What is the argument to create a CW6 billet?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 05:02:17 -0400

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

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 08:20:06 -0400

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

COL Dan Ruder — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:58:04 -0400

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

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:51:53 -0400

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

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:59:47 -0400

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

CW3 Clayton C. — Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:14:12 -0400

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

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:22:09 -0400

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

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:30:06 -0400

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

CSM Charles Hayden — Fri, 15 Sep 2023 22:08:22 -0400

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

MSG Thomas Currie — Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:43:46 -0400

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

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

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:43:03 -0400

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

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:49:15 -0400

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

CW4 Keith Dolliver — Sat, 04 Nov 2023 00:07:19 -0400

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

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:13:35 -0500

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

CW5 David Heggood — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:05:04 -0500

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.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2024 12:42 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:42:33 -0400

This make more since in the Guard since W-5’s can and do park at position for years. Especially AGR’s and technician. Technicians in particular must remain in the guard as a condition of their federal employment.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2024 7:06 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:06:19 -0400

I do not see any need for a CWO6, at least not from the Navy.

The grade and positions of CWO5 is dictated by congress. There are very few CWO5s as it stands and their roles vary tremendously. Let's remember that for the Navy at least, CWO2 requires at least 14 years of service and having been an E7 or above to begin with.

CWO5 are a rarity and can hold very high positions in leadership and trust. Warrants by and large, whether a CWO2 or a CWO5, are respected and their word carries tremendous weight. I can only speak for myself, but unlike enlisted and officer grades, a warrant is a warrant.

I am not sure how many people are "sitting" in a CWO5 billet for long. From what I understand, they are all but ready and eligible to retire. I suppose a similar argument could be made to E9s. I've known a couple Master Chiefs in the Navy who do not yet meet the time requirement for CWO2.. so I suppose you could argue you can always try to promote up by commissioning (Warrant or Line Officer).

At the end of the day, each branch is given a number of higher grade based billets that require congressional approval. It's not a matter of opening up a higher grade.. but one of billeting, funding, and approval.

Warrants have their role. It's a specific role. Everything else can either be divided into an enlisted or officer role. There is nothing in the military not already being done well by other grades that would require a CWO6.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Sep 24 at 2024 6:04 AM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:04:07 -0400

The entire purpose of warrants are experts in a field and they stay actively working in that field. Whatever the administrative role a CW6 would do, a regular officer could do for them.

Response by CW5 Roger Jacobs made Oct 24 at 2024 9:35 PM

CW5 Roger Jacobs — Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:35:13 -0400

Your reasoning for CW6 doesn't take into account attrition of Warrant Officers at all levels. I am one of the CW5's that held the rank for over 10 years. I successfully recommended several NCO's to become Warrant Officers. On average they retired at the CW3-CW4 level. Even among CW5 Tech Warrants they usually retire after 3 years time in grade. In my field, we were always short of required and authorized CW5's. I joked with a lot of Raters and Senior Raters about making the statement, "Authorize CW6 and make him the first one." You aren't seeing a lot of support for your position because most don't see either the need or the value.

Response by CW5 John Harrison made Dec 26 at 2024 6:28 AM

CW5 John Harrison — Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:28:45 -0500

I had not thought about the 'promotion blockage' aspect before. Interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. Would I have stayed in longer for it, yes. Seems it worked out for me and the Army, and yet using rank as a motivation has its value. Thank you.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2025 12:07 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:07:10 -0400

I will preface this with, I personally hate these kind of questions. First off, we don’t need more Chiefs, no pun intended, we need more worker bees. If the problem is that people can sit at the top too long and bog down promotions, maybe require another year of time in grade for each promotion. Also, raise the minimum time in service before you can apply for WO. How are you really a SME in 6 years. Yep, I am sure there are the studs out there but in reality, I have seen a lot of non-studs who just have good records. Not hating, just a reality. Or we can do like the Marine Corps Gunners and if I am not mistaken, the Navy CWO that have to be E-7s to apply. Maybe, instead of adding another rank to not bog down promotions, they allow a CWO-4 or 5 to fully convert to the dark side and become a Captain. That way the officer rank has people with experience and that the enlisted respect because they have been there done that. Once again, not hating on commissioned officers, we lowly enlisted respect a guy who has worked his way from scrubbing crappers to shiny stuff on their collars…as long as they don’t forget where they came from. Aside from freeing up promotions, is there honestly a need?

We don’t need more ranks in the service, we need to stop promoting so fast. Make the rank mean something. No more automatic promotions because of time in grade or service and maybe start putting senior folks out who are retired on active duty and just collecting a pay check. That is just my opinion worth about 1.3 cents.