Why does the Army appear to have a discipline issue with the lower enlisted ranks?

It's more what part of the Army you're in. The Army is really more like several Armies under one banner. I've been in units where a PFC stands at parade rest for a SPC, and while in that unit witnessed another unit where a PFC showed up for a detail without a blouse or hat, and his NCO had to practically beg him to go get his stuff.

Why does this happen and why is the USMC different? Well the USMC is a brand. There's one single brand. The Army is a bunch of brands. The pride of a paratrooper is to the 82nd, or the 173rd, whatever unit they're from, not "The Army". So, units that have a long history of pride and service, tend to have a higher level of discipline.

Lot of great responses here. If you are writing a white paper you will have to define your terms. Respect and discipline have very different meanings and they tend to differ between junior and senior enlisted ranks and even among officers and branch. Further each can be different in tactical or garrison environment.
Anecdotally, I have interacted with units who "look" undisciplined, but are extremely respectful and tactically proficient and others who walk the walk and salute the salute, but are tactically and technically garbage.
Is it a case of whole units not being disciplined/respectful or individual Soldiers not being disciplined/respectful? If it is a unit issue, you can't really blame the individuals because there is no expectation and accountability for respect and discipline. If it is a Soldier issue, one-off cases, then is could be a leader issue.
Disrespect and poor discipline thrive in environments where there is no accountability, so if we have a discipline and respect issue in the Army, it is simply because we have a leader problem.
I have heard senior leaders complain about discipline issues in their units, but when asked how many company grade ART15s they recommend, I get blank stares and excuses of not wanting to ruin a Soldiers' career. You can only yell at a rock so many times, it is our job as NCOs to enforce the standard, but sometimes it just easier to get stuff done if you cut them some "slack". The downside is slack starts becoming a culture.

Capt Michael Wilford great question, but I'd like to ask you one as well. Is the experience you described from your late 1990s-early 2000s service, or are you referring to more recent times?

I ask because I have always felt that part of this discipline decline perception is almost universal for each generation that serves, like the "when was "old school" question. I went in in 1977, shortly after the start of the all volunteer Army. There was constant chatter about lowering of standards, lack of discipline, softer soldiers who demand to know "why", etc. Then, around the end of the 1980s the Army changed basic training, and THAT became the "soft, undisciplined" Army and the mid 70s became old school. By the late 1990s, THEY became the soft group. And so on. So when I got out in 1999, the feeling was that soldiers coming in were less disciplined, less fit and more questioning than ever. And the possible causes put forth were the same as today. Maybe it's drill sergeants not being demanding enough, maybe it's PT not being a priority anymore, etc.

Yet today, on RP, I read threads about how we need to go back to the old school discipline and fitness regimes of the 1980s and 90s! Go figure. So in a way I wonder if things are really as bad as it seems. The bad soldier always sticks out, catches ones attention, and makes an impression that is remembered. But consider what you remember more-- one soldier you see walk by an officer without saluting and talking back when stopped, or the 10 or 20 you walk by who salute and you walk on by with little thought.

I have no clue what it is like in units today. But I am confident that the cause remains the same. As they say, "your standards are what you allow to occur around you". So if troops are often out of shape and disrespectful, that is a problem with the competence of the company grade officers and NCOs of the unit, not the privates. Privates arent the ones setting the standards (or shouldnt be). Yet on these types of message boards, it is usually phrased like "the Army" lowered its standards, or "the Army" coddles troops, but no one seems to say "my platoon sergeant" or "my platoon leader" or god forbid, "I" may be part of the problem. I doubt the Chief of Staff of the Army decides how to handle an individual disrespectful private.

A subordinate wanting to know the "why" behind an order or mission isnt in itself disrespectful. Hell, decades ago the Army added the Commanders Intent (the why) as part of the OPORD format. Because if subordinates know why they are doing something, it allows them to react betterif conditions change. The classic example was if the mission is to take hill 123 in order to destroy the enemy, and as you approach you see they are in the valley instead of on the hill, you know to still attack the enemy vs seizing an empty hill. So we.have been training our people to ask why for years.

