Specialist Rank, why do we still have it instead of a corporal?

SGT Anthony Rossi — Wed, 13 May 2015 01:22:48 -0400

Why did the military scrap the Spec ranks and yet still retain the spec - E-4

Should we bring back the spec ranks, or scrap it completely and just use the corporal?

Response by SFC Joseph James made May 13 at 2015 1:26 AM

SFC Joseph James — Wed, 13 May 2015 01:26:47 -0400

My understanding it was to simplify the Rank Structure. Why have two or three per rank when you only need one. The Corporal part (I was a Specialist and Corporal) has do to with being lower enlisted but serving in an NCO position. As an Forward Observer i was a PFC doing an E5 job. When i hit Specialist they "Lateral Promoted" me to Corporal. Yeah, thanks CoC. Who do you think the E5s picked to lead the crappy details....Corporals lol!

Response by SGT Justin Lamb made May 13 at 2015 2:19 AM

SGT Justin Lamb — Wed, 13 May 2015 02:19:10 -0400

SGT,

I believe both should be kept. A lot of people function well as SPC but wouldn't perform well as a CPL. I was asked many times why I enjoyed being a CPL since you "don't get NCO pay" right there is reason enough for me why that person was a SPC and I was a CPL. It's a different mind frame altogether.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 4:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 04:07:56 -0400

I say get rid of using corporal as a consolation price for the SPC's trying to make cut-off (seen that many times in support units). Also, I would get rid of the Private E-1 and Private E-2, let's give them a different name.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 13 at 2015 7:07 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:07 -0400

There are pragmatic aspects to the two ranks. Corporals are in charge of troops, whereas Specialists are theoretically providing similar "value" but not in leadership positions.

Think of it this way. You have two E3s. One goes to a shop. The other goes to a squad. They are equal in every conceivable way. When it comes time to promote them, you promote both. The one in a "Shop" gets promoted to Specialist, because he is specialized in his field, and rates pay for that. The one in a squad gets promoted to Corporal because he is being moved up into a higher leadership position and the pay is commensurate to that.

This is most obvious in the USAF where you have fewer ground structured organizations (squad, platoon, etc). They don't have E4 NCO's anymore (the old Sgt rank was phased out). The E4 is a "technical rank" as opposed to an "NCO rank." However because the Army needs both, the divide exists. On the USMC/USN/USCG sides, we only have NCO at E4 with Cpl/PO3.

The issue with the Specialist/Corporal rank is not that it is there, it's that it's "random." From what I've been able to glean, everyone goes to Specialist, and you can possibly be promoted to CPL, however: what are the requirements? who is the authority? can you be swapped back & forth? does it actually help the soldier (more responsibility, no extra pay)? lots of questions, but it's just "wonky" as a concept. A lot of this is the philosophical differences between USMC & Army though.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 8:11 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 08:11:11 -0400

Get rid of specialist. The Army needs to stop making excuses for soldiers that are great workers but maybe not great soldiers. A soldier is a soldier, the tax payers expect a soldier to be a smart, take charge, individual, and yet the Army as an institution has allowed this worker bee, 9 to 5, mentality continue. Some of the other services expect their troops to take charge when in the absence of leadership, what happens when the specialist is left alone? Does he take charge or just wait around? Are we going to push our soldiers beyond what they are comfortable with or is the Army just a 9 to 5 job?

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 8:40 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 08:40:34 -0400

If the Army were to bring back the spec ranks, would the Army still keep Warrant Officers? Warrants are the SMEs in their MOS field, so would the spec ranks allow Soldiers to become enlisted SMEs? Would it be easier for a spec rank Soldier to transition to a Warrant Officer? I guess I have more questions than answers.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 13 at 2015 8:49 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 13 May 2015 08:49:34 -0400

Inertia. The Corps doesn't bother with it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 7:34 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 19:34:43 -0400

Bring back the spec ranks. There are many who have the technical skills that the Army needs but do not have the leadership capabilities or inclination to be NCOs. During my time in the Army I ran into many E5-E8 soldiers who would have been excellent Spec5-Spec8s because of their technical expertise but should never have been put in charge of troops.

