Why does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4?

MAJ Norm Michaels — Mon, 16 May 2022 15:12:42 -0400

This social experiment on soldiers was started in the late 1960s, and it mostly died away in the late 1980s, with the exception of SP4. Is a team leader SP4 any less of a leader than a corporal?

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made May 16 at 2022 3:52 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Mon, 16 May 2022 15:52:16 -0400

My understanding was that if the Army made them CPLs, it would cut severely into troops available for fatigue and other details. NCOs cannot be on fatigue details. So in order to have enough soldiers for KP, area police, rock painting, etc. they kept Speedy 4. Otherwise, you would wear out your Privates.

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made May 16 at 2022 4:07 PM

SSG Byron Hewett — Mon, 16 May 2022 16:07:43 -0400

gotta keep the E-4 mafia around they are a tradition and a mascot.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2022 4:11 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 May 2022 16:11:18 -0400

It's because in the Army an E4 is not a team leader. An E5 is a team leader, E4 is a pay grade that is a natural progression from E1. That means that an E1 and E4 can hold the same exact position by grade and MTOE. Obviously you can't just make everyone a corporal once they make two years in service. It's kind of like why do we have 2LTs and 1LTs?

Why don't we get rid of that and make people earn E4 in the Army? Probably because E3s don't make anything, not that E4s make much more. An E3 with three years is making under $30,000 a year. It's hard to reenlist someone who feels broke and doesn't see their selves getting promoted.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made May 17 at 2022 11:50 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Tue, 17 May 2022 11:50:21 -0400

For a short period of time, I was laterally transferred from Staff Sergeant E-6 to Specialist 6. I had moved into a computer programmer position and no longer had troops to supervise. I made E-7 and was promoted to SFC. back supervising troops.
IMO, the idea of specialist was good at the time when we had a large standing force. Now, probably not so much.

Response by SFC Eddy Meador made May 17 at 2022 12:22 PM

SFC Eddy Meador — Tue, 17 May 2022 12:22:37 -0400

Actually they dropped the "Four" and left it at Specialist back in the mid 80's (1986/87). A Specialist doesn't have the NCO leadership authority of a Corporal. So you could be a team leader as a Specialist but lack authority to give a command (what some folks call orders). While stationed at Fort Drum, NY working in the 10th Personnel Service Company, Personnel Actions Branch, our section was without a Team Leader for an extended period of time, only the Section NCO (SSG) in place. Our Company Commander (MAJ/05) who was also the Adjutant General for the post decided to issue a Lateral Appointment for me to CPL/E4, based upon my abilities, MOS knowledge, and informal leadership qualities. No pay change, just the authority to direct duties and responsibilities. People say Rank has is privileges, but with that came responsibilities.

Just have to add that certain MOS's have special duties, knowledge, and training requirements that should be recoginized with the E4 Pay Grade, but not necessarily require the leadership Rank.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2022 12:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 May 2022 12:54:48 -0400

I think it's a recruiting an retention tool.

Response by SSG Jack Scott made May 17 at 2022 8:04 PM

SSG Jack Scott — Tue, 17 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400

The US Army is the only branch that E-4 is not an NCO Junior leader including the Coast Guard. E-4’s as NCO’s builds leadership and Responsibilities. I served in the Marine Corps 10yrs and Army 8yrs and always gave my Spc-E-4’s more responsibility and duties and pushed them to the board. All the OTHER Branches promote their E-3’s on time and grade to NCO. Yes in the Marine Corps you will deploy with a ton of L/CPU’s and come back with a ton of Cpl’s but we in the Corps treat our young L/Cpl’s as leaders and train them to be Cpls by assigning them to Crew Chiefs in my old MOS AMTRAC’s and as Team Leaders. I would put any of my old L/Cpls against any Army Spc’s at the time, the Army has a training and leadership problem and needs to revamp their rank structure. All the other Military Branches can’t be wrong!

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made May 17 at 2022 9:51 PM

SPC Kevin Ford — Tue, 17 May 2022 21:51:18 -0400

It think the question isn't why their are still spec 4s, but instead why their are not still spec 5-9s. NCOs are leaders. Not everyone has the interest or quite frankly the capability to be a good leader. We are dealing with an increasingly technical needs in warfighting. In order to attract and keep the talent we need, we need to recognize that the need to keep senior technical people. This means they need to achieve higher ranks as they get more knowledgeable (including higher pay); either by higher enlisted ranks or by warrant officers (or more likely a by lot more of both).