Anyway, I just wonder how bad things really are compared to the past. I spent my time in Airborne units, and there were always other units less in shape and less disciplined than we were. So I suspect that the overall impression may be a selection bias that makes people remember the negative incidents more than the positive. But I'm just guessing.

For the same reason, the entire United States of America has a discipline issue with military-age males and females

It’s an environment/generational issue all across the US less than 1% of those joined the Army and now we have the same issues as seen in every major city, college

I honestly believe it’s due to lack of pride. New recruits are no longer required to spit shine boots to standard, no longer required to have a nicely pressed uniform. I was staying in an Army reserve center doing disaster response work in NE. We leave the places we stay better than it was when we arrived. That reserve center was a mess. The kitchen smelled like sewage, old grease still on the counters, floors and bathrooms were terrible. Most of us were prior military and spent our last two full days cleaning the place. The CO commented that he wished he could get his PVTs and lower enlisted to clean the place like that. We were dumbfounded and couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t make them to continue cleaning until it was done right. Sorry, drill isn’t over until it’s over. The sooner it’s clean and done to standard the sooner you go home type of thing. It would only take them once or twice before they figured it out. In my opinion it becomes lack of leadership to instill the basic discipline of our young soldiers with the lack of consequences. And in turn that creates a lack of pride in one’s self. We need to go back to the basics. Go back to being old school.

A friend joined the Air Force, did her three years and got out. Said she didn’t re-enlist because the command staff needed to realize they couldn’t treat the Airmen like they were “Old School” but needed to get with the program and start treating them like they should be treated in today’s generation. I told her that the “old school” mentality is what was going to save her ass in combat.

I am a Marine with 11 years active duty who has now been in the ARNG for over two and a half years. The following is my personal opinion based on observations between the two services. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, or that one is better than the other. I'm merely pointing out differences and a possible explanation for why it is perceived that there is an erosion of military discipline in the lower ranks of the Army.
What I have seen is the lack of an emphasis on leadership at the lower levels and the emphasis of leadership moving higher and higher up the ranks. As a SSG in the ARNG, I feel like I have the same level of responsibility for both equipment and Soldiers as I did when I was a Cpl in the Marines. In the Army, SPC's are not expected to be leaders. E-1 through E-4 are pay grades that happen to have names associated with them, whereas in the Marines, pay grades are attached to ranks. In the Army, moving up a pay grade is called an advancement; in the Marines, it's a promotion. This is an important distinction because it talks to the mindset of leadership. Why this matters is a PFC in the Marines LEADS Pvt's. Every rank outside of PVT in the Marines is responsible and held accountable for the junior Marines. In the Army, as a SSG, I am afforded a fair amount of leeway, but I feel it's primarily due to my age, experience, and prior service. When I'm at another unit where the leadership doesn't know me, I'm often lumped into the "E-6 and Below" crowd. If the Soldiers see that I'm not seen differently than them, how can we expect them to treat us differently or with respect? In the Marines, E-3 and Below are "Troops." NCO starts at Cpl. In the Army, NCO technically starts at SGT (or CPL if they are a senior E-4 selected for or in a E-5 slot), but often in the eyes of the senior enlisted and officers, E-7 is the first rank that is respected outright.
I receive respect due to my knowledge, my leadership, and in the way I carry myself. I strive to be a model to my Soldiers regarding discipline; I salute, I render appropriate greetings and courtesies to all ranks as appropriate, and I don't question orders in front of them. It is my job to uphold the standards and to remind soldiers when they are not living up to our standards. But to solely blame NCO's for the erosion of discipline is passing the buck. Our leaders need to allow SGT's and SSG's to lead, and yes, to make mistakes. Just because a SGT messes something up doesn't mean that SGT's should never be trusted again and those responsibilities handed to a SSG. Then, when the SSG makes a mistake, the buck is passed up to SFC's. When and where will it end?

