What would you change about the Enlisted rank structure?

I would bring back Technical Ranks, and use them for E-5 through E-7. They would be a tool to allow people with technical knowledge to get paid and retained for that knowledge. They would be treated the same as an NCO of the same grade, however a Technician 5 would be outranked by any corporal or higher and a Technician 6 or 7 by any Sergeant or higher when it came to leadership vs. technical issues. Technicians would receive enough leadership training to lead small teams, however leadership training would drop off from there in favor of advanced technical training.

I think that SPC should simply be what they are called. SPC are auto-promoted to their ranks and it has nothing to do with their competence in any field. Stop the auto promotions. Do not give a SPC more money for finally filling the role they were supposed to.

Becoming a NCO Corps with no real specialty would be a shame. You would have missions being run by leaders that are even more disconnected than they are now. Please stop and think for a moment what that would do. Imagine the NCO Corps being just as distant as a new LT but with more gusto for doing things their way.

Calling a person by their whole rank would be a good thing but I don't think it should stop with NCOs. If your going to call a Sergeant First Class by the while of it, do it with the privates as well. I was quite proud when I was a PFC vs a PV2. Make that mean something again.

I don't think it is the rank structure that needs an overhaul. It is the mentality of those who observe and uphold it that needs to be adjusted. A SPC should be as strong to Jr. Enlisted as a SGM is for Sr. Enlisted, and a corporal should rain the authority of an NCO. It separates them and provides that lowest level of leadership that is needed without making the SGT look like they are micro managing.

Just my opinion, but we should not abandon or change something that is not used to its full capacity because we are not using it well.

SFC (Join to see) - Oh okay...The question was kinda of vague for me...sorry about that! I was wondering there..LoL! My bad! Then I would say that I kind of like how the ranks are now. I personally don't see a problem.

Specialist should mean exactly that. A person with special skills. They should have to prove competence in their specialty before promotion and there should be published qualifications for each promotion as well as a "Sample Test" for each. If a Specialist wants to become a "hard stripe" they should have to demonstrate leadership competence. Just because you can disassemble/repair/reassemble a HMV does NOT mean you know how to LEAD soldiers under fire, and THAT is the mission of a "hard stripe". The actual off-sets should be pretty easy to figure out... Specialists are ONLY experts in their Specialty. Command decisions are left to "hard stripes", who, if they're not stupid use the resources they have at their disposal, which includes KNOWING the Specialists and WHO to use as a resource for WHAT Special support or input. BTW if a Specialist is stagnant, not moving ahead and learning they should be encouraged, then warned, then removed. "If you're NOT growing you ARE going."

SGT Greg Gold you hit the nail on the head. Too many Soldiers are impatient about getting promoted, viewing it only as an opportunity to get paid more and feel like they have power over others. I try to stress to my Soldiers that it means being entrusted to lead and being given the responsibility of taking care of more Soldiers. It seems people forget the line of the NCO creed that states that one of the basic NCO responsibilities to be held uppermost in the mind is "the welfare of my Soldiers" as well as the promise that "I know my Soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own."

I enlisted in 84 and waited 3 yrs to be promoted to E-4 because of the budgets. When i was promoted to E-4 I already was working way above my pay grade. I find that today it's more of a money issue than anything else. If you don't make enough you will leave, so rather than promoting based on compentacy you promote for retention. We live in a whole new ERA...

On the subject of the Specialist/Technical ranks we all have seen the tic turds that chose the right MOS who were at the right place at the right time get promoted over other more qualified contempoaries. There are SFC's, MSG's and a very small number of SGM's that were simply promoted because someone showed them a whole lot of love. lol This is why I am glad that we have great leader's that are well aware of this. But reintroducing Specialist/Technical ranks is like giving a cripple crab a crutch. It is fine time that true leaders weed out the lip service Soldier's from those who are our brightest and best performer's. Leaders are not born they are first great follower's. If an Enlisted Soldier is not cut out for the NCO ranks I believe the solution is complete their enlistment and seek more fitting employment thereafter.

Maybe Biomedical Technicians or Laboratory Technicians who have special ASI's to where they never leave Garrison or go anywhere such as Fort Detrick where meeting a Soldier who has been there from Private to Master Sergeant is common place.

