What is the argument to create a CW6 billet?

2023-09-11T05:02:17-04:00

The rank of Chief Warrant Officer 6 was approved by the house but not by senate. Is there a case to be made for positional ranks similar to O9 and O10? No pay increase, just a higher position. Maybe 1 per functional branch?

[edit from original]

it looks like everyone missed the point of my question. I am asking for the devil's advocate argument in favor of a CW6. I don't there is one, but apparently there was enough of one in the past to suggest the billet. I just want to see if there is a reasonable argument for it for debate sake. I will try one:
Here goes,

The point of a CW6 is to bridge the gap of those personnel that want to – currently – be CW5 and then occupy the billet for more than a decade. Thereby blocking 1-2 cohorts from ever being allowed to attain the position.

Warrants are authorized up to 30 years as a Warrant. 10 U.S. Code § 571 limits active duty CW5s to 5% of the total on active duty.

WO1 – 2 years
CW2 – 5 years
CW3 – 5 years
CW4 – 5 years
That’s 17 years as a Warrant.
CW5 – now the CW5 could potentially sit in this position for 13 more years.

Creating a CW6 would significantly reduce this eventual issue to potentially sitting in a CW6 billet for 8 years and blocking far fewer.
Again, I'm just curious about the arguments in favor of authorizing a CW6.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Sep 11 at 2023 8:20 AM

2023-09-11T08:20:06-04:00

As I understand it the reason for no O grade pay increase is based on a Federal limit, as for Congress, Senate etc.

Back to the question regarding WO, it makes sense with regard to level of responsibility, as there should be for CSM (E9), pay stopes at Battalion initial promotion until someone is selected for SMA, there is accommodation on the pay scale for that position.

Service members should be compensated for their level of responsibility. Good Luck.

Response by COL Dan Ruder made Sep 11 at 2023 4:58 PM

2023-09-11T16:58:04-04:00

One of the primary arguments against creating a CW6 billet is the cost associated with adding another senior warrant officer rank. You could make a case for pay stop at CW5 and that would factor into a cost-benefit analysis. However, the CW6 billets across all the warfighting functions (WWFs) have to come from somewhere (no growth) and the Branches would have to identify the "bill-payers". There is nonetheless still a 'cost' associated with this endeavor if adding CW6 means adding growth to manpower; increasing the defense budget.
Would need to also demonstrate to the Senate that there is insufficiency in the existing ranks of warrant officers, from CW2 to CW5, demonstrating the gaps and that creating a new rank is not redundant. Secondly, the Senate's rank-bloat concerns would have to be addressed, that this would not cause administrative challenges and a complicated chain of command.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2023 10:51 AM

2023-09-12T10:51:53-04:00

IMO, without a pay increase it's a non-starter. I see no good reason for the CW6 rank. That said, I also think there are way to many General Officers in the Army.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2023 5:59 PM

2023-09-14T17:59:47-04:00

When I was a junior medic, we revered the Warrant Officer Physician Assistants. I was pretty crushed when I was in basic and was informed they weren't taking more PA WOCs in their transition to commissioned officers. It worked out in the end for me professionally, but I think the mythos of Chief Warrant Officer will always be imbedded. I certainly support the concept of a unicorn CWO6 and could imagine it could serve as a motivator for those revered colleagues, but can't speak to the need of such things.

Response by CW3 Clayton C. made Sep 14 at 2023 6:14 PM

2023-09-14T18:14:12-04:00

I don’t think so. A higher Warrant Officer rank doesn’t suddenly increase our knowledge base or our credibility within our units, or the Army for that matter.

Reputation is built quickly for those who prove their expertise time and again. We become well known as an individual. I’m happy with what we have now.

At the O9-O10 level, with a complimentary E9, they should have enough time and experience to no longer require our assistance.

Our very best work is done at the brigade and below levels, developing those young future generals and command sergeants major.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2023 6:22 PM

2023-09-14T18:22:09-04:00

As rare as W5s are, I'm not sure W6s make sense - especially if they're one per branch. The MCPON is an E-9, just like any Command Master Chief, Engineering Department Master Chief, or Maintenance Master Chief. Likewise, the CNO has the same paygrade as a geographic combatant commander.

That said, I know the Army makes warrants with far less time-in-service than the Navy does, so there may be benefit in providing longer career granularity.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2023 7:30 PM

2023-09-15T19:30:06-04:00

I'm pretty sure the argument is that it'd be really cool. CW5's are mythical unicorns. CW6's would be literally invisible.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Sep 15 at 2023 10:08 PM

2023-09-15T22:08:22-04:00

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member It is your question. Were you trained to ask questions you do not know the answer to?

