Posted on Oct 21, 2014
SFC Logistics Management Specialist
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.
Posted in these groups: Enlisted logo EnlistedRank Rank
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 38
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
SFC Sigint Sergeant
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SFC Logistics Management Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Ryan Slabaugh I agree with you Battle Buddy that Soldiers need to spend more time in grade of miltary rank and that the rank of Specialist needs to go away!
(1)
Reply
(0)
PFC Zanie Young
PFC Zanie Young
>1 y
Yeah, we don't need any newbies with more rank than I do! I had to do BCT with E-2's and E-3's who was as ate-up as I was! Really grinds my gears!
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
SGT Jerrold Pesz
9 y
PFC Zanie Young - Long ago everyone started as an E1 no matter how many degrees that they had. At the end of BCT each platoon sergeant could (if he wanted to) promote 10% of his platoon to E2. I always did. If you weren't in that 10% you had to wait 6 months for E2. I based my choices largely on effort instead of raw scores.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Donald Murphy
8 y
SGT Jerrold Pesz - Yup. You're right. That WAS long ago. Today, we have to honor the fufu. If you don't, people won't do it. And if people don't do it, certain people will lose money. And then those people will talk to their senator/congressfolk and we'll be out of a job. Used to kill me that an admin shipmate couldn't organize his way out of a wet paper bag, but he was higher than me cuz he had a degree. *AND* he expected me to train him... Yeah... That went real well...
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Brian Allen
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SSG Engagement Control Team Leader
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
MSG Allen,

I disagree about the technical ranks. The purpose of the NCO Corps is to train and lead Soldiers. I personally love technical tasks, but that doesn't relieve me of my responsibility as an NCO to lead. With the draw down we are going to need every NCO to step up and do their job as a leader. In my opinion, if an NCO doesn't want to lead Soldiers he should transition out and get a job as a contractor or DA civilian. Even warrant officers are put into positions requiring leadership and they are the closest thing the Army has to a technical position.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Howitzer Section Chief
2
2
0
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..
(2)
Comment
(0)
SFC Logistics Management Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
Great input...our Marine brother's share many similarities to our Soldiers. These traditions are rampant throughout all branches of military service. I know that the Marines did come up wits a new Enlisted rank which is Lance Killer! lol jk... No LCpl'are equal to our PFC's...these days we all operate in a joint service environment where we learn all the great things about one another. Take care little brother...oorah
(0)
Reply
(0)
PFC Zanie Young
PFC Zanie Young
>1 y
That is true SSG Jason Werstak. Way before the introduction of the SPC rank!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Master-at-Arms
2
2
0
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
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
2LT Evan Arguello
1
1
0
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
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Counterintelligence (CI) Agent
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Program Control Manager
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Vet Technician
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG Michael Needham
SSG Michael Needham
7 y
This has been one of my arguments for the Specialist rank there are leaders , and doers and not every NCO I worked for had even the foggiest idea of my mos or even how I did my job , all they wanted was the results most of what I did was " black magic" to them
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Arellano
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Logistics Management Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
We have evolved throughout the years as every Soldier is a Rifleman first. We are a more lighter agile force consisting of Battalion and Brigade Combat Teams. Combative and US Weapons is a daily part of A Soldiers Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. Soldiers and Marines stand in the same formations and fight side-by-side with one another. Not to mention our Navy and Air Force brother's and sister's being right there with us as well. I have love and respect for every man and woman who serves our country as a member of our Armed Forces with pride and honor.

We would not be able to financially support a seperate support only Enlisted rank structure. Bringing back the Specialist System or Technical Ranks in a non-starter. Today's Soldier has to be able to see the big picture and cannot afford to be limp, lame, or lazy. The POG's are being weeded out along with toxic leaders who watch to many Hollywood movies attempting to lead their troops in such a manner.

This is the real world and that lowest ranking Solduer doesn't need to be yelled at or treated any lesser then the highest ranking members of our Armed Forces. We need to take our smaller more agile force and maximize exer thing each individual brings to the table by empowering the and living our Warrior Etho's.