A mistake a lot of organizations make is moving their best technical people to management when they don't have the capability for it or interest in it. Without an alternate career path, they just leave those organizations or sit unhappily when they reach their level of management incompetence.

I understand the question to some extent in the context of combat arms MOSes but as we watch Russia in Ukraine play out we understand what happens when we ignore the other parts of the force we need.

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made May 18 at 2022 5:05 PM

MSG Thomas Currie — Wed, 18 May 2022 17:05:50 -0400

Actually the "social experiment" goes back a lot further than the creation of "Specialist" grades. The Army created "Technician" ranks during WWII

The basis then and now has always been the problem that the military is required by law to tie rank and pay grade together regardless of the practical necessity to pay some people more for their technical skills than their leadership skills

In fact, when the Army created the Specialist ranks, they attempted to bypass the law by declaring that ALL the specialist ranks were below Corporal within the army even though comparability with other services was by pay grade. That tap-dance was later overruled with each specialist grade then ranking below the equivalent NCO grade.

Now that only the lowest Special grade remains (renamed from SP4 to SPC) there is really little justification for it at all, because now we have highly qualified technical specialists like computer programmers and medical technicians who rise to senior NCO ranks without being expected to develop the leadership skills appropriate to their ranks.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2022 4:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 May 2022 16:46:59 -0400

I'm totally for bringing back the Technical Ranks. The Army has a glaring blind spot in its philosophy toward NCO's. I'm not sure how something so obvious can be so blatantly overlooked, but the Army somehow automatically lumps together "Leader" and "Leadership". Those two words are related, but not mutually exclusive, nor does one automatically lead to the other.

A Leader is such, based on position, rank, social hierarchy, or some other form of placement. Leadership has many qualities, some subtle, some pretty obvious, but it's one of those things, that "you know it when you see it"... you either have it, or you learn it, but It should not be summarily attached to a rank, and it's it's reason why the NCO Corp struggles at times. Some guys are great worker bee's that there is nothing wrong with that. Placing them in a position they clearly have no desire for, nor the qualities to embrace it does every Soldier a disservice.

*rant complete

Response by SPC Woody Bullard made May 20 at 2022 12:38 PM

SPC Woody Bullard — Fri, 20 May 2022 12:38:56 -0400

My active duty 1968-1971 was when the specialist ranks were active. The upper specialist ranks
SP5 through SP9 were active to assist the army in keeping trained soldiers in their specialty MOS
fields using the pay grade to keep them on active duty. There were specialty fields while I was
active but in the army today there are many more than when I was active. There were outstanding
specialist in their MOS field that would not have made or even wanted to be a good NCO "troop pusher". The 619th Ordnance Company at the NATO nuclear weapon site in the former West Germany
had SP4,SP5 and SP6 ranks. I only saw one SP7 and he was part of a inspection team at our NATO site. I never saw the SP8 or SP9 ranks which were discontinued in 1968 when I enlisted.
We had the SP4 E-4 rank in our 558th MP Company but no Corporal E-4s.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2022 5:02 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 May 2022 17:02:49 -0400

A SP4 that's been selected, officially, to be a team leader should be laterally promoted to Corporal.

Response by MAJ Norm Michaels made May 23 at 2022 6:14 PM

MAJ Norm Michaels — Mon, 23 May 2022 18:14:01 -0400

Back in 1972, I was a SP4. We wore khaki uniforms back then. My SP4 eagle was sown on my sleeves. I had bloused boots, since I was in the 82nd Airborne. I went to my brother’s wedding, and at the reception, his new father in law asked when I had made Eagle Scout. I was very embarrassed. I did not want to wear my uniform in public until I made sergeant. I was in Korea, when I made SP5. They would not let me into the NCO club at Camp Casey. I begged the 1SG, and he and the CO made me an acting sergeant. I still have those orders.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2022 10:07 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 May 2022 22:07:26 -0400

Meah….this to me is moot. Especially in support world, where many SGTs and SSGs do a ton of tech work already. Are we really saying that training Soldiers and making sure their admin actions is that difficult, to the point that we’d create a forth service track?

If you want to do nothing but tech work, go Warrant.

Response by SSG Ted Strachan made Jun 1 at 2022 8:21 PM

SSG Ted Strachan — Wed, 01 Jun 2022 20:21:43 -0400

Bring back SP4-SP9. Leave troop pushing to the CPLs - CSMs. With the technological aspect of warfighting growing ever more complex and specialized, there is plenty of room for a fourth career track. If you can't stand the idea of SP9 rank on the current pinks and greens, then go back to 1943 and create them as Technician grades. The point is, these folks need to be retained and recognized accordingly. Makes total sense to me. SP and Tech ranks didn't destroy the army then and they won't now. The fact that it would probably rub a lot of CSMs the wrong way is really immaterial.