I've stated this on several similar threads, but I'll repeat it again here. At my last duty station I worked with a civilian GS intel guy who was a retired CSM. He was one of the CSMs who made the recommendation to do away with the Specialist track (Spec5-Spec7) that existed at the time. He told me on more than one occasion that it was his biggest regret from his time in the Army. He wished he could go back and change that decision and even extend the Specialist ranks to E8 and E9.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made May 13 at 2015 7:37 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Wed, 13 May 2015 19:37:30 -0400

I think maybe most spc didn't have that leadership, and no college.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 13 at 2015 9:28 PM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Wed, 13 May 2015 21:28:27 -0400

I like the idea of having technical Mos embrace the Spec ranks, and leaving the chevrons to the combat arms. Yet if we scrap it I am fine with that as well. Just go all the way in either direction.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 11:20 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 23:20:52 -0400

I look at it from my last combat arms unit.. We had 1 e7 1 e6 3 e5s a few corporals and the rest if they had been back from AIT for a while were E4 per platoon It works on the reserve and NG side of the house as in alot of units there isnt alot of room for upward promotion without leaving the unit and traveling. My firefighting unit that i was in had 1 e6 1 e5 and 12 e4s per detachment I would say bring back the SPC- ranks and leave the Chevrons for the Combat Arms folks... I look at it this way... You have an outstanding E-4 spc and an average E-4 you have a team leader slot and no E-5 to fill it... without some sort of difference in rank you are looking at the same rank doing two different things

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made May 20 at 2015 2:21 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:21:57 -0400

Initially the specialists ranks where for like cooks and MP's and anyone not Combat arms related. Well, hard strippers out rank the specialist even though the are the same E grade. So there where a lot of pissing contests.
Now days its because they are afraid of doing a 4187 and doing the lateral transfer of the rank. A 1st Sergeant that I won't name said that the ARMY had done away with the Corporal rank many years back. I was like really then why was I a Corporal in my last unit. He stammered and said that he wouldn't promote anyone to that rank and wouldn't have any in HIS unit and that it was stupid.
I can see having the SPC rank. You are only allowed so many NCO's in the unit. so if all e-4's are cpl's no one will get promoted till Someone gets boarded for e-5.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 2:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:32:26 -0400

All I have to say is the SPC rank keeps the Army at full operational power. If we force ppl to be NCO's they will be graded as such if they can't cut it leadership wise then they will be out even though they are more than capable of doing their jobs. And most times better than the hooah!!! 24/7 troops. My question is if we take away SPC ranks should we also discharge high speed soldiers for not being fully versed in their technical fields? It's like any other profession we need ppl at each level and with a certain level of knowledge and I feel the SPEC ranks do that for us. So I vote bring Specs back all the way up to 6 I'm
Not to certain about 7.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 2:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:39:25 -0400

I think all branches minus Combat Arms (IN, AR, CAV, ARTY, CMBT ENG) should use the Spec rank system and not the NCO ranks. Just my opinion, I mean, they are technical career fields after all.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 7:49 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 07:49:10 -0400

I would honestly like to add step levels to the E4 rank. It kills me when technically advanced Soldiers make SGT but can not be trusted to lead. You can mentor them everyday and every way but they just don't get it and now they are expected to leade because we don't want them RCP'd.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 4:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 16:46:13 -0500

"Should we bring back the spec ranks, or scrap it completely and just use the corporal?"

Either of these options is better than what we're doing now. I know a great number of NCOs who are very proficient at their jobs but should never have been awarded stripes. If we're not going to revive the various grades of Specialist, we should get rid of the SPC rank entirely. SPC / E4 as a standalone rank is one of the weirdest ranks in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2016 6:54 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 06:54:44 -0500

Corporal is a positioned rank that should be earned showing the leadership capabilities that you striving to achieve as a sergeant. As for specialist I believe this is a rank that should be earned as well. I get so tired of seeing 4-5 year specialist without a promotable status. Why are you wanting the Army's time and money? I believe that by the time you get to specialist, you are achieving standard to that under an NCO as to if your NCO was to leave you would be able to temporarily fill his shoes. Some Specialist today just just don't understand that and leaders promote just so they won't hit RCP. Honestly I can care less if you hit RCP. If they can't preform I will not recommend them to the board. One of the main problems we have today with leadership is that team leaders and young NCOs, and sometimes even senior leadership as well, want to be their SOldiers friend and have them like them all the time. Next thing you know favoritism kicks in and the SM is wearing strips. Meanwhile this new Sergeant doesn't know the first thing about leadership minus what he/she studied for the board because he/she was never mentored right. Remember select, train, educate, promote: not select-promote.

Overall an E-4 is a pay grade and we should build those nor should we laterally promote SMs just because they been a socialist for so long. We should be focusing on building strong leaders within our formation and promoting excellence with standards and discipline. This is just my opinion.

