017 2:31 PM

2017-07-30T14:31:24-04:00

Add increase of tig and tis to review process as well as merit incentives.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-07-30T14:43:27-04:00

I'd rather get rid of MSG or SGM than SPC

Response by SPC Kaspars Jurjans made Jul 30 at 2017 2:46 PM

2017-07-30T14:46:40-04:00

I don't get it. Why is e4 spc and copral ?

Response by SSG William Haldeman made Jul 30 at 2017 2:49 PM

2017-07-30T14:49:31-04:00

no but Spec4 /cpl should be equal spec7/SFC same

Response by PO3 Ronnie Honeycutt made Jul 30 at 2017 2:50 PM

2017-07-30T14:50:43-04:00

YES ONLY IF YOU ARE A SPECIALIST IN A CERTAIN FIELD SHOULD YOU BE A SPEC.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 3:14 PM

2017-07-30T15:14:47-04:00

As a corporal, they can get effectively evaluated on their performance. Effective being the operative word here; meaning they will be more accountable for not only their actions but the actions of their subordinates as well.

Response by SA Theodore Green made Jul 30 at 2017 3:29 PM

2017-07-30T15:29:24-04:00

It just promotes the want to advance faster and would help speed up a soldiers time to advance in rank and pay.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 3:32 PM

2017-07-30T15:32:02-04:00

Yes phase it out! If you are saying it's because of performance and that's why you want the SPC ranks well then do the proper counseling and don't promote Soldiers who cannot perform to the required standard! SPC is just a glorified private- CPL is an NCO ....big difference here! Bottom line if you want rank then you need to be willing to work for it! Not accommodate SOLDIERS who are sub standard!

Response by Sgt John Fleak made Jul 30 at 2017 3:55 PM

2017-07-30T15:55:40-04:00

No.

Response by SFC Dean Reinke made Jul 30 at 2017 4:06 PM

2017-07-30T16:06:10-04:00

No, that would be a huge mistake. There are to many soldiers wearing strips that don't understand the role of an NCO.

Response by SSgt Mark Paige made Jul 30 at 2017 4:06 PM

2017-07-30T16:06:20-04:00

They should change the PVt2 to PFC. And go with Pvt...E1 Pfc.....E2 ....Spc....E3....Cpl ....E4.
Like the Marine Corps Pvt....E1....Pfc...E2....Lcpl....E3....Cpl...E4

Response by SPC Joshua Mazingo made Jul 30 at 2017 4:17 PM

2017-07-30T16:17:17-04:00

What do we think about E-8 Master Sergeant and First Sergeant?

Response by PO3 Walter Brown made Jul 30 at 2017 4:21 PM

2017-07-30T16:21:28-04:00

The Army did this to get wonks on board who could never be leaders. A good idea, not everyone is cut out for leadership.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 4:27 PM

2017-07-30T16:27:49-04:00

Absolutely not. Thats the dumbest shit ive heard in a while. Almost as dumb as still having airborne

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 4:36 PM

2017-07-30T16:36:01-04:00

The Army Absolutely needs the Specialist Ranks and should bring back Spec.5- Spec.9.

Response by SPC Rob Baughman made Jul 30 at 2017 4:57 PM

2017-07-30T16:57:13-04:00

Yes. Just because one is a cook or a mechanic doesnt mean they arent a leader in their given field. I was old school and was taught that you go by E grades when looking at a superior, not if they have a shield or chevron. If you have 5 cooks in the mess hall and the highest ranking one is a spec 6, then they are in charge. (assuming that rank exists) Most of my friends in the infantry were corporals whether they were in a leadership role or not. I think the whole specialist thing makes everything more confusing. One can be a staff sergeant and still not be in a leadership role. Why do we need to differentiate the ranks to any higher degree?

Response by SGT Ryan Carlson made Jul 30 at 2017 5:25 PM

2017-07-30T17:25:06-04:00

Get rid if the Cpl rank instead. What is the incentive for a soldier to have the responsibility of an E-5 without the respect and compensation to go with it. If a Cpl can be entrusted with the duties of a squad leader he/she should be promoted accordingly.

Response by Sgt Don Schroeder made Jul 30 at 2017 5:44 PM

2017-07-30T17:44:02-04:00

I was Air Force, 1966-71 and we needed non-NCO ranks for E-4s and up. Everyone was a Sergeant. I always have thought that the Army's Specialist ranks were a good thing. I also thought that all branches of the military should have rank markings that would be understood by all members of all services. Army people I worked with on occasion had no idea what my rank was.

Response by Col Susan Murray made Jul 30 at 2017 5:58 PM

2017-07-30T17:58:21-04:00

I'm a Marine. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Response by TSgt Rocky Hall made Jul 30 at 2017 6:09 PM

2017-07-30T18:09:38-04:00

Response by SPC Brian Peals made Jul 30 at 2017 6:10 PM

2017-07-30T18:10:28-04:00

Yes

Response by SP5 Robert Mueck made Jul 30 at 2017 6:26 PM

2017-07-30T18:26:04-04:00

Yes, get rid of it. We got rid of the other Specialist ranks. Why are we still hanging on to this one?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 6:36 PM

2017-07-30T18:36:17-04:00

I'm in the Marines and it works well for us. If they're a turd then don't promote them to E-4. There is no reason why a specialist should get paid the same as a Cpl when the CPL tales on more responsibility

Response by James Sims made Jul 30 at 2017 6:41 PM

2017-07-30T18:41:51-04:00

I think they need to do what's best for there soilders

Response by SGT David Mullins made Jul 30 at 2017 7:23 PM

2017-07-30T19:23:23-04:00

Specialists are smarter

Signed: Specialist 5

Response by 1SG Tommy Griffin made Jul 30 at 2017 7:34 PM

2017-07-30T19:34:20-04:00

No, we should actually bring back the specialist side. Not everyone is a leader. Most are just good at this job, and this is what is needed.

Response by MSG Pedro Valentin made Jul 30 at 2017 7:48 PM

2017-07-30T19:48:33-04:00

I thought they did away with it...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 8:04 PM

2017-07-30T20:04:47-04:00

The Marine Corps does okay without a Specialist rank. If you want to climb the ladder without being in charge of people, go the MSGT route.

Response by SPC Eddie Pearl Sr. made Jul 30 at 2017 8:13 PM

2017-07-30T20:13:30-04:00

Yes it makes no sense an E4 is a E4

Response by SGT Travis Miller made Jul 30 at 2017 8:17 PM

2017-07-30T20:17:29-04:00

If you allow a PFC to become a NCO without giving them time to develop, it could be disastrous. The SPC rank is intended to give an E-4 time to mature and gain the trust of his/hers subordinates so that when they do put on those stripes, they will be equipped with the knowledge and experience needed to be a NCO in the Army. #ncocreed

Response by Max Owens made Jul 30 at 2017 8:50 PM

2017-07-30T20:50:00-04:00

Do away with specialist. Anyone works hard enough should be a corporal

Response by SPC Kenneth Harris made Jul 30 at 2017 9:17 PM

2017-07-30T21:17:15-04:00

I always thought that it was a very necessary rank and I still see a need for it. It was always clear to me in the grunts that a CPL was an NCO, someone who had a little something going on that would later translate into becoming a good leader. That's not to say that anyone who's a SPC isn't or can't be a good leader. I see no need to get rid of the "Full Bird Private" rank, haha!

Response by CPO Leonard Hacker made Jul 30 at 2017 9:19 PM

2017-07-30T21:19:12-04:00

yes

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 9:24 PM

2017-07-30T21:24:10-04:00

From what a retiree told me you could be busted from SFC to SP7. The Spec 7 was not a leadership rank but I gather he got the same pay but was "in the dog house" in a visible way. I think the Spec 7 could generally redeem himself. I do think in our modern army where SP4 rank existed up until the late 80s early 90s it was more or less automatic. In the MI linguist field many of the soldiers I met had already completed a somewhat useless or irrelevant bachelors degree. Awarding the SPC rank prior to even AIT tech school completion seemed somewhat like false advertising.
The real problem is the individual behind the "shield of sham" is like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates. You never know what calibre of mature or immature ill-suited person you will be receiving. And mature adults I've seen in uniform (the PV4s or PVT 4th Class as one described himself) generally disliked being bossed around by someone younger with less non army real world experiences. If anything start identifying and offering those with leader potential the chance to attend WLC sooner without the mandatory time in grade.

Response by SSG Joseph Pang made Jul 30 at 2017 9:24 PM

2017-07-30T21:24:57-04:00

no, a specialist should be recognized for his job.

Response by LTC Darrell Angleton made Jul 30 at 2017 9:38 PM

2017-07-30T21:38:55-04:00

I would like to see more lateral transfers of SPC to CPL when those SPC are in E-5 positions like team leader. When I was a company commander (boy, was that a long time ago), I did lateral transfers of all SPC in leadership positions. You do the job, you wear the stripe.

Response by SrA Bob Cook made Jul 30 at 2017 9:42 PM

2017-07-30T21:42:56-04:00

No these are ranks that help those who can move up

Response by SSG Johnny Mack Hughes made Jul 30 at 2017 9:56 PM

2017-07-30T21:56:51-04:00

Response by SSG Tim Caswell made Jul 30 at 2017 10:09 PM

2017-07-30T22:09:01-04:00

I think we need SP 4 as a junior grade they are in a position to start taking on responsibilities but not everyone is ready to be a NCO at a young age.

Response by CPL Harry Mcintyre made Jul 30 at 2017 10:15 PM

2017-07-30T22:15:42-04:00

It's a good idea

Response by SGT Richard Steffan made Jul 30 at 2017 10:38 PM

2017-07-30T22:38:16-04:00

When I'n Ft. Bragg 1986-1989, I had more respect as a Spec 4 than I did as a E5, Sgt.

Response by SFC Jay Benton made Jul 30 at 2017 11:14 PM

2017-07-30T23:14:42-04:00

No, too many E-4's. turning them into corporals would cause a degration of the NCO ranks.

Response by SP6 Jim Young made Jul 30 at 2017 11:16 PM

2017-07-30T23:16:39-04:00

I think there needs to be a step in between PFC and CPL.. I like the 'Lite Corporal' in between. It fits with the basic 'Sgt' (Buck Sgt) being a true first in the NCO line and the Corporals being in the 'trainee' position.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 11:24 PM

2017-07-30T23:24:06-04:00

I think the ranks are fine just how they are. I think of my specialists as the next generation of leaders. I train them with that exact idea in mind. They are not NCOs but they are the next generation of NCOs. In order to achieve their place in my corps I want them to exhibit both technical and tactical prowess. Too often the NCO ranks are filled with soldiers that don't know how to lead or don't know how to perform their MOS proficiencies or both. The NCO corps should only accept excellence into its ranks. Leadership is a learned skill. Those that want to advance need to rise to the occasion or seek other employment.

Response by SSgt Scott Rose made Jul 30 at 2017 11:29 PM

2017-07-30T23:29:04-04:00

Only Army personnel should address this question.

Response by LTC Richard Arrington made Jul 30 at 2017 11:35 PM

2017-07-30T23:35:29-04:00

Both are E-4's....
Corporal better than Specialist...
Like the 2 stripes!

Response by SP6 Jim Young made Jul 30 at 2017 11:35 PM

2017-07-30T23:35:47-04:00

Years ago I was in the 3d Armored Division...HQ Company, MMC. Worked in DAO. Rank was SP4/E4. Position I held was Division Ammunition Inspector, also sat on the Division IG Team... answering to my Major and the Division Commander as well as the V Corp Commander. MOS was 55X40...E-8 rank on my uniform. It was an awesome duty. Those Brigade Commanders and other Generals at Corp didn't like me much... but they did show me the utmost respect. Point being this...if we make it possible for E1's to get from there to CSM no matter the duty or MOS, simply based on merit, accomplishments and assignment it would ensure a higher quality, more devoted warrior and better leader.

Response by SPC Chris Bain made Jul 30 at 2017 11:38 PM

2017-07-30T23:38:21-04:00

I was always good at my MOS but never really cut out for leadership. If the higher SPC ranks were available I would have been more motivated to stay in.

Response by SP6 Jim Young made Jul 30 at 2017 11:51 PM

2017-07-30T23:51:50-04:00

I think the most important point may be getting over looked here. That is...every soldier, sailor, marine or airman should be able, when and if the need arises, to step up and actually LEAD when those in leadership positions are taken out by enemy action or by other means. 8 or 9 Privates, 5 Specs, 3 NCO'S and some metal. Under fire, NCO's taken out...... "... who's on first?" Not the metal... for sure.

Response by SP5 John Myers made Jul 30 at 2017 11:52 PM

2017-07-30T23:52:57-04:00

Demo specialist

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 4:14 AM

2017-07-31T04:14:31-04:00

If anything treat it as the Marines do with Lance Corporeal.

Response by MSG Timothy England made Jul 31 at 2017 5:50 AM

2017-07-31T05:50:37-04:00

No. Being an E-4 identifies an Individual as having the potential for leadership development without the burden of having it officially thrust upon them full bore. Having been an E-4, I was assigned an E-5 slot after a time and proved myself worthy of the promotion AFTER BEING SELECTED TO ATTEND and passing PNCOC.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 7:11 AM

2017-07-31T07:11:15-04:00

I believe that we should use CPL rank for promotable Specialist. We all know or should know there is a difference between a Specialist who just got promoted and one who is trying to make SGT and one who has shown the potential to be an NCO. If the unit believes that a Soldier is ready to be an NCO and they satisfy the requirements except for the points I believe that is a CPL.

Response by SGT Bill Beaven made Jul 31 at 2017 8:23 AM

2017-07-31T08:23:23-04:00

Keep the specialty grades, much needed

Response by SPC John Ruback made Jul 31 at 2017 9:35 AM

2017-07-31T09:35:32-04:00

Specs serve a purpose. Not command. But do we really need a SFC who is just a computer nerd?

Response by SrA John Warren made Jul 31 at 2017 9:58 AM

2017-07-31T09:58:11-04:00

no.... maybe they should follow the Air Force's example and eliminate E-4 CPL. In 1991, the air force eliminated E-4 SGT under the premise that there were too many NCOs in the Air Force at the time. I was scheduled to make SGT in Jul 91, but the cut off was made May 91. After that date, airmen had to be promoted to E-5 SSGT in order to receive NCO status.

Response by SP5 Chè Gopal made Jul 31 at 2017 10:17 AM

2017-07-31T10:17:12-04:00

Absofuckinlutely

Response by SGT Jh Pompeo made Jul 31 at 2017 10:41 AM

2017-07-31T10:41:26-04:00

No. Expand to include Sp5-SP7. This would allow the army to retain and offer increased pay to those with technical skills that are in demand. The Specialist ranks could also be a stepping stone to MSG and/or Warrant Officer rank. This would allow those with skills to keep using those skills directly and those that want to pursue more leadership -centric roles to go the CPL-1SG/CSM track.

Response by SPC Jerry Beaver made Jul 31 at 2017 11:01 AM

2017-07-31T11:01:06-04:00

Spec denotes special fields of the Army, cpl and sgt denote field leadership

Response by SSgt Bill Barowski made Jul 31 at 2017 11:07 AM

2017-07-31T11:07:17-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 11:13 AM

2017-07-31T11:13:05-04:00

Considering I'm about to become PFC, and I'm fresh into the army, I have to admit I don't quite understand the difference needed between SPC and CPL. I like the idea that many have said about bringing these other ranks back into play. I'm mildly frustrated with the career path I have because while I want to scarce and succeed, I love everything about my job so far and I've been thoroughly told that as you rise in rank you do your actual job less and less. I understand that enlisted side needs leadership, but isn't that what officers are for? I'm not fond of how officer responsibility is thrust on you as an enlisted. Some people don't want to become leaders as such, not to say that our choice matters or that we can't do what is expected of us. But bringing back these additional, more job related ranks seems more beneficial to mission success and even morale in my opinion. Some of us did join just to do the grunt work and not think as much.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 11:22 AM

2017-07-31T11:22:01-04:00

Most respectfully I think CPL rank need to go. I think we all know that its like sitting on the fence between E4&E5.

Response by SGT Daniel Price made Jul 31 at 2017 11:45 AM

2017-07-31T11:45:54-04:00

SPC there because some E4s are not ready to lead soldiers. Upon taking a leadership role as an E4 the rank of CPL should be utilized. The problem with SPC & CPL is that the army does not give out CPL when they should to distinguish between future leaders and MOS SPCs that currently don't have the capacity to lead yet. There are far to many automatic E4 promotions that do not need the strips and authority that come with the junior NCO rank of CPL. If your going to take it away then the rank needs to be expanded again.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 12:53 PM

2017-07-31T12:53:21-04:00

Long overdue! Get rid of the specialist rank!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 1:11 PM

2017-07-31T13:11:46-04:00

Most SPC are there simply because they are to experienced and deserve e4 pay. In the infantry they are nothing more than E3 unless tapped to be a team leader. I believe SPC should be for technical jobs and combat arms should use something like LCPL but only for those showing the potential to move onto NCO

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 1:18 PM

2017-07-31T13:18:38-04:00

Get rid of it but put some prerequisites in place for CPL don't just hand it out with TIG/TIS requirements

Response by MSG Lawrence Kelsey made Jul 31 at 2017 1:19 PM

2017-07-31T13:19:14-04:00

But have them go through a 2 week pre-PLDC course.

Response by Col Michael Perry made Jul 31 at 2017 1:21 PM

2017-07-31T13:21:44-04:00

Yes, Every soldier a rifleman. You may give an MOS but first last and always a rifleman.

Response by MSG Lawrence Kelsey made Jul 31 at 2017 1:26 PM

2017-07-31T13:26:03-04:00

Have the SPC attend a pre-PLDC for two weeks first before actually going to the actual PLDC. It will give them a taste of maturity &what to expect of as future NCOs.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-07-31T13:40:21-04:00

Yes they should, I believe the specialist rank is too often used to slow down the progression of soldiers. I do not believe that the government or the army is specifically trying to keep u from being promoted, I simply believe that once u become a specialist everyone knows they will be there for a very very long time.

Response by MSG Lawrence Kelsey made Jul 31 at 2017 1:40 PM

2017-07-31T13:40:30-04:00

Yes, with prior Pre-NCO 2 week training before attending PLDC.

Response by SPC Cj Devalcourt made Jul 31 at 2017 1:52 PM

2017-07-31T13:52:21-04:00

Yes, it's a useless and stagnant rank.

Response by MSG Lawrence Kelsey made Jul 31 at 2017 1:56 PM

2017-07-31T13:56:12-04:00

SPC's need experience early from NCOs, so they will know what is expected of them of them if they become 'frocked' early.

Response by SFC Randy King made Jul 31 at 2017 2:01 PM

2017-07-31T14:01:43-04:00

Thought they already had above Sp4

Response by SPC Alan Donaldson made Jul 31 at 2017 2:14 PM

2017-07-31T14:14:00-04:00

We still had SPC4-6 in my unit when I joined so I understood the concept. As for today, it may as well be retired. Though I argue the concept of everyone being a Leader is not valid. Some troops have the "Leader gene" and some don't. Not everyone can lead, some have to "do". And there is no shame in that. But I digress.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 2:27 PM

2017-07-31T14:27:48-04:00

I think the rank should continue to be a part of the military becuase to many times I have come across specialists not yet ready to lead or having the desire to do so there should however be more corporal positions available though

Response by SP6 Wallace Fletcher made Jul 31 at 2017 2:38 PM

2017-07-31T14:38:58-04:00

When I served the Specialist Rank showed the technical apect of your Speciality! Corporal was for a Combat MOS. In my opinion I think it wpuld be adviseavle to keep the Specialist rank for Maintenance personel from E-4 up through E-7.

Response by SGT Ron Kindred made Jul 31 at 2017 3:10 PM

2017-07-31T15:10:10-04:00

When I first served Army in 67' there were both E4 Corporal's and Spec4, Specialist's. The difference was a Specialist, specialized in a particular field .... Many had civilian acquired skills. A musician for example. E4 (two stripe) Corporal's and (three stripe, Buck) Sgt's. We're in Line Unites. Infantry, Artillery, Armor etc.......

Response by LT John O'hurley made Jul 31 at 2017 3:35 PM

2017-07-31T15:35:17-04:00

Agree with SGMQuirk

Response by MAJ Tom Morgan made Jul 31 at 2017 3:44 PM

2017-07-31T15:44:04-04:00

I approve simplifying the rank structure.

Response by SPC Warren Christian made Jul 31 at 2017 4:03 PM

2017-07-31T16:03:15-04:00

I never understood the specialist rank anyhow.

Response by SPC Phillip Felder made Jul 31 at 2017 4:03 PM

2017-07-31T16:03:23-04:00

Yes

Response by SSG Joe Ryan made Jul 31 at 2017 4:10 PM

2017-07-31T16:10:55-04:00

I was both. Specialist is a wasted rank.

Response by SFC Darryl Randolph made Jul 31 at 2017 4:22 PM

2017-07-31T16:22:06-04:00

I agree

Response by SPC Chuck Miller made Jul 31 at 2017 5:05 PM

2017-07-31T17:05:10-04:00

No it is a none nco rank that does a lot of work and guides pic and below in training and combat.

Response by SGT Woody Darnall made Jul 31 at 2017 5:38 PM

2017-07-31T17:38:30-04:00

Yes I think they should keep the SP rank and should bring back spec 5 thru spec 7 all tho they are good soldiers they are not leaders. Just some people are not cut out to be leaders or managers but they are good in their field.

Response by Sgt John Wallace made Jul 31 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-07-31T17:45:55-04:00

Response by SGT Paul Gunterman made Jul 31 at 2017 6:59 PM

2017-07-31T18:59:48-04:00

No, we should continue it is necessary for moral. If anything specialists should be allowed to compete for full corporal as a stepping stone to the Non Commission Officers Ranks ,Sgt E-5 and above.

Response by SGT Robert Upham made Jul 31 at 2017 7:06 PM

2017-07-31T19:06:45-04:00

I'm sure that there was a good reason for starting the rank of specialist, but shouldn't all service men and women be specialists in their field. And when it comes time to advance in rank, just make sure that the test is sufficient to show that the candidate is ready to make the jump. There is nothing worse that an NCO that is not ready to assume the responsibility. I know, I was one. I made Sgt in 2 yrs, and I should have waited a bit longer.

Response by SGT Kris Hibbard made Jul 31 at 2017 7:11 PM

2017-07-31T19:11:38-04:00

Never did think the corporal rank was necessary for non combat MOS. SPC5-7 should come back for sure though! Tons of talented people who were happy being a SPC and just doing their job. The army got in a big rush to promote people and now there's tons of toxic leadership that never was led themselves.

Response by CSM Todd Kaiser made Jul 31 at 2017 7:24 PM

2017-07-31T19:24:51-04:00

I agree, but those that are in leadership positions should be paid accordingly. I retired as a CSM and had SGM(s) reporting to me but we were all the same pay grade.

Response by SSG Marcus Brothers made Jul 31 at 2017 7:48 PM

2017-07-31T19:48:26-04:00

I would advocate for getting rid of the Corporal rank. It was always the worst of both worlds

Response by SFC Paul Kisslinger made Jul 31 at 2017 8:06 PM

2017-07-31T20:06:05-04:00

Yes. Was always a rank that made the soldier inferior

Response by SSG Tracy Harris made Jul 31 at 2017 8:09 PM

2017-07-31T20:09:19-04:00

I think our NCO's should be held to the standards of knowing the NCO Creed, so they can better help these lower enlisted.

Response by Lt Col Lewis Buttrick made Jul 31 at 2017 8:16 PM

2017-07-31T20:16:57-04:00

Liketheold way. One step at a time

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 8:48 PM

2017-07-31T20:48:12-04:00

No, a majority of Soldiers I have observed do not have it in their bones to be a corporal without further instruction, mentoring, challenging tasks.

Response by SP5 Chuck Murach made Jul 31 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-07-31T21:06:10-04:00

My experience in the Nike system was that the Specialist were a totally different career path than the NCO's but sometimes the Specialists needed to provide leadership along with technical skills.

Response by SPC Mike Byrum made Jul 31 at 2017 9:20 PM

2017-07-31T21:20:38-04:00

Yeah its a cop out rank for the army, it's a over paid private.

Response by Donald Miller made Jul 31 at 2017 9:38 PM

2017-07-31T21:38:50-04:00

I was in the Army before I enlisted in the Air Force. I was a SP4 when I was in the Army and the Specialist rank didn't impress me. I would have rather been a Corporal, it seemed to me that a Corporal or a buck Sgt got more respect than the Specialist rank did..If your going to replace it with something that's just as good or better there shouldn't be an issue..

Response by SSG Robert Mitch Evans made Jul 31 at 2017 10:06 PM

2017-07-31T22:06:21-04:00

Con

Response by SFC Larry G Herring made Jul 31 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-07-31T22:08:32-04:00

I spent 2 years active and 24 in the National Guard and I have never been a fan of the Specialist rank.

Response by CSM Thomas Brown made Jul 31 at 2017 10:37 PM

2017-07-31T22:37:08-04:00

To be an NCO, they need as a basic PLCD class .

Response by SPC Eric Armstrong made Jul 31 at 2017 10:47 PM

2017-07-31T22:47:08-04:00

E4 mafia 4 life phase out the ass that sits the desk. And comes up with this stuff. With his or her combat pen badge

Response by 1LT Carl Marchese made Jul 31 at 2017 11:17 PM

2017-07-31T23:17:23-04:00

Eliminate Spec 4; vestgial stub of a group of Specialist ranks. Not a command rank (Cpl is an NCO) and should disappear.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2017 12:39 AM

2017-08-01T00:39:26-04:00

Prior Sgt here. And i also think a SPC higher than make a comeback. I will admit leadership was not my strong point. However, people listened to me because i was not afraid to get my hands dirty and work too. I was not good at telling others what to do. I could teach a soldier a task and have them accomplish that task. But bossing folks around was not my idea of a good time.

Response by 1SG Rich Bake made Aug 1 at 2017 5:08 AM

2017-08-01T05:08:18-04:00

Yes. All hard stripes

Response by SSG William Norris made Aug 1 at 2017 7:21 AM

2017-08-01T07:21:05-04:00

My opinion is that the Army should bring back the Specialist Ranks. Too many Soldiers have been promoted to NCO's that shouldn't be in leadership positions. There are several instances that Soldiers are competent in their job skills but shouldn't be in a leadership position.

Response by Col Charles Davis made Aug 1 at 2017 7:25 AM

2017-08-01T07:25:05-04:00

It made more sense when the Army had a whole series of specialist grades -- but only a single grade makes no sense.

Response by SPC Chad Hughey made Aug 1 at 2017 7:46 AM

2017-08-01T07:46:10-04:00

No.

Response by SSG Mark Martinez made Aug 1 at 2017 8:05 AM

2017-08-01T08:05:11-04:00

yes. it will not just be a filler spot. Make them lead early!

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2017 8:41 AM

2017-08-01T08:41:02-04:00

The corporal rank should be given to the soldiers who have passed the promotion board and are awaiting WLC. That way E5's and E6's can start teach and coaching that young corporal so that way when he passes WLC he can hit the ground running. There are to many incompetent NCO's who were not coached up and they're not good leaders they're just followers and yes men. The ARMY has enough yes men. What the ARMY needs is more competent leaders who will speak for the soldiers and put the well being of their soldiers first.

Response by PO3 Reinaldo Jaime made Aug 1 at 2017 8:49 AM

2017-08-01T08:49:11-04:00

Yes Spec should be terminated.

Response by MCPO David Thomas made Aug 1 at 2017 9:31 AM

2017-08-01T09:31:26-04:00

It would make more sense to have a more logical progression. I have never been able to understand just why this got started.

Response by 1SG F Raymond made Aug 1 at 2017 11:04 AM

2017-08-01T11:04:36-04:00

Ambivalent. I served from 74 to 95 as 11B, 11H, 76Y and 91C. Even within those areas there may be a need for both.

Some have stated that there is a need because some people aren't leaders. Well, then they need to stay at the lower rank and be put out.

But, if they go back, in schools and/or non-MOS specific roles date of rank should preside. A SGT with one week of TIG should not 'outrank' a SP5 with two years TIG.

Response by AN Jr Johnson made Aug 1 at 2017 11:42 AM

2017-08-01T11:42:22-04:00

Yes they should

Response by PO2 Mike Harrison made Aug 1 at 2017 11:44 AM

2017-08-01T11:44:07-04:00

Keep specialist ranks.

Response by MSG Don Jones made Aug 1 at 2017 11:47 AM

2017-08-01T11:47:35-04:00

More NCOERs to do for corporals and if we have more corporals should we have less Sgt and SSG

Response by SGT Shawn Moore made Aug 1 at 2017 12:04 PM

2017-08-01T12:04:54-04:00

Yes

Response by LCpl Robert Reyes made Aug 1 at 2017 12:34 PM

2017-08-01T12:34:20-04:00

The Marine Corps doesn't have any Specialists...and have always emphasized leadership. If you don't have the leadership skills to move up, you shouldn't be promoted, period.

Response by SSG Jose Valdez made Aug 1 at 2017 1:12 PM

2017-08-01T13:12:06-04:00

Response by CPL George Boldi made Aug 1 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-08-01T13:24:03-04:00

They should drop Corporal, and re-enstate the different levels of Spc., Corporal is just a glorified Spc., No difference in pay, and my experience was, there was no difference in responsibilities.

