What would you change about the Enlisted rank structure?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:54:06 -0400

While I will always be proud to have served as a United States Army Senior Enlisted Soldier I would like to solicit feedback as to what changes you would suggest be made to our enlisted ranks?

I have been a long time proponent for eliminating the rank of Specialist (SPC/E-4) and making all Soldiers in this Grade of Rank Corporals (CPL/E-4). In addition, I would support a change in the title of address for the Sergeant First Class (SFC/E-7) grade of rank. While with said change I believe that all enlisted Soldiers should be addressed by their full grade of rank.

These are a few of my suggested changes that I believe will streamline the enlisted ranks, save money, increase discipline and pride in service while rewarding those who work hard to obtain military grade of rank.

Response by PO3 Shaun Taylor made Oct 21 at 2014 10:55 AM

PO3 Shaun Taylor — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:55:42 -0400

I would end promoting solely on time in grade. I would make people demonstrate they can perform at the next level before actually achieving the rank.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 10:58 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:58:39 -0400

I would bring back SPC5,6. Not every E-4 wants to be an NCO, some E-5/6 shouldn't be.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 12:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:14:44 -0400

Make them look less like some officers ranks. SPC from a distance can be confused for LTC. PO3 can be confused with COL. Fewer stripes between MSG and SGM for easier distinguishing. Just my .02

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 12:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:44:39 -0400

Pre-determine for technical or leadership carrier path. In other word – bring back the technical E-4

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 3:54 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:54:46 -0400

I would add a pay scale to the grade of E-9. A BN CSM has an O-5 for a Battle Buddy. He is an E-9. A BDE CSM has an O-6 Battle Buddy.....still an E-9, but has an exponentialy increased amount of responsibility. Keep climbing, and your pay grade remains the same, while your Battle Buddy's pay increases significantly.
I am also for bringing back SPC5,6, and so on. There are a lot of folks out there wearing stripes that really shouldn't be, all in the name of advancement.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 4:34 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:34:53 -0400

If I proposed this to the Marines in my platoon the most common answer would be to have a Senior Lance Corporal Rank (senior E-3). I find this comical because you have a lot of guys who have been Lances for a long long time and always make the new Lances call them "Senior Lance Corporal" or at least try to. But to me a SLC rank would be the equivalent of a Specialist in the army and I see no point in it. E-3 is E-3...if you don't like it...become promotable..

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 5:14 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:14:02 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member With regards to the SPC rank, I hate that insignia. An E-4 should have a distinctive set of stripes, not something akin to a boy scout badge. IMHO

Response by SPC James Bailey made Oct 25 at 2014 5:23 PM

SPC James Bailey — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:23:22 -0400

me, personally, I would set it up similar to the marines as far as the lower enlisted, getting rid of pv2 and simply labeling pv1 as pvt, with pfc being e-2, specialist being e-3 and corporal being the only e-4

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 5:39 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:39:26 -0400

What exactly would be the purpose of this? Is it being suggested that addressing an E8 as "Sergeant" would cause one to forget that he/she is a Master Sergeant?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 5:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:41:59 -0400

I would remove the specialist rank and the automatic promotion to E-4. Make every E-4 a corporal and make them earn it. I would also remove the MSG and SGM ranks. A SFC wears the same rank regardless of whether they are a platoon sergeant or working in S-3, so why differentiate the E-8 and E-9 pay grades.

I also wouldn't be against another pay grade to separate CSMs that are working in nominative positions. In my opinion a brand new SGM working for a major in a battalion S-3 shouldn't be the same pay grade as a CSM working for a 4 star general. You could make all General level officer slots CSM and those working for COL and below SGM.

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Oct 25 at 2014 6:22 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:22:30 -0400

The biggest problem the Army has in terms of enlisted ranks is the E4 mafia. And by that I mean the rank of specialist. The rank of specialist conveys no authority unless the Soldier is in a team leader position, and it just encourages people to tread water. Bring back the hard stripe corporal and make PFC's wait to get promoted.