CSM Donald Waterhouse - If they did bring back the SPC-5-8 then the stripes should be more prominent. Even the Navy has a better handle on image.

SFC (Join to see) - And then you lose that engine specialist who can listen to the noise a turbine makes when you feed it some nut shells and tell you if it's trashed or not... net cost? A redlined aircraft, truck, MLRS. Specialists are very necessary, but Military Management has become a JOKE. Those who are too LAZY to excel should be GONE. Hopefully shunted into a backwater where they have a minimal effect on ANYthing until they leave. Those who DO excel should be recognized and made aware that their contribution is NOT ONLY appreciated but rewarded. I know several "Specialists" who left the services they were in, to triple their incomes in the civvy world. They took a few tests, written AND practical, and were making serious money within a year. Those are the folks YOU NEED TO KEEP, but FUBAR management practices drive them out. Bad juju.

What about the tech path eventually leading toward warrant officer. Or at the very least create a selection pool for warrant selection.

MSgt Randy Dines SrA (Join to see) SrA Robert Williams My idea would be for Air Force rank to be more in line with the Corps and Army to make indentifacation easier. E-4 as NCO (senior airman is fine as the name), E-5 to become Sgt, E-6 to become SSgt, E-7 to become Technical or Sergeant First Class, E-8 MSgt/1Sgt and could leave E-9 alone. Oh and adjust the stripes to be more in line also.

I also think the Air Force should go back to having Warrant Officers.

Slight Problem with that is that in the Air Force, First Sergeant is a career field.  You can be a E7 Master Sergeant, E8 Senior Master Sergeant or E9 Chief Master Sergeant and be a First Sergeant ....and then all 3 of them will answer up if someone were to say, "Hey Shirt!"   

I was on Kunsan AB in Korea in 95 having lunch with a friend who was an AF First Sergeant (E9).  His Wing Commander stopped by our table and said, "Shirt, please stop by and see me and the Chief before the end of the day!"  After he walked off, I said, "What in the hell did he call you?"  Then he had to run down the AF lingo for me!  I said, I wish some SOB would ever call me, "Shirt"!  But all 3 ranks are traditionally called Shirt if they are a First Sergeant.  

What's the difference between a "Technical Sargent" and an SP7? It's a NON-DIFF. But lack of recognition and lack of professionalism is killing their Service effectiveness.

SPC James Bailey , never thought about it but that sounds very reasonable to me.

PO3 Shaun Taylor they are supposed to be doing that already. Trust me when I say that most of us here know that many folks slip through the cracks without knowing their job. We call the Post Exchange Soldiers...they look awsome in uniform and can win boards all day long while they couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag!

The Marines were part of the Army long before Tung Tavern 10 November 1775. They were the Martine portion of the Army. Just like the Marines Slogan Semper Fi was used by an Army unit before the Marines. As much as I love our sisters and Marine Corps brothers the practice of addressing our Soldiers by their full rank was started by the Army. Little food for thought is the Marine Corps ranks of Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Master Sergeant, and Sergeant Major came from the Army.

With all do respect SFC (Join to see) it was Tun Tavern. Not sure where or when they where part of the Army.
The United States Marine Corps traces its institutional roots to the Continental Marines of the American Revolutionary War, formed by Captain Samuel Nicholas by a resolution of the Second Continental Congress on 10 November 1775, to raise 2 battalions of Marines. That date is regarded and celebrated as the date of the Marine Corps' birthday. At the end of the American Revolution, both the Continental Navy and Continental Marines were disbanded in April 1783. The institution itself would not be resurrected until 11 July 1798. At that time, in preparation for the Quasi-War with France, Congress created the United States Marine Corps. Marines had been enlisted by the War Department as early as August 1797 for service in the new-build frigates authorized by the Congressional "Act to provide a Naval Armament" of 18 March 1794, which specified the numbers of Marines to be recruited for each frigate.

Well sadly, thats the culture we live in/condone/support. I was doing the job of an E-6 as an E-4 and was outperforming everyone to the point of admiral's letters of commendation, etc. But did I get promoted? Nope. No volunteer hours... No board this, board that. No college (didn't have to be a related topic; coulda been basket weaving. Didn't matter. Had to have college and I didn't).

Agreed!

Aggreed!

Hey, come no now, it's an upside down PFC, filled in, with a bird. Full bird private.