Response by PO1 Dave Burgwald made Aug 1 at 2017 1:35 PM

2017-08-01T13:35:20-04:00

As a Navy vet, I have no comment about rankings in the Army

Response by PO3 James Hicks made Aug 1 at 2017 2:23 PM

2017-08-01T14:23:39-04:00

The Army should do what it needs to do, if they need the other ranks then it's ok with me

Response by SGT Phillip Turner made Aug 1 at 2017 2:35 PM

2017-08-01T14:35:10-04:00

Yes

Response by CSM Larry Klann made Aug 1 at 2017 3:25 PM

2017-08-01T15:25:08-04:00

No, I feel the DOC rank is needed in soft MOSs.

Response by Sgt Margolious Hunt made Aug 1 at 2017 3:33 PM

2017-08-01T15:33:02-04:00

Yes just as USMC does!

Response by PO2 Tim Baldwin made Aug 1 at 2017 4:44 PM

2017-08-01T16:44:01-04:00

I'm not qualified to answer that question....1- I was a GM (already a specialist with weapons/guns) in Navy, 2- got out in 1970 after my 3rd WESTPAC/Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia excursions on PBR's and special assignments so not up to speed on army specialists......but do have an opinion......since army is run, funded and controlled by federal government then I'm 100% certain things could be better for the soldiers, run more efficiently and is entirely TOO POLITICALLY CORRECT.....the military has become a part of the political wing for whichever party happens to be in power at the time......it was so in 60;s and 70's and it still a fact.

Response by Barbara Wirsching made Aug 1 at 2017 4:45 PM

2017-08-01T16:45:31-04:00

When my grandfather was promoted from Pvt. to Cpl. during WWI, he was so proud. Corporal sounded like an important rank to him. The only thing that made him more proud was his Army uniform. He was so grateful to be allowed to wear the uniform of the United States Army, & receive the gift of citizenship for his service. When my father became a Corporal in the United Staes Marine Corps. during WWII, my grandfather was "over the moon". When he became a Sgt. they were both so proud.

Response by 1stSgt John Shaft made Aug 1 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-08-01T17:45:04-04:00

Yes

Response by SMSgt Steve Butt made Aug 1 at 2017 7:10 PM

2017-08-01T19:10:02-04:00

Excuse me, I'm sorry I interrupted because I'm Air Force. But, you guys need to keep the spec ranks and until AF leadership pulls its collective heads out of their rectums we will continue to run off critical skills and pilots because not everyone wants to be CMSAF or CSAF. Rant over carry on...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2017 9:34 PM

2017-08-01T21:34:36-04:00

They're needed.

Response by SFC Tal Boatner made Aug 1 at 2017 9:41 PM

2017-08-01T21:41:09-04:00

Years ago when the Army had the specialist ranks it realized that you had leaders and you had people that got the job done. More often than not the technicians were not good leaders and rarely the leaders were good technicians. There are exceptions and they are exceptional military members that can be both. Reality is that most people are not exceptional.

In fact I've seen quite a number of incompetent people hide behind positions and the last person you'd want around when something critical has to get done is them. Of course some of the smartest people couldn't lead a squad out of a forest with only one tree.

In the same way I would say the Army has gone the wrong direction with warrant officers and trying to make them into leaders instead of being the expert in a field. My experiences lighter in my career in dealing with warrants is they didn't know a bit more than I did about the field and would often say I'll get back with you on that. In the 80s the warrants that we had didn't need to get back with you because they were experts in their field. They also had a wrinkle uniforms terrible-looking boots and look like they stored their clothes in the duffel bag and pull them out every morning. They were terrible looking soldiers but you couldn't rattle them in their field.

They are me should spend more effort in determining if someone is a natural born leader are technically inclined and put people in the right place. No person is all things in all places.

Response by Robert Williams made Aug 1 at 2017 10:33 PM

2017-08-01T22:33:38-04:00

To me it sounds like a proving ground for advancement. I know the Army probably uses it for their bulk labor and more than likely abuses it, but I'm sure a lot of people shine in that rank and are promoted. I would say keep the rank but pay more honest attention to the hard worker who wants to move ahead and promote these people. Oh yeah, give enlisted personnel a 20% raise across the board.

Response by SP5 Mark Spaugh made Aug 1 at 2017 10:35 PM

2017-08-01T22:35:13-04:00

I worked in an airborne unit as an e-5 specialist. After Grenada I was offered hard stripes as an incentive. I laughed as I had been doing the same job for over a year. Get rid of it in the airborne units.

Response by SPC Charles Osmun made Aug 1 at 2017 10:47 PM

2017-08-01T22:47:42-04:00

My opinion do away with private fuzzy chest make E-1 mosquito wings E-3 specialist and E-4 corpral.

Response by SSG Michael Dolan made Aug 1 at 2017 11:03 PM

2017-08-01T23:03:49-04:00

No, I believe corporal should be for leadership roles such as assistant squad leader and specialist should be for non leadership, non combat related positions. Specialist is a good rank to learn and excel at your job and position before moving on. I also believe not everyone is cut out for sergeant stripes and leadership duties. Some flat out dont want the responsibility, so I think Specialist 5 isnt such a bad idea either, structure the pay to the rank and position as well.

Response by MSG Ronniei Watkins made Aug 2 at 2017 5:28 AM

2017-08-02T05:28:48-04:00

Yes they should. Once an individual passes the rank of pvt. The succession should be Corporal, Sargent, Staff Sargent and so forth

Response by SSG John Wurst made Aug 2 at 2017 8:13 AM

2017-08-02T08:13:03-04:00

No they should not. I feel that the rank of Corporal should be bestowed upon a soldier only after he has completed primary non-commissioned officer course.

Response by Bill Simpson made Aug 2 at 2017 8:57 AM

2017-08-02T08:57:46-04:00

Part of what my company offers is helping personnel convert to non military employment when their term of service is up. The Spc rank is helpful when defining for employers, especially the federal government, where they rank in terms of associated grade/series or pay scale. It obviously can be done, but is much more involved w/o the rank designation. Just a thought from a civilian.

Response by SSG Jay Reel made Aug 2 at 2017 9:37 AM

2017-08-02T09:37:52-04:00

If the army (not sure about other services) abolishes a rank it should be corporal. They get shit on by everyone in a higher rank for details and CQ. If the chain of command thinks they are ready to be an NCO then promote to SGT. long live the sham shield!

Response by SP5 Jim Ellis made Aug 2 at 2017 9:39 AM

2017-08-02T09:39:40-04:00

Yes

Response by SP5 Jim Ellis made Aug 2 at 2017 9:39 AM

2017-08-02T09:39:54-04:00

Yes

Response by PO2 Mike Crawford made Aug 2 at 2017 1:21 PM

2017-08-02T13:21:39-04:00

Yes....the other services dont need them...so why only the army?

Response by LTC Jim Barclay made Aug 2 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-08-02T13:24:38-04:00

No. My battalion needs communications specialists, medical specialists and logistical experts as much as it needs squad, platoon and company leaders. We are not NCO light. There is absolutely no reason to convert another 100 soldiers into NCOs when I don't have leadership slots for them. We would be better off to bring back SP5 & SP6. That is all.

Response by SGT Andy DeGanahl made Aug 2 at 2017 1:26 PM

2017-08-02T13:26:33-04:00

Negative. The rank of specialist is to recognize Enlisted personnel who have become a "specialist" at their given MOS. A corporal on the other hand is a junior noncommissioned officer. One who should be given responsibility in the leading of team members. What should be phased out is one of the "private" ranks. Do we really need three classifications of private? I agree that we should separate Specialist from Corporal. But why not make Specialist an E3 and Corporal E4 while doing away with the private E1 with absolutely no rank insignia? Private (E1), Private First Class (E2), Specialist (E3), Corporal (E4), Sargent (E5)......

Response by TSgt Juan Riojas made Aug 2 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-08-02T13:44:46-04:00

yes...

Response by SFC Rod Kahnell made Aug 2 at 2017 2:23 PM

2017-08-02T14:23:21-04:00

No o

Response by SPC Walter C. made Aug 2 at 2017 2:38 PM

2017-08-02T14:38:04-04:00

the army needs the specialist rank to enable soldiers to become proficient in all aspects of their job before having the burden of leadership forced on them I feel they should expand the concept to the officer corps and allow every officer to become highly proficient in their career field before allowing those who may be slow to come along to become a commander who may be a toxic leader destroying morale. A true leadr who inspires his NCO's to be Leaders who inspire their soldiers to perform at their maximum effectiveness with greatest efficiency to accomplish the mission, bring everyone home taking care of the equipment without unnessecary damage or waste. I know captains who were not ready to lead..majors even...but had a 1Lt commander in basic who was a great leader...or had great NCOS guiding him...either way same effect.

Response by SPC Emil Gnam made Aug 2 at 2017 3:16 PM

2017-08-02T15:16:05-04:00

Specialist Ranks were always treated as second Class Citizens.

Response by SA Nila Kotlarich made Aug 2 at 2017 3:49 PM

2017-08-02T15:49:45-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Mark Moen made Aug 2 at 2017 5:53 PM

2017-08-02T17:53:34-04:00

Well they did away with Spec5, 6, 7

Response by SGT David Hinsley made Aug 2 at 2017 6:09 PM

2017-08-02T18:09:56-04:00

Yea

Response by SSG Robert Siedschlag made Aug 2 at 2017 7:21 PM

2017-08-02T19:21:43-04:00

Necessary as a pay grade since NCO slots are limited.

Response by SSG Rick Burrell made Aug 2 at 2017 7:22 PM

2017-08-02T19:22:12-04:00

Yes- get rid of it. Givem hard stripes

Response by MAJ Raymon Hall made Aug 2 at 2017 7:26 PM

2017-08-02T19:26:31-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Anthony Grimmelt made Aug 2 at 2017 8:44 PM

2017-08-02T20:44:23-04:00

I agree with the ranks in place. No one should be and nco that doesn't deserve it. Or do away with automatic promotion to specialist and make soldiers attend boards to earn an non commissioned officer rank.

Response by SSgt Dwight Weatherford made Aug 2 at 2017 9:36 PM

2017-08-02T21:36:16-04:00

Yes

Response by PO3 Paul Curtis made Aug 2 at 2017 9:54 PM

2017-08-02T21:54:18-04:00

I respectfully decline to comment. I served in the Coast Guard. The Navy and Coast Guard use the petty officer system. It works well there as it has since 1790

Response by CPO Lou Oliver made Aug 2 at 2017 9:58 PM

2017-08-02T21:58:23-04:00

Sailors have had specialist ranks for years, so I do not see the Army's specialist as anything other than a core job such as a electronics tech. However, they need to be grunts first and specialist second, just like the United States Marine Corps.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2017 10:18 PM

2017-08-02T22:18:45-04:00

No. Bring back all of the SPC ranks

Response by Capt Quinton Worthams made Aug 2 at 2017 11:01 PM

2017-08-02T23:01:48-04:00

No.

Response by Capt Quinton Worthams made Aug 2 at 2017 11:02 PM

2017-08-02T23:02:10-04:00

Makes no difference.

Response by Capt Quinton Worthams made Aug 2 at 2017 11:02 PM

2017-08-02T23:02:27-04:00

No difference.

Response by SGT Andy Mangum made Aug 2 at 2017 11:46 PM

2017-08-02T23:46:37-04:00

No, it's a good maturity phase

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 12:49 AM

2017-08-03T00:49:52-04:00

A rank is a rank. The other services don't do that anymore, so just drop it. Sometime specialists may get leadership roles in there jobs anyways. Conversely many NCO's work in 'staff' roles and dont have any supervisory duties.

Response by LTC James Hitt made Aug 3 at 2017 12:58 AM

2017-08-03T00:58:19-04:00

The specialist rank should left in place because not all soldiers are ready to be in charge of soldiers. If you made them all corporals you would have a lot of junior ncos not ready to be in charge!

Response by SGT Paul J. Bowes made Aug 3 at 2017 4:19 AM

2017-08-03T04:19:25-04:00

No, leave it alone and it would be more competitive for non-coms

Response by SGT Jeff Marshall made Aug 3 at 2017 4:54 AM

2017-08-03T04:54:10-04:00

No, not everyone is fit to be an Nco!!!

Response by SGT Robert Whaley made Aug 3 at 2017 5:44 AM

2017-08-03T05:44:21-04:00

No. Not all specialist are ready for the responsibility of being a NCO. That requires knowledge and leadership. They are green, and not ready for that type of dedication to duty.

Response by CDR Carl Murphyl made Aug 3 at 2017 5:59 AM

2017-08-03T05:59:25-04:00

Blows their payroll budget. Huge inflationary factor at a time when they need every dollar to reset the readiness of the force.
Unless made part of a five-year manpower budget accounting for added wages of the skipped grade being paid earlier, this blows up the Army manpower account.
How can you offset, with fewer beans, fewer bullets, or leaving equipment broken?

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 3 at 2017 8:28 AM

2017-08-03T08:28:12-04:00

No, for many of us it is a viable step to E5.

Response by CPL Dwayne Jenkins Sr. made Aug 3 at 2017 9:00 AM

2017-08-03T09:00:59-04:00

I think the specialist rank is important because it's the ground floor to leadership skills

Response by SGT Jerry Fortner made Aug 3 at 2017 9:56 AM

2017-08-03T09:56:53-04:00

Then they should get rid of master Sargent and Sargent major

Response by PO2 Keith Gieseck made Aug 3 at 2017 11:09 AM

2017-08-03T11:09:54-04:00

I never did understand why they have two different ranks for the same pay grade

Response by Cpl Billy J Genaway made Aug 3 at 2017 11:53 AM

2017-08-03T11:53:43-04:00

More chiefs than braves bad idea

Response by SGT Edward Smith made Aug 3 at 2017 12:39 PM

2017-08-03T12:39:24-04:00

That would be a smart move.

Response by SPC Andy Johnson made Aug 3 at 2017 12:40 PM

2017-08-03T12:40:05-04:00

Either one was basically the same as the other except rank insignia

Response by SGT Mike Wetzel made Aug 3 at 2017 12:58 PM

2017-08-03T12:58:44-04:00

No, not all e-4s are leadership material

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 1:09 PM

2017-08-03T13:09:24-04:00

After serving as a rifleman for several months in Combat during WWII, my Father-in-law served as a T-4 until his discharge. He served proudly and I was able to get him awarded a Bronze Star for earning the CIB in Wartime. We all serve and there is a place for the guys that are a technological leader rather than a leader of men.

Response by Jim Phillips made Aug 3 at 2017 1:29 PM

2017-08-03T13:29:27-04:00

My son was just promoted to specialist. E 4

Response by Cpl Jay Coleman made Aug 3 at 2017 2:47 PM

2017-08-03T14:47:17-04:00

Absolutely NOT

Response by SFC Raymond Helberg made Aug 3 at 2017 2:57 PM

2017-08-03T14:57:40-04:00

No, Specialist were put in place for the technical role and that need is still there.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 3:09 PM

2017-08-03T15:09:54-04:00

I'm in a small unit. Having 4 E7 and 6 E6 means that sometimes an E6 is supervising one E5. Bring back the Spec 5-7 ranks for operators and laterally appoint to E5-E7 for leadership/supervisory positions.

Response by SGT Ed Ojeda made Aug 3 at 2017 3:14 PM

2017-08-03T15:14:06-04:00

RANK IS RANK,E1 E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, ETC............I SERVED AND REACHED THE RANK OF E5 IN VIETNAN WAS TOLD THAT IF RE-UPED I WOULD GET E6 (BACK TO RVN) HA HA HA. RANK DOES NOT MATTER IN A WAR ZONE IT IS A MATTER OF BEING BROTHERS AND TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER, SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT RANK GO BACK AND REMEMBER THOSE WHO GAVE THERE LIFE REGARDLES 0F RANK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SGT E OJEDA RVN 1969

Response by SrA James Cannon made Aug 3 at 2017 3:23 PM

2017-08-03T15:23:17-04:00

The Air Force had a similar situation until the early 1990s. They had Sergeant and Senior Airman at E-4. Sergeant was an NCO, and Senior Airman was not. They did away with Sergeant and kept Senior Airman. Those who were already "Buck" Sergeants were allowed to keep the rank and status until promotion or separation. I think the last Buck Sergeant left the Air Force around 1998. If the Army were to do away with one, they'd probably follow the Air Force way of doing this. Personally, I thought it should have been the other way around. They should have kept Sergeant and gotten rid of Senior Airman.

Response by Cpl Billy J Genaway made Aug 3 at 2017 4:16 PM

2017-08-03T16:16:34-04:00

More chiefs than Indians bad idea

Response by CPT Mike Wright made Aug 3 at 2017 4:51 PM

2017-08-03T16:51:14-04:00

As I recall, the specialists titles were initially to be for positions which had a technical component whereas the corporal/sergeant position titles were to be for positions which had a combat arms leadership type component (correct me if I am wrong). For some reason, the Army chose to eliminate the Specialists 5-7 ranks, but retain the Spec 4 rank. I think it had to do with NCO's feeling they didn't get enough respect without the "sergeant" in their title. I can understand that. Still, I think they should have kept the old specialist titles (all of them). Especially with today's Army which is so reliant on technology. Just my thoughts, for what they area worth.

Response by SPC Daniel Beckworth made Aug 3 at 2017 5:08 PM

2017-08-03T17:08:09-04:00

Specialist ranks were created to keep talented workers (the geeks so to speak) in the service where they can do a wonderful job and advance in pay without being burdened with command responsibility that they were grossly unsuited for.

Response by SGT Alan Kolkow made Aug 3 at 2017 5:16 PM

2017-08-03T17:16:39-04:00

I think the Army should retain the Specialist grades for the more technical MOS, unless they move into a position of instructor. Then they would automatically be promoted to the "Hardstripe" of that particular. Isn't that the way it use to be?

Response by MSgt Chuck Meyer made Aug 3 at 2017 6:14 PM

2017-08-03T18:14:39-04:00

Yes when you have 2 0r 3 years you should be an NCO with that responsibility

Response by FN Verle John ( Jack ) Strickler Sr. made Aug 3 at 2017 6:48 PM

2017-08-03T18:48:40-04:00

I served 4 years active, 2 years researve US Navy, 2 + years Oregon National guard as US Army Researve. Honorable service both.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 7:32 PM

2017-08-03T19:32:27-04:00

The Army moved to require anyone promotable to attend BLC prior to a promotion taking place, and this wasn't the case years ago. I say keep CPL, and give it to those NCOs transitioning. After the board but before they go to BLC, they get a lateral promotion signifying their transition from lower enlisted, to leadership.

Response by SP5 Michael Ruff made Aug 3 at 2017 8:01 PM

2017-08-03T20:01:48-04:00

No need for it. Corporal is the way to go

Response by SP5 Mike Hamilton made Aug 3 at 2017 8:30 PM

2017-08-03T20:30:54-04:00

I like the difference between SP and Line Grade. I would go up to SP7 again.

Response by LTC Faust d'Ambrosi made Aug 3 at 2017 8:41 PM

2017-08-03T20:41:39-04:00

Specialist ranks are useful for technicians who are not required to exercise command, such as legal clerks.

Response by Cpl Gene Mayotte made Aug 3 at 2017 8:43 PM

2017-08-03T20:43:42-04:00

Yes. I never understood the need for specialized ranks.

Response by SR James Ruble made Aug 3 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-08-03T21:21:19-04:00

Response by CPL Frederick Tobin made Aug 3 at 2017 9:29 PM

2017-08-03T21:29:45-04:00

keep it

Response by 1SG Paul Kitchen made Aug 3 at 2017 9:32 PM

2017-08-03T21:32:46-04:00

I'd like to see a return of the Spec 5-7 grades particularly for some of the low density MOS's, medical, etc where expertise is needed more then leadership

Response by SGT Robert Hiles made Aug 3 at 2017 9:36 PM

2017-08-03T21:36:20-04:00

No! Not every Pfc is ready for leadership positions! Or needed!

Response by SP6 Paul Cantor made Aug 3 at 2017 9:56 PM

2017-08-03T21:56:52-04:00

They won't let you vote down! Specialist is an important rank. I think they should bring back sp5 thru sp7. Experience should be rewarded but not everyone makes a good NCO

Response by PO2 Steven Buritsch made Aug 3 at 2017 10:17 PM

2017-08-03T22:17:15-04:00

rank should be rank and job should be job. navy at po2

Response by PO2 Robert Adams made Aug 3 at 2017 10:43 PM

2017-08-03T22:43:33-04:00

Too often the specialist rank is subjective to the higher ups

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 10:59 PM

2017-08-03T22:59:39-04:00

Yes

Response by SFC Frank Hill made Aug 3 at 2017 11:26 PM

2017-08-03T23:26:08-04:00

Not every soldier is a leader! Some are leaders others are not! We need leaders, we also need workers!

Response by PVT David Holderman made Aug 3 at 2017 11:42 PM

2017-08-03T23:42:18-04:00

I think it's a great idea

Response by SSG Ron Ackerman made Aug 3 at 2017 11:48 PM

2017-08-03T23:48:23-04:00

CPL only in combat arm's

Response by SFC Jim Thorpe made Aug 3 at 2017 11:58 PM

2017-08-03T23:58:30-04:00

In tech skills the "specialist rank would fit. But "the hard stripe" factor is necessary as to giving orders. If specialists are in a combat theater, there have been incidents where the confusion of who is the ranking NCOIC between a Specialist 4th Class or Specialist 5th Class vs a Corporal and a Sergeant. The pay grades of E4 or E5 is the same. Leadership classes may hold sway with both groups. But there is a difference between leadership in a combat arms skill trained NCO and a more skilled technician "supervisor".

Response by SFC Jim Dotson made Aug 4 at 2017 12:11 AM

2017-08-04T00:11:44-04:00

Yes, nevè liked that rank

Response by Jj Miller made Aug 4 at 2017 1:36 AM

2017-08-04T01:36:49-04:00

There are both pros AND cons to this idea. While a direct promotion to corporal may, indeed, be warranted, in my personal experience, I've known some individuals who enjoy the rank of PFC Specialist. It depends, I believe, on each individual case. Just my 2 cents on this.

Response by SSG Allen Selby made Aug 4 at 2017 1:43 AM

2017-08-04T01:43:09-04:00

The rank is needed for specialized mos but they need to receive the same requirements as a corporal to advance.

Response by PO1 Scott Mckee made Aug 4 at 2017 2:23 AM

2017-08-04T02:23:30-04:00

Sorry I'm a retired Navy Veteran and we haven't changed our rate structure. Talk to your enlisted ranks and ask them how they feel. It's a Army family issue.

Response by SFC Carlos Diaz made Aug 4 at 2017 2:42 AM

2017-08-04T02:42:57-04:00

Specialist rank should be used only on non combat mos,s

Response by PO2 Edward Shuherk made Aug 4 at 2017 8:10 AM

2017-08-04T08:10:28-04:00

It's provocative idea, to be sure. Men and women grow into roles. While the Navy has a program that promotes from E-1 to E-4, called he "Push-Button" Petty Officers, the point is to optimize team readiness with self-sufficient self-starter NCO types. That said, I so love and respect my military brethren in all branches.

Response by SGT John Coville made Aug 4 at 2017 9:02 AM

2017-08-04T09:02:01-04:00

I believe the Specialist ranks have their place in Enlisted ranks just as Warrant Officers have in Officer ranks.

Response by A1C Ron Cales made Aug 4 at 2017 9:33 AM

2017-08-04T09:33:10-04:00

I was in the AF when they created the Senior Airman's rank. Many A1C's like myself were caught in the transition. I might have re-up'd but instead of being a Sgt. I would become a Senior Airman. Had I been up for promotion a couple of months sooner, I would have been promoted to Sgt.

Response by SP6 Richard Silfies Jr. made Aug 4 at 2017 10:34 AM

2017-08-04T10:34:12-04:00

No corporals show leadership skill that demonstrate that are on the fast track to the nco corps and are put into leaders roles and carry more responsibilities with it I was one and loved it

Response by SPC Hagalous Maximus made Aug 4 at 2017 10:43 AM

2017-08-04T10:43:22-04:00

In my opinion, I think the specialist rank should stay and the corporal rank should go. My experience is that the specialist rank is a step up from private first class and such soldiers are given more responsibility and chances to stretch their wings as leaders. Corporals are NCOs that fail in one way or another and are cushened instead of falling hard to Specialist or lower, yet they retain much of their authority. I don't believe those soldiers always learn their lesson. Again, this is my own opinion from my own experiences.
I have more opinions about the ranking structure and the way the army promotes those that shouldn't and doesn't those that should.
As far as this topic is concerned, specialists should remain and corporals should go.

Response by MCPO Selby Stokes made Aug 4 at 2017 11:43 AM

2017-08-04T11:43:25-04:00

Today.

Response by CPO James DeJong made Aug 4 at 2017 12:58 PM

2017-08-04T12:58:44-04:00

Response by SGT Andres Leal made Aug 4 at 2017 1:09 PM

2017-08-04T13:09:43-04:00

Response by SPC Jim Edwards made Aug 4 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-08-04T13:44:01-04:00

I was in the fdc which is a spc5 rank that is as far as you can go unless you get a waver. That why i did not reenlist.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2017 2:18 PM

2017-08-04T14:18:14-04:00

Yes

Response by COL William Parker made Aug 4 at 2017 2:22 PM

2017-08-04T14:22:39-04:00

Absolutely

Response by PO3 Randy Vaughan made Aug 4 at 2017 2:37 PM

2017-08-04T14:37:10-04:00

The question is does everyone go into a specialty, if so then yes, if not then no.

Response by CPT Joe Schalberg made Aug 4 at 2017 2:55 PM

2017-08-04T14:55:48-04:00

Yes. Rank doesn't make sense without the higher specialist ranks and in tandem with Warrants

Response by CW3 Russell Quinton made Aug 4 at 2017 3:34 PM

2017-08-04T15:34:54-04:00

I think it would be easy to delete the Specialist rank and switch to corporal and sergeant ranks.

Response by FN Terrence Moran made Aug 4 at 2017 3:40 PM

2017-08-04T15:40:36-04:00

No we need special forces, and trained specialist

Response by SGT Dave Loeffler made Aug 4 at 2017 4:40 PM

2017-08-04T16:40:42-04:00

I would like to see it but without the past limitations. I was a Spec 4 promoted to sgt e-5 but only with temporary rank. Only because I came from spec4 specialist mos

Response by PO2 Thomas Tutton made Aug 4 at 2017 4:42 PM

2017-08-04T16:42:08-04:00

Don't want to be a leader get out. It was my experience in the military that you must be a leader because you may be called into that leader position at anytime and you will be responsible for all the men below your rank. I liked the Navy back in the 70's move up or move out and part of moving up was becoming a leader

Response by Lt Col James Wiley made Aug 4 at 2017 4:50 PM

2017-08-04T16:50:42-04:00

Forcing everybody to be a supervisor, when many are best suited to be technicians, is counterproductive. Leave the option to go either way, or to change later, but let people focus on what they are good at. Don't force leadership on non leaders.

Response by SFC Anthony Holloway made Aug 4 at 2017 5:05 PM

2017-08-04T17:05:46-04:00

No the rank corporal says you are responsible enough to be a junior NCO. Corporal is a rank that is earned

Response by SSG Kenny Graham made Aug 4 at 2017 5:22 PM

2017-08-04T17:22:38-04:00

It's part of the rank and file so NO
KEEP IT

Response by MSgt John Cusolito6 made Aug 4 at 2017 5:34 PM

2017-08-04T17:34:11-04:00

I was AF so I never understood Specialist rank in the first place. Make it go away

Response by Sgt Jim Tennyson made Aug 4 at 2017 6:27 PM

2017-08-04T18:27:08-04:00

Yes.

Response by MSgt Edward Hayes made Aug 4 at 2017 6:41 PM

2017-08-04T18:41:39-04:00

What is effect on combat readiness?

Response by SGT Martin Iselin made Aug 4 at 2017 6:44 PM

2017-08-04T18:44:33-04:00

Response by CPL Gale Fulte made Aug 4 at 2017 7:45 PM

2017-08-04T19:45:02-04:00

Absolutely! Either you're an E-4 or you aren't.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2017 8:00 PM

2017-08-04T20:00:22-04:00

Specialist or non-specialist it wouldn't matter because either way the person. Would already be becoming a junior NCO with specialist rank and not corporal. So it's a win-win scenario with both ranks.

Response by PO1 Roy Sturgill Sr. made Aug 4 at 2017 8:09 PM

2017-08-04T20:09:36-04:00

Yes! Rank is rank! Specialist should be an MOS not a rank!

Response by SSG Leo Barnes made Aug 4 at 2017 8:24 PM

2017-08-04T20:24:58-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Robert Horn made Aug 4 at 2017 8:28 PM

2017-08-04T20:28:16-04:00

Not everyone is in a leadership job

Response by SFC Tommy Sloan made Aug 4 at 2017 8:39 PM

2017-08-04T20:39:02-04:00

No they need to keep the SP rank I have seen personel who are not cut out to be in any leadership role.

Response by Steven Schumpert made Aug 4 at 2017 8:55 PM

2017-08-04T20:55:59-04:00

I say do away with it, because most people don't know what it is, and there's confusion as to where they fit in the rank structure.