I actually did a paper on something similar to this in grad school. One of the reasons that I underlined was the change in training philosophy. The philosophy of the military training especially the army, in my opinion, has gotten soft over the years. I served 14 years in the United States army as an infantry man. During that time the standards set in place and was enforced in a different way.

It is also a result of today's upbringing and the generation. This generation has a strong lack of respect for authority as well as rules and foundations. It is unreasonable to believe that this generation who tends to disrespect their mother and father, the ones who have taken care of them their whole life, will come in the military and respect total strangers.

Captain Wilford,
Thank you for your service!
You are seeing the society and Military of today correctly!
Most kids today, or at least of the past 20 years, or so, have been raised Without ANY discipline, and most of the time no father figure, or a father that doesn't train his kids to respect others! They have in retrospect have been taught in the schools, that they are a god unto themselves! So, why should being in the Army, be any different? Kids of today do not respect anyone, other than themselves: BUT expect everyone to give them respect; because of that belief. The kids of today have a growing contempt for older people; especially the elderly and/ or even the disabled, which overflows into their military positions!
Women that want to act like men and do the things that men are expected to do, should have to meet the same criteria: less the arm and other branches are weakened. Men end up putting extra effort out to protect women soldiers! This in itself is discrimination between the sexes! What happened to ""We do not discriminate" If they want the same pay as a man: let them meet the same criteria all the way around!
Obama made the forces weaker, because of all his policies, which in fact were designed, planned, and implemented to destroy this country and it's defensive forces, Military and Police!
It is only going to get worse, unless the Army, Navy, and Air Forces trains it's people, like the Marines do, and even harder, AND they do not put up with lack of respect for the upper ranks!!
"Train up a child in the way he should go and when he gets old; he shall not depart from it!"

I am a 78 going on 79, disabled NAVY ADJ2 (E-5, Aviation Machinist Mate) and I have seen the changes and the deterioration of the our military. My daughter is a Police officer of 18 years and her husband is a disabled Police Officer and ex Marine Spec Forces. They have also seen the changes first hand, mostly caused by Obama and his administration. I don't want to be political: BUT; "I calls it the way I sees it"! as the "ole sayin" goes!
CHANGE IS INEVITABLE: But What changes should not be allowed to effect/affect the totality of our Military?
The Communist manifesto says to conquer a country: "Do not attack a country's shores: Destroy it's society from within, so the lands and resources can then be used by it's conquerors!

We are headed towards being a Socialist Country. Trump might ward it off for a little while; BUT, it will come as the Democratic party, which is now the Socialist Party takes over.

The troops always hide things from "the old man". What I saw as "kibbitzing" between them may have been symptomatic of more serious problems but as long as my subordinate leaders didn't ask for my help and the mission was accomplished/the job completed satisfactorily, I assumed all was well. Indeed, only once in my four and a half years as an officer on active duty did a sergeant E-7 bring a subordinate Spec E-5 to me who had refused to obey an order, and I intervened.

It comes down to generations of shitty parenting. It started when Dr. Spock wrote that book about being your kid's friend. You know you are doing your job right if your child hates you once in a while. These newer generations have zero respect for anyone. You can see it the groups like ANTIFA because it makes those weak minds feel strong!

When you change the standards to fit the person, instead of helping the person change to fit an established standard, this is what happens. This occurs, not only in the military, but in civilian life as well.

This is one of those clickbait conversations that you're better off not participating in because those who do have usually made up their minds already. Alas, like a car crash on the side of the freeway, sometimes we can't help but participate in the chaos.

Let's baseline a bit. The Army is more than 6x the size of the Marine Corps when we include all active and reserve billets across both branches (about 1,348,000 Soldiers vs. 224,500 Marines). This also means that the Army reflects a larger portion of our national population (roughly 0.5%) than the Corps does (less than 0.1%). As such, the Army is exponentially more subject to the impacts of social change than the Marine Corps, and we should all be able to agree that there's an immense wave of social change in this day and age. Add to all of this that the Marine Corps hand-selects candidates based on a mission-specific profile, or those candidates self-select into a known culture of intense discipline; while the Army take a much more broad-stroke approach to filling its wide array of global personnel shortages. The result of these differentiated recruiting efforts is clear as day from boot camp to front-line formations.