The Army adopted the specialist ranks for morale purposes so they could promote Soldiers that worked in technical, not leadership positions. Well guess what, a team leader in the motor pool, the admin section, or in a hospital is still responsible for the training and development of their Soldiers the same way a soldier in the infantry, artillery, or armor is.

One of my biggest gripes is hearing a troop bitch that they should be getting promoted to the next pay grade. Too many Soldiers view the next promotion as more money, not more responsibility. You're not 'getting' anything. You're being selected for the next leadership position and you'd better be ready for it

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Oct 25 at 2014 6:57 PM

SSG Genaro Negrete — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:57:02 -0400

SPC James Bailey hit the nail on the head. E-1 should be PVT. Start things there and move on up.

There are, however, two fundamental issues here. First, there is the mentality that all enlisted leaders should be trained to operate as combat leaders. As NCO's. If given the entire SPC track, it may breed complacency. We've all seen those that do deploy are very likely to find themselves in a combat situation. COIN operations have shown us that violence against our troops does not discriminate based on MOS. Unfortunately, when you open up billets like that, it's hard to keep quality control over leaders. Simply put, some are always going to slip through the cracks.

The second issue is the "up or out" policy in it's current form. There are plenty of competent soldiers in their technical fields that do not want to be NCO's. There isn't anything wrong with that. With the service's problem of being able to retain quality professionals and technicians in the face of more lucrative private sector opportunities, the "up or out" policy pushes these people out.

Ultimately, I have agree that the SPC rank encourages laziness and hides true leadership potential.

Response by Cpl Chris Gore made Oct 25 at 2014 7:04 PM

Cpl Chris Gore — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:04:42 -0400

I would give the same amount money for food to all ranks that qualify BEQ. I'm sorry but I'm not sure what they call the money that is given to married soliders. I never understood, nor was I ever told, why more money is given for food as you're promoted. For instance, why is a majors family allowed to eat better and more often than mine. His wife and kids are no better than mine. I understand and agree with the pay structure as it pertains to our ranks and for our housing. These things are needed to assist men and women to reenlist. But there is no reasonable explanation for the difference in food allowance. As I was doing my final check out in June of 1991 I had to have my Sgt. Major sign off on my check out list. As I sat in front of his desk while he was talking on the phone, I was wondering what he was going to ask. He hung up the phone and asked me why I was getting out of the Marine Corp. I said you want the truth or do you want lie to you. He stood up and said "I want the fucking truth" . He slowly sat down and the veins that were bulging on his bald head began to deflate. I told him that I didn't think it was fair that his family gets more money for food than mine. I told him I understood and agreed with the pay structure but his wife and kids were no better than mine. He signed my check out sheet, stood up and tossed it to me and told me to get out of his office. I obviously struck a cord with him and I honestly think he agrees. Please fix it.

Response by MSG Brian Allen made Oct 25 at 2014 7:53 PM

MSG Brian Allen — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:53:23 -0400

In the same vein as CPT LaFlame's response I would bring back the technical ranks. There should be two tracks one, of course, technical and the other leadership. There are a lot of Bucks and Staffs running around out there who have no reason (or desire) to be in leadership positions.

Not really a change to the rank structure but I also believe that once an NCO has become a First Sergeant and served in a unit within his or her CMF they should be allowed to take a tour in a support unit. I served five glorious years as a First Sergeant in artillery units but would have enjoyed going over to a medical company just to share the love.. Not sure if the reverse would work as well, however. Support First Sergeants tend to be a little light in the stripes, if you know what I mean.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Oct 25 at 2014 10:45 PM

SSG Jim Foreman — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:45:26 -0400

I agree on eliminating Specialist and only having Corporals. Every soldier needs to learn about being a leader. You can never tell when you will be called to lead.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 5:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:50:10 -0400

I would ask that everyone starts out as E-1 in the military and our rank progression works similar to the Marine Corps. I was baffled by the amount of college graduates who were pulling rank on people in BCT and AIT while they had the same TIS as someone like myself who was an E-1.

