Should the Services add an E-10 grade?

Lt Col Jim Coe — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:51:59 -0400

Each of the Services has E-9s serving as senior enlisted leaders at the Service Headquarters and many lower headquarters levels--generally down to Wing level in the Air Force. Titles vary, Command Sergeant Major, Command Master Chief Petty Officer, Command Chief Master Sergeant, Sergeant Major, but the jobs are similar. They advise their commander on enlisted matters. They lead and advise the NCOs corps in their units and look out for the wellbeing and training of enlisted personnel. Many do much more. This group of senior NCOs are widely recognized as senior to other E-9s in the same organization and in subordinate organizations.

Should the Services recognize and compensate this group of exceptional leaders with establishment of an E-10 pay grade? DoD would probably have to seek Congressional approval for the new pay grade. Services would need to develop qualification standards and rules about promoting E-9s to E-10.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 9:53 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:53:13 -0400

i accept the honor!!!

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Apr 17 at 2015 10:10 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:10:37 -0400

I could see maybe the top enlisted like Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force holding a pay-grade of E-10 designating him/her completely as top enlisted individual. I have also thought the same of Chiefs of Staff in that I think they should wear five stars instead of just four to show that they are the head of the commissioned members. Basically having a way to identify those top two individuals specifically, though CMSAF and the other branches have distinct insignia with their chevrons.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 17 at 2015 10:12 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:12:51 -0400

It makes sense to me - for only the most senior Enlisted Member in each branch, but keep them with the same special pay that they currently receive.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

2015 Military Pay Scale Chart

Current 2015 Military Pay Scale Chart for the United States Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard services. Effective January 1st, 2015. Updated September 1st.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 10:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:29:19 -0400

I agree that there should be a separate pay grade for the top senior enlisted leaders. Being Sergeant Major of the Army and/or the senior enlisted advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is more than simply a duty position for SGM. It should be recognized accordingly. The E-10 pay grade wouldn't need to be substantially higher than the current pay scale, but the additional pay grade of E-10 would recognize those that have been promoted to serve in those positions.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Apr 17 at 2015 11:33 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:33:58 -0400

Only when we bring back the 5-Star Sir.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 12:26 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 00:26:37 -0400

I think it would be a decent idea sir, so long as it is implemented correctly.

The key would be an effective roll out with clear expectations with the changes pay.

If not, we need to look at promotion requirements and rethink how we task organize across the various forces.

That said, I don't think it is ever going to happen. I think at that level a combination or restructure of the step method from the GS Scale would be helpful in regards to compensation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 1:33 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:33:37 -0400

This is definitely an interesting topic. I believe that CSM Michael J. Uhlig made the best contribution to the thread.

if they are already compensated with special pay there is no need for furthering the rank structure. It seems as though that would just be for an ego boost.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 1:41 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:41:14 -0400

I believe as a junior enlisted that an E-10 rank would be unnecessary. E-9s already consoul generals. If congress decided to make an E-10 rank it should only be one and pay the highest NCO of the branch more not multiple people. As stated above it would just act as an ego buster to the ones that received it.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 2:09 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 02:09:33 -0400

Absolutely NOT!!! Most nominative level E-9s already think they are the generals they advise. Making one "supreme enlisted leader" would be horrendous. I can see him/her now, rolling through military installations in his/her little Pope mobile waving at the peons.

Just the idea makes me want to drink heavily.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 4:01 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:01:29 -0400

What would this position look like? Would E-9 be SGM (just the star), and serve as brigade/division staff SNCOs, and E-10 have the command billet? But then would BN level be E-9 or E-10. Or perhaps E-10 would be appointed with GOs? I am trying to understand how such a position would be billeted

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 18 at 2015 9:07 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:07:08 -0400

We already have E-9's that think they are 20 star generals. Why fuel the over inflated egos that much more?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 12:45 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:45:53 -0400

It is the slippery slope when we "compare" officer rank and NCO rank. I left the enlisted rank and my dad never let me forget it. NCOs are the steadying influence. Many call them the backbone, but treat them like the tailbone.

Since the late 90's, psuedo-change of command ceremonies called "change of responsibility ceremonies" became the fad. Around the same time, some CSMs at brigade and division level started employing "enlisted assistants" (looks similar to an aide). The effects -- the CSM and his officer counterpart spent more and more time APART. We admonish our Platoon Leaders and Platoon Sergeants to lead as one; we expect our First Sergeants and Company Commanders to lead together...but at the highest ranks it seems to have become a contest for "equal respect". The admiration I have for the best NCOs with whom I served is that they lived all of the Army values and made me and my peers feel guilty (through their actions) when we became focused on rank, material things like awards or otherwise lost our focus. SMA Bill Gates didn't need any more rank. CSM Dailey, a junior CSM in date of CSM rank to most all of his peers seems to be getting plenty of respect. CSMs Greca,Bohn, Hartless and others still serving wouldn't need an extra grade if they were the senior enlisted advisor.

Who would this serve? What purpose would it serve? It would further take our most senior NCOs focus away from what they look after better than any NCO corps in the WORLD...the welfare and competence of our soldiers.

Drink one for me too, CSM Private RallyPoint Member!