Response by SGT Marc Adams made Aug 4 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-08-04T21:06:10-04:00

No they need to get rid of cpl. There needs to be a step up from private before becoming an NCO and if a specialist is ready to be an NCO make him an NCO not corporal that's a slap in the face saying we want to give you the responsibility but not the pay so you're not ready to be a sergeant yet.

Response by CPT Ret Butler made Aug 4 at 2017 9:15 PM

2017-08-04T21:15:50-04:00

No, there are a lot of E-4s that should never be considered as a non-commissioned officer. They won't make it to E-5, and are happy doing the job.

Response by SGT William Kelso made Aug 4 at 2017 9:34 PM

2017-08-04T21:34:37-04:00

Yep. It's been to long.

Response by SPC Brice Thompson made Aug 4 at 2017 10:29 PM

2017-08-04T22:29:27-04:00

Yes. But riddle me this??? Even if you activate the full time CPL rank, is that soldier ready for a leadership position. I have personally seen many joes as buck sergeants not ready for that position. 1SGTs typically hate the CPL rank because they are ready for leadership but do not sit in on all the ops meetings(probably very few if any) usually stepping on TOP’s toes. But then again, I purposefully turned down becoming an NCO so I am no expert whatsoever.

Response by SGT Chris Lynch made Aug 4 at 2017 10:34 PM

2017-08-04T22:34:14-04:00

They should do away with Cpl because some soldiers are not ready to be leaders. Therefore SPC should be kept and Cpl be gotten rid of.

Response by CPL Michael Tannheimer made Aug 4 at 2017 10:44 PM

2017-08-04T22:44:53-04:00

Yes

Response by MAJ Coley Grubb made Aug 4 at 2017 10:48 PM

2017-08-04T22:48:39-04:00

Yes sir.

Response by CPL Mark Holgerson made Aug 4 at 2017 11:22 PM

2017-08-04T23:22:23-04:00

Response by MSG Kirk Jackson made Aug 4 at 2017 11:24 PM

2017-08-04T23:24:53-04:00

Maybe the Army should bring back Tech Sergeants also. Why not do something real and do away with pay grade E9 and squash that crap about E10 & E11. Never met a CSM that truly cared for enlisted soldiers.

Response by Jans McClain Sr. made Aug 4 at 2017 11:46 PM

2017-08-04T23:46:13-04:00

Well, my Cousin was in the Army (Ranger) and said it should stay the way it is. He just Retired after 30 years.

Response by LTC Lewis Cox made Aug 5 at 2017 12:48 AM

2017-08-05T00:48:21-04:00

No......It works!!!

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Aug 5 at 2017 1:27 AM

2017-08-05T01:27:41-04:00

No , they should phase back in Tech/Spec 5-8 ranks as well. There are way too many NCO's in too many units. And most positions being technical do not require command authority or leadership to perform. And as there are more technical positions being born everyday it is asinine to have so many NCO's. Too many chiefs not enough Indians. Tank companies could/can have 45 NCO's in charge of 10-15 Enlisted, made/makes no sense at all.

I stayed E-4 simply because I did not want to be a part of that mess at NCO ranks. Plus I had more pull, both higher and lower as ranking Spec. I think the stuff I did and people like me , created the "mystique" and image , that was later and now named aptly the E-4 Mafia. All of the Spec ranks from 4-9 and their attitude and the professionalism got concentrated into people of the E-4 rank hence that "Mafia" was born. I used to say a lot of duds get promoted to Sgt and the good ones get out. LOL In regards to my view of how hamstrung the NCO's ranks became without techs. Every Sgt was too worried about stepping on toes and one bad eval could get you barred. Spec 4's worried about none of that and just got to concentrate on getting things done with the least effort.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2017 4:01 AM

2017-08-05T04:01:52-04:00

I mean, I know way more Specialists then corporals, myself included. Corporal seems to be the rank that's not used, but in rank comparisons with the Marines I guess it would be easier....

Response by SP5 Michael Tifft made Aug 5 at 2017 7:39 AM

2017-08-05T07:39:03-04:00

No, specialist is a field that defines ones certain talent. A specialist is one who excels in their certain duties, not everyone is a leader. I was Sp 4 and then promoted to E5 simply to become a track commander but I still had that certain talent for the job. Keep the Sp rank, it is needed!

Response by SSG Rod Mcguire made Aug 5 at 2017 8:48 AM

2017-08-05T08:48:27-04:00

No, and bring back the spec 4+ ranks, not everyone is or wants to be a leader, seen a lot of good people leave service basically cause they didn't want responsibility

Response by SGT Richard Revell made Aug 5 at 2017 8:52 AM

2017-08-05T08:52:26-04:00

Yes
This is out dated I tell people I was a specialist 5 and they have no idea and I say Buck Sgt and they know. Specialist never got any respect back in my time even the ones of us that got Pro Pay.

Response by SSG Robert Riccardino made Aug 5 at 2017 9:27 AM

2017-08-05T09:27:33-04:00

I agree that SPC5-7 should be brought back. There is plenty of talent in the U.S. Army, however not all are cut out to be leaders. But when the Army requires you to send a SPCto the board to become a SGT, even if you and the SPCdon't feel they are cut out for it....well that is a flaw. Promotion boards should not be a requirement, they should be earned.

Response by PO3 Roy Cooper made Aug 5 at 2017 9:30 AM

2017-08-05T09:30:52-04:00

Yes

Response by TSgt Dave Conrad made Aug 5 at 2017 9:35 AM

2017-08-05T09:35:28-04:00

I believe that we require specialist to be leaders anyway.You will not see a Sgt or corporal running a com shop if expand the specialist rank so why have specialist rank?

Response by PFC William Ceiley made Aug 5 at 2017 9:37 AM

2017-08-05T09:37:24-04:00

No, if your not in a leadership pisition than that's your next rank

Response by SGT Bill Page made Aug 5 at 2017 9:41 AM

2017-08-05T09:41:39-04:00

Corporal should be left for those soldiers that perform a leadership roll. These are few and far between. Most E-4's are specialist in their fields ready to lead others in their MOS once promoted.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2017 10:23 AM

2017-08-05T10:23:59-04:00

They should definitely do away with the SPC rank, not only is it a grey area but also it prevents soldiers from wanting that leadership position. If they did do away with the SPC rank, I do think that it should not be an automatic TIS/TIG promotion. Soldiers should have to complete SSD-1 and BLC in order to be eligible for CPL as they would to be eligible for SGT. The Marine Corps has CPLs that go beyond what a SPC does and it doesn't stop there. There motivation to succeed is way greater than rhat of a SPC. You can't expect someone to succeed in his military if your setting them up for failure.

Response by MSgt Alfred Brown made Aug 5 at 2017 10:44 AM

2017-08-05T10:44:42-04:00

Yes!

Response by SPC Marcell Ledbetter made Aug 5 at 2017 11:09 AM

2017-08-05T11:09:12-04:00

I never understood the rank!!! I always thought of myself as a Corporal!!

Response by SSG Gregory Phelps made Aug 5 at 2017 11:11 AM

2017-08-05T11:11:51-04:00

I believe there is still much learning to be done at the Specialist level. In my opinion I would keep it.

Response by SPC Chris Perrault made Aug 5 at 2017 11:17 AM

2017-08-05T11:17:08-04:00

Up until e-5 there isn't much for command responsibility, spec ranks should follow same guidelines as Warrent officer.

Response by SP5 David Ferris made Aug 5 at 2017 11:38 AM

2017-08-05T11:38:51-04:00

The specailist rank allows for promotion of talented people who may not be suited for leadership as a non commisioned officer. Keep the rank so those deserving of pay for technical capabilities can advance appropriately

Response by LCpl Kwenela Tubbs made Aug 5 at 2017 12:33 PM

2017-08-05T12:33:17-04:00

Never understood why the army has that rank but I do know in ww2 the Marines had something similar between lance corporal and corporal. But there are terminal lance corporals because they are under serving of NCO rank. I'm not saying the army does not have a Corporal's course but I am saying that you don't get handed anything and if someone is promoted to specialist I assume it was because they do not hold the traits of a leader...but I believe every branch so instill that in training whether you have the rank or not so Specialist is like a cop out. If a Marine does not make MCIs, PFT AND CFT standards and weight standards or doesn't show leadership qualities in a certain amount of years he gets warned and then booted out for lack of effort and will never move to the rank of NCO and disrespect it.

Response by CPL Davius McKenzie made Aug 5 at 2017 12:45 PM

2017-08-05T12:45:49-04:00

Yes

Response by CPL Walter Oyola made Aug 5 at 2017 12:58 PM

2017-08-05T12:58:22-04:00

I was a Sp3

Response by SP5 Lane Eldridge made Aug 5 at 2017 1:11 PM

2017-08-05T13:11:21-04:00

Response by SP5 Patrick Noyes made Aug 5 at 2017 1:11 PM

2017-08-05T13:11:45-04:00

If it isn't broke don't fix it.

Response by SP5 Floyd Buffington made Aug 5 at 2017 1:47 PM

2017-08-05T13:47:39-04:00

Yes the Specialist rank came into being while I was overseas. I went in January of 1953 got out Christmas of 1957. We treated all Specialists just the same as ant NCO

Response by PVT Curtis Standifer made Aug 5 at 2017 2:33 PM

2017-08-05T14:33:42-04:00

NO ! THAT LIKE DOING AWAY WITH THE V.P.

Response by SP5 Billy Mullins made Aug 5 at 2017 3:15 PM

2017-08-05T15:15:55-04:00

Don't know what they want to accomplish by doing so.

Response by CPL James Polly made Aug 5 at 2017 3:16 PM

2017-08-05T15:16:25-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Wayne Hayes made Aug 5 at 2017 3:17 PM

2017-08-05T15:17:56-04:00

I think it should be phased out from all combat MOS's

Response by SSG Eddie Gonzales made Aug 5 at 2017 3:59 PM

2017-08-05T15:59:13-04:00

Get rid of one or the other.

Response by Bill Dolan made Aug 5 at 2017 3:59 PM

2017-08-05T15:59:14-04:00

Yed

Response by SPC Willie Royster made Aug 5 at 2017 4:36 PM

2017-08-05T16:36:48-04:00

Response by SSgt Deen Davis made Aug 5 at 2017 5:02 PM

2017-08-05T17:02:58-04:00

I can't speak for the Army. However, in the United States Marine Corps, we look at every MOS, as a Marine Rifleman, where we expect proficiency in both. We also expect that individual to step into leadership rolls, with no advance warning.

Response by Donald Fleming made Aug 5 at 2017 5:31 PM

2017-08-05T17:31:40-04:00

I agree. Get rid of the specialist rank and use corporal instead.

Response by Ernie Powell made Aug 5 at 2017 6:02 PM

2017-08-05T18:02:54-04:00

Specialist is a created rank that really has no tradition requiring its use.

Response by SPC Perry Attwell made Aug 5 at 2017 6:44 PM

2017-08-05T18:44:53-04:00

The corporal rank was always for combat MOS but everyone has to fight at some point today and it was for junior NCOs but everyone moving up to Sargent goes to a hard stripe so I see no problem with getting rid of the soft stripe of specialist.

Response by SP5 Oscar Bruno made Aug 5 at 2017 6:57 PM

2017-08-05T18:57:53-04:00

Specialist specialize in their field of expertise, The Corporal commands troops or personnel.

Response by SGT Les Freeman made Aug 5 at 2017 7:21 PM

2017-08-05T19:21:38-04:00

Yes, operate on the rule of kiss (keep it simple stupid).

Response by 1SG Norman DeLay made Aug 5 at 2017 7:56 PM

2017-08-05T19:56:43-04:00

Yes I think they should promote to corporal so they can prepare them to be better leaders

Response by Sgt Thomas Mitchell made Aug 5 at 2017 8:10 PM

2017-08-05T20:10:58-04:00

No, each phase prepares for the next.

Response by MAJ Charles Mercer made Aug 5 at 2017 8:14 PM

2017-08-05T20:14:09-04:00

I believe specialist rank is needed. We should keep both specialist rank and corporal rank. It makes too much sense. It separates E4 ranks based on responsibility. One is a leader over several enlisted soldiers and wears the coveted corporal rank to show this authority. The other soldier is a specialist who performs a duty but has no soldiers under him that he is responsible for leading.

Response by Maj Mike Kelley made Aug 5 at 2017 8:21 PM

2017-08-05T20:21:30-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2017 8:25 PM

2017-08-05T20:25:00-04:00

No, if theyre going to phase out a rank phase out corporal, most spc arent ready to be an NCO and corporals 9/10 times get 4187'd so they can fill duty rosters like cq, if a spc is ready to be an nco promote him, but no way in hell should we make all e4's junior nco's

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2017 8:38 PM

2017-08-05T20:38:24-04:00

I think it is an essential rank. I think it is a good preparation step You Don't need SPC5-SPC7 just have them promoted to CPL once they are promotable

Response by Sgt Larry Geroux made Aug 5 at 2017 8:46 PM

2017-08-05T20:46:13-04:00

Response by Sgt Ira Mercer Sry made Aug 5 at 2017 10:25 PM

2017-08-05T22:25:41-04:00

As a Marine who served in the army as enlisted and warrant officer I see no benefit to specialist ranks !

Response by CDR Jim Hoinski made Aug 5 at 2017 11:06 PM

2017-08-05T23:06:14-04:00

Specialist is a useless rank

Response by SPC Matthew Zaborowsky made Aug 5 at 2017 11:40 PM

2017-08-05T23:40:03-04:00

Get rid of one or the other

Response by PO1 Kevin O'connor made Aug 5 at 2017 11:49 PM

2017-08-05T23:49:10-04:00

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 12:25 AM

2017-08-06T00:25:23-04:00

No. SPC is the first rank where Soldiers are required to excel or remain a follower. Just as MSG is selected to be a 1SG or a SGM is selected to be a CSM, a SPC must choose to step up and fill the role of an NCO as a CPL, while they still having NCO oversight. Gradual steps into increased responsibility level. We have to judge talent and potential of NCO's; let leaders lead and identify and cultivate talent.

Response by SPC Tony Burch made Aug 6 at 2017 12:26 AM

2017-08-06T00:26:41-04:00

Was stuck at SPC4 for 9 of my 12 years in service. It needs to go.

Response by MSG Al Luberts made Aug 6 at 2017 12:56 AM

2017-08-06T00:56:27-04:00

NCOs are significantly different than specialists. A soldier who has not had leadership training, or who is not suited to be a military leader, should not be kept from advancing I rank and pay.

Response by SPC Brian Heckler made Aug 6 at 2017 1:29 AM

2017-08-06T01:29:35-04:00

Yes, it is way ovet due. Never like the specialist rank, serves no purpose.

Response by LTC Timothy O'Toole made Aug 6 at 2017 7:20 AM

2017-08-06T07:20:12-04:00

The corporal rank should be retained for leadership positions

Response by SPC Bradric Young made Aug 6 at 2017 7:31 AM

2017-08-06T07:31:11-04:00

Yes, this has long been a ridiculously stagnant rank. It's not an accomplishment, and transitioning from it is unbelievably diificult at times due to boards, stigmas, bias, and some hazing traditions.

The rank, nor the transition past it to sergeant, has little to do with proficiency or performance.

Also, having two E-4 ranks is a joke, not an incentive. It's an area in the rank structure that leaves troops vulnerable to a large stagnant gray area. There's no definitive answer to being promoted from specialist to corporal or sergeant.

The Army rank structure needs more clear cut answers, and less gray areas for bias and indecisive behavior to take place.

Response by PFC James Dresen Jr made Aug 6 at 2017 7:34 AM

2017-08-06T07:34:51-04:00

No some got no place with it if thay any good thay make grade

Response by PO2 Carl Shrout made Aug 6 at 2017 8:06 AM

2017-08-06T08:06:29-04:00

As a Navy veteran, I am really unqualified to answer this question. Even though I am the son of a retired Army CWO3 ( who sadly passed away in 2001), I have a hard time understanding the ranking system of the Army and Marine Corp. Guess it is because of me being in the Navy.

Response by GySgt Warren Kemble made Aug 6 at 2017 8:35 AM

2017-08-06T08:35:22-04:00

Never understood the specialist rank being a Marine. If it is like a E-3 then maybe rename the rank. But I've always heard it was a E-4 rank. Marine Corps has two separate E-8/9. One's more administration and the other is more technical/mechanical.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 8:43 AM

2017-08-06T08:43:31-04:00

Response by CPL Gerald Beasley made Aug 6 at 2017 8:56 AM

2017-08-06T08:56:08-04:00

No.", there is a need for lots of spec.4's and only a few cpls

Response by SPC James Thomas made Aug 6 at 2017 8:58 AM

2017-08-06T08:58:42-04:00

Yes Specialist is a pointless rank. It allows soldiers to become complacent and settle for being average.

Response by Ralph Seltzer made Aug 6 at 2017 9:00 AM

2017-08-06T09:00:19-04:00

It should be a tag label to the structured rank denoting special training

Response by Amn Ed Fulkerson made Aug 6 at 2017 9:10 AM

2017-08-06T09:10:41-04:00

No and should restore the ranks that were removed. They were only removed so they could fill the vacancies. Remove the hardest training is to remove the discipline requirements for leadership roles.

Response by 1SG Michael Burns made Aug 6 at 2017 9:21 AM

2017-08-06T09:21:59-04:00

yes

Response by SP6 Steven White made Aug 6 at 2017 9:37 AM

2017-08-06T09:37:04-04:00

I think Spc 4 is a needed rank. The issue now is that the army no longer use the Spc4 rank as a training rank. As a Spc4 i was able to sharpen my leadership ability under the tutelage of my squad leader and other NCO's, all this without the punishment I would have receieved if i made a mistake as a NCO. Today they Spc4 has the same authority that a privates has. This is why we have weak Buck Sgt's. I was so ready as a buck sgt because i was trained up well as a Spc. We need to give the responsibility back to the E4 so when the authority is placed on them they are prepared to handle it.

Response by CPL Chrissy Vogel Banday made Aug 6 at 2017 9:52 AM

2017-08-06T09:52:42-04:00

Response by PO1 James Cooley made Aug 6 at 2017 10:00 AM

2017-08-06T10:00:08-04:00

Go back the way it use to be. Those specialist ranks confuse a simple minded man like me.

Response by AA Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 10:02 AM

2017-08-06T10:02:21-04:00

I don't believe so. The Navy has the 3rd class (E-4) its so NCOs have a chance to grow as a leader. Some people are able to jump straight to sergeant and yes there are people who can handle it but its a growing period. I obviously am not in the Army so i can only speak from the Navy perspective but i believe that its not horrible to earn those chevrons.

Response by LTC Eddie Lee made Aug 6 at 2017 10:08 AM

2017-08-06T10:08:27-04:00

Yes never liked it

Response by SFC Rodney Kay made Aug 6 at 2017 10:58 AM

2017-08-06T10:58:10-04:00

Start the leadership training early. Get rid of the specialist rank.

Response by SP6 John Hewett made Aug 6 at 2017 11:31 AM

2017-08-06T11:31:07-04:00

Specialist is a non-supervisory rank. Corporal has supervision as part of the assigned duties.

Response by SFC Robert Burke made Aug 6 at 2017 12:14 PM

2017-08-06T12:14:08-04:00

I was a SP4 and the received my CPL stripes after being in an NCO role for 6 months. This also occurred after going through PLDC. I BELIEVE IF YOUR NOT IN AN NOV POSITION YOU SHOULD NOT WEAR THE STRIPES.

Response by MAJ Michael Meneghini made Aug 6 at 2017 1:12 PM

2017-08-06T13:12:01-04:00

Due to how little we pay our enlisted Soldiers we need to keep Specialist, and keep Corporal since they're NCOs.

Response by 1LT Bill Scott made Aug 6 at 2017 2:12 PM

2017-08-06T14:12:16-04:00

Yep return cpl

Response by CPL Floyd Glenn made Aug 6 at 2017 2:41 PM

2017-08-06T14:41:12-04:00

No.

Response by PFC John Gerling made Aug 6 at 2017 3:48 PM

2017-08-06T15:48:37-04:00

Phase it out

Response by Sgt Anthony Tubbs Jr made Aug 6 at 2017 3:48 PM

2017-08-06T15:48:41-04:00

Do away with it.

Response by SFC Rudie Boulware made Aug 6 at 2017 3:52 PM

2017-08-06T15:52:59-04:00

All stripes should have the require attaining some level of required training , when those specialist are needed in leadership roles what training did the complete to be ready as a leader , you can't have a two tier promotion system and a professional well trained enlisted base , that is equally qualified , and trained

Response by PO3 Steve Fredericks made Aug 6 at 2017 4:00 PM

2017-08-06T16:00:48-04:00

Keep ranks as they were in 60s, 70s

Response by SP5 Curt Cole made Aug 6 at 2017 4:16 PM

2017-08-06T16:16:36-04:00

As a former Specialist, the designation referred to workers not leadership however I was frequently in a leadership role. I think the Specialist rank was looked down on when I was in, 1967-70

Response by SFC Darrell Jefferies made Aug 6 at 2017 4:31 PM

2017-08-06T16:31:57-04:00

No, it still differentiates between skill at the assigned MOS and that of a specialized NCO, CPL or SGT..

Response by SGT Robert Panko made Aug 6 at 2017 5:02 PM

2017-08-06T17:02:44-04:00

No. But it should not be based on mos but on qualification. As a graduate of PNOC, not PLC I was promoted o SGT and commanded a tank on the old Cold War border. But when I reupped for a different mos they changed me to a Sp 5. The funny part is the next day I was marching the platoon back from the motor pool, (at Ft. Bragg) and a Major from 18th Airborne stopped us and asked me why a SP 5 was marching 2 Sergeants and one Staff Sargent? I replied "graduate of pNOC class 81-6 Baumholder. He responded Cary on.

Response by CPT Phillip Norton made Aug 6 at 2017 5:59 PM

2017-08-06T17:59:20-04:00

Train all specialists in a combat arms primary with a specialty secondary. When the s**** hits the fan everyone needs to know how to fight & defend.

Response by CPL James Rayborn Jr. made Aug 6 at 2017 6:23 PM

2017-08-06T18:23:41-04:00

Depends, when I was in (1969). A hard stripe is a leader of men, and a specialist was a leader of machines. I was a sp5!

Response by SGT Eddie Lee made Aug 6 at 2017 6:26 PM

2017-08-06T18:26:50-04:00

I agree to there being pros and cons to this rank, but I don't necessarily think it should be eliminated. Pros: beginning of leadership training and responsibilities. Granted most PFCs were immediately put into leadership roles, such as myself when I became a PFC. However, I already had leadership qualities as a Pvt1. SPECS are given the responsibilities of a Jr. NCO but can be removed if the time is right for further training. Cpls, handle a lot of responsibilities and most aren't ready for it. Well maybe less than half. From PFC straight to Jr. Non-Com for some is a big jump and some can't handle the stress. I don't know, though. I was able to handle it. Maybe it can be done...

Response by PFC Christopher Whittaker made Aug 6 at 2017 6:39 PM

2017-08-06T18:39:03-04:00

I think spc4-spc7 ranks should be brought back not all people are nco material some also dont want to lead.

Response by SP6 Gary Mallonee made Aug 6 at 2017 7:02 PM

2017-08-06T19:02:01-04:00

Yes I agree

Response by LCDR Michael Davis made Aug 6 at 2017 7:39 PM

2017-08-06T19:39:56-04:00

Response by PV2 Charles Alan Watson made Aug 6 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-08-06T19:40:11-04:00

I never understood the Specialist position.

Response by PO1 Bubba Clark made Aug 6 at 2017 7:41 PM

2017-08-06T19:41:28-04:00

Can't comment on this I was in the Navy. Never did understand the Army rate/rank structure.

Response by SGT Danny Higginbotham made Aug 6 at 2017 7:42 PM

2017-08-06T19:42:18-04:00

An E-4 should be one rank not two different ranks

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 8:32 PM

2017-08-06T20:32:09-04:00

Yes

Response by SCPO Stephen Brown made Aug 6 at 2017 8:39 PM

2017-08-06T20:39:43-04:00

Yes. When I served with the US Army (prior to serving in the US Navy) was TDY to Vietnam as a SP6 (Legal Clerk). I felt like a fish out of water. It was a combat zone. For me, Specialist is not a combat rank designation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 8:43 PM

2017-08-06T20:43:51-04:00

Can we not just use a t designator with the cheverons like pre-Korean war?

Response by SP5 Cody McKinley made Aug 6 at 2017 8:49 PM

2017-08-06T20:49:00-04:00

Absolutely the Specialist rank needs to go.

Response by SFC Mark Jones made Aug 6 at 2017 9:04 PM

2017-08-06T21:04:00-04:00

Yes. Since E/4 is junior NCO. Should be hard stripes instead of specialist in mean we got rid of Spec/5.

Response by SSgt Bill Hendricks made Aug 6 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-08-06T21:21:24-04:00

Yes they seem to have a long wait to get to NCO ranks

Response by SPC Robert Gackenbach made Aug 6 at 2017 10:36 PM

2017-08-06T22:36:24-04:00

Eliminate all specialist ratings. Let promotions represent significant increases in responsibility.

Response by SP6 Jerome Zirbes made Aug 6 at 2017 11:25 PM

2017-08-06T23:25:36-04:00

Corporal has always been a war time rank. E-4 is E-4, what's the problem?

Response by SPC Jimmy Larmeu made Aug 7 at 2017 12:09 AM

2017-08-07T00:09:04-04:00

Not really in my unit I would have went from Spec 4 to Sgt. Not Spec 5

Response by Edgar Van Lowe made Aug 7 at 2017 12:33 AM

2017-08-07T00:33:39-04:00

Response by CPT David Starkey made Aug 7 at 2017 12:38 AM

2017-08-07T00:38:52-04:00

No. Corporal is a command rank. If spec 4 does not exist - you stay in paygrade e3. Until a Corp position opens.

Response by SPC David Freeman made Aug 7 at 2017 4:48 AM

2017-08-07T04:48:07-04:00

No I think that corporal should be for infantry as it denotes a command where as a specialist is that

Response by CMSgt Rick Kaster made Aug 7 at 2017 9:21 AM

2017-08-07T09:21:42-04:00

Yes the Army needs to do away with this rank
The concept of developing all your personnel competencies and skills in order to have a competent workforce is important. Combine the specialist rating with the traditional rank system.
However this can be achieved as it is and has been with the Navy
AIR FORCE and the Marines.

Response by SSG Charles Davis made Aug 7 at 2017 10:02 AM

2017-08-07T10:02:16-04:00

No, they need to bring back the old specialist ranks to E-7. It's not a grey area, some people are not meant to be leaders but are very good in their fields. Some soldiers do not want to be a leader and we lose quality soldiers when they are forced out.

Response by SPC Robert Cabana made Aug 7 at 2017 10:42 AM

2017-08-07T10:42:49-04:00

Yes the should

Response by CPT Jeff Reichardt made Aug 7 at 2017 12:09 PM

2017-08-07T12:09:07-04:00

Corporals lead in line units. Specialists do not. Leave it as is.

Response by CW2 Brian Moore made Aug 7 at 2017 12:13 PM

2017-08-07T12:13:33-04:00

No. It's a good transitional rank where the EM has learned they're MOS tasks and are getting ready for the duties of a Non Commissioned Officer. Corporal should be reserved for those who are ready to take on NCO duties and have graduated from their first NCO school.

Response by SP5 Miguel Maldonado made Aug 7 at 2017 12:16 PM

2017-08-07T12:16:38-04:00

Yes I believe the Army should phase out the specialist rank and promote from PFC to corporal rank. That also includes SPEC5 and SPEC6 ranks as well.

Response by SSG Bruce Kandle made Aug 7 at 2017 12:36 PM

2017-08-07T12:36:42-04:00

Bring back Corporal.

Response by SP5 Robert Oniszko made Aug 7 at 2017 12:40 PM

2017-08-07T12:40:52-04:00

Yes

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 12:56 PM

2017-08-07T12:56:51-04:00

I have no idea. I wasn't army.

Response by SGT Susan Leach made Aug 7 at 2017 1:12 PM

2017-08-07T13:12:41-04:00

Yes

Response by CPL Scotty Mcdowell made Aug 7 at 2017 1:15 PM

2017-08-07T13:15:19-04:00

Response by SP5 Richard Pullum made Aug 7 at 2017 1:57 PM

2017-08-07T13:57:21-04:00

Response by SPC Jason Smith made Aug 7 at 2017 1:59 PM

2017-08-07T13:59:12-04:00

Yes

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 2:21 PM

2017-08-07T14:21:30-04:00

I would say yes to doing away with the Specialiist four rank. It serves no purpose. You have Corporal which is also an E4.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 2:34 PM

2017-08-07T14:34:22-04:00

Yes

Response by CPO Mike King made Aug 7 at 2017 2:35 PM

2017-08-07T14:35:33-04:00

Why not use the specialist rating in areas i.e; Medical where they are assigned to units as support. Does an E-4 medic have the capabilities to lead a squad of infantryman?

Response by SSG Ted Potter made Aug 7 at 2017 4:20 PM

2017-08-07T16:20:19-04:00

No their are too few people who qualify as non commissioned officers and we need tech ranks!!!!!