E-1 to E-2 (1 year TIS)
E-2 to E-3 (2 year TIS)
E-3 to E-4 (3 year TIS and Promotion Board) Would be my proposed rank structure idea.

I see no rank integrity in my work. Specialists are almost triple the amount of Privates. I feel that Specialist is just a stagnant rank where people sit and argue about TIS and TIR.

Response by MAJ Dallas D. made Oct 30 at 2014 8:13 AM

MAJ Dallas D. — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:13:59 -0400

I think we need to go the opposite way and bring back the Specialist ranks. Not every job in the Army requires a NCO. There are lots of great SPC out there who are horrible NCO but they would be great SPC5.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Nov 11 at 2014 4:14 PM

SSG Jim Foreman — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:14:50 -0500

I agree with SFC Robert Anderson. Get rid of Specialist, every E4 should be Corporal. Cpt Richard LaFlame made the statement that some E4s don't want to NCOs . Every soldier should learn to lead. You can never tell where you're going to end up. E5/E6's that are mechanical specialist can be tech-sergeants.

Response by SPC James Lahti made Nov 11 at 2014 4:37 PM

SPC James Lahti — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:37:46 -0500

I think that promotions should be based on your dedication, intelligence, and knowledge. Same as any other job. Too many individuals get promoted because they can run really fast. I feel that you are worth more if you can figure out how to get shit done without having to get your superior to tell you how everything should be done. I always heard it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but rarely saw the idea in effect. Maybe I am missing the point, but I feel that if promotions were based on more than some basic factors, you would inevitably have better, more efficient leadership, and this starts at E1

Response by SFC Michael Arellano made Nov 16 at 2014 2:52 PM

SFC Michael Arellano — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:52:29 -0500

1. Corporals should only be found in Combat Arms units. 2. If you cook or work in admin, you should promote all the way up to SP9. There should be no soldier in the Army who cannot: pass a PT test, qualify with their weapon at least 4 times per year, is proficient with basic combat skills. Hated seeing a big fat mess daddy with a fat cigar sucking down coffee and shhoting the shit with the 1sg or CSM.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 4:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 16:26:41 -0500

When I was an E-4, (and as an E-3), I ran my own section, set up and scheduled operator level equipment maintenance (emulating the motor pool), had my own office, conducted specialized and general unit training in CBRN topics. (training recon/decon teams and unit wide CBRN). During some Sergeant's Time training blocks I was tasked with going from group to group to assist and be SME for CBRN training. (We had theme based Sergeant's time in my unit: "This week is CBRN", or "Land Nav", for example.)

I did this with the Chicken on my collars, not the Corporal Stripes. Guess what... I got paid the same, and got the same amount of recognition and respect. I was not in a traditional "leadership" position but I was a leader regardless of the shape of my rank.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 4:06 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:06:08 -0500

I agree with LTC Private RallyPoint Member. Bring back the SPC5/6/7. Early in my career I worked for a retired CSM who was part of the group that recommended abolishing those ranks. He said it was the biggest mistake he ever made in his military career. As was stated below, not everyone wants to be an NCO, nor should everyone be. The Specialist ranks allowed for technical expertise to be retained without forcing someone who should not be in a leadership position to be placed into one.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Dec 25 at 2014 3:12 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:12:29 -0500

See this is where the Army as always confused me. I get that CPL is and NCO and SPC is not. But why have 2 diffrent E4 ranks. Also i never understood why you guys call An E5, E6, and E7 SGT when they are different ranks. But i like the recommendation you have because even as an outsider it makes sense.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 3:18 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:18:05 -0500

What message are you giving folks when you get promoted from SPC to CPL? We think you are ready for extra responsibility, but you're going to get paid the same as a SPC. Thank got the AF got rid of the Buck Sergeant rank.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made May 1 at 2015 1:20 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 01 May 2015 13:20:05 -0400

Changes I would make, do away with automatic E-4, you got to earn it.
Upon successful selection of the E-5 board, the specialist is promoted to Corporal. Justification, too many soldiers are left in SPC (P) Limbo for ever, it isn't fair to them as they are treat as a "neither/nor" neither a troop to some nor an NCO to others. Make them Corporals, this gives them time to learn to be NCO's, lead troops, be an asset to the NCO Corp, and let make the transition from Troop to NCO.

