Should there be a Corporal rank in Army Aviation? Also, should Aviation in general be considered a combat branch? What are your thoughts?

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:02:39 -0400

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:22 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:22:55 -0400

I've never really like the rank of specialist. Too many Soldiers use it as a shield to get away with stuff. As a specialist you should be looking to the next Rank, and becoming an NCO. If we take away the shield and make them corporals, charge them with responsibility and hold them Accountable, then maybe we will have better Sergeants.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 26 at 2015 11:24 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:24:32 -0400

Are you opposed to these points for some reason because neither seem to be logical questions without some kind of reasoning behind them. Yes their should be corporals or not in all branches & Army Aviation is a combat arms branch, though not all missions are expressly combat.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:29 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:29:13 -0400

CPL is given when it needs to be given, as determined by the 1SG and Commander. If there are no CPLs in your unit, then I would say that your Command element deems they are not needed. But as for what SSG Jeremy McNichol said, he is spot on. And MAJ Petrarca said hit the nail square on as well.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jun 26 at 2015 11:52 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:52:31 -0400

Here is an outsider's POV:

Are there combat mission in aviation? Yes.

Are all units in aviation combat oriented (in the way SF/Infantry is)? No.

As such, aviation as a "Branch" is not a combat branch.

My understanding of the SPC/CPL thing is that first it is unit driven and secondly is typically only done when there is a shortage of NCO's. Unless those two items are meet, there isn't a need.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:56:24 -0400

I think SPC rank should have gone when SP 5-7 left.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 12:35 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:35:36 -0400

This depends on whether you want your focus to be on leadership or management. If you set an expectation of the leadership or your E4s and that Corporal rank go to an awfully long way. I have never fully understood The rationale of having a specialist. Within the military promotion structure, it seems reasonable to set an expectation of leadership by the time someone has reached eligibility to be an E4. My suspicion is there's a lot of specialists out there hungry to lead, if not maybe you're promoting too fast.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 26 at 2015 1:17 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:17:12 -0400

Attack/Air Cav aviation does fall under combat arms. If you see a ground squadron or battalion in the dirt, you know they fought over who had control over the air cav assets. And we were whored out to some of the best units this nation ever produced. The only Corporals in aviation went there as Corporals after reclassing. Line troops have a set number of aircraft. I have been in many Cav units and the number is usually 8 or 10. There are 2 platoons within the troop. You have 1 PSG per Troop to manage 4-5 aviation assets, the roopers, ground vehicles, and a crapload of support equipment.This breakdown entitles him to 2 Section Sergeants. There is no need for Corporals. In fact, once you inherit another SGT (from promotion, etc), they are most likely sending excess NCO's to one of the other shops that owns no aircraft but has a larger amount of personnel. Whendeployed and scattered to the winds, we may have FARPs all over, but never large enough to require Corporals, just a SSG and maybe 2 SGTs and a small armt/maint contact team. Again, no need for a Corporal.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jun 26 at 2015 1:45 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:45:08 -0400

Having never served in the Army, I still am puzzled by the decision to keep Sp4. When there were E5s and E6s who were specialists, it all made sense. You had specialty troops who weren't necessarily on the CSM track, but they did their specialties well.

With just SP4 it's quite silly. If you're going to have leadership/non-leadership tracks for E4, why not for every NCO and SNCO?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 26 at 2015 3:55 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:55:03 -0400

Aviation will have the attack helicopters, transport troops, and support Special Ops. It should be combat arms.

Response by CPL Bryan Claeys made Jun 30 at 2015 12:47 AM

CPL Bryan Claeys — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:47:27 -0400

I believe no aviation as a whole shouldn't be considered a combat branch. You could divide it into a sub branch and have a special small branch considered combat aviation, as far as the coropral rank is concerned I believe it should be reserved for the highest ranked Jr enlisted personnel in a combat unit, one that is nco material that is either slightly shy of points or waiting for the board.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 30 at 2015 3:28 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:28:50 -0400

NONE of the other services have Specialist ranks. At one time, Specialists went as high as E-8. which, to me, is a travesty. I believe that if you're going to get the pay, you need to step up, and, if called on, lead. A Corporal seems allowed to lead, but not a Specialist? Get rid of it.