The Marines take land, the Army holds land. As a former Army Infantryman, I was always enthralled with the notion that "every Marine is an Infantryman first." That is surely not the case in the Army, but I know now that there's a benefit to that. If you pack a bunch of Harvard graduates into a room, they'll come up with the stock Harvard answer to any question. If you pack a bunch of grunts into a room, they'll do the same (albeit likely with more vulgarity and resultant injuries). But if you diversify that group of people who serves as the filter which all strategic direction and tactical decision making must pass through, you tend to find that greater decisions come from a greater set of experience. This is the argument for a greater National Guard and Reserve force in the Army, and it's reflected at the highest levels of Army command.

Marines say the Army is soft. Soldiers say the Air Force is soft. Airmen complain that the Navy gets better assignments. Sailors are frustrated by the lack of Kenny Loggins music playing throughout their garrisons. These stereotypes have been in place for decades, and they have nothing to do with one service "catering to generational changes" more than another. Our society changes over time, and organizations with more people will naturally adapt their own culture faster to those changes in an effort to maintain the flow of able bodies needed to fight, sustain, and support our war efforts. And – I'm talking to the Army people on the thread now – if our organization is willing to change to meet its mission objectives, why aren't you? The old "do as I say because I had to when I was your rank" style of running Soldiers was effective in a day and age when a high school diploma was your ticket to a successful career and happy life. Recruits these days come with a wealth of knowledge related to information technology (because it's native to them); many come with more college credits completed than the large majority of our senior-enlisted corps, and all of them know that further education and experience is their path to success. They join to learn, grow, and be mentored by some of our nation's finest leaders. They DO NOT join to be yelled at meaninglessly because "that's the way it is."

A lesson I learned commanding Drill Sergeants was the difference between a great trainer (something every NCO should aspire to be) and a mediocre one. If you can't get through a POI without yelling and cursing at your trainees, it's probably you that needs more training rather than them. If you can't address the junior enlisted population without getting frustrated about "the way they are," it's probably you that needs to consider why the world around you is changing at faster rate than you are. This isn't about being soft. It's not about dropping our standards. It's about being adaptable so that you continue to meet YOUR mission with the resources available.

I'll finish with a simple lesson in communication. If you're on a qualification range, it's not the target's job to catch your bullets. You steady, aim, breath, and squeeze to ensure you hit the target as intended. So why do so many senior leaders talk AT their subordinates and expect them to simply get what they're saying? Did you adjust for cultural windage? Did you take socioeconomic environmental factors into account? Did you even remember to load your magazine with thoughtful messaging designed to drive quality outcomes? As a leader, your words can have more power than bullets (we've all experienced the crushing sensation of a tyrannical leader, right?). Why not give the delivery of those words the same, conscious effort that you give when shooting? You might find that if you aim your communications better, they'll tend to hit the target as intended more often than not.

I believe it all starts with basic training. You act like the way you are taught as a child. Boot camp is the same .The Marine Corp is different because you are their for 12 weeks instead of 8. You are also taught Marine Corp History, so you know the standards you have to live up to. You are also learn respect even it they have to do it the hard way. I went thru Boot camp at Parris Island in 59. The Marines had a system whereas if you were a smart ass they put you in Motivation Plt. You were Kept busy from Dawn to dusk. You were so tired you conformed with the Marine corp way. They also had slow learners Plt. And a Plt. for people over weight. The reason these Plts. worked was the fact you would be their as long as it took you to conform. Now I realize today they cant do that because people wouldn't stand for it. The corp would give you a medical or General Discharge. Back in my time the corp owned your butt until the day your enlistment was up. I joined the army after I got discharged from the Marine corp. I asked to go to Army Basic training to see what it was like but they wouldn't let me. In other words the Army wont raise their basic training to 12 wks. A different type of person enlists in the Marine corp than the army. I could go about many reasons. Every Marine is a Rifleman that's why the crossed rifles are on the stripes. The millenniums were raised different But I think they lack respect Semper Fi.