Next bring back technical sergeants. Our weapons system are getting more and more complicated, lets put an effort into having a Corp of NCO's that are recognized technicians versus troop leaders. Give them the option, not everyone is going to be a good troop leader, but some are great at what they do. Some folks are going to be great technicians, but lack the social skills for being a troop leader.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 3:36 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 May 2015 03:36:18 -0400

I wouldn't mind if the Army got rid of the Specialist rank altogether and instead promoted Privates First Class to Corporal after successful completion of WLC. After successful completion of WLC, they should be put into a leadership position in order for them to use that knowledge and not let it go to waste.

A lot of people just look at WLC as a few promotion points in order to make SGT instead of for what it really is; an NCOES that is designed to turn soldiers into leaders. How can those soldiers expect to remember all the information in that school if they don't regularly apply it until they make SGT years later?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 8:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:21:40 -0400

One of the problems I frequently saw and worked to address was a serious lack of technical expertise... I'd show up at a unit and be the only one who knew how to properly load and program a radio, set up and antenna, ect... I believe the army would be more effective with more specialists who focus more on the technical side of the house, not less.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 24 at 2017 11:36 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:36:43 -0400

First, the Services need to decide if an E-4 should be a junior enlisted rank or a non-commissioned officer. The answer so far is confusing. The AF took the stand that an E-4 is not an NCO. The Army and Marines, maybe. The Navy, yes, an NCO.

I can't say exactly how a SPC or SrA is treated on a day-to-day basis. I suspect it varies by unit and person. If the Specialist or Senior Airman is in a unit that is short on junior leaders, then they may be assigned some temporary duties equivalent to an NCO. In other cases where there are adequate E-5s (SGT or SSgt), the SPC and SrA will be treated much like other junior enlisted. The Army and Marines select some E-4s to be Corporals and give them NCO status, responsibilities and authorities. The Navy PO-3 is an NCO, but I have heard that they are often treated more like a super-E-3 than a true NCO.

My recommendation is for all the Services to declare that an E-4 is a junior enlisted grade. Also, there should be some rationalization of ranks and stripes among the Services. The three-stripe rank for non-Navy personnel should be reserved for Sergeant, an NCO; four stripes or three plus a rocker, Staff Sergeant; and five stripes, Sergeant First Class. Above that let the Services call them what they will. The Navy would have to reshuffle the stripes and titles, but their tradition of a Chief (E-7) having three chevrons and a rocker should be maintained. The Petty Officer ranks below Chief would have to be redone.

I also recommend we add an E-10. (Look for the question string on this one.) The E-10 would be reserved for the senior enlisted person on a General/Admiral/Joint Staff. In the Air Force we used to call that person a "Senior Enlisted Advisor." In the Army, they are the Command Sergeant Major. These very senior enlisted personnel, including the senior enlisted person in each Service HQ Staff, for example, the Command Sergeant Major of the Army, deserve the recognition and increased pay that a grade above E-9 would bring. There would be very few E-10s. Not quite as rare as a Marine WO-5, but almost.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2017 3:12 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:12:26 -0400

I know "everyone is a leader" is a viewpoint which is commonly espoused in the military and, while I understand the sentiment, in the fifteen years I've been in I don't think reality meshes well with sentiment.

Let me explain.

In terms of an effective organization, there can't be "all leaders." There are a large majority of people who join the Army who specifically want to "do a job." For me, it was Counterintelligence. I love Counterintelligence. Especially investigative work. Nothing gets my brain engaged more than doing a no-shit straight-leg CI investigation. However, I quickly made SSG shortly after becoming an agent and found myself in more "leadership positions" - ASAIC, Instructor/SGL, ASAIC, etc... while you'll never hear me openly complain about this, I think that there should be a parallel rank structure with no change in pay which delineates "leader" versus "worker."