It is time to eliminate the last rank of our archaic Specialist system and stop accepting complacency. We are an all volenteer Army whereby as some of our brother's and sister's have stated some Soldier's either do not want to or have what it takes to be NCO's citing such as a reason to not eliminate this rank. I say put up and do what it takes of hit the road as a PFC when your enlistment is up. The Army needs to stop the minimalist who think they are on welfare or that they are owed something for serving. Just the same limit bonuses to worthy causes and enforce the notion that we serve for our brother's and sister's having earned our place as SOLDIER'S!
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG Nick Baker
1SG Nick Baker
>1 y
We did away with the chicken SGT ranks in the 70s
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Greg Gold
SGT Greg Gold
>1 y
Well said SFC, well said.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Jim Foreman
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
CW3 Kevin Storm
10 y
If we do that get rid of auto E-4 and make every Corporal earn his/her stripe, the way it used to be.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CW3 Air Ambulance Pilot
1
1
0
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?
(1)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Air Ambulance Pilot
CW3 (Join to see)
>1 y
Since we all know what positions we hold and what authorities we have, what we're called seems like a bit of a non-issue to me
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Logistics Management Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
CW3 Service Member how long were you a member of the United States Army Enlisted ranks for prior becoming a Warrant Officer?

Have you ever deployed or been part of any joint operations serving with our brothers and sisters from other branches of our Armed Forces?

Do you plan on identifying yorself or remaining anonymous?

If you have done any of what I asked in question one you are aware that for the last 14 years we operate as a joint venture. I have witnessed on multiple occasions laxidasucal fellow United States Army NCO's tell a Marine that addresses them as by their full rank not to. First this is what Marines are taught and how they address all ranks. There is no policy stipulating that we can not address our Soldiers by their full rank. As a matter of fact I hear SSG's, MSG's commonly a dressed by their full grade of rank. In addition it is in poor form to tell a member from another branch of our Armed Forces to deviate from how they are supposed to do something that is not just policy but the standard.

Let me take this a step further in if I as a SFC answer an official military line only referring to myself as Sergeant the person on the other side does not know if I am a SGT, SSG, SFC, or MSG. When I served as a SFC in a 1SG position I answered the phone as first identifying my unit, the that I was SFC my name the unit 1SG. Why; because as NCO's we set the standard by leading by example and there are on the other hand SFC's that are in 1SG positions who simply answer the phone and say 1SG when they do not hold this rank! It is time for many changes and this is one issue that needs to be taken mode seriously.

Finally, as you feel that it is all good to address SSG, SFC, MSG as Sergeant you probably don't think it is important to reward excellence and recognize those of us who have trained by teaching, coaching and mentoring America's Army. For all I know as you don't identify yourself here that you can be anybody but a CW3. Which is my point in I am not a SGT I am a retired SFC making a suggestion that we make changes to our Enlisted ranks while recognizing the excellent attributes, and leadership of our hard charging NCO Corps.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Air Ambulance Pilot
CW3 (Join to see)
>1 y
I do agree that we shouldn't contradict any lawful instructions given by another's chain of command. No matter our rank, general military authority doesn't allow this.

In your telephone example, if the "acting" 1SGs had answered with their actual rank, would that have somehow changed the request/instructions coming from whoever's calling? Would the goal of that call be altered in any way? If so, I'm having trouble seeing how.

While I don't see it as much of an issue, if an NCO, or anyone else, for that matter, were to inform me that they'd rather be addressed by their full rank, I'd have no trouble doing so, besides finding it a bit peculiar. If that's what they prefer, then so be it. I just don't see how this is helping us win the Nation's wars.


In answer to your questions;
1) 7.5 years.
2) Yes. Navy, Marines, and Air Force. Both the U.S. and foreign.
3) Actually, I had no idea folks couldn't see my name or profile. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try getting more RallyPoint expertise in the future… maybe… probably not... who the hell are we kidding I really don't care enough about this
(2)
Reply
(0)
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
10 y
I have to say, questioning another participant's pedigree seems totally inappropriate. Regardless of TIS or where they served, everyone has a right to express an opinion - without that kind of personal inquiry.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Sr. Budget Analyst
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
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.
SFC S2 Intelligence Ncoic
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Charles Trump
0
0
0
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!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW3 David Vinson
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Kevin DeLong
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Ronald Cheatom
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Bill Frazer
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Jim Coe
0
0
0
Edited 8 y ago
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

How are you connected to the military?
  • Active Duty
  • Active Reserve / National Guard
  • Pre-Commission
  • Veteran / Retired
  • Civilian Supporter