Response by SSG Ted Potter made Aug 7 at 2017 4:22 PM

2017-08-07T16:22:37-04:00

I have seen that tried in a few places and the corpral wound up looking silly!!!!

Response by SGT Leonard Volberg made Aug 7 at 2017 4:26 PM

2017-08-07T16:26:45-04:00

Never thought the specialist ranks were fair. As a Sp/5. I was still considered a NCO but always wanted the hard stripes.

Response by SP6 Forest Lane made Aug 7 at 2017 4:41 PM

2017-08-07T16:41:38-04:00

Response by SSgt David Preston made Aug 7 at 2017 4:52 PM

2017-08-07T16:52:02-04:00

No! Promotions are incentives, personal achievement and monetary

Response by CPL George Koerner made Aug 7 at 2017 4:52 PM

2017-08-07T16:52:21-04:00

Response by Cpl Gregory Ames made Aug 7 at 2017 4:53 PM

2017-08-07T16:53:39-04:00

It works in the marine corps. Private, private first class, lance corporal, corporal.

Response by 1LT Willie Kasayulie made Aug 7 at 2017 5:25 PM

2017-08-07T17:25:00-04:00

Specialists are specialists in their fields and should not be eliminated

Response by CWO4 Gunner Varga made Aug 7 at 2017 6:41 PM

2017-08-07T18:41:23-04:00

Since all jobs are by MOS/NEC, a separate rank structure seems like a burden. My Brother is retired Army and was a Medic (specialist) and I think it hurt his advancement opportunities.

Response by SPC Earl Semler made Aug 7 at 2017 7:04 PM

2017-08-07T19:04:20-04:00

No, the Army can not have 6 or 7 Corporals in every squad. The Specialist rank was devised to keep men and women in the service who have specialized skills. They may not have the desire to lead others, but they must be albe to teach new E-2 and E-3s coming out of the schools how to be good Engineers, Truck Drivers, MPs, etc.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 7:14 PM

2017-08-07T19:14:01-04:00

Yes. I should have been a corporal - on my way to become sergeant. I decided not to re-up because I was pegged as a "specialist". I was Infantry - prepared for war - not a specialist.

Response by SP5 John Nash made Aug 7 at 2017 7:33 PM

2017-08-07T19:33:36-04:00

Response by SN Clyde Stovall made Aug 7 at 2017 8:35 PM

2017-08-07T20:35:45-04:00

Yes

Response by CPL Cory Fowler made Aug 7 at 2017 8:40 PM

2017-08-07T20:40:39-04:00

Yes, I believe the Army should

Response by SGT Richard Hall made Aug 7 at 2017 8:56 PM

2017-08-07T20:56:57-04:00

Response by LTC Ray Tyner made Aug 7 at 2017 8:57 PM

2017-08-07T20:57:41-04:00

Bring back SP5-SP7

Response by SSG Antthony Covert made Aug 7 at 2017 9:13 PM

2017-08-07T21:13:48-04:00

Everyone is not met to be a NCO. You will have lost allot of operator experience in the 62 field. Should go from SP4 - SP6. it takes experience to operate heavy equipment.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 9:30 PM

2017-08-07T21:30:01-04:00

Yes it should, we are the only branch that does it, it's really unnecessary. I'd say get rid of it and make them all corporals. That way it removes the negative association of a corporal.

Response by FN Michael Tesauro made Aug 7 at 2017 9:52 PM

2017-08-07T21:52:58-04:00

Keep specialist , gotta earn corporal

Response by CPL Jeffrey Clark made Aug 7 at 2017 10:01 PM

2017-08-07T22:01:17-04:00

I was a hard stripe corporal because I worked for the position, and because cut off for e-5 was impossible to achieve at the time I was in. Specialist should stay but if it doesn't then corporal should only be given to promotables who have been before the E-5 board and passed. I also believe that corporal should be part of the NCO CHAIN of command.

Response by SSG Justin Dodson made Aug 7 at 2017 10:04 PM

2017-08-07T22:04:55-04:00

The E4 Mafia will still be alive and well with even greater power!

Response by SFC Charlie Stubbs made Aug 7 at 2017 10:35 PM

2017-08-07T22:35:16-04:00

Keep them

Response by PVT Donnie McCurdy made Aug 7 at 2017 10:55 PM

2017-08-07T22:55:01-04:00

HELL yeah

Response by SSG Don Heater made Aug 7 at 2017 11:06 PM

2017-08-07T23:06:13-04:00

Corporal is a leadership position, and should be treated as such

Response by SP5 Kathleen Berger made Aug 7 at 2017 11:16 PM

2017-08-07T23:16:00-04:00

I believe the specialist ranks have a place in the military. I held both NCO and specialist ranks during my service. The first in a position of leadership; the second when I was engaged with the special skills related to my primary MOS. Not everyone has leadership skills and not everyone has highly specialized skills. What if everyone in a platoon is a NCO? Who is in charge?

Response by 1stSgt Richard Crutchfield made Aug 7 at 2017 11:44 PM

2017-08-07T23:44:53-04:00

Yes

Response by SP5 Bob Gilbert made Aug 7 at 2017 11:47 PM

2017-08-07T23:47:05-04:00

My personal experience in the early 70's was that many SP-5's and SP-6's were, by default, in leadership positions. My squad leader, definitely a leadership position, was an SP-6. I, as a SP-5, pulled my share of duty as Commander of the Relief on guard duty and as Charge of Quarters, both of which were, albeit temporary, leadership positions. I see both sides of the discussion but by and large, I feel the Specialist ranks serve no particularly valuable purpose.

Response by CPL Adam Gerischer made Aug 7 at 2017 11:59 PM

2017-08-07T23:59:35-04:00

No, it needs to be expanded. Some people just want to be really good at their job. We can't all be leaders because then there wouldn't be anyone left to actually do anything.

Response by SGT Roger Conger made Aug 8 at 2017 1:03 AM

2017-08-08T01:03:27-04:00

Not all personnel are cut out for leadership it should be expanded not done away with it, makes possible movement up in pay grade if time and skill levels exist.Example your squad allows one SSG,SGT,CPL it allows for a SP4,SP5,SP6. So my vote is keep the SP rank

Response by MAJ Lee Goehl made Aug 8 at 2017 1:05 AM

2017-08-08T01:05:28-04:00

Yes, as with the other specialist ranks they are redundant.

Response by SFC John Lynch made Aug 8 at 2017 1:31 AM

2017-08-08T01:31:26-04:00

They need to prove they can take on the rank to be a junior leader as a corporal.

Response by MSgt Ralph Cox made Aug 8 at 2017 2:04 AM

2017-08-08T02:04:56-04:00

My personal opinion is the specialist ranks should not been created in the first place. I'm glad the rest of the services did not follow suit.

Response by SSG Jason Fairchild made Aug 8 at 2017 2:59 AM

2017-08-08T02:59:43-04:00

Yes

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 3:47 AM

2017-08-08T03:47:09-04:00

There is a reason our military has rank. With rank comes responsibility. We have the rank so you can learn more leadership skills or how to lead before your an NCO

Response by SP5 Keith Williams made Aug 8 at 2017 5:38 AM

2017-08-08T05:38:43-04:00

Yes

Response by PO3 Kenneth Lara made Aug 8 at 2017 6:15 AM

2017-08-08T06:15:43-04:00

No corporal is a leadership position, specialist is a specialist in a field

Response by PO1 Paul O'Connor made Aug 8 at 2017 6:16 AM

2017-08-08T06:16:59-04:00

Don't know. I was in the Navy

Response by Cpl David Rickman made Aug 8 at 2017 7:11 AM

2017-08-08T07:11:39-04:00

The Marine Corps has an intermediate rank of Lance Corporal & it works just fine.
I'd get rid of the title 'Specialist' though.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 8:37 AM

2017-08-08T08:37:16-04:00

I think that each Private rank should last at least a minimum of a year. Then you have to test for Corporal and so on. Just my thoughts.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 8:54 AM

2017-08-08T08:54:45-04:00

If they get rid of a rank it needs to be cpl. the reason is if you're a new soldier e-1/e-4 you really have no business leading soldiers... from e4 to e5 is only 12 mo if you can't hack being a Sgt why give them any leadership at all?

Response by SPC Frank Scahill made Aug 8 at 2017 9:10 AM

2017-08-08T09:10:56-04:00

Yes, it's not as respected as it was intended to be.

Response by Stephanie Outland made Aug 8 at 2017 10:16 AM

2017-08-08T10:16:19-04:00

Working hard and supporting our country comes first. Quality diamonds are made from the ruff so can some great leaders

Response by 1SG Juliano Duran made Aug 8 at 2017 10:19 AM

2017-08-08T10:19:57-04:00

Make them go to WLC prior to pinning on corporal this will ensure a better quality NCO

Response by MAJ Kris Wisniewski made Aug 8 at 2017 11:05 AM

2017-08-08T11:05:49-04:00

Specialist, Techs, are like Warent officers, professional in an area, still can kill in an instant....

Response by SP5 David Moss made Aug 8 at 2017 11:09 AM

2017-08-08T11:09:55-04:00

Absolutely abolish it. I left the Army as a Spec 5 and always hated it. As if we were some soft-striped yahoo with less dignity than "hard" striped sergeant. BUT always has the same responsibility.

Response by SGT William Reilly made Aug 8 at 2017 11:30 AM

2017-08-08T11:30:50-04:00

Response by LCpl Mike Moore made Aug 8 at 2017 11:59 AM

2017-08-08T11:59:40-04:00

Hard strips only

Response by Joseph Mattorano made Aug 8 at 2017 12:12 PM

2017-08-08T12:12:43-04:00

No they shouldnt cut out the specialist ranks. They should just leave the rank system alone

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 1:05 PM

2017-08-08T13:05:17-04:00

Absolutely. As a 35 year VETERANS of the Army and an former Specialist I was constantly put in charge of Soldiers on details, made a team leader and even made a Squad Leader while on active duty yet I still wore that silly rank that proclaimed I am not a leader. That is a bunch of crap. If I am good enough to be given the actual responsibility of real human beings called Soldiers to take care of then I must be a LEADER. Therefore if one show they are a LEADER they have LEADERSHIP qualities and should be what our ancestors were... a corporal or a sergeant. Even someone with a specialized skill was referred to as a technical sergeant prior to this idiotic specialist rank. The Army was so confused by it they had to do away with the SPEC 5, 6, 7 and 8 ranks. Why not the SPC too? I tell you there is nothing more ridiculous than watching two Specialists argue over who is in charge and fight over dates of rank. Corporal is the best way to go.

Response by SGT Dave Kellet made Aug 8 at 2017 1:23 PM

2017-08-08T13:23:01-04:00

Yes I think they should do away with that rank

Response by SSG William Fairbotham made Aug 8 at 2017 1:37 PM

2017-08-08T13:37:16-04:00

Yep. SPC in the Army have been in long enough usually to supervise and or capable of most MOS skills. There is a reason why they call it the sham shield! Corporal is a leadership position, I thought that's what we are grooming? Leaders not shammers

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 1:46 PM

2017-08-08T13:46:55-04:00

Yes

Response by SSgt Paul Brady made Aug 8 at 2017 2:33 PM

2017-08-08T14:33:30-04:00

When I was in the AF I worked with Army Specialists, up to and including a Spec 7 I believe. It thought this level was very creative as the people who were very talented at their job and were given a pay check to represent that level of expertise. If anything, the other branches should think about this level of pay as a way to keep talented people who just like what they do and are not interested in leading people. They prefer to lead with their talents. However, I think that the Specialist rank should shut off after Spec 7 at which point you must assume a management role to stay in the service and thus move to Hard Stripes. Either keep the Specialist ranks or pay a compensating amount of money for their Skills Pay. I think the AF pays extra for special talents such as a linguist.
This is a great subject to "throw out there".

Response by TSgt Tony Connell made Aug 8 at 2017 2:54 PM

2017-08-08T14:54:56-04:00

Being Air Force, I say let the Army decide.

Response by SPC Tony Mullins made Aug 8 at 2017 3:03 PM

2017-08-08T15:03:09-04:00

Specialist are in a no mans land. Newbies don't see there leadership but yet Sergeants(E5) for the most part don't see them as more than a Private

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 3:56 PM

2017-08-08T15:56:05-04:00

I think it would depend on the unit, if it's an administrative unit yes- if it's a combat line, support or field support unit- probably not. I hated being a Specialist, your not a rook but your not an NCO either, another has to do with the maturity of the soldier- a lot are often young and immature, unable to deal with the street of being in charge of other people.

Response by SPC Pappy Walker made Aug 8 at 2017 4:30 PM

2017-08-08T16:30:47-04:00

No although both are E4 corporal is more team leader role prep for E5 (Sgt) I was Spec4 promotable when I deros'd out. Probably would have had E5 had I not had article 15's

Response by Sgt Michael Patterson made Aug 8 at 2017 5:08 PM

2017-08-08T17:08:02-04:00

Keep

Response by SFC John Edwards made Aug 8 at 2017 5:28 PM

2017-08-08T17:28:41-04:00

As one of the last Sp6's in the army, when they converted me to SSG I really had to put in a lot of hours learning more leadership skills, went from being part of the squad to being the squad leader and at time platoon leader, put a big strain on my self conficence at the time

Response by Maj Dan Rasmussen made Aug 8 at 2017 5:37 PM

2017-08-08T17:37:17-04:00

I believe the specialist rank should put back into the rank structure for specialty fields like medical. It should not be in combat branches.

Response by CPL Tom Fletcher made Aug 8 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-08-08T17:45:16-04:00

Not everyone has the leader ship qualities the Army wants. But the person doing the job is as good at that job over anyone else. But, he doesn't have or want to be a leader then leave him at specialist. Let them do a great job for the Army. There are others that are leaders. And the door should always be open if they mature and grow into leadership qualities then the Army will have a great soldier.

Response by PO2 Paul Reeve made Aug 8 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-08-08T17:45:33-04:00

Yes i agree with that

Response by SPC John Munn made Aug 8 at 2017 5:49 PM

2017-08-08T17:49:30-04:00

No, it gives opportunity for promotion to specialty areas of tremendous importance.

Response by CPL Teyko Lujan made Aug 8 at 2017 6:24 PM

2017-08-08T18:24:11-04:00

We don't need the specialist designation. I felt it caused confusion no being a corporal received more respect to a certain degree than did a specialist 4.

Response by Lori Mcmillan made Aug 8 at 2017 7:02 PM

2017-08-08T19:02:37-04:00

Oh I don't know my son is chief petty officer very proud of him and God bless our brave troops thank y'all for freedom

Response by 1SG Bob Millett made Aug 8 at 2017 7:41 PM

2017-08-08T19:41:17-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Kenneth Littler made Aug 8 at 2017 7:57 PM

2017-08-08T19:57:30-04:00

No. Cpl has command authority. When I was in I busted my butt doing boards. Taking charge and setting an example. I was a DA CPL for about a year. Then I made SGT.

Response by SPC Alonzo Mclittle made Aug 8 at 2017 8:04 PM

2017-08-08T20:04:10-04:00

Yes, why have one rank for combat arms soldiers, and specialist for those that aren't.

Response by SP5 Norm Black made Aug 8 at 2017 8:31 PM

2017-08-08T20:31:34-04:00

Sp4 seems to be a useful rank

Response by SP5 Norm Black made Aug 8 at 2017 8:35 PM

2017-08-08T20:35:23-04:00

When I join the Army signal Corps in 1965 we had sp4 through sp9 parades. Sp8 and 9 don't seem to be necessary, but Sp5 thru Sp7 would seem to have merit. I was honorably discharged as an Sp5.

Response by MAJ Mike Quinn made Aug 8 at 2017 9:15 PM

2017-08-08T21:15:59-04:00

No, I liked the specialist rank. Some soldiers prefer the technical aspect of military life and have no real desire to be a leader.

Response by SP5 Richard Acre made Aug 8 at 2017 10:30 PM

2017-08-08T22:30:40-04:00

I think it's a bad idea, when I was in i didn't want to be a hard stripper,it (at the time) put you in charge of men (1969/1972) I took specialist 5 over E5

Response by SP6 James Mitchell made Aug 8 at 2017 10:34 PM

2017-08-08T22:34:46-04:00

Do away

Response by 1SG George E. Green made Aug 8 at 2017 11:23 PM

2017-08-08T23:23:02-04:00

Yes

Response by PO3 James Barker made Aug 8 at 2017 11:44 PM

2017-08-08T23:44:28-04:00

Do not know enough about army rank.

Response by CW5 Denny Edmondson made Aug 9 at 2017 12:13 AM

2017-08-09T00:13:54-04:00

Why leave that only specialist grade. Covert to CPL

Response by SFC Terry Elser made Aug 9 at 2017 12:40 AM

2017-08-09T00:40:06-04:00

I don't think so. Not all men can lead because they don't want that kind if responsibility. you need men that can teach also

Response by SGT Randal English made Aug 9 at 2017 1:24 AM

2017-08-09T01:24:26-04:00

All combat MOS' should be hard stripes.

Response by PO3 Kenneth Sjoen made Aug 9 at 2017 1:51 AM

2017-08-09T01:51:54-04:00

Yes

Response by PVT Robert O'Connell made Aug 9 at 2017 2:02 AM

2017-08-09T02:02:28-04:00

Yep...
all and every day...

Response by SGT Rick Guido made Aug 9 at 2017 7:32 AM

2017-08-09T07:32:16-04:00

The Specialists rank(s) is/would be similar to Warrant Office ranks. Technical talent just short of leadership role.

Response by LTC Brian Witcher made Aug 9 at 2017 8:25 AM

2017-08-09T08:25:45-04:00

Many young Soldiers who achieve E4 are not mature enough to be considered NCOs. I think the Army should keep Specialist rank.

Response by PO3 Terry Woodbury made Aug 9 at 2017 8:56 AM

2017-08-09T08:56:21-04:00

All military families and servicemen take pride in their commitment to their country. That includes their rank.

Response by SPC Carl Swann made Aug 9 at 2017 9:08 AM

2017-08-09T09:08:41-04:00

No. Keep spec4 rank. Gets a soldiers prepared for sgt.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 9:38 AM

2017-08-09T09:38:28-04:00

The Army should go back to Sec5, and Spec6 rank. Nurses, PA's, and other such Specialists should not have Rank at all, they should be what they are and paid accordingly but not hold Rank.

Response by SPC McArthur Haywood made Aug 9 at 2017 10:25 AM

2017-08-09T10:25:20-04:00

Why it works

Response by MAJ Willie Lloyd made Aug 9 at 2017 10:28 AM

2017-08-09T10:28:19-04:00

yes

Response by SFC Scott Cranmer made Aug 9 at 2017 11:22 AM

2017-08-09T11:22:21-04:00

I believe that the Spec rank should go back to Spec-5 to Spec-7.
Some soldiers just want to work at their chosen field, not jump into leadership roles. Not everyone is cut out to be in a leadership role as an NCO.
Besides PT, field exercises, and Airborne ops, if I could have just stayed in the motorpool, worked, learned, and increased my skills, I sure would have. But there was always the option to go the NCO route.
Besides, we are Army, not the Marines.

Response by Sgt Robert Suell made Aug 9 at 2017 11:47 AM

2017-08-09T11:47:14-04:00

Response by CSM Thomas Bugbee made Aug 9 at 2017 12:04 PM

2017-08-09T12:04:51-04:00

No. Corporal is an NCO rank and Specialist provides an increase in pay for those that have progressed in their MOS, but are not necessarily supervising other troops.

Response by SGT Vic Steroid made Aug 9 at 2017 12:52 PM

2017-08-09T12:52:04-04:00

When I joined in 1979, there were Specialist 4s through 6. I never saw a Specialist 7 but knew of the rank. What I found hopelessly bizarre was that we were to refer to the Specialst 5s and 6s as "Sergeant" even though that wasn't their rank. When we were short of NCOs, there would be Specialist 4s who were awarded Sergeant stripes and called "Acting Sergeants." Why they just didn't give them two stripes and call them a Corporal, I never knew. Then, when the Class B shirt changed from the gold pin-on rank to the shoulder boards for NCOs, Specialst 5s were included with that rule despite the fact that they weren't NCOs. So I'd say, do one thing or another, but whatever happens, just follow some logic.

Response by Nancy Miller made Aug 9 at 2017 1:17 PM

2017-08-09T13:17:56-04:00

Yes

Response by PO2 Ronald Walton made Aug 9 at 2017 1:52 PM

2017-08-09T13:52:35-04:00

Yes

Response by PO1 Charles Bellw made Aug 9 at 2017 2:02 PM

2017-08-09T14:02:55-04:00

Yes
The specialist ratings are sometimes confusing

Response by SGT Gray Paulsen made Aug 9 at 2017 2:09 PM

2017-08-09T14:09:05-04:00

Yes

Response by SSgt John Jarvis made Aug 9 at 2017 2:40 PM

2017-08-09T14:40:52-04:00

I was Air Force, but in my opinion the Army should do away with the "Specialists" ranks. Also if one branch is going to have warrant officers, they all should.

Response by SGT Patrick Larfield made Aug 9 at 2017 2:58 PM

2017-08-09T14:58:09-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Roland Tarlton made Aug 9 at 2017 3:15 PM

2017-08-09T15:15:50-04:00

Response by Sgt Tom Stark made Aug 9 at 2017 6:05 PM

2017-08-09T18:05:02-04:00

Yes. There was always a stigma attached to specialist ratings.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 6:15 PM

2017-08-09T18:15:21-04:00

I think before anyone decides to answer this particular question, we should pose a question to you. Are you proposing or creating a debate on having a PFC jump straight into being a junior NCO? From what I can read so far, the general consensus in that Soldiers are not ready to be NCO's even after taking on the SPC level responsibilities. Now that I have put this "bug" in your ear. I will answer by saying, no I do not feel the Army should do away with any of the ranks we have in general especially SPC.

Response by SSG Steve Olness made Aug 9 at 2017 6:50 PM

2017-08-09T18:50:08-04:00

It depends on whether they want to replace the Sp4 rank with being a corporal or not. Some soldiers are ready to be a NCO and others are not.

Response by SGT James Emery made Aug 9 at 2017 6:51 PM

2017-08-09T18:51:41-04:00

corporal is good

Response by PFC Ronald Vickery made Aug 9 at 2017 9:09 PM

2017-08-09T21:09:43-04:00

Yes,

Response by PFC Ronald Vickery made Aug 9 at 2017 9:09 PM

2017-08-09T21:09:53-04:00

Yes

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 10:00 PM

2017-08-09T22:00:05-04:00

No, too many already make Sgt too fast & not ready for leadership position.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 10:04 PM

2017-08-09T22:04:41-04:00

I think CPL and SPC should have different pay grades. Not that everyone should be paid more, but change the pay grade structure a little. Don't really care though, not like it's the end of the world.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2017 10:24 PM

2017-08-09T22:24:56-04:00

Pro it is cofusing to have a soft and hard stripe E-4 but it could ftop E3s from promotion if they have to complete NCO school

Response by PO2 Richard Hopkins made Aug 9 at 2017 10:47 PM

2017-08-09T22:47:39-04:00

I'm for the old rule called KISS, Keep it simple stupid. No offense ment.
I believe they can still be a specialist without creating a separate rank.

Response by CPT Paul S Guglietta made Aug 10 at 2017 12:14 AM

2017-08-10T00:14:40-04:00

Hell No they have a function. The rank and position the Army should get rid of is CSM above battalion level. Any CSM position above this level including the CSM of the Army is a make work, figure head position. It's worthless. I was a Senior NCO (E-7) before I was Commissioned. Tell me what do all these CSM position to accomplish the missio. They don't Comander and/or lead any troops. Just like an Officer that move above Compay level, loses everday contact with the troops. When one loses this daily contact with the troops many loses their leadership once you move up to higher Command, some forget where they came from. Some even think they have command and control over Officers, and some Officers allow them to do this, why, I don't know. Even the CSM of the Army must still salute and say "Sir" to a newly Commissioned 2d Lt.. they stilcan be court martialed by them.
I would like to tell you a true situation that I was a witness too, the treatment of a Newly Commissioned 2Lt. While I was attending Basic Officer Course at Ft Benning Ga. I saw the CSM of Fort Bening Ga chewing out a 2d Lt. in public at the base main PX. I saw many Officers of all ranks pass by smiling or laughing and doing anything. I was a newly Commissioned 1st Lt. With two tours in Vietnam., also at that time I did not know till later this young Lt. Was in my class.
I could not take seeing situation happening. I went over an intervend, When I did so the CSM jump on me. ( Which was the wrong thing for him to do). Right then and there I ordered him to follow me to more private location. Then I chew his ass out to the point that I know he would of like to hit me. During our conversation I reminded him that if he was entertaining any thought to him me (which I dare him too) I would not only wipe his ass, but I would press charges after he got out of thr hospital after they removed my boot from his ass.( I know now now myPTSD caused me to act this unprofessional manner) but that aside that is just one of few example I witnessed during my Army Career with CSM. I say this because I was the Headquarters Commanded of US Army Forces Command at Fort Mc Pherson Ga. A least Specialist have areal job and function.
Tell what function does a CSM above Battalion have that is essential to the Army Mission and Combat readiness?

Response by SPC Sonny Dale Hoskins made Aug 10 at 2017 4:23 AM

2017-08-10T04:23:17-04:00

Only pogs got corporal rank in my time. I was a specialist team leader, if you do your job you'll be promoted to E-5 pretty quick from my experience.

Response by SGT John L. Marecki Jr. made Aug 10 at 2017 4:48 AM

2017-08-10T04:48:18-04:00

No Corporal is part of the NCO core!! The rank of specialist I believe is a useful one and if you want to get rid of any rank get rid of corporal!! Your either an NCO or your not! Keep the specialist rank because so many joes are not ready for that responsibility!

Response by SGT Kevin DaRe made Aug 10 at 2017 5:34 AM

2017-08-10T05:34:47-04:00

I was under the impression that corporal was more towards the admin side of things like pushing paper and spc was more combat oriented jobs ...i guess I didn't pay that much attention when I was in. I started as pfc then spc then sgt. If I'm wrong sorry just what I had thought . Don't hate just set me straight. Lol

Response by 1LT Harry Burgess made Aug 10 at 2017 9:02 AM

2017-08-10T09:02:21-04:00

No. The specialist rank gives skilled people a chance for increased pay for increased skills with out giving command responsibility. These are not always similar skills.

Response by SP6 Michael Thorn made Aug 10 at 2017 10:34 AM

2017-08-10T10:34:01-04:00

No Specialist is a valid and valuable rank. So much prep and learning is done at that level. I'm not fully sold on Corporal though.

Response by SGT Larry Baker made Aug 10 at 2017 11:01 AM

2017-08-10T11:01:50-04:00

Keep the specialist because it lets others know what you are good at

Response by SGT Keith Martin made Aug 10 at 2017 12:53 PM

2017-08-10T12:53:29-04:00

Get rid of the specialist rank in the combat MOS's

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2017 1:07 PM

2017-08-10T13:07:41-04:00

Or have specialist-5,6,7
So promotion can happen with time in grade, if a spot doesn't open

Response by SSG Timothy Lind made Aug 10 at 2017 2:19 PM

2017-08-10T14:19:55-04:00

Yes, they should. All other branches view the E-4 as a non-com. Give the CPL a chance, it might surprise you.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2017 3:31 PM

2017-08-10T15:31:16-04:00

I don't think Specialist should be eliminated. Corporal I feel should be met with a small pay raise because most who achieve that are hard workers and leadership material, mostly if not somewhat ready to become Nco's.

Response by PFC Larry Sloan made Aug 10 at 2017 4:53 PM

2017-08-10T16:53:14-04:00

20 months in infantry in germany 4 months of it in Berlin.in 1961 & 1962

Response by SP5 Steve Johnson made Aug 10 at 2017 5:43 PM

2017-08-10T17:43:56-04:00

No. These grades, which should be expanded through E-7, provide a career ladder for soldiers who do not aspire to or have little aptitude for leadership, and yet possess skills that are needed in the ARMY.

Response by CPL(P) Danny Torres made Aug 10 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-08-10T17:45:27-04:00

I think the ARMY SOULD NOT FACE OUT THE SPC RANK, SOULD BE CONSIDER AS AN NCO

Response by SPC Ronald Matthews made Aug 10 at 2017 5:59 PM

2017-08-10T17:59:36-04:00

In the MARINES an E4 corporal is an NCO. The Army needs to match the USMC.

Response by SP6 Juan Hernandez made Aug 10 at 2017 6:23 PM

2017-08-10T18:23:28-04:00

No speciists are used for most mos corporals are usud combat arms

Response by SGT Layton Bond made Aug 10 at 2017 6:52 PM

2017-08-10T18:52:32-04:00

Yes

Response by PO2 Don Behrens made Aug 10 at 2017 7:38 PM

2017-08-10T19:38:31-04:00

Response by 1SG Dominic Garofolo made Aug 10 at 2017 8:06 PM

2017-08-10T20:06:28-04:00

No a cpl is an nco. Specs are just that specialists in a particular field.