I have read a lot on the old Specialist rank system and I understand how it disappeared and what those changes meant, but I personally see nothing wrong with it. You have strong, forward-thinking, capable leaders? Make them SGTs, SSGs, and SFCs and put them in charge of Soldiers. You have someone that is an amazing investigator or extremely proficient at their MOS but isn't really good at "admin stuff?" Make them a SPC5, SPC6, or SPC7. They'd still "outrank" lower SPC ranks and NCO ranks, but not be in a leadership capacity.

Leave leading to leaders and focus on building a more robust, proficient, and savvy workforce for those leaders to lead. It's too late for me. I'm about to pin SFC. So... I've accepted the era I served in.

I don't know. Those are just my thoughts.

Response by 2LT Evan Arguello made Mar 21 at 2018 5:56 PM

2LT Evan Arguello — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:56:17 -0400

I would standardize the ranks. For officers, the ranks would be:
1. Ensign
2. Lieutenant
3. Captain
4. Major
5. Commander
6. Colonel
7. Commodore
8. General
9. Admiral
10. Grand Admiral

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 7 at 2018 10:07 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 07 May 2018 22:07:17 -0400

You know that SPC is the training ground for NCO's- if they don't cut it, you don't send them to the board- if you make all CPL's then they are NCO' and if they fail then is will show in their records as a bust, which will haunt them forever. I did not have time to stand around at formations and call everyone of me troops by rank. Also your changes save 0 money because you still have paygrade E1-E9, and does not streamline the enlisted ranks as you eliminated nothing.

Response by SGM Ronald Cheatom made Jun 15 at 2018 5:35 PM

SGM Ronald Cheatom — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 17:35:19 -0400

I believe once a soldier has passed the first leadership course, he should be laterally moved to corporal. He/ she has proven ready to move to the next step.

Response by PO3 Kevin DeLong made Jun 21 at 2018 12:07 AM

PO3 Kevin DeLong — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:07:02 -0400

I Would increase the number of warrant officers.In the army once you make E8 you chance for advancement is blocked into a small pool of E 8 and E 9 slots. I believe That a Rank of W6 should be created and called Command warrant officer. Only a Sargent Major or a W5 with 30 years or more active time could become one.

Response by CW3 David Vinson made Aug 20 at 2018 2:35 PM

CW3 David Vinson — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:35:41 -0400

When I was on Active Duty then Spc all the up to Spc8.The rank was more of technical field rank than commander rank.Hard Rank has it place,but not all E-4 are ready for Corp strike.

Response by Cpl Charles Trump made Mar 25 at 2020 11:50 AM

Cpl Charles Trump — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:50:48 -0400

I would ban the use of the term Sarge and the term Sergeant for every rank. A Sgt is a Sgt, A S.Sgt Should be a S.Sgt etc. In the Corps u could end up doing alot of xtra duty pulling that off. Besides it's not tolerated from day one!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2020 3:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:07:05 -0400

As many people have stated. Bring back the Specialist ranks (SPC4,5,6,7, etc). But maybe caught them off at SPC7 if they dont wanna be a leader or switch over to Warrant.

Response by CW5 Mark Smith made Jun 7 at 2020 7:39 PM

CW5 Mark Smith — Sun, 07 Jun 2020 19:39:41 -0400

I would add a rocker for E-9 insignia, 3 up and 4 down.
Reestablish the technical ranks and not just E-4/5/6. Add 7 and 8 and possibly 9.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2020 10:43 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:43:58 -0400

I don't wish the elimination of SPC/ E4 rank/grade. Instead, I wish to expanded it before an enlisted can reach the rank of CPL /E4 or SGT(E5).
Also, I wish to see an option for educated MSG/ E8 to 1LT/O2, if (air tight) qualified. 10 years in the rank of MSG due to a lack of position to SGM is a waste of manpower and resources. There are too many young MSGs [E8] well over qualified than a 1LT in his/her current position.