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Sep 16 at 2023 10:43 AM

2023-09-16T10:43:46-04:00

Hell, what was the argument to create a CW5 billet.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Sep 18 at 2023 4:43 PM

2023-09-18T16:43:03-04:00

I think the Services with Warrant Officers may have strayed from the purpose of the Warrant Officer Corps. IMO Warrant Officers are the super-experts in their specialty. They aren't intended to be in command or a substitute for commissioned officers. Yes, I know CW2 through 5 are "commissioned." I have to draw some distinction between the Warrant and Officer ranks, so I choose the use the term "commissioned Officer" for O-1 through O-10. I didn't understand the need for CW5 and don't see the need for CW6. If it's a pay issue, then increasing overall Warrant Officer pay rates may be the answer. If it's because of the level of command some Warrant Officer's work at, then I think the Warrant Officers aren't being used correctly. Having a "Senior Warrant Officer Advisor" to Commanders at levels of command above Battalion/Squadron seems like a waste of manpower. The technical experts are most valuable at the levels where the work is actually accomplished or directly supervised. At the highest, it might be needed where operational planning is done, so maybe a mobility planning expert at the Division or Numbered Air Force level. Experts in supply, maintenance, medical, even flying, are most valuable at the operational level.
The problem may be the percentage of the force that can hold the CW4 and CW5 ranks. Increasing the percentage a couple of points might have the desired improvement of upward mobility. Another option might be to encourage Warrant Officers with appropriate potential to move to the commissioned officer corps. The Services could offer various considerations for CW3-5 that want to commission. For example, they might be allowed to commission directly as O-2 or O-3 instead of coming in as a 2LT.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2023 2:49 PM

2023-09-20T14:49:15-04:00

CW6??? The Coast Guard feels it's unnecessary to have any CWO5's at all. Highest is CWO4.

Response by CW4 Keith Dolliver made Nov 4 at 2023 12:07 AM

2023-11-04T00:07:19-04:00

I could see it being useful for branch immaterial positions above the tactical level... basically Army Senior Warrant Officer Council members that are acting beyond the scope of their branch; i.e. ARSTAFSWO, COCOM CCWOs, ACOM/ASCC CCWOs, CAC CCWO, ARNG/USAR CCWOs (and possibly individual state CCWOs). There's a reason these jobs are branch immaterial; clearly they are no longer acting in the narrow technical capacity required specifically for their WOMOS/Branch, but rather in a broader role that requires an abundance of general Warrant Officer experience which they have accrued over decades of service as a Warrant Officer.

As you mention, there is also a "bottle-neck" for promotion to CW5 because the most senior Warrants have the option to serve in the grade of W5 for basically twice as long as any of the other warrant grades. Creating the CW6 rank would allow all CW5 billets to remain branch specific, thus branches would not lose one of their few CW5s to an immaterial job. These branch immaterial jobs are already not "entry level" CW5 jobs and those selected usually have held a couple other CW5 assignments prior anyway, so this rank would provide an extra financial incentive commensurate with their broader duties of developing overall WO policy, steering, and utilization guidance. This would also solve some of the bottle-neck issues for promotion to CW5 by creating another "up or out" promotion gate (branches would still retain the ability to SELCON warrants as needed that are non-select for CW6).

Lastly, I would say that this rank should be truly branch immaterial and competed as such for promotion. It would be akin to when COLs of virtually all branches compete for GO. Techs and Aviators would compete against each other for CW6 with no floors or ceilings related to individual WOMOS's or branches. Warrant Officers selected for promotion to CW6 would receive a new branch immaterial WOMOS (011A or similar) upon promotion.

This rank may be less germane to the other services, but for the Army, which already has the largest number of WOs, and is already utilizing WOs in some non-technical capacities, I think this rank has merit.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2023 6:13 PM

2023-11-23T18:13:35-05:00

A multitude of arguments for CW6. The key, is the questionable Personal or just inquisitive. Many answers revolve around the locking of positions due to long term service. That is a personal question. Yes, there are plenty who need to move on. But there are also the rare folks who bring massive amounts of experience and value to the table. Kicking these people out is just like saying, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”.

From an inquisitional manner, the intent of the W6 was for Corp and above upward mobility. Reason, with upward mobility comes greater responsibility. Pretty simple. Recognizing that responsibility was the intent. What is the difference between a CW5 at a Battalion and one working for a 4 Star? Same pay. Bunches more responsibility…or is it?
I worked at an Aviation Support Battalion on a 2011-12 deployment as the Aviation Materials Officer. Because I was a VERY senior Maintenance Officer, I was placed in charge of detailed aviation Maintenance for the largest Aviation Brigade in History with 289 Aircraft. Just under $8 Billion in hardware. A 3 star called me weekly. I was just a little CW5 at a Battalion. More or less responsibility then a W5 working at Core?

Response by CW5 David Heggood made Jan 10 at 2024 4:05 PM

2024-01-10T16:05:04-05:00

There is no need for a CW6. Where would you place them? When I retired in 2008 after 35 years we were struggling to fill the CW5 positions. CW5’s make up no more the 5% of the total Warrant Officer Corp, unless that has changed. What would be the educational criteria for such a rank! There were some CW5’s that had advanced degrees, but it was hard for some of us to even get a Bachelor’s degree because we spent most of our time in Divisions until we were selected for CW5. We would have to cut positions from LTC or Col positions and that will never happen, primarily because they need to grow their ranks too.