Response by SFC Connie White made Aug 10 at 2017 8:16 PM

2017-08-10T20:16:46-04:00

We had corporals and buck sgt years ago and they did away with it.
Do away with specialists and everyone have stripes

Response by SPC Mike Woz made Aug 10 at 2017 8:21 PM

2017-08-10T20:21:09-04:00

Yes, I thought it was unfair that an E4 that was a corporal was allowed in the NCO Club, but an E4 that was an specialist was not allowed in the NCO Club.

Response by SPC Bill Redmon made Aug 10 at 2017 8:23 PM

2017-08-10T20:23:29-04:00

E-4 is E-4. To me that is a corporal.

Response by 1LT Dennis Roberts made Aug 10 at 2017 8:38 PM

2017-08-10T20:38:42-04:00

Absolutely agree. Everyone should be a soldier first, then a technical specialist. Bring back "hard stripes".

Response by CPL R Scott Underwood made Aug 10 at 2017 9:41 PM

2017-08-10T21:41:22-04:00

I think Private first class to Spec 4 should remain, it worked for me. When I was promoted to Corporal, I was ready to be a noncom

Response by SSG John Whiting made Aug 10 at 2017 9:45 PM

2017-08-10T21:45:30-04:00

The other Specialist Ranks should be brought back. There are enough non-command positions in the Army. The NCO ranks put too many good soldiers out if there are not enough of those positions in their field.

Response by SPC Bill Lair made Aug 10 at 2017 10:30 PM

2017-08-10T22:30:11-04:00

Yes

Response by PFC Kirby Lacy made Aug 10 at 2017 10:36 PM

2017-08-10T22:36:35-04:00

Yes I think they should get rid of the specialist rank it's pointless.

Response by SGT Mark Arell made Aug 10 at 2017 11:02 PM

2017-08-10T23:02:18-04:00

No! The Army should bring back the specialist ranks 4 thru 7--maybe even adding specialists 8 and 9. This supports a technical focus for soldiers not cut out for or interested in leadership roles.

Response by Tony Hinds made Aug 10 at 2017 11:04 PM

2017-08-10T23:04:52-04:00

I remember when it didn't exist and we got along fine

Response by SGT Steven Quinn made Aug 10 at 2017 11:13 PM

2017-08-10T23:13:03-04:00

No. Hard stripes are for Leaders.

Response by CW2 Randy Morton made Aug 10 at 2017 11:26 PM

2017-08-10T23:26:52-04:00

Keep specialist.

Response by Cpl Jared Osborne made Aug 11 at 2017 4:20 AM

2017-08-11T04:20:02-04:00

No, getting rid of an E- 3 is an obsurd idea it A) would give a corporal a pay cut or B) it would be giving a pay raise that's not deserved or both. Pay your dues as an E3 and quit expecting handouts.

Response by SGT Barry Williams made Aug 11 at 2017 5:52 AM

2017-08-11T05:52:12-04:00

I never did like the two different ranks at E 4. A jnco that had all of the responsibilities of a sergeant but none of the authority.

Response by Pvt Mark Epperson made Aug 11 at 2017 7:04 AM

2017-08-11T07:04:16-04:00

Yes, those specialist ranks are confusing to other branches.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 7:27 AM

2017-08-11T07:27:28-04:00

There should be an in between rank because most PFC would not make decent NCOs. But the time in rank should not be longer than 6 months.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 8:02 AM

2017-08-11T08:02:10-04:00

We should phase out the CPL rank. Honestly, through the corporals I know, they feel under appropriated by their upper NCO's and taken as a joke by the joes lower than him.

Response by SP5 Thom Sturgill made Aug 11 at 2017 8:20 AM

2017-08-11T08:20:06-04:00

No, they need to expand it for techs and do away with some of the contractors. Just provide a way to get hard stripes.

Response by SFC Phillip Marlowe made Aug 11 at 2017 9:07 AM

2017-08-11T09:07:04-04:00

If they are infantry,leave them corporals. If they are engineers., they do have different degrees of ability and efficiciency which can be tested..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 10:09 AM

2017-08-11T10:09:35-04:00

NO you should have to earn corporal rank by proving you are ready to be a leader

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 10:56 AM

2017-08-11T10:56:06-04:00

Leave it alone. The corporal rank signifies that a soldier is read for NCO duties. Sometimes due to staffing issues. A specialist the unit deems capable of higher responsibility can be promoted to corporal to help alleviate staff issues. Not all specialist are ready for that added responsibility.

Response by Sgt Frank Sarver made Aug 11 at 2017 11:02 AM

2017-08-11T11:02:39-04:00

Keep it

Response by SPC Stephen Reid made Aug 11 at 2017 11:03 AM

2017-08-11T11:03:44-04:00

Response by SSG Anderson Anthony made Aug 11 at 2017 11:10 AM

2017-08-11T11:10:15-04:00

But only in combat arms

Response by Sgt Jerald Fluke made Aug 11 at 2017 11:10 AM

2017-08-11T11:10:40-04:00

doesn't matter

Response by SSG Don Heater made Aug 11 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-08-11T11:19:19-04:00

No, some people just want to do a job. They want somebody else to do the leadership.

Response by SPC Justin Canis made Aug 11 at 2017 11:54 AM

2017-08-11T11:54:28-04:00

Hell no, the average specialist is nowhere near responsible enough or experienced enough for corporal. Cpl is an active duty rank for lower enlisted slotting an nco position, temporarily.

Response by PO1 Troy Bierkortte made Aug 11 at 2017 11:58 AM

2017-08-11T11:58:34-04:00

This is a strange question for a Navy vet to answer, because everyone in the Navy is expected to specialize. It is not possible in the Navy to advance to E4 without a designated rating (specialty). Many achieve their rating as E3.
Every answer above, from the Army personnel, seems backward to me. If a Corporal is a "leader", then the question should be, "leader of what?" I can't imagine that the US Army still exists where there is an abundance of unskilled ditch diggers supported by a small cadre of technically competent specialists outside their ranks. The fact that Soldiers all have an MOS pretty much proves that everyone has some specialty or another. Why you need a separate rank structure for people who have some specialties and not others is baffling. Just as baffling is the idea of promoting people to higher pay grades if they have not developed leadership ability.

Response by SFC Mercedes Olmo made Aug 11 at 2017 12:06 PM

2017-08-11T12:06:50-04:00

Hard stripes are for NCO material soldiers, not everyone is qualified then there is the specialist ranks.

Response by SGT Gary Reed made Aug 11 at 2017 12:28 PM

2017-08-11T12:28:55-04:00

It makes sense to unify the ranks. A spec 5 makes the same money as an E 5 but doesn't have command authority. That's easily rectified.

Response by PFC Bob Tribble made Aug 11 at 2017 1:59 PM

2017-08-11T13:59:39-04:00

It should

Response by Sgt Peter Quarles made Aug 11 at 2017 2:06 PM

2017-08-11T14:06:00-04:00

No there should be a rank , like we do. (Marines)

Response by AN Van Byerley made Aug 11 at 2017 2:32 PM

2017-08-11T14:32:31-04:00

I don't see the problem with having specialists on a voluntary basis.

Response by SFC Dave Whitley made Aug 11 at 2017 4:36 PM

2017-08-11T16:36:49-04:00

I believe this is in line with what the Marines currently do. We expect them to be junior leaders! Let them wear the rank to go with it. Just pay them at the current specialist rate!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 5:53 PM

2017-08-11T17:53:35-04:00

Specialist rank is self explanatory.
It's when you are supposed to really start to "Specialize" in your MOS.
Schools, training, special certifications should all be accomplished as a specialist. Thus the old saying "Sham Shield" because you were gone a lot doing said shit to be proficient in your job.

Response by MSgt Danny Richardson made Aug 11 at 2017 7:46 PM

2017-08-11T19:46:14-04:00

Marines have no specialist rank and we don't need it.

Response by CW4 Bernie Busby made Aug 11 at 2017 7:50 PM

2017-08-11T19:50:13-04:00

Only if leadership tng is included. USMC is the example.

Response by MSG Brian Jacobson made Aug 11 at 2017 8:03 PM

2017-08-11T20:03:04-04:00

I think they should keep it. It is a transition rank and not all should be Corporal. Then again, the Marine Corps doesn't have Specialist rank and it seems to work fine for them.

Response by SGT Stephen Jones made Aug 11 at 2017 8:07 PM

2017-08-11T20:07:26-04:00

Keep it. There is a need to retain enlisted personnel that are specialists in their field but are not in leadership positions

Response by SGT Kelly Barclift made Aug 11 at 2017 8:58 PM

2017-08-11T20:58:35-04:00

There are many troops that have awesome skills that don't necessarily have the leadership or commands abilities that are Corporal would have

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 9:20 PM

2017-08-11T21:20:16-04:00

When I was in a spec4 was moving up and a corporal was on the way down. You could see the former Sgt stripes on the corporals fatigues.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 10:22 PM

2017-08-11T22:22:52-04:00

I agree due to the fact that specialist allows soldiers to remain at a senior-junior enlisted rank with an assumed level of experience that can be supplimented if they have college when they enlist. I was a specialist from 2009 to 2015 and i hated being the senior specialist while a corporal that was the same pay grade had authority over me due to being an nco and I was also a corporal from 2015 for 3 months due to being in an nco position fighting for points to get promoted. I learn more from being a corporal then as a specialist about leadership and what it means to be responsible for the mission and soldiers then as a specialist. Too long as a specialist i spent that i was scared of being an nco. And i've been playing catch up ever since. So being a specialist was a lot more detrimental to my army career then being made corporal which opened my eyes to being an nco and what they go through.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2017 10:25 PM

2017-08-11T22:25:52-04:00

So the pros to going from pfc to cpl. They would obviously have to go through a board and have the proper mentorship to become a good nco and shock factor to being an example to the younger soldiers is a good thing since it means they have to be responsible or get out. The cons would be that they might not have been mentored in that roll as an nco to assume that rank.

Response by MSG Mitchell Pigg made Aug 11 at 2017 10:41 PM

2017-08-11T22:41:08-04:00

No it should stay

Response by SGT Daniel Neikirk made Aug 11 at 2017 10:42 PM

2017-08-11T22:42:15-04:00

No in the Artillery there are no office Cpl slots, there should still be a buffer/ transition rank of Spc to see is the soldier has what is needed after the E-5 selection to advance to NCO rank and be a capable leader

Response by SSG Andres Guarnizo made Aug 11 at 2017 11:05 PM

2017-08-11T23:05:06-04:00

Don't let the E4 mafia here about this. I agree with the SPC4-7 grade. Specifically in the tech/engineering MOS's.

Response by Jamie Bowles made Aug 12 at 2017 4:02 AM

2017-08-12T04:02:28-04:00

Gentlemen (& ladies, if present), the fact that your responses here have been practically unanimous screams volumes.

It speaks of a unity not found in the civilian world very often.

With the three-fingered method of an old Boy Scout
(the only salute I am qualified or worthy to offer people of your caliber),
I come to attention & salute you.

Response by SSG Anthony Adams made Aug 12 at 2017 5:09 AM

2017-08-12T05:09:18-04:00

I agree, just as they did away with spec 6 and spec 7 it's a wasted rank. And why is the E4 paygrade the only grade with two structures specialist and corporals. Just as they did away with SGM do away with Spec 4.

Response by SSG Anthony Adams made Aug 12 at 2017 5:26 AM

2017-08-12T05:26:41-04:00

I was reading some of these responses and everyone is talking about not everyone is NCO material, or ready for leadership, or command. Well it's like this if they are not ready then it the fault of their leaders for not properly preparing them to be NCOs. I was in the 25th division when the army converted from specialist ranks to hard stripe NCOs. One of the proudest moment of my military career. Lastly someone made a very good point specialist 5 - 7 were what was called soft stripes and had to take commands from hard stripe NCO, be they lower or the same paygrade and that was a slap in the face, that's my opinion. Get rid of all specialist ranks and for gods sake trained to lead prepare your soldiers for leadership and command positions.

Response by SSG Tom Goodspeed made Aug 12 at 2017 9:54 AM

2017-08-12T09:54:23-04:00

Never understood moving from hard strips to soft strips and back again , the job did not change, work still had to get done

Response by SPC Darold Sage made Aug 12 at 2017 12:01 PM

2017-08-12T12:01:33-04:00

I do I think they should go back to the old rank system

Response by Maj Stephen Sumbot made Aug 12 at 2017 12:09 PM

2017-08-12T12:09:53-04:00

Yes

Response by Cpl John Guthrie made Aug 12 at 2017 2:15 PM

2017-08-12T14:15:47-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Justin Costa made Aug 12 at 2017 2:26 PM

2017-08-12T14:26:11-04:00

Not everyone is meant to be a leader not everyone is meant to be a Nco some people are meant to excel at being there specialty that is why we should keep and expand the specialist ranking

Response by LTC Robert Colie made Aug 12 at 2017 3:20 PM

2017-08-12T15:20:58-04:00

No, some troops are not ready to be leaders. Corporal rank should be earned after promotion to E4.

Response by CSM Mat Taylor made Aug 12 at 2017 4:42 PM

2017-08-12T16:42:11-04:00

Yes

Response by PO3 Coy Coleman made Aug 12 at 2017 5:35 PM

2017-08-12T17:35:38-04:00

Yes.

Response by LTC Martin Glynn made Aug 12 at 2017 6:06 PM

2017-08-12T18:06:20-04:00

Get rid of it. I remember the old Specialist 4 - Specialist 7 ranks from when my Dad was in the Army, and they made no sense. When somebody needs a Soldier to take charge of something, it doesn't matter what the Soldier's rank is, he (or she) is expected to take charge and get things moving. The old "hard stripers" versus "non-leader" Specialists was ridiculous, because it didn't work very well at all when an E-5 Sergeant was supposedly in charge of something that involved SP5's (peers), or SP6's or SP7's who were in higher pay grades and had more experience.

The "up or out" rule should make this a moot point. Either become a leader and move up, or hit your RCP and move out.

Response by SPC 67 N20 Maddox made Aug 12 at 2017 7:05 PM

2017-08-12T19:05:30-04:00

Response by PO2 Bill Carter made Aug 12 at 2017 7:13 PM

2017-08-12T19:13:02-04:00

Absolutely not, specialist are required just like leaders

Response by Charlie Poliwka made Aug 12 at 2017 7:15 PM

2017-08-12T19:15:09-04:00

Not being in the military I don't know if my comment will mean much, but from from the little bit I have seen, there are more specialist than corporals. So I do not think we should get rid of the specialist rank.

Response by PO2 Larry Eaton made Aug 12 at 2017 7:52 PM

2017-08-12T19:52:43-04:00

No, it is what it is from E1 up.

Response by SSG Chuck Whitaker made Aug 12 at 2017 8:40 PM

2017-08-12T20:40:39-04:00

No we need them

Response by SPC Wade Lay made Aug 12 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-08-12T21:23:01-04:00

No! That is when a soldier really starts to think about leadership and their part as a member of a group. It's a time to hone soldier skills and develope leadership skills.

Response by PFC Jeffrey Hagan made Aug 12 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-08-12T22:08:00-04:00

I do thibk they sould do away with the specialist and should go to Corporal. The specialists are not in the command group. Where as strippers are. Say an E-5 for instance. A spec.5 has to take orders from a Sarg E-5 even if he has more time in grade because the Sarg is a stripper and in the command group.

Response by PFC Jeffrey Hagan made Aug 12 at 2017 10:14 PM

2017-08-12T22:14:44-04:00

Just curious how many of the people making comments to bring Specialist back where actually speciallists? As long as you can do the job it doesn't matter which you are as long as it is about the job, but as soon as there are multiple people doing this job, say radio repair. Then the highest ranking specialist has to fallow orders from a person with a strip who might not even know what it is you are doing. But if everyone was a stripper the most senior at the job could command.

Response by SSG Raymond Milar made Aug 12 at 2017 11:36 PM

2017-08-12T23:36:19-04:00

Wouldn't hurt

Response by A1C John Tremaine made Aug 13 at 2017 12:19 AM

2017-08-13T00:19:07-04:00

No... nor should they phase out warrant officers in any of the services

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 12:52 AM

2017-08-13T00:52:44-04:00

I say keep the Spc rank because of the fact that being corporal means you are ready to become a leader where as Spc is a rank that is given to you after 2 years of being in without getting into trouble.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 6:27 AM

2017-08-13T06:27:50-04:00

All i got to ask is why?

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 7:29 AM

2017-08-13T07:29:07-04:00

Corporal is used as a leadership role in the army whereas specialist is not. It makes since. If anything the army may be better off to phase out corporal since most of their leadership roles are taken on by sergeants and higher.

Response by SPC Wayne VanSleet made Aug 13 at 2017 8:13 AM

2017-08-13T08:13:04-04:00

I think they should go back to spc4 to spc7

Response by MSgt Robert White made Aug 13 at 2017 12:21 PM

2017-08-13T12:21:57-04:00

Some are not NCO material, however have a great skill, that doesn't require a management expertise. Allow those that have a great professional skill be ranked among them without the expertise of having both.

Response by SSG Dwayne Delaney made Aug 13 at 2017 12:44 PM

2017-08-13T12:44:36-04:00

I hated the rank. It meant nothing.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 12:44 PM

2017-08-13T12:44:56-04:00

Yes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 12:50 PM

2017-08-13T12:50:32-04:00

Yes. All SPCs should be made corporals or corporal should be phased out.

Response by SSgt Robert Anderson made Aug 13 at 2017 2:21 PM

2017-08-13T14:21:29-04:00

Infantry or combat arms that can lead

Response by SGT John Zenzayer made Aug 13 at 2017 3:35 PM

2017-08-13T15:35:43-04:00

One was supposed to be an ordering rank,the other a job rating.same pay for both.

Response by SGT Allen Lucas made Aug 13 at 2017 3:45 PM

2017-08-13T15:45:12-04:00

Hard stripes always received greater respect when I was in. I think specialist ranks are a waste of time and waste of space on the uniform. If there has to be a specialist rank, shoukd be limited to office and hospital type MOS's.

Response by LCpl Terry Smith made Aug 13 at 2017 4:04 PM

2017-08-13T16:04:19-04:00

Yes

Response by CMSgt David Powell made Aug 13 at 2017 4:21 PM

2017-08-13T16:21:53-04:00

Before the Air Force I was an Army medic. I think Specialist rank should go. Corporal is more appropriate in preparing a trooper for NCO leadership positions in the future.

Response by Sgt John Jones made Aug 13 at 2017 4:30 PM

2017-08-13T16:30:32-04:00

As a Marine, and one who had experienced combat and understands squad level experience, I would have to disagree. We need different levels of non-nco ranks to prepare the right candidates for command and leadership. That comes from experience in grade and time. It is critical to have a way to process these soldiers past all those who just wanna do their four years and get out. Those people should not hold up the achievers.

Response by SSgt Michael Hiranuma made Aug 13 at 2017 5:32 PM

2017-08-13T17:32:05-04:00

Specialists are not combat line troops. In WW2 they had conventional ranks with a T designation for technical specialties. Besides, isn't it up to the Army to decide? Do they still justify the spec classification? It is a pay grade.

Response by CSM Roosevelt Turner Jr. made Aug 13 at 2017 6:39 PM

2017-08-13T18:39:14-04:00

Response by CSM Roosevelt Turner Jr. made Aug 13 at 2017 6:39 PM

2017-08-13T18:39:55-04:00

Everyone cannot lead at the E4 level.

Response by SFC Harold Gear made Aug 13 at 2017 7:34 PM

2017-08-13T19:34:59-04:00

Absolutely not! The specialist rank should never be used as it had been in the past. In order to attain a minimal amount of leadership qualities, the soldier should pass through the corporal/E-4 grade prior to branching to the more professional grades of specialists The specialist rank should be used to design and train a soldier for a non-combative professional career path. Upon qualifying for a desired career path in an open career field, the soldier may apply for the change to apply at time for promotion to Sp5/E-5. With education and success the soldier will progress thru the grade Sp7/E-7. At this career point the soldier may opt to continue as an enlisted member or choose to apply to the Warrant Officer program beginning at CWO-2. Result: 1.) better trained specialists 2.) better qualified warrant officers 3.) More professional military [side note: this could apply to all branches of service ] SFC/E-7 (ret)

Response by MSG Dusty Scott made Aug 13 at 2017 7:36 PM

2017-08-13T19:36:50-04:00

I've been retired for while but in my opinion we should expand the specialist ranks. It worked well when we had it. I certainly agree with other comments that not all of our troops are born to be leaders outside of their own area of expertise.

Response by CPL Tim Goforth made Aug 13 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-08-13T19:40:07-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2017 7:44 PM

2017-08-13T19:44:44-04:00

I was denied becoming a spc by my former 1sg as "we didn't need them for my now" and became a sgt from the secondary zone. Thank God I had a good nco above me who helped me prepare mentally or I would have been sunk pretty fast. Could definitely have used the time earlier on to prepare

Response by CPO Michael DePumpo made Aug 13 at 2017 7:51 PM

2017-08-13T19:51:50-04:00

Yes, I don't get it, aren't we all a specialist?

Response by CPO Michael DePumpo made Aug 13 at 2017 7:52 PM

2017-08-13T19:52:12-04:00

Yes

Response by PO1 Lance Bromley made Aug 13 at 2017 10:36 PM

2017-08-13T22:36:38-04:00

As retired Navy, I am not that familiar with Army Specialist, but if the individual has a skill that the Army has a need for, then it should be recognized, to identify those for needs of the Army.

Response by SFC Charles Rupe made Aug 13 at 2017 11:50 PM

2017-08-13T23:50:23-04:00

Yes

Response by SSG Sean Jennings made Aug 14 at 2017 12:07 AM

2017-08-14T00:07:09-04:00

Corporal is a leadership rank for mostly Combat Arms

Response by PV2 Jim Clayton made Aug 14 at 2017 7:04 AM

2017-08-14T07:04:15-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Gregory Maher made Aug 14 at 2017 7:42 AM

2017-08-14T07:42:03-04:00

In non combat roles no in combat arms yes My reason I made SP4 in an Infantry unit I was 11H was given an M901 ITV command doing a SGT's job commanding TOW section didn't get paid E5 didn't get Noncom respect But still did the job short 1 crewman Not even given CPL stripes

Response by LTC Randy Mosher made Aug 14 at 2017 7:56 AM

2017-08-14T07:56:16-04:00

Yes. No need for these supplementary ranks. They provide an artificial seperation between soldiers of the same pay grade.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2017 8:58 AM

2017-08-14T08:58:18-04:00

I completely agree with the phasing out of the SPC rank. It took responsibility away from the E-4's not allowing them to get used to being in charge of soldiers. Then when they finally hit E-5 there is no time in between of which they've had any real experience besides BLC. So then we just have trash E-5's walking around thinking no one can knock them down and they still have no responsibility.

Response by Mike Poulnott made Aug 14 at 2017 9:43 AM

2017-08-14T09:43:25-04:00

If it ain't broke and it isn't! It don't need any fixing!

Response by Capt Joseph Schvimmer made Aug 14 at 2017 9:59 AM

2017-08-14T09:59:57-04:00

No, but they should not be so specialized they can not fight when being over run. And no throwing rifles away either or surrendering and apologizing

Response by Sgt James Walker made Aug 14 at 2017 1:00 PM

2017-08-14T13:00:35-04:00

Yes

Response by SGT Chris Hotchkiss made Aug 14 at 2017 1:27 PM

2017-08-14T13:27:56-04:00

Honestly, I think the "specialist mafia" gets too much attention. they are NOT NCO's and need to stop acting as such, HOWEVER, Specialist is a special rank, and one to be proud of. Corporal on the other hand, is a battle tested rank of JUNIOR NCO (which, again, specialist is not.) reserved for combat infantry/cav etc. line troops ONLY. and I think both should be left alone.

Response by SPC Peter Adair made Aug 14 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-08-14T13:44:24-04:00

Specialists are job related and corporal is a command rate and should be kept separate.

Response by SSG Harry Vaughn made Aug 14 at 2017 2:00 PM

2017-08-14T14:00:30-04:00

Specialists are support roles. Corporals are in a leadership role. No, I don't think the rank should be done away with

Response by SrA Brent Dolinger made Aug 14 at 2017 4:02 PM

2017-08-14T16:02:27-04:00

why is it that the air force, navy, and marine corps only need 1 title for the E-4 rank while the army needs 2? The army likes to over complicate things.

Response by CPL Luke Ediger made Aug 14 at 2017 4:34 PM

2017-08-14T16:34:34-04:00

As someone who was a medic and would have stayed in if I didn't have to become an NCO I'd like to see the Spc 5-7 come back. I didn't want to put up with all the paper work and baby sitting to comes along with being an NCO. I am and was a good leader I just loved doing my job 10x more and passing down that knowledge was so much easier as a Spc than a Sgt from my experience. One thing I would say is that the Army would have to figure out a way for the NCOs and higher ranking Spc to not bump heads over whos lane a certain situation might be in.

Response by SPC Bill Elsasser made Aug 14 at 2017 7:26 PM

2017-08-14T19:26:17-04:00

Yes they should. A Corporal commands more respect than a specialist.

Response by SSG Rodney Wilson made Aug 14 at 2017 7:43 PM

2017-08-14T19:43:42-04:00

Response by SGT Dennis Anderson made Aug 14 at 2017 8:45 PM

2017-08-14T20:45:58-04:00

Some Pfcs are not ready or able to lead a squad or team. The Specialist is a pay grade as much as it is a rank. Corporal in USMC is a leadership entry level NCO rank.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2017 10:11 PM

2017-08-14T22:11:26-04:00

I agree with phasing out specialist, but I feel that it's the rank where you really become specialized in your MOS so just turning it to corporal makes it sound more marine corps then army, maybe make a new rank instead of just phasing out one or the other they could make it a whole new rank name to begin with.

Response by MAJ J Ryan Smith made Aug 14 at 2017 10:34 PM

2017-08-14T22:34:47-04:00

A PFC when ready and trained should be promoted to Corporal and be a junior NCO

Response by CPL Ransome Swords made Aug 14 at 2017 11:11 PM

2017-08-14T23:11:39-04:00

Certainly not in Combat Arms MOS's. Leadership is everything in the grunts world. Spec ranks allowed upward mobility to those who could not or did not want to take a leadership role.

Response by TSgt Gordon Ekedahl made Aug 14 at 2017 11:36 PM

2017-08-14T23:36:45-04:00

Call there what you will. Call them the pay grade.E1 E6 E9. Whatever.

Response by SFC William Mahoney made Aug 15 at 2017 12:18 AM

2017-08-15T00:18:40-04:00

It's like the AF with there senior airman and sergent both are E4s

Response by PVT David Canoy made Aug 15 at 2017 12:43 AM

2017-08-15T00:43:50-04:00

The Specialist and Warrant Officer ranks should be expanded to facilitate the advancement of talented persons who don't specifically need to command others outside their specialty.

Response by SSG Robert Pierce made Aug 15 at 2017 1:32 AM

2017-08-15T01:32:28-04:00

Yessir

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Aug 15 at 2017 1:53 AM

2017-08-15T01:53:43-04:00

Hell No,
Bring back the Specialist grades all the way to E-7. Not every E-5 needs to be nor is cut out to be a leader.

Response by CW3 Marvin Loveless made Aug 15 at 2017 2:09 AM

2017-08-15T02:09:25-04:00

Yes, there is no place for it

Response by SPC Ken Curtner made Aug 15 at 2017 5:32 AM

2017-08-15T05:32:45-04:00

No. When I was in, the Corporal's were only in combat arms. All other E-4s were Spec. 4.

Response by SPC James Chaudoin made Aug 15 at 2017 8:31 AM

2017-08-15T08:31:31-04:00

Spec ranks tend to frag the chain of command.

Response by SGT John Gaydos made Aug 15 at 2017 8:41 AM

2017-08-15T08:41:17-04:00

No corporal is a junior NCO.

Response by SP6 Sj Phelps made Aug 15 at 2017 9:42 AM

2017-08-15T09:42:29-04:00

No specialist is a good rank for those that are good at their job but are not leaders. I think cpl should come befor sgt and include a slight pay raise for the added resposibility

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2017 10:05 AM

2017-08-15T10:05:07-04:00

This sparked a fantastic discussion with many viewpoints to consider. I used to think SPC should be done away with and converted to CPLs, but that was when I was...guess? A SPC. Now that I'm a SFC with a few rings around my tree I see the wisdom of bringing back SPC 5-7 (as many others have said) and letting leaders lead and workers work.

Response by MSG Edward Hayes made Aug 15 at 2017 11:04 AM

2017-08-15T11:04:22-04:00

SPC is exactly what it means, Specialist, they have been trained to perform a certain important job. i.e. mechanic, electrician, bulldozer operator, truck driver, etc many are excellent at their jobs but may lack the skills to be an NCO. Re institute the SPC4 to SPC 7 Ranks.

Response by SSG Darrell Webster made Aug 15 at 2017 1:54 PM

2017-08-15T13:54:02-04:00

No I do not think this is a good idea. Having the specialist rank gives soldiers time to be trained properly as NCOs.

Response by GySgt Kenneth Pepper made Aug 15 at 2017 1:58 PM

2017-08-15T13:58:40-04:00

To all of those who feel the Army and Marine Corps should merge into one force, this is absolute proof of one of the biggest differences. All Marines are promoted into leadership positions. If a Marine does not want the responsibility that comes with the increase in rank, they tend to find their way out.
I'm not criticizing the specialist role, I'm simply saying that the idea of someone advancing in rank without the increased responsibility is a foreign concept to us.