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Apr 18 at 2015 12:53 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:53:32 -0400

Not a fan of the idea sir. Nominative CSM/SGM positions are already competitive enough with some Senior NCOs, by no means all, believe that they hold the rank of their officer counterpart. We already have a Senior Enlisted position at the head of each service. I do not believe there is a need for another pay grade tacked on to that position.

I could see it now...

E-10..."One Rank to Rule them All"

No good could come from that...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 18 at 2015 1:43 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:43:51 -0400

Ignoring all else.

1) How long does the average E9 stay in grade? Bear in mind there is a mandate for the minimum 3 for retirement.

2) Does this create a roadblock for promotion for grades below E9?

3) If 2) exists, would creating an E10 (aka Div+ SgtMaj) correct this?

So as an example, and I don't know if any of this is true or not.

Average E9 sits in grade 10~ years, which creates attrition of E8/E7/E6 et al because there is no advancement (higher tenure). E9 retires at 30, E8 at 26, E7 at 22, E6 at 20~ (18), E5 higher tenure is 12, E4 is 8.

Adding E10 would change that to E10@30, E9@27, E8@24, E7@21, E6@21...

It 'slightly' shifts the "wait til that #%^#^% dies" and makes it a smoother "up or out."

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 18 at 2015 1:57 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:57:36 -0400

No.

Response by SPC Todd Hanson made Apr 18 at 2015 1:59 PM

SPC Todd Hanson — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:59:43 -0400

The pay system has a slot for a e10 but no pays associated with it as well as a 5 star general

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 9:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:26:36 -0400

I don't think that should happen, but I do wish we bring back SP5 and SP6.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 9:32 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:32:46 -0400

I think NCOs that are at E 9 level should have higher authority over everyone up to the rank of Captain.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Apr 19 at 2015 1:26 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:26:30 -0400

Only if you want to start reading posts about E10 in ten years here on RP!

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Apr 19 at 2015 4:40 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:40:24 -0400

I don't think we need this. E9s know who has the higher positions so all this would do is create a more pretentious position.

Response by SGM Robin Johnson made Apr 22 at 2015 11:57 PM

SGM Robin Johnson — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:57:58 -0400

This has been discussed in some detail, at least within the Army senior enlisted leader ranks. The Army has even added skill levels indicating at which levels of command an E-9 has served, to avoid the issues which had previously plagued us from SGMs and CSMs being assigned based on grade but without the assignments necessary to prepare him or her for serving at a certain level. If there were an E-10 grade, it would have to be for a terminal assignment and only for the senior enlisted advisor for each service and the CJCS, in my humble opinion. Otherwise, you would have issues with what to do if the person was to be assigned back into the rest of the force from an E-10 position. Besides - you don't want to make all the SGMs and CSMs stop saying "I'm not going to make E-10!"

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 12:56 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:56:37 -0400

Honestly sir it sounds like more trouble than it would be worth. As CSM Uhlig said, our most senior Sergeants Major are already receiving additional pay based upon their position. Why complicate it with a pay grade change?

You would also create an additional hierarchy within the Sergeant Major ranks. While there already is an informal hierarchy within units, would an E10 have authority over an E9 outside of his support channel? How would you distinguish an E10 DIV CSM over an E9 BN CSM? It seems like a lot of headache without any tangible benefits outside of perhaps some ego stroking.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2016 3:01 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jul 2016 15:01:24 -0400

Sir, I don't see it happening with the draw down going on anyway. Let's say hypothetically that we did not have a draw down, these same E9 hard chargers would still be trying to get to the next E9 level so selling Congress is not going to be easy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2016 4:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 16:30:57 -0500

Yes. It's called Sgt. Maj of the Army.

Well, not exactly. :-) Ok, just bump the SMA up one E grade. Too easy.

Response by SFC Chris Weaver made Dec 4 at 2016 8:49 PM

SFC Chris Weaver — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 20:49:34 -0500

E10 sure for the SMA only

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Dec 4 at 2016 9:02 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 21:02:20 -0500

Not only do I think we should NOT add the E-10 pay grade, I think we should get rid of the Command Sergeant Major rank. I think having a Sergeant Major (SGM) and Command Sergeant Major (CSM) rank causes enough of a divide. Even though most E9's treat each other as peers, there are the select few that are very full of themselves. I frequently work with and converse with Nominative CSM/SGM's and they have NEVER treated me different. I have been quite impressed with the E9's I have worked with since I have been a SGM. I think getting rid of the CSM rank (or the SGM rank) and having ALL E9's wearing the same rank, it would eliminate any ego's out there. The other services do it, the Army should too.

Also, thinking we need an E-10 rank shows that people really do not understand the role of all E-9's. We are advisors where ever we go, and that is all.

Response by TSgt Kerry Hardy made Dec 4 at 2016 10:06 PM

TSgt Kerry Hardy — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 22:06:39 -0500

Only E-10 should be Chief of USAF, SGM of Army, MCPON, and SgtMajMC...

Response by CW5 Mark Smith made Jul 18 at 2020 11:56 AM

CW5 Mark Smith — Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:56:39 -0400

Possibly one per service. CSM of the Army, MCPO of the Navy, etc.