When you have too many politicians get involved and adding to those crying babies --that's why.

Perhaps you could elaborate a little more. When I was PV2/PFC, it was parade rest for anyone above me, which in short was everyone. My team and squad leaders were SGT or SSG rank who were always addressed by rank (just "Sergeant" instead of Staff Sergeant like USMC) or rank/name. The first time I ever called a NCO by a nickname was 7 months into a 12 month deployment, by then there was plenty of mutual respect. What I noticed in my final Army months was much of it depended on unit. Infantry units have more respect for their combat experienced NCOs than non-infantry units, in general.

This is just from my general experiences. One problem with the Army is not the Army itself it's the civilian leadership using the Army as a testbed for every type of social experiment in society. If a politician wants to get some social agenda pushed through one of the first things they do is force some new regulatons on the Army. Sometimes it's good but many times it doesn't work well in a military environment. The Army was the first to intergrate, even before the country did. The Army was first to bring women into previously all male jobs. Whenever you hear in the news is now doing this or that it means the Army is doing it. There seems to be a hands of policy when it comes to the Marines. It's similar to the difference between Infantry and and Admin clerks. The social ethos is very different. Women and gays were never openly a part of the Infantry, but they have been in the ranks of admin/finance/medic even before the "Don't ask, don't tell". policy. This just some of the reasons that I believe there seems to be a lack of discipline in the Army. The Army reflects what is going on in general society, while the Marines are somewhat insulated from society. Just my opinion.

In my experience the level of discipline depends on the unit and it's atmosphere and command climate.
There were units that were very well disciplined across the board with a long history of superior performance, professionalism and esprit de corps, reading recent articles that level of professionalism lives on in those outfits.
There were others that required a great deal of effort to instill and maintain discipline where you felt like you were trying to turn a battleship with a row boat. They had a long running history of poor performance and underachievement. Again they pop up in articles that highlight training accidents with root causes being failure to enforce basic policy and procedures, misconduct and gross indiscipline.
Again my opinion is that with the long war rather than understanding that good discipline and enforcement of actual standards (not the FM 22- because-I-said-so standards) promotes attention to detail and esprit de corps; folks started feeling sorry for the Soldiers and letting little things slide which in turn degraded basic discipline. I'm also not a fan of the new promotion system and changes to NCOES. The old Resident NCO academies while draconian pains in the buttocks, instilled a sense of pride in accomplishment and drilled home basic leadership techniques and traits . We see the difference nearly daily here on RP with SGTs asking questions about things that used to be drilled home in the old Primary Leadership Development Course that morphed into PLC then to WLC.
My recommendation would be to bring back the resident NCOES courses, ditch the on line learning; resume the train, select, promote model which was effective but more costly.

They just don't make them like they used to. At Bragg we had the highest regard for authority and respected the rank, if not the man. I was told by a major that I don't have to salute the man, just the rank.

Yes, I was a Coast Guard Chief, and I have seen the lack of discipline in the lower rates. It has much to do with the way they are raised at home (i.e., mommy or daddy's best- friend- syndrome). In addition, it has a lot to do with their generation and schools. Examples: This generation was not raised like us. They are a little lost, feeling there is no future for them. So, they want everything now. In addition, schools are very one-sided, the teachers and professors teach only one political view with no debate. I solved my problem with these kids, and it was very simple. First, they are under contract and can't quit, so they have to work for you. Next, UCMJ spells out the consequences of disrespect. Moreover, I as their boss could keep them on the job until it got done. Finally, all it took was a simple talk to bring them around--something mommy or daddy, unfortunately, did not do. One way or another, these young men and women came around with great results. I hope this help; it worked for me.

In this context, are we using "Discipline" to mean "Perform their duties correctly and completely, even if nobody's looking", or are we using it to mean "Sufficiently cow tow and quake before anyone with a higher rank on their shirt"?
Actual leaders know only one of those is a definition of Discipline.
Sadly...we've all known those who aren't quite clear on which one it is.