Response by SFC David Bellerue made Aug 15 at 2017 2:35 PM

2017-08-15T14:35:10-04:00

Do away with specialist ranks. No need for it. We all serve/served and are or should be proud of our contributions.

Response by SPC Sandra Sherman made Aug 15 at 2017 4:24 PM

2017-08-15T16:24:25-04:00

Yes, why have two rank names?

Response by Maj Donald Blair made Aug 15 at 2017 4:43 PM

2017-08-15T16:43:01-04:00

Marine's do not have specialists ranks all become NCOs after E3, but I definitely see the positives of the Army's option to include and even expand its options thru E7 again. Quality retention is the goal and having the option to promote and retain those that are outstanding in there field but are not interested in the command side thru the E4 thru E7. Gives a much broader career option for many.

Response by Cpl Matthew Farmer made Aug 15 at 2017 5:12 PM

2017-08-15T17:12:48-04:00

I say that's a big no, it doesn't allow new personal the time they need to grow into a leader ship roll.

Response by SSgt Christopher Mortell made Aug 15 at 2017 6:19 PM

2017-08-15T18:19:54-04:00

While I'm an Air Force guy, my son is currently an Army SGT. I do have a thought about this that really comes from my civilian experience. In the civilian world, career trajectories usually fall into the up-or-out category and the only way up is to get promoted to management. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to be a manager or is suited to the job. Many of these folks are, however, excellent individual contributors who are great at their jobs. Promoting to management, while it seems like a reward, is actually a disservice to the person and the organization. Many civilian companies are now creating parallel promotion tracks called key experts. This rewards both the individual with a promotion as well as the organization with retention of knowledgeable, skilled people.

I think the Army did itself a disservice in doing away with this concept and leaving just E-4s as Specialists or Corporals. The Air Force used to have a similar system at E-4 with Senior Airman and Sergeant. A few years back, the AF removed the Buck Sergeant rank and all E-4s are now Senior Airmen. Under the current structure for promotion in the Army it would seem to make more sense to do away with Corporal. I understand why the Army does this but I don't believe it to be in the best interest of the person at that stage of their career - civilian or military.

Response by MSG Maurice Driver made Aug 15 at 2017 7:40 PM

2017-08-15T19:40:22-04:00

I served as a SP5, I was ready for leadership but was over looked because, I as a SP5. The only time I was considered as a Leadr was when it came to duty roster. I worked my ass off and when I became a E-6, It came with SSG stripes, yes do away with it after E-4.

Response by Sherry Tunnell Rollins made Aug 15 at 2017 9:53 PM

2017-08-15T21:53:40-04:00

Based on purpose and value of rank exhibied, it seems a level that adds neither.

Response by SSG Arnold Kalmanson made Aug 16 at 2017 12:25 AM

2017-08-16T00:25:22-04:00

There was a good reason for specialist rank. To give the increased pay for expertise to soldiers who do not yet have the experience to lead troops. This condition still exists.

Response by CW2 Richard Crane made Aug 16 at 2017 12:59 AM

2017-08-16T00:59:19-04:00

Keep the spec rank as a non command rank with advanced training in career field

Response by Col Joseph Magaldi Jr. made Aug 16 at 2017 3:46 AM

2017-08-16T03:46:10-04:00

Response by SGT Gene Evans made Aug 16 at 2017 6:26 AM

2017-08-16T06:26:18-04:00

Response by SPC Brandon Bond made Aug 16 at 2017 8:08 AM

2017-08-16T08:08:40-04:00

Either get rid of specialist or corprol there's no need for 2 E4 ranks (I say keep specialist sounds cooler)

Response by SSG Jeff Gerfen made Aug 16 at 2017 8:49 AM

2017-08-16T08:49:49-04:00

I retired from the army and I still can't figure out why we have a Spec 4 rank. It needs to go, its stagnant

Response by MSgt Bryan Perdue made Aug 16 at 2017 9:02 AM

2017-08-16T09:02:08-04:00

Less confusion for me...but that's a call for the Army

Response by 1SG Jeff Carstarphen made Aug 16 at 2017 10:17 AM

2017-08-16T10:17:48-04:00

Yes, the only one left is the E-4.

Response by LCpl Yves Mandat made Aug 16 at 2017 11:02 AM

2017-08-16T11:02:36-04:00

I'm not sure about the Army special ranks but I do know the Marine Lance corporal rank was a smooth transition to a E-4 corporal rank,most crew chief positions in in aav,Lav and tank platoons was held by either a lance corporal or corporal, and section leader positions were held by either a corporal or sergeant.

Response by CPT Raymond Pearo made Aug 16 at 2017 11:06 AM

2017-08-16T11:06:07-04:00

Never saw any good reason for it.

Response by SPC Robert Trull made Aug 16 at 2017 12:47 PM

2017-08-16T12:47:22-04:00

No its the best sham rank

Response by SGT Paul Normand made Aug 16 at 2017 1:04 PM

2017-08-16T13:04:57-04:00

It's a sound idea. Corporal is the backbone of the Non Commissioned Officer.. I was never one but I was a sergeant before being medically discharged due to injuries. The added benefit of being a corporal is that you are just beginning to learn what it is like teaching soldiers, leading soldiers while you learn what it's like to be an NCO. I've always wondered why the Army had 2 E4 ranks. One being an NCO and the other not. I also believe that just how one becomes an NCO is a good way for an E3 to become an E4 Corporal with the board and points. The only think I would do different with the board and how one gets points to become an NCO is actually test their knowledge in their MOS. It's useless to reward someone with a higher rank if they don't know their job or how to soldier just because they pass the board just by showing confidence. (Not necessarily a bad thing, just make sure that soldier actually isn't horrible at their job and knows what they are doing)

Response by SPC Cameron McSpadden made Aug 16 at 2017 3:38 PM

2017-08-16T15:38:43-04:00

Spc. McSpadden
I wanted to lead but in my 6yrs I had more than enough promotion points to be an E6 but never got enough to be an E5. So with no mobility I got out. Ironicly 1yr 4mos after I ETS'D 9/11. Briefly thought about going back. But my life was on a different path then.

Response by SP5 Michael Concanon made Aug 16 at 2017 7:31 PM

2017-08-16T19:31:45-04:00

Specialist rank is just that- a specialist. Beyond E3, stripes are for mainly infantry.

Response by Cpl Cammie Grevemberg made Aug 16 at 2017 8:47 PM

2017-08-16T20:47:41-04:00

Yes

Response by CPL Richard Brokaw made Aug 17 at 2017 1:01 AM

2017-08-17T01:01:29-04:00

I absolutely agree with this idea. When I was promoted to Specialist I was still treated like a plebe. There was no respect for the rank and NCO's continued to use Specialist as glorified Privates. When I transferred units, to 1 Cav, I became a Corporal and was treated as if I had earned the right to wear that rank - big difference!

Response by PFC Merwin Stapp made Aug 17 at 2017 3:22 AM

2017-08-17T03:22:40-04:00

No Specialist is a Non Infantry Rate , Corporal is for Infantrymen

Response by SSG Robert Estes made Aug 17 at 2017 3:42 AM

2017-08-17T03:42:02-04:00

Yes,there is only one specialty rank that is still used and that is Sp.4.

Response by CW3 Ed Vincent made Aug 17 at 2017 8:14 AM

2017-08-17T08:14:25-04:00

Get rid of it. Serves no purpose

Response by SP5 Ken In made Aug 17 at 2017 8:43 AM

2017-08-17T08:43:10-04:00

Definitely bring back the Specialist ranks! I achieved the rank of "Spec-Deuce" (Sp-5) when I served from 1959-1962 in the Signal Corp & with the 82nd Airborne!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2017 9:52 AM

2017-08-17T09:52:04-04:00

No they should not, but being in the National Guard, I think that we should bring back to Coroporal rank for those waiting to go to BLC if they are offered a SGT slot. It might be different per state, but my unit doesn't acknowledge the Corporal rank at all.

Response by Maj Keith Rawls made Aug 17 at 2017 2:16 PM

2017-08-17T14:16:15-04:00

Why would you phase Specialist by promotion??? Just do away with the rank by not placing anyone else in it. Do it by attrition or simply place them in the equivalent Enlisted grade such as Corporal.

Response by CPL Randall Crosby Sr. made Aug 17 at 2017 3:27 PM

2017-08-17T15:27:17-04:00

Specialist by corporal because its not a hard strip that's just wrong.

Response by CPL Amoes Baldwin made Aug 17 at 2017 4:07 PM

2017-08-17T16:07:04-04:00

Actually Corporal is a b******* rank job as an NCO but only paid as a specialist where do you sit at at Chow time with the sergeants for the privates

Response by SPC Kory Emery made Aug 17 at 2017 4:48 PM

2017-08-17T16:48:23-04:00

Yes if I am not mistaken that's the way it was in the old army

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Aug 17 at 2017 6:06 PM

2017-08-17T18:06:17-04:00

Specialist are needed. Recognized as having specific training in specific modalities, he is what keeps the grease on the gears

Response by Sgt Lonnie Dittemore made Aug 17 at 2017 6:10 PM

2017-08-17T18:10:16-04:00

No! After the Marines I did 4 years in the Army I was a spec 4 in ADR with red eye units and Chapparel system then went on as a Sgt

Response by CPL Timothy Hughes made Aug 17 at 2017 6:18 PM

2017-08-17T18:18:40-04:00

Yes

Response by Capt Tump Laird made Aug 17 at 2017 6:46 PM

2017-08-17T18:46:21-04:00

Never liked the specialist rank. The corps has no use for it and I did not like being one with my tom in the Texas National Guard

Response by SGT Philip Moore made Aug 17 at 2017 9:39 PM

2017-08-17T21:39:51-04:00

I think you'll end up turning PFC into the next sham shield... For those not ready for the NCO corps

Response by 2d Lt Janis Gallagher made Aug 17 at 2017 11:13 PM

2017-08-17T23:13:22-04:00

I don't think so, because there are a lot of incredibly talented people out there that want to do a job and not be a leader. The main reason I left the Air Force after my 4 years was that at the time (I served in the mid 1970s) there was no technical path when you become an 0-3. You had no choice but to become purely a manager. I wanted to stay technical. So I got out and joined industry. Looking back, if there had been a technical path I probably would have remained in the US Air Force.

Response by SPC Donnell Johnson made Aug 17 at 2017 11:49 PM

2017-08-17T23:49:05-04:00

Yes. They're the same rank 'E4', so what separates them. The name of the title, why.

Response by PO3 Douglas Hosman made Aug 17 at 2017 11:51 PM

2017-08-17T23:51:32-04:00

To do away with this rank would be similar to the military doing away with medics and corpsman. Or a person cutting off their arm for no good reason, it should not even be considered.

Response by CPL Edward Slechta made Aug 18 at 2017 12:06 AM

2017-08-18T00:06:26-04:00

The specialist rank should be illuminated. It has outlived its usefulness. The NCO rank is the rank that should be used has it was prior to World War II

Response by TSgt Martin Clark made Aug 18 at 2017 12:19 AM

2017-08-18T00:19:43-04:00

Yes

Response by SPC Mary J Randall made Aug 18 at 2017 2:45 AM

2017-08-18T02:45:07-04:00

No. My father rose in rank to SSG and was a genius in Electronics. He got things working that had not worked for 10 years.

Response by 1SG Sapeti Aiono made Aug 18 at 2017 6:26 AM

2017-08-18T06:26:49-04:00

There are instances where the PFC is not mature enough to carry out the duties of a Team Leader, and to promote him/her into that NCO ranking could cause more harm than just letting him serve at the Specialist rank for a little time.

Response by CPT Art Mensch made Aug 18 at 2017 9:04 AM

2017-08-18T09:04:46-04:00

The rank of specialist was created I believe to differentiate between combat roles and noncombatant roles and denigrates the specialist.

Response by SGT Buck Johnson made Aug 18 at 2017 12:23 PM

2017-08-18T12:23:11-04:00

When they done away with the Spc.5an6 I have know ideal why the hell they would keep the Spc. 4. That was dumb as hell.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2017 1:11 PM

2017-08-18T13:11:38-04:00

I would say yes. Here's the deal, specialists' are expected to take charge of things yet do not have NCO status to back up their authority. As a now SSG, it was very frustrating when a specialist to be put in charge and in reality there was no consequences if subordinates disrespected me or refused to follow my instructions.

Response by MSG Bill Snyder made Aug 18 at 2017 1:41 PM

2017-08-18T13:41:19-04:00

Specialist ranks served a purpose. A Corporal, like the higher NCO grades, is a leadership position, and should be recognized as such.

Response by PO1 Bill Kelley made Aug 18 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-08-18T13:45:07-04:00

No, we need hands on personnel, they are the backbone of the military. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians do not a strong miltary make!

Response by LCpl Cleophus Cavin made Aug 18 at 2017 1:47 PM

2017-08-18T13:47:42-04:00

If you qualify for the rank, then you ought to have it.

Response by PV2 John Perkins made Aug 18 at 2017 3:11 PM

2017-08-18T15:11:13-04:00

Yes

Response by CPT Robert Bretherick made Aug 18 at 2017 4:28 PM

2017-08-18T16:28:02-04:00

specialist rank denotes other than combat. A Corporal Rank denotes combat training. Inf, Art, Arm.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2017 4:58 PM

2017-08-18T16:58:37-04:00

Not when they really are specialists. However if they are command destined line troops they should be promoted to corporal in order to develop command skills.

Response by SPC Marcus Williams made Aug 18 at 2017 5:19 PM

2017-08-18T17:19:07-04:00

By all means especially make it easier to get to PLDC soon after the promotion

Response by PO3 Michael Hiner made Aug 18 at 2017 8:08 PM

2017-08-18T20:08:30-04:00

Yes

Response by Cpl Josh Newlin made Aug 18 at 2017 10:41 PM

2017-08-18T22:41:16-04:00

Well the Marine Corps goes straight from E-3 to E-4, however the standards to promote are a little higher regarding MCI's

Response by Ann Kelley made Aug 19 at 2017 12:09 AM

2017-08-19T00:09:59-04:00

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Response by SSG Charles Crow Flies High made Aug 19 at 2017 1:47 AM

2017-08-19T01:47:55-04:00

Most kids don't know the story behind the specialist rank and I wouldn't promote any one to corporal without knowing they're truly ready to be a leader

Response by SSG Charles Crow Flies High made Aug 19 at 2017 1:48 AM

2017-08-19T01:48:29-04:00

No they shouldn't

Response by LCDR Gregory Richardson made Aug 19 at 2017 4:00 PM

2017-08-19T16:00:13-04:00

Yes. Change will do good to morale.
When.I was a Spec5 in the U.S. Army, the command I got assigned designated me in writing as an acting Seargent. .
Since I was teaching at the admin.school in Fort Jackson, I.had to wear the Seargent chevron instead of Spec 5 rank.

Response by SPC George Andrus made Aug 19 at 2017 7:32 PM

2017-08-19T19:32:37-04:00

No. Specialist ranks should be retained.

Response by SP5 Mark Wojnarek made Aug 19 at 2017 8:20 PM

2017-08-19T20:20:46-04:00

Yes do away with specialists

Response by SPC Shon Lamp made Aug 19 at 2017 8:57 PM

2017-08-19T20:57:17-04:00

Pro: good opportunities for early leadership development in the NCO ranks
Con: does not provide enough opportunity for those not willing/able to lead.

Response by TSgt James Griffin made Aug 19 at 2017 9:06 PM

2017-08-19T21:06:19-04:00

Yes, Corporal or Sgt

Response by SPC K Kasle made Aug 19 at 2017 10:15 PM

2017-08-19T22:15:42-04:00

I agree with the SSG and the MAJ expanding it back to SP5 to SP7 is the way to go.

Response by 1stSgt Ed Sheridan made Aug 19 at 2017 10:16 PM

2017-08-19T22:16:21-04:00

I always thought that there should be a specialist rank in all the branches. The hard stripe NCO status is a supervisory designation. Not everyone of value is cut out to be a supervisor. We spend too much money for specialty training then deny reenlistment for perfectly trained specialist.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2017 10:25 PM

2017-08-19T22:25:50-04:00

Some soldiers ship for basic training as a PFC or SPC depending on the amount of college they have. There is no way they are ready for NCO stripes and responsibility right out of the gate. Half the E5's out there struggle to transition to a Leadership role. Bring back the SPC5-7 ranks, and greatly reduce the non aviation Warrant Officer's. Force the actual NCO'S and O grade company level Officer's to lead, and put the SME's where they can benefit the unit the most for technical skills.

Response by SPC Martin Meyer made Aug 19 at 2017 11:52 PM

2017-08-19T23:52:41-04:00

I always thought the specialist rank should be used outside of combat arms MOS. Coporal rank more fitting to combat arms MOS such as artillery, armor, and infantry. Coporal rank also more appropriate for special forces and special operator units.

Response by MSG Clifford Williamson made Aug 20 at 2017 5:41 AM

2017-08-20T05:41:13-04:00

I think they should be corporals because as specialist they technically do not have command authority and many are in command of lower enlisted in the real world.

Response by LtCol John Borley made Aug 20 at 2017 7:27 AM

2017-08-20T07:27:20-04:00

Yes, you would have a rank structure that is universal throughout the Army regardless of MOS. Has worked in the Marine Corps for over 241 years.

Response by SP5 Hank Vandenburgh PhD made Aug 22 at 2017 12:23 AM

2017-08-22T00:23:11-04:00

This is silly. In my day, it depended ENTIRELY on what the TO&E said. Period. It had nothing to do with leadership, period. I guess they have meritorious corporals now...but...

Response by SFC Richard Lee made Aug 23 at 2017 1:30 AM

2017-08-23T01:30:44-04:00

No, it has it place for those that not seeking to be leaders.

Response by SPC Roger White made Aug 24 at 2017 9:00 PM

2017-08-24T21:00:44-04:00

Do away with it!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2017 5:30 AM

2017-08-25T05:30:05-04:00

I agree with those at the top of the comment stream that have gotten over or close to 1K up votes. Absolutely not, and we should bring at least SPC 5 if not SPC5-SPC7. There are plenty of great Soldiers that have no business being in leadership rolse, but due to the overemphasis on leadership first we give everyone the leadership mantle eventually and force some great Soldiers out of the Army.

Response by SFC Randy King made Aug 25 at 2017 2:30 PM

2017-08-25T14:30:37-04:00

I went from spec 4 to Sgt, to spec 5 and 6 then went back to Ssg when they ended the program, in my job I really didn't feel any different,

Response by SPC(P) Mike Conley Jr. made Aug 25 at 2017 4:47 PM

2017-08-25T16:47:43-04:00

I think corporal should be phased out. They don't get the respect of an NCO and they have more responsibility than a specialist.

Response by SP6 Autie Scaggs made Aug 25 at 2017 9:12 PM

2017-08-25T21:12:37-04:00

Yes, do it nowl

Response by SGT Robert Helsel made Aug 25 at 2017 9:55 PM

2017-08-25T21:55:25-04:00

Personally I think they should bring back the spec 5 and 6. There are jobs in the Army that don't require an NCO to do. But the only way to promote them for retention purposes is to put them in the NCO ranks. On the other hand they should get paid a percentage lower than the NCO's of the same grade to adjust for lack of leadership responsibilities.

Response by CW2 Robert Wylie made Aug 26 at 2017 3:53 AM

2017-08-26T03:53:34-04:00

Depends if the soldier is Combat Arms in a leadership position or in a non Combat Arm unit like maintenance, finance or medical. ( exception-comb)at medic

Response by SSG David Stafne made Aug 26 at 2017 4:47 PM

2017-08-26T16:47:45-04:00

The Army should go back to the old system of SPC-4 thru SPC-7; keep the Hard Stripes for those that lead troops, not manage programs or office staff; and bring back the policy where only Leaders in Combat Arms positions wear the green Leadership Tabs!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2017 1:28 PM

2017-08-27T13:28:19-04:00

No, not everyone is ready to be an NCO.

Response by SFC Charlie Brown made Aug 27 at 2017 9:18 PM

2017-08-27T21:18:15-04:00

No the Army needs those specialist positions, corperol and sergeant are leadership positions and not everyone can be a leader that's where the specialist comes in.

Response by SSG John Whiting made Aug 28 at 2017 4:51 PM

2017-08-28T16:51:12-04:00

Have specialist ranks all the way to SPC-7. Have a pay separation which is higher for NCO. What would the Army be without Master Sergeant and Sergeant Major. Those are not command ranks. They are vitally needed though.

Response by Cpl Brian Escobar made Aug 29 at 2017 12:23 AM

2017-08-29T00:23:28-04:00

I can't speak for the Army but I will say this about the Marine Corps...our jobs can be just as technical and require expertise as much as any Army jon out there....but since the Corps is tiny in comparison to the Army, the Corps does not have the luxury to specialize exclusively devoid if leadership. The reality is you can be a cook, a baker, or a candlestick maker...but if your squad leader goes down....guess what? YOU are the leader, it's the next man up mentality...I just don't underst and why the Army won't do this...we are after all nit that far apart in repsonsibility as Armed services, we recruit the same stock of kids...why can't we raise expectations in the Army?

Response by SSG Michael Hendrickson made Aug 29 at 2017 8:06 AM

2017-08-29T08:06:29-04:00

Response by MAJ Michael Minerva made Aug 29 at 2017 9:03 AM

2017-08-29T09:03:24-04:00

Yes!

Response by MSgt Tom Trull made Aug 29 at 2017 4:32 PM

2017-08-29T16:32:37-04:00

I'm speaking as a 21 year vet and not as an authority on the specialist rank. I think it is needed. There are crackerjacks performers in their mos ( afsc) that would be shitty leaders. But they should be rewarded for their skills . An E7 specialist should have all the perks of an E7 msgt. But only be an E7 type supervisor in his career field. Again we didn't have this in the AF so I am not speaking from experience

Response by CDR Will Balboa made Aug 30 at 2017 8:27 AM

2017-08-30T08:27:25-04:00

Specialist is a very useful technical rank. If a Spc feels the need to lead he/she cam always apply to go to NCO Academy, where leadership skills are taught!

Response by SP5 Gary Smith made Aug 30 at 2017 11:14 AM

2017-08-30T11:14:17-04:00

Who cares?

Response by SGT John Wakeley made Aug 30 at 2017 6:13 PM

2017-08-30T18:13:43-04:00

Is that why combat arms units like in the field artillery when I was in would take a 13B/ Spec 4 and put Sgt stripes on him via a Disposition Form and then expect the lower ranks to look at him as an NCO even though he was still an E-4 for pay purposes. As a Spec 5 working in the S-1 shop it totally yanked my crank when an E-4 wearing E5 stripes tried tknlock my heels. Balogny

Response by SFC Doug Lowe made Aug 30 at 2017 10:26 PM

2017-08-30T22:26:25-04:00

Absolutely not! Not everyone is a leader, but those who excel in their job should recognized

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2017 12:41 AM

2017-08-31T00:41:36-04:00

They need to bring back all 4 of the specialist ranks. Not everyone wants to be an NCO and some SHOULDN'T! But certain MOSs like petsonnelusts, cooks, mechanics, medics etc that have people who just want to do their jobs and occasionally get a raise, should be allowed to advance as specialists.

Response by SPC Peter Essig made Aug 31 at 2017 4:35 PM

2017-08-31T16:35:58-04:00

As a former specialist- yes.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2017 8:03 PM

2017-08-31T20:03:39-04:00

PFC to Cpl

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2017 9:38 PM

2017-08-31T21:38:24-04:00

No we are lacking in special technical skills now. It is important to retain the technicians we have and allow them to grow. The technology we deal with now tells us to expand the specialist fields as we did in the past.

Response by SPC Tom Rugg made Sep 1 at 2017 11:53 AM

2017-09-01T11:53:15-04:00

I would rather see a change in promotions. Use Cpl as a gateway into the NCO ranks instead of going from Spc straight to Sgt. I know a bunch of guys who snagged Cpl and never made it to Sgt because they got passed up by someone going from Spc straight to Sgt. Burned them up pretty bad.

Response by MAJ Howard Coe made Sep 1 at 2017 12:08 PM

2017-09-01T12:08:16-04:00

Specialist was to show a level of technical expertise while corporal was a leadership rank(general knowledge, but within a chain of command).
I was a Sp 4, Nuclear Weapons Tech, my team leader was Sgt/E-5, command. He had been a specialist till he was put in the leadership position.
Seems simple to me.
After college, ROTC and more, finished as a Major, FA. Never regretted the enlisted time, gives clearer perspective.

Response by SGT Christopher Lachcik made Sep 1 at 2017 1:36 PM

2017-09-01T13:36:20-04:00

No, its the best rank of them all.

Response by Col David Emery made Sep 1 at 2017 8:30 PM

2017-09-01T20:30:50-04:00

Yes, it's indistinct and often confusing.

Response by SPC Scott Currens made Sep 1 at 2017 11:04 PM

2017-09-01T23:04:57-04:00

No I agree they need to bring back the 5 through 7 ratings though. Some enjoy the full bird private option, but some fall victom to being to mission essential or to close to pcs for boards and PLDC so they never get a chance at NCO

Response by MSgt Mark Young made Sep 2 at 2017 12:27 PM

2017-09-02T12:27:53-04:00

Who is this "everyone" you speak of?

Response by SGT Robert Williams made Sep 2 at 2017 2:13 PM

2017-09-02T14:13:41-04:00

This argumtis moot. If a soldier is a specialist at his job, that's great, note in in his personnel jacket. Give the people 'rank' commensurate with military tradition, not some goofy identification as a master mechanic or food prep position. Aren't all military folks a specialist at one thing or another. I certainly wouldn't have want to have been identified as a tank canon shooter specialist as opposed to an armor crewman.

Response by CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. made Sep 2 at 2017 3:16 PM

2017-09-02T15:16:46-04:00

I grew up in an Army of Specialists. In fact SFC was my FIRST, and last, NCO rank. I fully support Specialists to at least E5, but beyond that Specialist ranks can become problematic in terms of leadership expectations AND demands. I spent over 5 years as an SP6 and had several episodes with Senior NCO's that sometimes treated me as a Super-PFC and at other times expected me to perform duties of an SSG. In one such occasion, I was treated as both by the same 1SG in a single day. I was excused from NCO call because I was an SP6 and when the 1SG posted the new SDNCO roster I was included with the SSGs. I really wanted to stay in and retain my technical skills but upon promotion to SFC decided on the Warrant Officer Career tract. GUESS WHAT, RLOs often times can't decide whether I'm really an Officer or still a SP6. How's that for irony??????

Response by PO3 Pat Con made Sep 3 at 2017 12:13 PM

2017-09-03T12:13:04-04:00

Yes

Response by CPL Marion Johnston made Sep 3 at 2017 8:59 PM

2017-09-03T20:59:34-04:00

I think maybe be promotoed to CPL after completion of PLDC until you make SGT.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2017 9:03 PM

2017-09-03T21:03:29-04:00

Absolutly.It is confusing. Everyone should wear the same rank,but a flash should be added to Cpl thru SFC to indicate Combat Arms,Administrative, or Technical MOS.

Response by LTC Robert Gray made Sep 4 at 2017 5:00 PM

2017-09-04T17:00:15-04:00

I could not have run my HAWK direct Support Detachment without the Specialist 5 - 7. They technical knowledge and skills where invaluable. Unfortunately, they could not have organized a cluster. They where not leaders.

Response by LTC Michael McCall made Sep 5 at 2017 6:13 AM

2017-09-05T06:13:57-04:00

They should keep it and expand it like it used to be all the way to Specialist 7. There are certain MOS's (79R, Career Recruiter) where a Soldier may be great at their job, but not necessarily a leader. Similar to Warrant Officers (Technical Specialists) but on a lesser scale. Possibly in the future we may need to recruit cyber experts and these computer nerds may possess incredible skills, but be far from leaders. There are certain MOS's that don't require all to have hard stripes, yet these men deserve to be paid for their skill and not necessarily their leadership ability.

Response by 1SG John Mahoney made Sep 5 at 2017 9:48 AM

2017-09-05T09:48:52-04:00

Never did go along with the Specialist designation, get rid of it. I also heard the Navy was eliminating Warrant Officers, which I think is an absolute mistake

Response by SGT Gary Powell made Sep 5 at 2017 12:52 PM

2017-09-05T12:52:18-04:00

Response by SPC John Driskill made Sep 5 at 2017 6:20 PM

2017-09-05T18:20:04-04:00

I was on active duty a long time ago . I was a Ft. McCllean M.P. I was a Spec 4 and my last duty station was Camp Walker South Korea. We were so short of NCOs at one point I ended up as a squad leader and the patrol supervisor. In instances like that, some stripes would have been useful.

Response by SP6 Larry Smith made Sep 6 at 2017 4:56 AM

2017-09-06T04:56:22-04:00

I lost my hearing while a Sgt in Signal 31M40. Became a Legal Clerk in Jag. Was switched to Spec 5. Hard thing to do to remove my hard earned Sgt Stripes. I'd had them for about 3 years. I was used to being in command of a squad or even at times a platoon as the ranking E-5. (shortage of E-6s). Was later promoted to Sp6. Hard to say Specialist when you think you are still a Sgt. I am one of those people who think lead or get out of my way. Old school, in the 60's and 70's.