Response by MSG Chuck Cline made Jun 9 at 2022 10:36 PM

MSG Chuck Cline — Thu, 09 Jun 2022 22:36:34 -0400

Specialist ranks made perfect sense for those in technical fields. They should be brought back.

Response by SSG Watis Ekthuvapranee made Jun 12 at 2022 1:52 PM

SSG Watis Ekthuvapranee — Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:52:24 -0400

Before we talk about why shouldn't, let's talk about qualifications. To be a sergeant, one must pass the promotion board and the primary leader course (I think they call a warrior leader course now, anyone?). After these two official qualifications, one is given some benefits of the doubt that one understand and know how to lead the troops, make plan, execute a mission according to the commander's intent, and know how-to conduct force conservation and sustainment. If one passed the two qualifications but one lacks the promotion scores to meet the cut-off points, what should they do to distinguish themselves from other E4? After all the Army is all about distinguishing itself above peers, we are a bunch of egotistical maniacs. Do you get my points?

Now, about other specialist ranks, prior to the 1980s, not everyone can read or write, but they can do their jobs or they can shoot better than Lee Harvey Oswald. As much as you require merit, you also need to be able to work with others. Or rather, your chain of command has to want to work with you. Remember Top Gun? However, prejudice and favoritism have also existed; after all, we are only human. So, to be fair, everyone is given a fair chance to move up or move out. Plus, with the all-volunteer army, the Army can pick what quality they want. However, with picking and choosing, the Army ended up short-handed most of the time, but always losing and gaining people. It's a pain for the admin to change back and forth individual ranks officially. And the rest of the other logical reasons are pretty much the same as the officer and warrant officers, just on the enlisted side and with less civilian education and occupation specialty.

These are my deducted logical answers. Otherwise, let the son'bich who made the changes tell you.

Response by CPL John Riley made Jun 12 at 2022 3:55 PM

CPL John Riley — Sun, 12 Jun 2022 15:55:48 -0400

The Army got rid of that system because it made sense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2022 4:23 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jun 2022 16:23:41 -0400

SPC4 can be used as a team leader, but typically a team leader is a CPL (temporary rank) until he/she is eligible for promotion to SGT. We don't need high paid SPCs (SPC6/SPC7) in a power struggle with a lower NCO (SGT/SSG).

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Jun 13 at 2022 9:07 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:07:33 -0400

The average enlistment in the Army is 3yrs. We have the Sp/4 rank because most people don,t want to be a leader. Personel mostly join to get money for college. If a person reenlists he will make Sgt. a Leader. i have never seen many Cpls in the Army. I enlisted in the Army after spending 4yrs in the Marine Corp. I made Sp/5 and never worked in my MOS. 2311. (Ammo Tech) I was made company Armorer then Supply clerk then Acting Supply Sgt. It was always next man up. In Vietnam I was offered 2n LT. if I stayed another year. I decided to go home because I had only been married 8 months. I didn't like SP/5 because I was considered an NCO when they needed one or a peon when they needed one.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2022 8:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:10:49 -0400

Yes a Speed E 4 IS less than leader than a corp. That is what the freaking rank is all about. And since like some have stated we have a lot more tech type jobs a Sp. designation is more appropriate since that is the kind of work they do. And if they show leadership skills they can be promoted up in that line at some point.

Response by Amn Joseph H. made Jun 14 at 2022 1:22 AM

Amn Joseph H. — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 01:22:58 -0400

Most of the time I get some real nostalgia at 76 years old reading the questions, but this kind of questions smells civilian:) Without the sergeants no battles could be fought, while suspect some officers are competent, they did not have to work their way to their position. They did not nurture the troops from nothing civilians to a cohesive group of men, and now women who can, and do more than the total sum of their numbers would be thought possible. Under usually awful conditions, c-rats to eat and maybe warm water to drink over long dull dangerous areas were folks are shooting at ya. Remember what my dad said, a WWII ammo truck driver in Europe. They were everybody's older brother, they knew what was going on, because they were responsible for troops every minute! So stayed aware and trained all around them while leading. Was 17 when I forged my parents signature to enlist, am here today because I listened to the one person who always knew what to do, and he was always a Sargent. Not a clueless civilian trying to comprehend group cohesion and trained disciple for a dangerous, absolutely necessary supposed citizen duty.