As for Aviation being a combat branch, it has varied historically. First, it was part of the Signal Corps. Then, they made it its own branch, then an entirely different service, when the USAF was born. Honestly, this whole branch thing is a little foreign to me. Sure, there are different specialties in all of the services, but the branch thing is unique to the Army. Why, I have no clue.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 6:27 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:27:43 -0400

I'm not tracking that Corporal is restricted to MOS, but I'm not aviation, so I wouldn't know their quirks...A corporal is a lateral appointment for a specialist that is in a Sergeant position. The BN Commander is the one who can sign that 4187 to make the lateral appointment, not the CO Commander. There may be "rules" in a unit, such as: not in Aviation, not unless the SPC is promotable, SSD I and WLC complete, etc. The reason I advocated for Corporals is when my unit did not have the required Sergeants as per MTOE, and we had promotable SPCs filling those voids. Most were only corporal for a few months, as they were waiting for cutoff scores (some waited longer if they didn't do anything to increase their points.). I was a corporal once, and I appreciated the faith and confidence my leaders had in me, and I will gladly reciprocate to those hard charging SPC's that are eager to lead. Check out AR 600-8-19 bud. And if you're unit doesn't appoint corporals, then don't worry about it. Just get the points needed to make cutoff, and do the job you were recommended for promotion for. The Army promotes on potential, now that you are promotable, demonstrate that potential.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 8:06 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:06:55 -0400

I was in Aviation with 1st Cav. Aviation is combat arms (think Attack) and combat support (think Utility & Cargo). But it mostly associated as combat arms. As for CPL rank, I think it should stay and SPC should go.

Response by SGT Ronnie Warford made Jul 8 at 2015 10:57 PM

SGT Ronnie Warford — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:57:45 -0400

I would never wish the corporal rank on my worst enemy...

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2015 9:34 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:34:52 -0400

I have a corporal in my aviation unit, and have seen quite a few over the years. I am not aware of any branch that does not allow the corporal rank, it is based on the needs of the unit.

Response by CPT Bill McNeely made Aug 21 at 2015 7:50 PM

CPT Bill McNeely — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:50:55 -0400

I think this is a place where ensuring good leaders AND saving money could come into play. Extend promotion periods for grades E1-E3, make the E-4 rank a leadership rank of Corporal. Make the jump in pay significant to corespond with greater responsibility

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2016 6:36 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:36:42 -0400

Should there be a Corporal rank in Army Aviation? Yes. The question should be, why is Specialist and Corporal consider to be in the same echelon when clearly there is a difference between the two? Specialist should be the most experienced subordinate soldier. With the most time under his or her MOS. A Specialist should be mentoring younger enlisted with their MOS. As Corporal, they should be focusing on becoming a Sergeant. As a Corporal, you're granted some NCO powers, but you're not evaluated under a NCOER just yet. This gives them the opportunity to learn the roll as a Sergeant with room for mistakes. This would set them up for success once they become a Sergeant and is subjected to an annual evaluation.
Now, I think if both are going to continue to be in the E-4 category. One of them needs to go. I think Specialist is the odd one out. Better yet, Army Aviation can really utilize the Spec system the Army once had. In aviation maintenance, I have met many soldiers that would love to continue to turn wrenches. They are justify because there is so much to learn about every airframe and their dedication to learn the airframe would do the Army a great service while providing a clear separation of experience and compensation in their dedication with a raise in pay. But, the moment they become a Sergeant they are hardly ever on a bird because they are busy working on admin responsibilities. For example, becoming a NCOIC of AGSE and a squad leader. There are multiple equipment and soldiers they are accountable for. It's no longer just maintenance and their duties will often pull you away from maintenance. This is when NCOs depend on their Specialist.
Should Aviation in general be considered a combat branch? Most certainly yes. Anything that has to do with combat is a perishable skill. Pilots and Crew Chiefs are very susceptible to a lot of combat situation. The proof is the CAB they wear. If that's not enough. Consider DART. Those soldiers are on the ground and behind the wire. That situation can go wrong very fast if it's not planed very well and they don't get enough support. If none of those soldiers practice their battle drills and not familiar with their weapon system. They will be at a strong disadvantage and we can't have that in the Army. We train to win.

Response by CSM Felipe Mendez made Apr 24 at 2016 12:05 AM

CSM Felipe Mendez — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 00:05:49 -0400

I recommend to any SPC/E-4 that is being consider for Corporal rank/appointment to make sure they are appointed on official orders. Once in my earliest time in my career, while assigned to 1-18th Infantry as a 11B, the First Sergeant would appoint SPC as Corporal when he was short of NCOs and place them on the duty roster for weekend duty. Monday morning, he would call them (corporals) in his office and removed the corporal rank. He did the same when there were an additional duty request/task.

Response by CPL Derrick Grady Sr. made Sep 25 at 2017 8:52 PM

CPL Derrick Grady Sr. — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:52:49 -0400

If you are in a Combat Arms Unit the Corporal should stand, I don't know about Aviation unless they are attach or part of a Combat Arms Units for support.

Response by CPL Jordan Roach made Oct 26 at 2017 11:38 PM

CPL Jordan Roach — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0400

Hell every mos is combat we all cary a weapon to defend self and to engage the enemy