Response by SP5 Chuck Andersen made Sep 6 at 2017 6:49 AM

2017-09-06T06:49:35-04:00

Tell me again how this works. I was sp5/e5, why in the engineers was I a squad leader?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2017 11:39 AM

2017-09-06T11:39:04-04:00

I know you get certain amounts of points for asking questions on here. GEESUZ, with over a thousand "Likes," did the Rally Point Headshed people send you a set of steak knives for this one???????

Response by SPC Alexander Ryan made Sep 6 at 2017 12:00 PM

2017-09-06T12:00:39-04:00

I would recommend running them concurrently. As in, auto rank stops at CPL, then have independent methods of advancement for each area. You test knowledge in your specialty to increase your SPC 4-8. You board for leadership E5-9. This way, you meet both needs. Those with leadership potential can increase along this track, while those who are technically proficient can increase their SPC rating while holding the rank of CPL. For more technically challenging areas, you would use the SPC rating as a determining factor for promotion as well, to keep the shit stains who can board well, but know shit about their actual job from increasing I that field. If a soldier in say the Intel field make SSG, but hasn't kept up his SPC rating, then you force him into another MOS or get rid of him. This way, you have leadership that knows it's stuff and you get rid of the polished turds who look good on paper but don't know their field.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2017 6:24 PM

2017-09-06T18:24:50-04:00

No, we need more socialist ranks again. There are too many crappy NCOs who the army keeps because they're good at their job, and people who are too crappy to get promoted get out because their stuck at e4 pay.

Response by CPL Al Narlock made Sep 6 at 2017 10:24 PM

2017-09-06T22:24:57-04:00

They should keep the specialist Rank and also include Spec5 through spec 7 not everyone is noncom material back in 1990 there were very few of us corporals I was very proud and determined to have achieved that success I worked twice as hard as everyone else maxed PT tests maxed out promotion board maxed out education I can say I earned those stripes it should be still the same that the best soldiers can earn their Corporal stripes and those that are not motivated can stay as specialists

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2017 10:26 PM

2017-09-06T22:26:37-04:00

I feel that the specialist should stay. I had medics who were ready to be NCOs, and we laterally promoted them to corporal. The corporal is a junior NCO deserving of more responsibility and promotion.

Response by SFC Tony Longoria made Sep 6 at 2017 10:34 PM

2017-09-06T22:34:10-04:00

He'll no

Response by SSG George Bardell made Sep 7 at 2017 12:30 AM

2017-09-07T00:30:15-04:00

Specialist rank are not command ranks and should stand

Response by SSG Michael Cox made Sep 8 at 2017 9:29 AM

2017-09-08T09:29:26-04:00

ONLY IN THE INFANTRY WHERE YOUR JOB DEALS WITH FELLOW SOLDIERS IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION OF FELLOW SHOLDIERS !! THEN SP/4 SHOULD BE DROPED AND REPLACED WITH CORPORAL !!!!!

Response by SPC Mark Kator made Sep 8 at 2017 9:36 AM

2017-09-08T09:36:32-04:00

The problem with the Specialist ranks is that the Army doesn't take advantage of them. A Specialist is someone that is well adept at their skill. The Army uses it as a "fall to" rank. I dealt with a lot of SPC-4's that had no clue about their job, but because of TIS and TIG, they were "given" the Specialist rank. E-4 is the start of a leadership position, whether they are leading as a junior NCO or leading in their specialty. Either way, they should test their skills and be promoted accordingly. And they should bring back the SPC-5 - 7 as well. When you see that Specialist shield, that should automatically tell everyone that they exceed in their skill, not just a "fall to" rank. Just like when you see those stripes, they should exceed at their skill of leading others. What the Army has lost was the leadership skills, both as an NCO and specialties. Stop promoting people that don't exceed in their jobs. Just because they can be physically fit in the APFT and memorize a board manual doesn't make them leadership material. Bring back the SQT and make them test for the E-4 and higher. If they don't exceed, then don't promote. Make the Army a job that is known for the leadership abilities.

Response by SGT Bobby Ewing made Sep 9 at 2017 11:01 AM

2017-09-09T11:01:44-04:00

Some people are just not cut from the same cloth. Leadership cannot always be taught. Some come by it naturally, some can be trained into it, and others are just good for the job at hand. Those are the Specialist, and should be recognized for their specific strengths!

Response by SPC Joshua Forman made Sep 9 at 2017 7:54 PM

2017-09-09T19:54:33-04:00

Simply put, no, but I'll start with the cons anyway.
The UCMJ provides exclusions from certain punishment for NCOs at E5 and higher. A corporal (also an NCO rank with general military authority under AR 600-20) would not be afforded the same protection from reduction in rank by a company grade article 15. In summary, A corporal assumes greater responsibility, but receives no additional pay and no reduction in penalty that is afforded to E5 and higher concerning non-judicial punishment.
Now for the Pros: For the record, Corporal rank is awarded to those that have shown that they have leadership potential, they occupy a leadership position, but lack the necessary requirements (time in grade, NCO leadership school, promotion points, etc) to advance to Sergeant.
Put another way, the army allows people with a Baccalaureate degree to assume the rank of Specialist upon entry into service. Should they automatically enter a position that grants general military authority. In comparison, commissioned officers with the same degree requirement are required to attend leadership schools before they assume command positions.

Response by SP5 Buzz Richards made Sep 10 at 2017 2:01 PM

2017-09-10T14:01:58-04:00

As a sp5 I was a t.c. of an apc in Vietnam. Sorry but that is a leadership position. Upon returning spent last six months at Fort Ord teaching .45,m79. My Squad E7 wanted me to wear E5 stripes, I told him if he wanted that to cut me some orders! That never happened.

Response by SSG Dee Horttor made Sep 10 at 2017 6:06 PM

2017-09-10T18:06:28-04:00

No specialist are needed. They specialize in a field. Not everyone is cut out to lead others. I was a SP5 before I converted to the supply sgt. That gives everyone a direction to go and advance.

Response by SSG David Ryan made Sep 10 at 2017 7:11 PM

2017-09-10T19:11:44-04:00

The short answer is no, under the current TO&E of an infantry line squad
That and the fact that a shoulder can only be promoted one pay grade at
A time, if you promoted from PFC. To sergeant e-5 that would mean a jump
Of two pay grades, no you just need to go back to the old TO&E,Where
You had a sergeant e-5 as the squad leader and two corporal team leaders
Then it would work, then take the staff sergeant and make him the platoon
Sergeant and eliminate the useless rank of sergeant first class.

Response by SSgt James Connolly made Sep 10 at 2017 7:28 PM

2017-09-10T19:28:35-04:00

Money!!!!

Response by SP5 Norm Black made Sep 10 at 2017 9:52 PM

2017-09-10T21:52:14-04:00

When I join the Army in 1985 we had the specialist rank from sp4 through sp9. By the end of 1965 early 1966 there was no specialist rank above sp6 and that eventually got phased out and by the end of the 1980s sp5 was gone forever leaving only the specialist 4th rank. In my Aviation company which was part of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany, we had so many s p fives that they used as like NCOs even though we never attended NCO School.

I agree with one of the writers that they should continue to have the rank of sp4 and bring back the SP 5 through 7 ranks.

Response by CPL Ben Pitts made Sep 11 at 2017 2:45 AM

2017-09-11T02:45:54-04:00

As an MP it seemed confusing that they told us we didn't need the Corporal rank but yet I was a team leader and in my reserve unit half the time I was a squad leader as a need for because we were low on personnel, and occasionally how's the acting platoon Sergeant at morning formation. I would think in the MP Corps specialist rank should not be used.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2017 8:47 AM

2017-09-11T08:47:16-04:00

I say no. The way I learned it was as a specialist your focus is to be technically proficient in your career field. Even mentor your peers. As a corpral you are expected to learn how to be a leader and maintain you technically abilities.

Response by SSgt Thomas DeLucca made Sep 11 at 2017 10:18 AM

2017-09-11T10:18:44-04:00

Yes get rid of it, us Marines don't have a dumb rank like that. If you are in a MOS then you should be a specialist at it.

Response by CW3 Steven Hill made Sep 11 at 2017 5:37 PM

2017-09-11T17:37:17-04:00

Use the specialist ranks for support and technical personal and save the hard stripes for combat units. This allows you to tell at a glance who ,when ranks are equal, should be making the decisions in any situation.

Response by SPC Roger D. Pemberton Jr. made Sep 11 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-09-11T17:45:38-04:00

I am on the fence between phasing out the Specialist rank and going back to the individual ranks within the Specialist rank. Honestly I would be perfectly fine with the latter but one thing would have to change to be 100% content. The Army would have to change the retirement rank and years of service mandatory to reach that rank. If I remember correctly you have to reach E-5 by 10 years and E-6 by 15 years in order to retire at 20 years? If you reached the highest level of the E-4 rank in 15 years maximum, you should be able to retire at 20 years.

Response by CPL Ed Hoffman made Sep 12 at 2017 12:59 AM

2017-09-12T00:59:17-04:00

I was SP/4 Co Armorer no need for non-com status. Found plenty of cause for reinstatement of the Professional Private as well. Just my opinion

Response by SP5 Kevin Bordeaux made Sep 12 at 2017 2:29 PM

2017-09-12T14:29:09-04:00

Hell yes. Make them corporals and send them to PLDC as soon as they get pinned.

Response by SP5 Mathew Dolezal made Sep 13 at 2017 11:41 AM

2017-09-13T11:41:23-04:00

I think in some ways yes, simply in my situation I went to the board aced it, had maxed my promotion points but due to my MOS having an abundant numbers of E-5's my promotion was unattainable for over a year till points dropped for literally a few days it seemed and it left behind me as well as other guys that otherwise could have promoted. So some POG job makes e-5 cause of his MOS when others don't? They base points of the the needs of that soldiers MOS, make it a fair scale for all and see what happens

Response by SFC Brian Dinges made Sep 13 at 2017 11:55 AM

2017-09-13T11:55:33-04:00

They should go one way or the other, enough of this "middle of the road" crap. Either bring back all of the specialists ranks to get some highly technical individuals in who don't have to or want to worry about leading. Or do away with it altogether and let individuals stay at E-1 through E-3 longer until they can learn some leadership skills.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2017 8:36 PM

2017-09-14T20:36:28-04:00

I feel that if it stays, it should be used properly. As in for someone who is deserving of a pay grade but not in a leadership position. In Civil Affairs and SF it would be very useful. The low guys on the team are SGTs and/or SSGs, but they are not in leadership positions, they are literally the lowest guy on the totem pole, with no Soldiers to lead. It would make perfect sense for them to be SPC5/6/7 until they become the senior B/C/D/E or CA team sergeant, then they would be moved to the SFC.
Otherwise it needs to go. One, it is confusing as hell. You are a Specialist now. OK, Specialist of what? Specialist of nobody wanting to bother to make the Soldier a Corporal, start the leadership development earlier? It makes sense to be able to recognize that someone is really good at their job, but not really that great at leadership, or that they are in a position that precludes them holding a leadership rank.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2017 1:05 AM

2017-09-15T01:05:55-04:00

I think corporal is the rank that needs to go because you still get paid the same as a specialist but have more responsibility

Response by SP5 Jmes Vought Jr made Sep 15 at 2017 7:01 AM

2017-09-15T07:01:17-04:00

I never thought much about it. When I was a SP4 they gave me a SGT. I told him what I needed and he got it done while maintaining the rank structure. At the time we were a shortage MOS 71N and the hard stripes were coming into the MOS from combat arms. They had hard stripes but not the knowledge of the job.

Response by CPL Jon Meyer made Sep 15 at 2017 7:22 AM

2017-09-15T07:22:06-04:00

I think it would allow for a better corp of SGTs. Forcing soldiers to become leaders and not just mentors after E-3 will help the NCO corp as a whole in my opinion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2017 7:39 AM

2017-09-15T07:39:25-04:00

I don't think SPC should be an automatic promotion. I think it should require testing, similar to how the Air Force does it for their NCO ranks.

Response by MSgt Jim Colyer made Sep 16 at 2017 12:00 AM

2017-09-16T00:00:08-04:00

Same thing in the Air Force. We had E4 Senior Airmen (SrA), then promoted to E4 Sergeant. 12 MONTHS TIG as Sgt to be eligible for E5 Staff Sergeant (SSgt). This gave a new NCO time to transition into the responsibility of an NCO. Now it's 12 months TIG as SrA with 36 months down from 48 months TIS to be eligible for SSgt. They are now less prepared for the responsibility of being an NCO.

Response by SSG Gary Dillingham made Sep 16 at 2017 3:36 AM

2017-09-16T03:36:42-04:00

No they should not!! There maybe a few good deserving PFC's ready to be Corporals but I would have to say the majority of them are not ready to take on the responsibility of being a NCO!!

Response by SFC James Pribish made Sep 16 at 2017 7:47 PM

2017-09-16T19:47:16-04:00

If they are in leadership positions they should be Corporal

Response by CPT Jeffrey Blair Sr made Sep 16 at 2017 11:05 PM

2017-09-16T23:05:02-04:00

Useless grade. They are no more than glorified Off a. You either perform as a noncommissioned officer or you get out. Im all for doing away with it.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-09-17T13:45:01-04:00

The thing is that SPC is the largest rank in the Army and not all soldiers want to lead. In order to become an NCO you have to complete a leadership course. Not all the specialists will be willing to do so. At that point you're phasing out the largest rank in the Army.

Response by CSM Jeff Butler made Sep 17 at 2017 4:39 PM

2017-09-17T16:39:54-04:00

CSM Butler (Ret). Putting a stripe on some one has NEVER made them a leader!

Promotions are NOT based on performance but on potential.

The CPL rank is needed in certain Units and jobs, but should NOT be used solely to identify future leaders. That should be done long before a Soldier is promoted.

There is nothing confusing with the Specialist rank. Who's confused? And if they are, they just need to ask the nearest NCO and they can explain.

The Army BROKE the NCO Corps when it decided to make every Soldier an NCO to progress. We NEED the Specialists in their perspective jobs with their skill set, and they should be able to perform that job through E-9. Leading Troops require a special set of skills that you just can't push on every Enlisted Soldier.

Forget screwing with the Specialist rank and create an E-10 rank for Division and higher positions to match the Officer Corps. (0-10)s

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 17 at 2017 4:52 PM

2017-09-17T16:52:37-04:00

There is no earthly reason a soldier can't have the military discipline of a corporal, and still be skilled in his chosen MOS. The rank of Specialist to a throwback to another time and should be eliminated. As to the counter argument--Without specialists we wouldn't have skilled soldiers--it's horseshit---Either a soldier knows his MOS enough to be promoted to the next rank of he doesn't. The problem with the modern army today is--you have to many people who think they need an office and a desk. You're jobs are is to be a warrior, or a leader of warriors. You can't do that if you have a desk to hide behind, and papers to shuffle. When I was a 1st Sergeant I had a company clerk to do the paperwork. I was out making sure the troops were being taken care of. You have a job to do. If you want to set at a desk, you should have joined the Salvation Army.

Response by SP5 Juan Picon made Sep 17 at 2017 6:33 PM

2017-09-17T18:33:52-04:00

The specialist rank was put 8n place during the Vietnam conflict. Many a soldier chose to go to special training. When they graduated, they became Specialists in that MOS, which distinguished them from infantry personnel.

Response by SPC Steven Allmon made Sep 17 at 2017 9:04 PM

2017-09-17T21:04:48-04:00

Get rid of SPC? Heellll no. Someone's gotta sham.

Response by SFC Thomas Bowers made Sep 17 at 2017 11:06 PM

2017-09-17T23:06:12-04:00

You could make E-3 Private 2nd class, and E-4 Private 1st class. OR Corporal.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2017 11:42 PM

2017-09-17T23:42:36-04:00

Just learn from the Marine Corps? I got out a Cpl in the Marine Corps in 2010. You earned it, was not just given and like the Army yes you had to go to a course which for us was Corporals course. I'm in the Army now just came in, in 2017 and I pretty much took a demotion as I'm a Specialist. In the Corps from going infantry to infantry just find it a little crazy that a Corporal in the Corps holds the position of what a SSG does in the Army ie Squad Leader.

Response by LTC Jerry Craig made Sep 18 at 2017 2:40 PM

2017-09-18T14:40:48-04:00

no-they are needed

Response by TSgt James Antis made Sep 18 at 2017 4:52 PM

2017-09-18T16:52:24-04:00

Don't care! I'm an Air Force vet!

Response by PO3 Arthur Sa made Sep 19 at 2017 6:29 AM

2017-09-19T06:29:20-04:00

Yes

Response by LTC Larry Davis made Sep 19 at 2017 1:20 PM

2017-09-19T13:20:14-04:00

The rank/grade of Specialist has meaning in those career fields where specialists are needed (medical profession in particular). But in a combat unit, you need leaders with command grades like corporal, not SPC4.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Sep 19 at 2017 4:31 PM

2017-09-19T16:31:23-04:00

No, they should do away with warrant officers and stop promoting NCO's that cannot do their job.

Response by SGM James Vogel made Sep 19 at 2017 7:44 PM

2017-09-19T19:44:15-04:00

No, not wveryone is cutout to be a leader, but they can be a good Soldier. Same thing they did to SP5 to SGT and then the NCO Corp started to weaken. Not everyone wants to be in a leadership position they just want to serve.

Response by SFC George “Bones” Small made Sep 19 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-09-19T22:08:00-04:00

Having been in the black-boot army long enough to see the disappearances of the enlisted technical specialist ranks of Specialist-6 (SP/6), Specialist-7 (SP/7), and Master Specialist (SP/8), I came to learn the specific need for such specialty ranks still existed long after they were gone. The Army has tried to homogenize itself to make everyone happy, which I saw (and still see) as a weakening of the force, and a decline in it's full internal personnel capabilities. I recall at one time (late 80s) the Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) was looking at making a change to the E-7 rank insignia for Platoon Sergeant (PSG) to be something identifiable as the E-8 First Sergeant, and E-9 Command Sergeant Major / Sergeant Major of the Army, in order to make the E-7 Sergeant First Class more of a replacement for the SP/7 technical specialist rank. Unfortunately nothing ever became of adding a "Bulls Eye" dot, dash, circle, square, or triangle into the center of a created E-7 leadership insignia because nothing seemed militarily fitting. I'm sure the SMA had a lot of NCOs pfft about his effort too, just like Specialists feel they're just as much of an NCO as their command leadership NCOs are. However, Specialists are not NCOs by any means, and I can refer to such as USFK Form 180 dtd 1 Aug 1990 in backing that up officially. It's an age old jealousy thing, since line NCOs are more powerful with the greater amount of responsibilities for everything within the command as their officer counterparts are. There were units at that time, and military situations, where NCOs were the primary leadership command in a unit. For instance, I was a Detachment Sergeant of an active duty Medical RE Team which had no officers within it's TOE personnel makeup. I commanded the unit in all things other than UCMJ actions. I was also the Platoon Sergeant of both a DUSTOFF medevac flight platoon, and a MAST medevac flight platoon that had me put in temporary command of all warrant officers and enlisted by army regulation, should anything happen to the Platoon Leader (until higher command authority officially replaced them). I think that was true in most all combat arms, and combat support units, such as Infantry, Artillery, and Armor, to insure a constance in unit leadership under combat conditions. Just as the Army has kept the Warrant Officer as a technical specialist, the enlisted field requires the same accommodation in it's structure.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2017 2:13 AM

2017-09-20T02:13:34-04:00

Fuck no they shouldn't do that

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2017 8:29 PM

2017-09-20T20:29:52-04:00

I agree with keeping Specialist in the ranks. The problem is not with the rank. The problem is that promotion boards for SGT and SSG are to easy the Army needs to do MOS proficiency test for promotion. They need to stop considering schools like Airborne, Air Assault, Pathfinder, Ranger, Drill Sergeant, Recruiter School, ETC. These Schools don't produce great NCO's. I went to BNOC when most of my class were Rangers in BAT yet they all cheated on land NAV and hand more problems on multiple choice test then others. The Army looks at Awards tabs and badges as if their gold. This is not the case these schools are designed to pass with a little heart, determination, and courage to continue. Make promotions the same as the Navy and Airforce and I guarantee half of the NCO's from SGT through SFC could not pass a proficiency test in their MOS or Army knowledge.

Response by CPL Diana Rosgallio made Sep 20 at 2017 8:55 PM

2017-09-20T20:55:28-04:00

Yes damn straight.

Response by SGT Gary Smith II made Sep 20 at 2017 11:17 PM

2017-09-20T23:17:58-04:00

There are E-5s that have no business being in charge of soldiers. Not ev1 is cut out to be a NCO! These soldiers are also very good at their MOS, and need to be retained. Go back to the old S5-7. Makes the E-club make more sense too.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2017 4:31 AM

2017-09-21T04:31:36-04:00

Yes and it makes sense to do so, likewise Senior Airman should be dropped and Sergeant brought back. Then every branch has NCOs at E4 period.

Response by SGT Chris Lynch made Sep 21 at 2017 9:08 PM

2017-09-21T21:08:31-04:00

It is the worse thing the army could do is put a soldier that has not been in long enough into a leadership position. To be blunt unless they have o e Deployment on their record and a knowledge of their job to get work done without a supervisor on a long pweiod of time with no less then 4 years served they do not deserve to be a NCO.

Response by SPC Gerald Barber made Sep 22 at 2017 7:20 PM

2017-09-22T19:20:18-04:00

Absolutely! It's what it used to be!

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Sep 22 at 2017 7:27 PM

2017-09-22T19:27:04-04:00

No.
As a Specialist who also had Corporals in the ranks of the same platoon, I know how both can differ.

Response by SPC Joseph Lynott made Sep 22 at 2017 8:56 PM

2017-09-22T20:56:29-04:00

Without the E4 mafia the Army would be fucked!

Response by PO3 Dave Sillman made Sep 22 at 2017 10:37 PM

2017-09-22T22:37:07-04:00

Being a sailor, I have no understanding of Army ranks. That being said, I'm a traditionalist. I'd prefer the old way.

Response by SrA Larry Siders made Sep 24 at 2017 10:01 PM

2017-09-24T22:01:29-04:00

I was in the Air Force. Most all of us were specialist. But we had no specialist rank per se.

Response by PV2 Wayne Carmichael made Sep 25 at 2017 6:10 PM

2017-09-25T18:10:34-04:00

No more soft ranks!

Response by SGT Johnathon Seifert made Sep 25 at 2017 6:18 PM

2017-09-25T18:18:05-04:00

I THINK E-4 Specialist and Corporal should both be kept. There area certain soldiers that would love and want more responsibility like having the rank of Corporal. Then there are some that are not ready to be a leader just yet. I was fortunate and got to hold the rank of both Specialist and Corporal and feel both ranks are needed especially Corporal it's kind of the lost rank. You will assign Specialists to do things but they may not be taken seriously because they are not an NCO. In my experience in the U.S. Army Corporal was a hard rank to achieve however when you got it it was respected as like an E-5 Sergeant was, every one knew if you had that rank that you earned, plus it took some of the weight off the sergeant so he could do other things. That's my opinion hope it helps.

Sgt. Seifert

Response by CPT Brock Young made Sep 25 at 2017 6:41 PM

2017-09-25T18:41:15-04:00

I think it should be kept, if anything it should also be expanded. Maybe spec five, and spec 6. There are some soldiers or could followers, the worker bees that get things done. They just have no leadership ability or potential. You still want them around to do the heavy lifting, the menial tasks, that thing is that has to be done every day in order to make the military work. Increasing the specialist ranks, allows more focused, more specialization, more ability to promote to a higher pay grade those that deserve it, but shouldn't be leaders.

Response by 1SG Dave McWilliams made Sep 27 at 2017 12:02 PM

2017-09-27T12:02:09-04:00

I had the privilege of serving in the mid 80s as the phased out the spec 5 rank and higher and I also wore both corporal and specialist while serving in an infantry unit . As a career infantry soldier there were numerous specialist but few corporals and we knew that a specialist was a give me rank but a corporal was that first earned lateral promotion while waiting for points to drop to becoming an NCO . If everyone is wearing corporal then it just becomes the new specialist rank

Response by SP5 Gary Warren made Sep 27 at 2017 6:09 PM

2017-09-27T18:09:21-04:00

IF their not Ready for more Responsibility DON'T GIVE IT AWAY/REWARD WITH SPECIALIST! TRAIN LEADERS NOT FOLLOWERS BECAUSE S GOOD LEADER MAKES A GOOD FOLLOWER!

Response by SFC Jesus Chargualaf made Sep 28 at 2017 9:25 PM

2017-09-28T21:25:58-04:00

Technically proficient members of the military deserve promotion to the next rank... not everyone deserves the title of NCO ... just like not all in leadership are experts in a given field... that was the reason Specialists ranks in the enlisted came about. Warrant Officers were created for the same reason.

Response by SSgt Billy Beavers made Sep 29 at 2017 6:29 PM

2017-09-29T18:29:26-04:00

Bring back the Techncian ranking.Stripes with T under them

Response by SrA Robert Hubbard made Sep 30 at 2017 9:55 AM

2017-09-30T09:55:59-04:00

I think that if the soldier isn't cut out for leadership roles, they shouldn't be promoted to begin with. The military has a long tradition of making young men leaders when they separate/ retire from the military, that's why a lot of businesses used to chop at the bit to get veterans, because of that leadership role. But if we just keep promoting and giving out a "place holder rank/grade" just because of their time in, then we are no better than the civilians that cry when they dont get a precipitation trophy. We are the military, we are a cloth cut above the norm. We need to start acting like it again.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2017 3:05 PM

2017-09-30T15:05:55-04:00

Absolutely! The rank has it's place in history. Today's Army seems to be full of Specialists who get "stuck" in the rank. The Corporal rank needs to be used more as a stepping stone to the NCO Corps.

Response by LTC Leon Kircher made Sep 30 at 2017 8:42 PM

2017-09-30T20:42:03-04:00

Absolutely in favor. Specialist rank should never have been invented. We’re all Soldiers

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2017 10:55 AM

2017-10-01T10:55:54-04:00

My initial reaction was yes, absolutely. After a little bit of consideration, no. As a specialist, I know several specialists that should never be NCOs. We all know there are leaders and followers. Some people are just made to be followers. There is no sense in setting someone up for failure by making them a NCO if they are a better follower than a leader.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2017 4:09 PM

2017-10-01T16:09:21-04:00

Absolutely not!!! In fact I would offer the exact opposite as an option. Bring back the Specialist ranks 5, 6 and 7. There are many MOS's where technicians are needed, but they don't make good leaders!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2017 2:16 PM

2017-10-02T14:16:36-04:00

As a line medic I would love to have the old Spc ranks. My only options to rank up are to leave my beloved infantry guys and go to a medical company or something. I know my case is "special" but I really love my job and where I'm at I think I would slowly die inside if I had to be in a medical company.

Response by SSgt Dan Hendrix made Oct 2 at 2017 4:11 PM

2017-10-02T16:11:22-04:00

Corporal builds more espirit de Corp than soggy specialist rank

Response by Sgt Thomas Mitchell made Oct 3 at 2017 10:19 AM

2017-10-03T10:19:59-04:00

Get rid of a rank that has no authority

Response by SPC Ben Hughes made Oct 3 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-10-03T14:43:58-04:00

I wouldve probably stayed in thr army if I couldve stayed a specialist...or the way of tech sergeants, I liked the army and did well there, but as a corporal I learned very quickly I want no part of leadership and I don't do well in that position. Likewise when I left, there ware A LOT of unqualified NCO's in the corporal and E5 ranks.

Response by SPC Steve Hunt made Oct 4 at 2017 3:41 PM

2017-10-04T15:41:42-04:00

Yes

Response by SP5 Chuck Andersen made Oct 4 at 2017 5:24 PM

2017-10-04T17:24:35-04:00

I was a sp/5 and was in charge of a squad, I was in the engineers and that was common practice never once upon receiving my rank did I work for a Sgt/5
12/65-12/68
Vietnam/stateside/Germany

Response by CPT Lee Gruber made Oct 4 at 2017 7:48 PM

2017-10-04T19:48:18-04:00

Yes.....Spec badge is a job....designation not a rank....it confuses everybody......

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2017 8:59 AM

2017-10-05T08:59:46-04:00

Yes!! Absolutely!! An E4 is a Corporal usually in an NCO billet

Response by CPL Bobby Edwards made Oct 5 at 2017 10:22 AM

2017-10-05T10:22:06-04:00

My thought is go with Corp, Sargent and so on..but when it comes to a specialist job meriting a specialist position then there could be some kind of addition to their stripes..like some emblem just below the bottom stripe..

Response by SPC Lewis K. Hinds Jr. made Oct 5 at 2017 5:09 PM

2017-10-05T17:09:26-04:00

Not at all. Not every MOS calls for NCO's. I was MOS 68D. Dealing with aircraft maintenance is in itself full time without the distractions NCO rank would bring. I made SP4 before I ETS'ed and all of our TI's were SP5 to SP7. When I transitioned to the OARNG, I kept my MOS and made SP5. I was the last SP5 in my company. The rest were promoted to SGT. There are those who can do both, but we all perform our specialties better without a dual role. Yes, I think they should bring back the specialist ranks.