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Feb 4 at 2018 5:35 AM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 05:35:41 -0500

Get rid of all this confussion and problematic business.Eliminate the specialist rank that doesn't represents anything anymore but confussions and problems, and make the E-4's corporals once and for all.

Response by LTC Roger Huner made Feb 11 at 2018 9:45 PM

LTC Roger Huner — Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:45:14 -0500

The specialist ranks are great for reserve/national guard units because they allowed compensation for competency. Many do not qualify or seek the responsibility of leadership but their loyal service and increasing skill deserve to be compensated.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Mar 8 at 2018 3:28 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:28:39 -0500

Simple, a corporal is a NCO a specialist is not.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2018 1:12 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 May 2018 13:12:05 -0400

SGT Anthony Rossi we should keep it as SPC is not a leadership position but CPL is utilized for leadership positions. It is the lower enlisted version of 1SG/MSG and CSM/SGM. Same pay and benefits but different because of the position they are in.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Mar 13 at 2020 7:32 PM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:32:51 -0400

In the army not everyone wants to be a leader. SP/4 rank is what most people achieve on their first tour of duty. They then get discharged mostly because they joined the army for the bonus so they can go to college. If they reenlist then they will get promoted to Sgt. which is a leadership position. I think SP/5 and above was done away with because if they needed a NCO. you got treated like an NCO. If they needed a Peon you were treated like a peon. Other persons who had the stripes felt like the specialists got paid the same but had less responsibility and could use the system to get ahead. I know because after being in the Marine Corp as a Cpl. I joined the Army as a PFC. I went to SP/5 in 13 months I was whatever the company needed. Company, Armorer, Company Supply Clerk ,then company Supply Sgt. I had an Ammo Tech, Mos. 2311.

Response by SPC David Giffen made May 6 at 2020 10:32 PM

SPC David Giffen — Wed, 06 May 2020 22:32:11 -0400

Because most Specialists do not hold a NCO position. Corporal are if you want stick an E-4 in a E-5 position and they don't have enough check in the boxes for promotion to E-5. I have held NCO positions as an E-4. The only reason I didn't get promoted to Corporal was I was only temporary in that position.

Response by SSG Douglas Espinosa made May 22 at 2020 12:15 PM

SSG Douglas Espinosa — Fri, 22 May 2020 12:15:51 -0400

I agree on we should have kept the SPC ranks due to not everyone being capable of leading troops. But then I think Officers should have something similar. I've met some Officers that should never be entrusted to lead, but were good at technical tasks. A degree is just a piece of paper stating you are trainable, some have a degree and can't even be trained. That goes for Enlisted and Officers alike.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Mar 11 at 2021 3:55 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:55:48 -0500

Answer one: Because most of the E-4's in the Army don't know how to be Corporals.

Should we bring them back, IMHO no, I would rather see a return of the Tech Sergeant ranks. Lets get away from the everyone is a leader concept. Some people are great technicians, but horrible NCO's and vice versa. Some tech people can do things most us can't fathom, but have the people skills of Ivan the Terrible or worse.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Mar 12 at 2021 6:33 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:33:34 -0500

Because the SPC Mafia deems it so, Sham Shielders will never allow CPL for everyone :)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2021 6:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:42:48 -0500

I say scrap PV2. Dumbest rank. You're a private that went 6 months without a counseling, here. You're still a private but not a fuzzy. It should be PVT, PFC, SPC, CPL, and so on, in my opinion.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made May 13 at 2021 9:42 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Thu, 13 May 2021 09:42:05 -0400

Most people in the Army only serve 1 enlistment then the get discharged. Thats why they have the SP/4 rank. Because a specialist is not considered a leader. If a person was to reenlist they would get promoted to Sgt.. I never liked the special ranks because I became whatever the company needed. I was a Cpl.in the Marine Corp after 4Yrs. I had to enlist in the Army as a PFC. 15 months Later I was a SP/5. The company Armorer was a draftee got discharged, so they made me Company Armorer. The supply clerk a draftee got discharged so I became Supply clerk, The supply Sgt. went AWOL. So I became a supply Sgt. as a SP/4. The 1st Sgt. got me promoted to SP/5. I never worked a day in my MOS. 2311 Ammo tech in the army. They should have a rank that says "Jack of all trades Master of none." cause thats what I became, In March of 66 I had 3 month left in the Army. I was offered a comission as a 2nd,Lt, in Vietnam because their were so many draftees entering the Army that their was a shortage of experienced personell. I Would have to stay in vietnam another year. I chose to go home to my wife of 8 months. This decision worked very well for me. Semper Fi.