What are your thoughts of getting rid of Specialist and making E-4 only Corporal, upon completion of BLC and a board perhaps?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:00:47 -0400

Response by SSG Brian G. made Aug 24 at 2020 9:05 PM

SSG Brian G. — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:05:07 -0400

Why throw in BLC or a board? It's not needed now except to promote to E-5. Besides not all units need a corporal vs a specialist.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2020 9:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:14:42 -0400

Not a fan of the idea. If said SPC is returning from their board and BLC to sit in the same spot they were before, why put stripes on their chest. If they are truly ready for the NCO ranks, they will be acting accordingly without the stripes.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2020 9:23 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:23:54 -0400

Ehhh, it doesn’t bother me but if that’s the case I feel like the army needs to promote more and through out the ranks and MOS, regardless of what they are. You can’t have the same amount of CPL as you have now for SPC. The Army would have to speed up there promotion process just to make room because the turnover rate for BLC slots are high. My class last year had 876 Soldiers and 30 were CPL and 2 were SGT so that’s roughly 844 SPC a cycle, for 1 BLC course on one base in the Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2020 9:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:53:05 -0400

For that to happen, I think we would need a full restructuring of the E grades. I generally do not agree. I find an inherent need in the SPC rank. There's many details or assignments I wouldn't let a PFC lead. I think it would be more beneficial to actually hold CPLs to the standard we used to. They're technically NCOs but usually only get used to be NCOs for details no SGT would accept. I like how the USMC does it, CPLs are TLs and SGTs are SLs. Either something along those lines OR, in certain MOSs or positions have CPLs lead junior NCO positions such as TLs.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Aug 24 at 2020 11:21 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 23:21:42 -0400

Fine the way it is now. Not a big advocate of forcing people into NCO ranks their first enlistment and I think a lot of SGT get promoted way too early and before they are really ready for it. I think having the first enlistment being largely E1-E4 is perfect for those that want to make a decision on which way to go.......NCO or Officer. Also, a large chunk of E1-E4 enlist just for one enlistment for the experience and the benefits and have no real interest in being an NCO. Forcing them all to be junior NCO's I think would be a mistake and lead to an increase in disciplinary issues not to mention folks shying away from enlisting in the first place.

Response by LCDR Mike Morrissey made Aug 25 at 2020 1:57 AM

LCDR Mike Morrissey — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:57:50 -0400

Being a simple minded sea going type, I’ve had a little difficulty in following the other services rank structures...especially the modifiers for E7 through E9 in all the others. We have Seaman Recruit-Apprentice-Seaman, the 3 Petty Officer grades then essentially 3 Chief Petty Officers (Chief, Senior Chief and Master Chief). If memory serves, it seems that the Army restructured ranks twice after WWII. There were references to hard rockers and more than one specialist etc somewhere in there?

Response by SFC(P) Jonathan P. made Aug 25 at 2020 2:19 AM

SFC(P) Jonathan P. — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:19:05 -0400

That’s how the marines have it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2020 3:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 03:44:28 -0400

What about making someone hold Corporal time mandatory before even attending the board? Actually allow their leadership to evaluate their leadership abilities and potential, before they are formally placed in a leadership position (by virtue of training and rank)?

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2020 5:30 AM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:30:40 -0400

I honestly like this Idea SFC, for a long time I have seen alot of PFC who show so much potential in their field, only to be put down due to "rank" while their are some SPC and SGT who have coasted throughout and show no real ways of learning and growing into leader that try to run things "because of Rank" If we made PFC the semi SPC and reward those in the rank that show leadership qualities to the rank of E4(which is now CPL) it will give them more time to be a leader before becoming a SGT and slowly learn while inspiring the peers that are still at the PFC Rank.

Also SPC use to stand for "Actually being a Specialist in your field" but now it is just another rank you automatically receive. If changed to CPL I believe it would bring back more standards and awareness so they have that threshold to mold themself into the rank of SGT.

Mind you, The military will still have soilders who are just there, to be there and not a team, or skate by, but that is any ranked establishment. E4 being just CPL, and giving CPL more leway into how they praise and punish junior enlistment helps the E4 lead but also give the E5 and above more time to get things done that they can't because they have to watch over a 2-5 year in SPC and a bunch of privates who want to learn but aren't around any leaders who had the time(or motivation) to grow.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2020 5:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:36:48 -0400

I think specialist is a needed rank. Some E-4’s are not ready to take on NCOs but have become decently honed on their skill set in their MOS. As others have said also it’s a good crossroads point for soldiers on their first hitch to decide if they want to stay in and go the NCO lane or leave service or switch over to the officer side through the various programs.

I do think the army needs to do a better job of distinguishing a specialist from a corporal. As someone new to the army as a direct commission I thought it weird to have two ranks that hold the same grade, but supposedly different responsibilities. Now granted I am AMEDD so I am sure we are more specialist heavy vs corporal, but now that I’ve learned more, I would be handing a lot more soldiering duties to a corporal than the specialist to see how their leadership is and how they get tasks done. I would expect a little more big picture out of them in terms of how they approach tasks vs a specialist.

So no I don’t think we need a different rank structure, I think we in the army just need to do a better job of treating the two sides of the E-4 tree the way they should be treated and were designed to be used.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2020 12:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:14:47 -0400

I would do it a slightly different way:

Delete PV2 (Because Private 2 just sounds silly) and have PFC be the new E-2, Specialist E-3, and Corporal E-4. I agree not all Specialists are ready to be leaders their first enlistment, but I think we should give them a taste of responsibility without overloading them. It's too late once you become a SGT, there's no going back. But if a different rank structure allowed us a kind of "Crawl, Walk, Run" approach, we would improve the quality of the NCO Corps exponentially.

Response by SGT Bradley Dixon made Aug 25 at 2020 12:17 PM

SGT Bradley Dixon — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:17:31 -0400

Why not just bring back the Specialist4-9 ranks?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Aug 25 at 2020 7:11 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:11:26 -0400

NO- Once a CPL- to gear them back is a pain in the ass, cause they are an NCO.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2020 9:50 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:50:54 -0400

SPC is a recruitment strategy with the Army.

I do not believe any of the other services will allow a college graduate to enlist at E4.

Maybe even do away with CPL and bring back SPC5. Do away with CPL so it wouldn't have NCO authority conflicts with SPC5. Then SPC5 gives soldiers an opportunity to hang around longer before jumping into the NCO realm, but then the new quasi authority conflict would be SPC5 verses SGT.

Response by SSG Mike Scott made Dec 6 at 2020 1:13 PM

SSG Mike Scott — Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:13:58 -0500

In my opinion, I feel the need to reinstitute the SPC grades the way they used to be. SPC4-SPC8. Not all are cut out to be an NCO, but in the 29 years I was in I met a lot who would have made a great SPC 5 or 6 brood their technical ability but hindered in leadership or other areas.