Response by CW3 Joseph Riley made Oct 6 at 2017 4:17 PM

2017-10-06T16:17:50-04:00

Not everyone are nor want to be leaders. Would you also do away with the Warrant Officer rank which also tend to be specialists as opposed to leaders? Go back to up to SP/7 and keep those specialists around.

Response by SPC John Steinke made Oct 7 at 2017 5:13 PM

2017-10-07T17:13:17-04:00

I thought this would have been about warrant officers

Response by CPL Robert McDaniel made Oct 8 at 2017 10:04 AM

2017-10-08T10:04:31-04:00

No, it is silly to have 3 levels of doers an and 6 levels of management. Most of the E4 mafia does not want to be lower management. If anything, that should bring back spec 5 and 6.

Response by SPC Josh Little made Oct 9 at 2017 8:10 AM

2017-10-09T08:10:01-04:00

Ok if thats so then why does the Marine Corps and every other service for that matter do just fine without it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2017 8:55 PM

2017-10-12T20:55:17-04:00

I was Enlisted for 16 yrs of my 32 yrs! This issue has existed ever since the Army did away with the Tech Sergeant! Since Army Enlisted regardless of the type of rank they wear can find themselves engaging the enemy under arms and in charge "numerous documented instances of such events in WAR" The Army Leadership just needs to establish a Policy THAT ALL ENLISTED E5 AND ABOVE ARE SERGEANTS

Response by CPT John McGlone made Dec 27 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-12-27T17:45:04-05:00

Corporal.

Response by PO1 Scott Mckee made Dec 29 at 2017 5:18 PM

2017-12-29T17:18:25-05:00

I didn’t serve in the Army and have no opinion. I’ll pass.

Response by SSG Donald H "Don" Bates made Dec 29 at 2017 5:30 PM

2017-12-29T17:30:55-05:00

I am old guard, keep the old ranks and dispose of specialists. Just my opinion.

Response by PO1 Barbara Matthews made Jan 2 at 2018 8:37 PM

2018-01-02T20:37:23-05:00

It would put the Army rank system on par with the other branches of service.

I was in the National Guard for 2 years and during my deployment to the first Gulf War I made Specialist. Then I transferred to the Navy.

There is a big difference how E4's in both branches are treated. In the Navy you are a Petty Officer (equal to NCO). You have the responsibility and authority. Granted E4's are given limited leadership roles, but they have more responsibility than the more junior Sailors.

I've never really understood where a Specialist falls within the Chain of Command.

Response by SFC Mark Biggs made Jan 3 at 2018 1:07 AM

2018-01-03T01:07:11-05:00

The Specialist (E4) rank is an anachronism, left over from the days when technical MOSs were filled with Specialists 4 through Specialist 9. Having served when there were Spec. 4-7, I wished that the Specialist 4 rank had been eliminated when all the others disappeared. What is a Specialist. (E4) a specialist of? Having served 17 of my 20 years in the Army as an NCO (CPL -SFC) , I had the opportunity to see scores of Specialists, none whom were the subject matter experts of their MOS that the name Specialist implies. But to replace the Specialist rank by making.all Specialists into Corporals would be an unmitigated disaster. Corporal is the first of the NCO ranks, and it implies a certain level of leadership which most Specialists cannot handle. So then, should the Army keep a very large group of lower enlisted soldiers stuck at PFC while it selects the few that should become Corporals? This is what is currently happening as the huge number of Specialists wait to be selected by their battalion promotion boards to become SGTs. There doesn't appear to be an easy answer here, unless it would be to add a rocker to the PFC insignia and call the former Specialists " Command Private Major".

Response by 1LT Erin Berg made Jan 3 at 2018 2:02 AM

2018-01-03T02:02:40-05:00

No way. Some people aren't great leaders , but they know their MOS inside and out.

Response by SPC Calvin Alexander made Jan 7 at 2018 11:56 AM

2018-01-07T11:56:22-05:00

Cambat, 11,13,10,19 mos

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Feb 4 at 2018 4:47 AM

2018-02-04T04:47:00-05:00

Absolute in favor of that decision.For many years before I become a sergeant,l always wanted to be a corporal instead of an specialist,but since the Army had this system where only a few slots were for corporals under special conditions,and not authorized in the National Guard,l never became a corporal as an E-4.
This rank should had been eliminated,when the rest of all the ranks under this category were banged.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2018 6:49 PM

2018-03-29T18:49:29-04:00

Heck no! Hasn't anyone heard of too much chief not enough Indian? Wtf is with this obsession that everyone needs to be a leader?

Response by CSM Patrick Durr made Apr 26 at 2018 2:08 AM

2018-04-26T02:08:50-04:00

Response by PFC Howard Bryant Blackshear made Sep 19 at 2018 9:32 PM

2018-09-19T21:32:48-04:00

'''yes', we use to call it in VIETNAM, The ''MOSQUITO PATCH'''

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2018 10:05 PM

2018-11-25T22:05:40-05:00

no they work

Response by SPC Ruben Marin made Nov 30 at 2018 11:30 PM

2018-11-30T23:30:02-05:00

Instead of phasing it out, give the spc rank more authority to act as a spc in their field. When I held the rank I was a team leader. It would have been more conducive for my rank to be as a trainer of various task vs being in the role of an nco. Spc means that you have learned your job and it's duties well enough to be able to teach others. Teach and train E-1 to E3 should be the goal so nco' s can focus on planning and leading.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jan 25 at 2019 9:04 AM

2019-01-25T09:04:36-05:00

You know I really thought I was in the minority with my desire to bring back senior SPC ranks. It appears there are more who share my opinion than I had thought.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2019 4:33 PM

2019-01-26T16:33:02-05:00

No.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jan 26 at 2019 4:40 PM

2019-01-26T16:40:35-05:00

Old news but here we go; there are fairly large Infantry and Artillery sections that would potentially have 3 or 4 Cpls. I think the Spc is tried and true, the rank of CPl is used where necessary and appropriate in the absence of Sgts. Just my thoughts. Thank you for your service.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2019 4:51 PM

2019-06-03T16:51:48-04:00

No way! Keep it and expand it through to E9. Some Soldiers are good leaders, some are good technicians. Let them work in the areas that best fit them.

Response by SSG James Oliver Nathan Jr made Jun 3 at 2019 5:36 PM

2019-06-03T17:36:22-04:00

Hell yes they should so that everyone are hard strips. E-2 to Corporal.

Response by SSG Darrell Peters made Jun 4 at 2019 2:31 PM

2019-06-04T14:31:42-04:00

the army used the warrant officer ranks to get around caps on how many commissioned officers they could have in certain fields. the Specialist Ranks can serve the same purpose on the enlisted side and did serve that purpose until only SPC 4 is the only Specialist rank left. We need tech savvy soldiers who are Specialists in their areas.

Response by SPC Scott Verdin made Jun 5 at 2019 1:09 AM

2019-06-05T01:09:10-04:00

Either Spc or Cpl needs to go. I was a Spc all I had to do was go to PLDC and would be promoted to Sgt. I'm sure it would have been the same if I would have been a Cpl now this was back in the 90s.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2019 1:34 AM

2019-06-05T01:34:00-04:00

Yes.

Response by SGT Robert Wager made Jun 5 at 2019 4:28 AM

2019-06-05T04:28:04-04:00

I think the current rank is appropriate for the current structure and mission of the Army. I say that begrudgingly because there are NCO's and there are stripe wearers, at least there were when I ETS'd I am not sure what the current RCP is for SPC/CPL is now but there has to be a difference between those that go above and beyond and hold actual leadership positions and those that are filling a non-NCO slot.

I think that once a SPC holds a leadership position he should be laterally promoted to CPL regardless of promotable status and those orders should be DA orders and not local orders. If a unit thinks a soldier is ready to lead, give him the authority to lead. You see the E-4 gunner on tanks are often wearing a sham shield instead of CPL stripes when he is holding down a SGT position. You have given all the responsibility without any of the authority of his position. The same thing happens to a lesser extent in infantry formations where the team leader is a SPC in one platoon and in the next platoon over another team leader is a CPL

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2019 3:55 PM

2019-06-05T15:55:42-04:00

So as a Corporal in the Marine Corps I can say that both routes of thought are beneficial. Where I enjoy being a leader more than being a radio operator the NCO route is better for me. I have peers who want nothing to do with leadership and just want to do the Radio Operator stuff and go home. I respect that train of thought and those guys are better comm guys than me so I respect that and take into consideration their technical expertise when making a decision as well as the wants and needs of my charges and the mission/commander's intent. I think every branch should have both as it produces a more capable force

Response by SGT Joseph Jones made Jun 14 at 2019 10:17 AM

2019-06-14T10:17:21-04:00

I was an E-4 specialist and I fast tracked to it. I say NO if anything completely get rid of Corporal. We already have SGT. who should have had more leadership training and you have BLC, ALC, SLC and First Sgt. Course and every rank there after. The Army would have to add a leadership course for E-3 to attend to learn things they should already be high speed on. Like map reading and Land Nav. Units couldn’t afford to send every E-3 away for a month to the NCO academy but I think leadership training is needed to be any level of NCO. I was in no way prepared to be an NCO and I was a great E-4 Spc. I was a good leader but I wasn’t NCO Material and I wouldn’t have argued that I was back then. I know now I wasn’t. I saw men in my unit get promoted to fill slots and that was the only reason and it caused issues because they weren’t ready to lead and doing away with SPC. would cause that issue to become 3x as likely to happen.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Oct 13 at 2019 1:06 PM

2019-10-13T13:06:21-04:00

Actually, I think they should bring back SP5, SP6 and SP7 for people in combat support / technical
MOSs that just want to do their job and have no interest (or skill) in leadership roles...think Warrant Officer for enlisted.

Response by 1SG Ed Bernas made Oct 13 at 2019 1:10 PM

2019-10-13T13:10:02-04:00

The Army should phase out geniuses, who come up with ideas like “ we should phase out the specialist rank” also, there are enough lazy people in the army, why incentivize them with additional “non responsibility” ranks like SPC 5,6,7

Response by SFC Wayne Robinson made Oct 13 at 2019 2:10 PM

2019-10-13T14:10:11-04:00

A specialist is exactly what it means. A specialist in a field of service. They do not command troops. A Corporal is considered a Junior NCO who can command troops. Not all people are capable of being An NCO.So keep the seperation.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Oct 13 at 2019 2:52 PM

2019-10-13T14:52:44-04:00

No other service has an E4 that isn’t an NCO or Petty Officer why does the Army? Oh, to give more pay to / retain more soldiers with fewer responsibilities then the sister service peers. If the Army needs Specialist or Tech NCOs bring back the entire career ladder. If not, bring back the use of E4 NCOs.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Oct 13 at 2019 3:55 PM

2019-10-13T15:55:12-04:00

When we had the whole line of specialist ranks, they were like the enlisted version of Warrant Officers. Techs in their MOS. Not leaders. Those with leadership skills got hard stripes. There were people who knew their jobs & excelled at it. All the more reason the bring that back in today's high tech military. Do you really want cyber command geeks wearing hard stripes & then thinking they can lead? I first came in we still had all of the specialist ranks. A SP7 was one who was great in their job field & that was great. They were job leaders. Most did not have it in them to lead troops in the field. Want to get rid of a rank. How about all 4-stars. Between Vietnam & Desert Storm, we had a bigger military & no 4-stars. We certainly don't need any of them now.

Response by SGT Kevin Bush made Oct 13 at 2019 4:49 PM

2019-10-13T16:49:51-04:00

If the Army still had the SP5-SP7 ranks when I was in from 85-94, I probably would have stayed in.

Response by SGT Brad Baier made Dec 6 at 2019 4:07 PM

2019-12-06T16:07:53-05:00

No. Not soldiers are leader some soldiers with time in grade may be good at their MOS but not at leading others.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Dec 28 at 2019 3:28 PM

2019-12-28T15:28:43-05:00

If you keep the specialist rank their should be provisions made so that if a person wants to be an NCO. they can get their Cpl. stripes I know I was a e-4 Cpl., in the Marine corp. I joined the army and ended up a SP/5 which I hated because sometimes you were treated as an NCO. other times you were treated like a PFC. I became a supply Sgt. as a SP/5 although I has a2311 mos which is Ammo Tech. At The time you became whatever was needed. Just before I left Vietnam I was offered 2nd Lt. bars But I turned it down because I would have had to spend another year in Vietnam. It was in 1966 when half the plt. were draftees. I was held past my enlistment date for convience of army. Semper Fi.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2020 8:51 PM

2020-04-13T20:51:42-04:00

I see ALOT of senior leaders agree we need to bring back the all the SPC ranks. If so many people agree, why isn't it even being considered seriously?

Response by SCPO Charles Webster made Apr 14 at 2020 3:39 PM

2020-04-14T15:39:32-04:00

After Army (SP4), went Coast Guard for 21 active years. Regardless of USCG job, you had better have leadership! We have to be ready to go out of any situation. Too small to only go through a USCG career with only a technical job only!

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Apr 27 at 2020 1:27 PM

2020-04-27T13:27:55-04:00

Rather than finish phasing it out, I think we should bring it back but closer to the original Army concept when we had SP4 through SP7 (the original had SP8 & SP9 authorized but no one ever held either rank). I say "the original Army concept" because when the Army originally created the specialist ranks, ALL specialists ranked above PFC and below Corporal! The idea was that true specialists would be paid more for their specialized technical expertise without having to make them be in charge of regular soldiers.

The original concept fell apart due to a federal law that the Army didn't think about. By law, rank and precedence between services is based on PAY GRADE not "rank" -- the result was that under the original regulations an Army SP6 was below an Army Corporal, but that same Army SP6 was above a Navy second class Petty Officer (E5). The Army tried that for a couple of years then gave up and made each of the specialist grades fall just under the regular rank for that grade.

The other problem was that the Army started making way too many people "specialists" -- it became normal to promote every PFC to SP4 instead of to CPL. At first people were being promoted to SP4 instead of CPL based on not being in a "leadership" position - gradually it just became normal to promote everyone to SP4 because the Army structure had created a bunch of E4 and E5 slots that weren't "leadership" positions. For example, in Armor units the lowest "leadership" position on a tank was the tank commander which was an E6 Staff Sergeant position but the other three positions on the tank crew called for one E3 and two E5 slots (there were almost no E4 positions in tanks) so everyone got promoted from PFC to SP4 then to SP5 then magically became a "Real NCO" as a SSG.

However they do it, the Army needs to find a better way to pay people for skills while basing rank on leadership.

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Apr 27 at 2020 3:21 PM

2020-04-27T15:21:10-04:00

No . They did away with the other specialist ranks long ago . It allows folks to get promoted without real authority

Response by SSG Harry Wimms made Apr 27 at 2020 4:38 PM

2020-04-27T16:38:05-04:00

At that point, you accept more responsibility as a Junior NCO. Make them learn and earn those stripes!

Response by MSG Ed Cress made Apr 27 at 2020 5:05 PM

2020-04-27T17:05:09-04:00

Against. They should go back to the dual structure of specialist for non combat and combat support MOS. Don't need to be and NCO as medical, food service. making everyone an NC is like giving everyone on the team a trophy for participation. NCO'S should be leaders.

Response by MSG Roger Mannon made Apr 27 at 2020 5:27 PM

2020-04-27T17:27:48-04:00

I have now been retired for longer than I served. Back in the days of the Army Security Agency we had mostly specialists. Most of these people specialized in the collection and analysis of enemy transmissions. They (we) captured morse code, telemetry, radio teletype, voice comms, etc. We had specialists in traffic analysis, cryptanalysis. Back in the day many of these guys and gals had zero interest in leadership. They just wanted to be the best technicians that ever lived at their particular job, the job they worked hard at every day.
SIGINT was better for their technical abilities and their desire to be the best. They were spec 4 - spec7. Sometime later we all became SGT at the e-5 level and were trained, conditioned, to work towards the role of platoon sergeant and above. The emphasis on technical excellence diminished year by year.

Was the Army better for the change? I really don't know. Some of us went on to become good, even very good, leaders. I believe the technical aspect of our various MOS did suffer in the long run. Those days are long gone now. SIGINT is likely a very automated, computerized effort. I don't know how the effort has evolved over the past 25 or 30 years.
Back then there was a place for the specialist rank. Today? You who are active or recently retired know better than me.

Response by SFC Clark Adams made Apr 27 at 2020 6:04 PM

2020-04-27T18:04:27-04:00

Why?

Response by 1SG Donald Elmore made Apr 27 at 2020 6:06 PM

2020-04-27T18:06:19-04:00

I think the Specialist ranks have a very definite roll to play. Too many Sergeants are not needed. Promoting qualified personnel up the Specialist ranks promotes deserving individuals. Wting for an NCO slot to open slows the promotions. Not only keep the Specialist, but bring back the Specialists E- 5 through E-7.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2020 7:05 PM

2020-04-27T19:05:40-04:00

I was a SP6 "back in the day". I was hard stripe E-5, but changed my MOS and got promoted. I was a computer repairer. I liked being a SP6. It was the NCO version of Warrant Officer. The Captain and CW3 that I worked for told the chain of command that my only job was to make sure the computer stayed operational. Army computers back then were in a semi-trailer, none of the home computers existing were hard or user-friendly enough for service use. No duty roster, no field, no nothing else. I didn't even go to formations. I came in, did PMCS, and was on-call all the time. I got the respect of an NCO, but that could be that I had been a squad leader in the 82nd and knew how to carry myself. I could not be put in the Platoon Sergeant slot, which they tried to do. I think there is a place for technical experts who aren't warrants in the Army, so I would support a return to specialist ranks up to E-7. If that isn't going to happen, then maybe it would be okay to just go ahead and eliminate Specialist E-4 too.

Response by SPC Marty Kukol made Apr 27 at 2020 8:45 PM

2020-04-27T20:45:48-04:00

No. I believe that only Combat Arms personnel are eligible for hard stripes. All other support roles be Specialists.

Response by SPC Marty Kukol made Apr 27 at 2020 8:47 PM

2020-04-27T20:47:40-04:00

No. Keep all support personnel as Specialist and Combat Arms as hard stripes. Leadership vs. Specialized training.

Response by SPC Edward Richardson made Apr 27 at 2020 9:10 PM

2020-04-27T21:10:23-04:00

No, I believe there should be specialist rank. I also believe that a specialist needs to be the one that is trained for a speciality position in the ranks. They are trained above and beyond what the average enlisted person is trained but they don’t want leadership responsibilities.

Response by LTC Chuck Abbott made Apr 27 at 2020 9:19 PM

2020-04-27T21:19:28-04:00

I think that a soldier needs to prove him/herself before getting hard stripes. PLUS I think that the SPECIALIST rank needs to be reactivated in some areas of the Army (medical,dentist,signal,cooks, and ect. ((SP/4 to SP/7)).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2020 12:16 AM

2020-04-28T00:16:31-04:00

I am dumbfounded as I read some of these comments. I offer to you that there are MANY leaders in the ranks of Sergeant through General who are not ready for leadership. And I wonder where some of you senior NCOs would have landed had they not gotten rid of SPC5 to SPC7. Some of you sound like snobs. Today’s Command Sergeants Major demand all Soldiers be sent to the NCO Academy and boarded for E-5 with very few exceptions. If you’re going to force them to be leaders then by all means, Let Them Lead!

Response by SPC Frank Daniel made Apr 28 at 2020 12:24 AM

2020-04-28T00:24:27-04:00

Response by SGT Christian Hoskin made Apr 28 at 2020 5:54 AM

2020-04-28T05:54:14-04:00

Hell no.......The blood of the E-4 mafia..runs deep

Response by SP5(P) James Brown made Apr 28 at 2020 11:29 AM

2020-04-28T11:29:28-04:00

When I discharged in 1969, I was a SP5. I never felt that as an E-5 I was less than any other E-5 so if I still could fit into my uniform I would show off that SP5 insignia proudly.

Response by CW3 Bob Chase made Apr 28 at 2020 6:10 PM

2020-04-28T18:10:29-04:00

No strong feeling either eay

Response by CPT George Kennedy made Jun 20 at 2020 1:00 PM

2020-06-20T13:00:08-04:00

Keep the Specialists. Not all good soldiers are necessarily leaders. Becoming a Corporal indicates you are a leader.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2020 10:54 AM

2020-06-22T10:54:52-04:00

The army would lose a recruiting incentive for those with degrees against all the other services

It’s never going to happen

Response by PO1 George Pederson made Jun 22 at 2020 11:53 AM

2020-06-22T11:53:18-04:00

I do know the Army. But having served many years, one of the things I noticed during my time in service was people being promoted right out of a job they liked (and were good at). Sadly, they were not as well suited to the job they were promoted too.

Response by CPL Nathan Hollingsworth made Jun 22 at 2020 4:35 PM

2020-06-22T16:35:25-04:00

Nope We need to go back and re-add SPC5 and Up ! Some of us a technicians and always will be ... skilled, proficient , technical expertise . How many mechanics are going to lead a bayonet charge anyways

Response by SGT Walt Pozgay made Jun 22 at 2020 5:31 PM

2020-06-22T17:31:02-04:00

I would rather see their return of SP5-SP7. Not everyone’s should be a leader. Even civilian industry is figuring that out. Technical Track and Management Track should be able to coexist.

Response by SSG Dick Martin made Jun 22 at 2020 6:51 PM

2020-06-22T18:51:42-04:00

I often cite the split paths to promotion as a good thing. Some people excel at their job skill, but have no leadership skills. The corporal rank indicates that the soldier is destined for leadership. To me, the corporal rank should be awarded less often as natural leadership ability is less common. I've seen too many good people who excelled at their jobs pushed into management where they no longer excelled and stunted their careers.

Response by SP5 Sandra Dockeney made Jun 22 at 2020 10:06 PM

2020-06-22T22:06:28-04:00

Make the specialist rank Corporal like the Specialist 5 was replaced by the Sgt rank.

Response by Cpl Michael Barton made Jun 23 at 2020 12:53 AM

2020-06-23T00:53:03-04:00

The rank is a sign of progress. We are taught respect at all levels. We respect the ranks below our rank. We have learned from history. Those who have Learned from the past should run our future. We need a military man to run our country.

Response by SPC Martin Castillo made Jun 24 at 2020 9:49 AM

2020-06-24T09:49:39-04:00

No you can’t expect someone not trained in tactical combat situation or has never been in combat to take over an infantry combat unit.. that’s why they are specialist..

Response by SSG Daniel Frankell made Jun 24 at 2020 3:04 PM

2020-06-24T15:04:32-04:00

NO! 95% of our NCO Corps shouldn’t be NCO’s! The promotion board is a pathetic attempt and we should go to the testing system every other branch has. You should be given a test period of say 6 months as a corporal. If you fail you remain a SPC.

Response by SSG Patrick Sloan made Jun 24 at 2020 6:50 PM

2020-06-24T18:50:46-04:00

No. Not everyone is cut out for leadership.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2020 12:15 AM

2020-06-25T00:15:01-04:00

No. They need to bring back SPC 5-7. There are leaders and there are technically proficient workers that just want to grind and get work done. We need to promote both and stop forcing everyone into leadership roles they have no business being in.

Response by SgtMaj Mark Kellison made Jun 25 at 2020 8:36 AM

2020-06-25T08:36:34-04:00

Wow. I am shocked. One of the basic tennets in the Marine Corps is leadership at every level. I find it shocking that specialists would be considered not to be leaders.. Now, i recognize that the hierarchy is a bit different. For example a hard stripe corporal will take the formation over a spec 5 etc. However, to allow or expect no leadership? It is mind numbing. JMO

Response by SSG William Roof made Jul 30 at 2020 3:53 PM

2020-07-30T15:53:51-04:00

OK here goes this is my opinion and nothing more but as I see it don't do away with it but don't expand it either. the difference in the ranks is training. Corp. has NCO training whereas Spec 4 does not. the difference is the intent of the soldier, if you plan on making a career out of the military then then take the training and continue on. If you are only there to do your 4 and get out then Spec 4 is for you, don't waste the resources meant for those who want to advance. If you are planning to continue with your service then being the best you can be means taking the NCO training anyway.

Response by Ron Derry made Jul 30 at 2020 4:15 PM

2020-07-30T16:15:27-04:00

Response by CPT Len Griffin made Jul 30 at 2020 5:04 PM

2020-07-30T17:04:41-04:00

marines do it

Response by Cpl Jamie Piseno made Jul 30 at 2020 7:01 PM

2020-07-30T19:01:42-04:00

No, Specialist are equivalent to Lance Corporal. At this designation a service member has acquired the skills needed to not only to set the standard to continue to serve but to also aspire to fill the next 2 billets above.

Response by PO2 Harold Driscoll made Jul 30 at 2020 7:06 PM

2020-07-30T19:06:04-04:00

In the Navy, we were specialists first, then train to become leaders. I have never understood the Old idea of having specialists in the higher enlisted ranks being subordinate to E-3 or E-4 non-coms.

Response by SSG Paul Headlee made Jul 30 at 2020 7:13 PM

2020-07-30T19:13:01-04:00

Keep it and expand it. If you're an f'ed up stripe wearer we need a place to put you.

Response by SGT Arthur Cranston made Jul 30 at 2020 10:48 PM

2020-07-30T22:48:07-04:00

my day it helped to have that rank was faster. but I do like the Idea of it.

Response by MSgt William Abel made Jul 30 at 2020 10:48 PM

2020-07-30T22:48:15-04:00

Since I retired from the Marine Corps I do not feel qualified to give an answer to the question.

Response by SP5 Ralph Ewing made Jul 31 at 2020 1:25 AM

2020-07-31T01:25:43-04:00

I think one's MOS has a lot to do with it. I think SP5 or 6 would be the highest achieved.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2020 8:37 AM

2020-07-31T08:37:49-04:00

As a lance, I believe they should. It’s absurd to me that soldiers will have the same standing as a two year lance but they’ll be getting payed the same as a corporal in the marines who has to meet score in order to pick up E-4

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2020 9:30 AM

2020-07-31T09:30:02-04:00

As fun as it is to speculate about the return of the senior specialist ranks, it would be completely unworkable from a manning perspective. MTOE’s would have to increase significantly to accommodate this.

Look, the Army is cheap. It never pays an E6 where an E5 will do. Look at a network signal company, which you would assume is a CMF ripe for the return of senior specialists: there are no SSG’s other than the supply NCO. The team chief sergeant/E5 types answer directly to the SFC PSG. And every NCO in that company other than the PSG’s is both assigned equipment to operate and soldiers to supervise and mentor. Where do the SPC5’s or SPC6’s fit into that scheme? They’d literally be extra bodies and you’d still need just as many NCO’s as you have now.

Okay, so most 25 series aren’t assigned to signal companies, they’re in S6 shops...an infantry BN S6 shop includes one SGT, 2-3 SSG’s and a SFC. The SGT runs the BN CPN team and has 3 other soldiers assigned. The SSG’s run the retrans teams and have 3-4 soldiers assigned, they are given the extra strip because we all know retrans lives in the middle of nowhere and quite often has to look to their own life cycle support. The 3rd SSG is a spectrum manager which is a unique position that I’ll touch on in a minute. The SFC runs the whole shop. Where do the SPC5/6’s fit into that scheme?

I’m a spectrum manager at the brigade level. The Army decided I needed to be a SFC not to run a platoon, although I often do spell the MSG. The Army conferred they rank on my position because I live in a world of sometimes inconvenient cabinet level policies, and I usually work more with with subordinate BN’s so I’m dealing with those SFC S6 chiefs and CPT sigo’s and arguing with their S3’s when they want to do something dumb that gets us all arrested. My rank is in respect to the authority I need to do my job effectively. That all falls apart if I’m “just a SPC” because let’s face it authority by duty position briefs well but more often than not doesn’t work in the real world.

I will allow for intel SPC’s because those weirdos should never be in charge of anyone but themselves, ever.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2020 4:56 PM

2020-07-31T16:56:40-04:00

I don’t think so. SPC is like the intermediate (or thinking) step in PICAA; it is the point where a soldier decides to be a leader, or remain a follower. I think corporal is a special rank that only the most deserving should be afforded based on their promotion circumstances, demonstrated performance, and potential.

I wouldn’t put stripes on every E4 and I wouldn’t want every E4 rocking the “sham shield” if they have demonstrated that they can and want to lead.

Great question MSG Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SGT Brad Baier made Dec 9 at 2020 10:23 PM

2020-12-09T22:23:53-05:00

Is this only for E-4? Do they have the other specialists ranks? I know they use to. Some people have time in grade but aren't leaders. I enjoyed being an Indian a lot more than being a Chief. I thought I wanted to be in charge until I was in charge. The same goes for my career. There were a lot lees headaches when I was a worker and not the damn supervisor. The more I make the more responsibility I have. It would be a shame to lose people because they aren't leaders, they're still useful.

Response by SPC Joseph Kopac made Dec 10 at 2020 3:06 PM

2020-12-10T15:06:49-05:00

In the Infantry when I was in, they said that they wouldn’t make you a Corporal because you would become a NCO. The next step up was always a hard stripe. Cripe, they sent me to some kind of leadership school when I was a Spec 4 and only had 2 months left in the Army. The guys I saw with Spec 5 and above were usually chopper crews. 1971 - 73.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Sep 1 at 2022 11:40 PM

2022-09-01T23:40:40-04:00

No.