Posted on Oct 21, 2014
What would you change about the Enlisted rank structure?
167K
151
98
5
5
0
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.
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.
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 38
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?
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?
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I disagree with you, one has authority, the other does not, that by itself is a huge difference. I expect a Corporal to take action, a Specialist in all likelihood won't.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I never understood the Navy and its job is your grade system. Too damn confusing in the middle of a fight to be calling out for the fireman 1st class, seaman third class thing.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
CW3 Kevin Storm - Not sure what you mean. An E-3 is an E-3. An E-4 is an E-4. Firemen are engineering, Airmen are aviation, etc, but they don't outrank each other. A Fireman (E-3) is the same rank as a Seaman (E-3). Also, you wouldn't be cross-calling. Only Firemen are going to be in the engine room. Only Airmen are going to be on the flight deck, etc.
Also, all of that goes away when you reach E-4. E-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are all one structure. The segregation is two fold. Firstly, it enables people to transfer without prejudice. You may be an Airman and decide that you hate working on the flight line, loading planes, etc. You decide that you really love cooking. So you could transfer to the Seaman group. Or, you may be a Seaman and decide that working with maps and steering systems isn't your thing and you really love working on engines. You could then transfer to the Fireman group.
The second thing it does is prevent you from having 30000 E-4's in one area. Can you see a platoon full of Corporals? You'd never get anything one, would you?
Also, all of that goes away when you reach E-4. E-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are all one structure. The segregation is two fold. Firstly, it enables people to transfer without prejudice. You may be an Airman and decide that you hate working on the flight line, loading planes, etc. You decide that you really love cooking. So you could transfer to the Seaman group. Or, you may be a Seaman and decide that working with maps and steering systems isn't your thing and you really love working on engines. You could then transfer to the Fireman group.
The second thing it does is prevent you from having 30000 E-4's in one area. Can you see a platoon full of Corporals? You'd never get anything one, would you?
(0)
(0)
I agree with LTC (Join to see). 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.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Having actually been around when there was SPC 5,6 & 7's I can say I thought it was a good system for a number of reasons. If the Army wants to keep and retain that X-ray technician they better get used to the fact, they have to pay them, if they want that computer geek who can your systems operational, you are going to have to pay them. Or get used to a system that has inexperienced people who make mistakes and fall back on contractors...whom you pay several times more than if you had paid for a SPC-6. As long as we continue on a path of lethal high tech whiz gizmo stuff, we are going to need technicians, as well as war fighters in all branches. Keep in mind a bunch of techno REMF's in the 1940's decoded the Japanese Code. Like it or not we have to have them.
(0)
(0)
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
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I can only speak for Air Force, but there are currently 2 rates for food. Officers and enlisted, and enlisted gets more than officers
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The biggest thing I would change is TIG and TIS. I believe you should be able to "test up" to the next rank. I joined the army at the age of 32. I have more life experience than 90% of the E-4, E-5, E-6's that outrank me. If I could test up, then I could prove that. Instead, I have 20 year old kids telling me the best way to do something, and I know they are completely wrong. Allow a way to test out of your rank, both ways. If you fail at your current rank test, you go down a rank. To easy, and keeps everybody crisp in their duties
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I don't know what pay chart you read:
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS): The Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) is used to pay for food for Enlisted Soldiers and Officers. The following are the BAS rates for 2015:
Officers: $253.63
Enlisted: $368.29
Last time I was in school 368 was greater than 253 every day of the week, so the myth that your Major is eating better is just that, a myth. Please, next time do your homework.
Reference: http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Allowances.html?serv=147
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS): The Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) is used to pay for food for Enlisted Soldiers and Officers. The following are the BAS rates for 2015:
Officers: $253.63
Enlisted: $368.29
Last time I was in school 368 was greater than 253 every day of the week, so the myth that your Major is eating better is just that, a myth. Please, next time do your homework.
Reference: http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Allowances.html?serv=147
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next