Response by SP5 Michael Diggles made Jun 14 at 2022 2:22 AM

SP5 Michael Diggles — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 02:22:34 -0400

I’m glad not to have had a leadership role. I was good at driving landing craft and happy to have been a SP5.

Response by SPC Steven Nihipali made Jun 14 at 2022 11:01 PM

SPC Steven Nihipali — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 23:01:11 -0400

I think I might have a suitable answer, except this time.

My CO in Iraq was a former Marine O3 who was the XO of a FA unit. The Marines don't use SPC, they use CPL. The entire year I spent under him, he kept referring to us as "leaders that aren't pinned yet". My MOS, I had enough points to be promoted, but the spot hadn't opened up yet. Nowhere to move up to.

Can't give a leadership spot to someone who doesn't have a place to go

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2022 7:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:35:14 -0400

I mean to be real the army could probably do better at retaining experienced soldiers by adding back the specialist ranks. Not everyone has the ability or desire to lead, it doesn’t mean soldiers like that are useless though. Being able to keep them & doing their job at a higher pay grade but still a specialist could be better a better option than either promoting a solider that has no desire or the ability to lead or simply “letting” them go once the retention cap is met.

Response by SGM Carl Waddle made Jun 16 at 2022 10:24 AM

SGM Carl Waddle — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 10:24:52 -0400

They should have kept all the Specialist Ranks. People can be excellent at their job skills and never be a leader. They are very valuable to the military and with the specialist rank structure, were paid for their skills and had a rewarding military career.

Response by SPC Ruta Paul made Jun 16 at 2022 1:38 PM

SPC Ruta Paul — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:38:55 -0400

Response by COL Andrew Burns made Jun 17 at 2022 8:54 AM

COL Andrew Burns — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:54:32 -0400

When I was enlisted, although I was a SP5, I was questioned at the NCO Club because I was not a “Hard-striped” NCO! It took me aback but as you can see, I persevered. The Specialist ranks were, I believed designed for non combat-arms personnel. Now that even non combat-arms personnel are on convoys and engaging the enemy, there is no real need for these ranks anymore. Everyone is a Soldier.

Response by Sgt Ed Bowers made Jun 17 at 2022 9:40 AM

Sgt Ed Bowers — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:40:29 -0400

The "specialist" ranks made some sense when they were integrated. What does one become after SP4? If there is no way to rise in rank as a specialist why bother with keeping the SP4? Back in the '50's when this started it did not make much sense. Your MOS decides what you do, your rank is your level in that MOS. It works in the Corps and the Air Force why not the Army?

Response by CPT Nicolas Smith made Jun 17 at 2022 11:17 AM

CPT Nicolas Smith — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:17:51 -0400

Thats the truth! We had an E-7 AG we referred to as Spec-7

Response by CPL Bill Schroeder made Jun 17 at 2022 8:27 PM

CPL Bill Schroeder — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 20:27:35 -0400

When I was in, a long time ago, a corporal was an NCO. Unless that changed you would have an army full of NCOs. That situation would seem to be problematic.

Response by SSG Bob Robertson made Jun 18 at 2022 8:22 AM

SSG Bob Robertson — Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:22:57 -0400

The history of E-4 Specialist that I read was people needed to be promoted however the Army didnt need a 100,000 Corporals which is a non-commissioned rank. Plus a guy who works in finance, a mechanic, a clerk, ect, doesn't need to be a Corporal.

Response by CPL Scott Gregg made Jun 18 at 2022 9:19 AM

CPL Scott Gregg — Sat, 18 Jun 2022 09:19:10 -0400

There is no Spec/4 anymore, its just a SPC, and there is def a difference in a SPC and a Corporal.

Response by SPC Martin Meyer made Jun 18 at 2022 2:33 PM

SPC Martin Meyer — Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:33:35 -0400

I believe that if you are in some technical MOS then the SP04 rank and above is appropriate. If you are in a combat arms MOS then I believe the rank of corporal and above is appropriate. I feel that corporal ranks get more respect when you serve as a team leader in a infantry unit. SP4 rank meant you did not have the qualities to be a team leader. Question is what is a leader? A soldier in garrison might not be considered a great leader but then out in the field he shows that that person is a good leader.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2022 6:04 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jun 2022 18:04:33 -0400

The right way to go about this is up for debate. Bringing back the Specialist Corps to maximize technical expertise, permitting lateral appointments for those in leadership positions is one way, but there was certainly a reason for the elimination of SP5-SP9. For that reason, eliminating SPC altogether is another option. Why not make PFCs board for CPL? Why not make the E4 MTOE/TDA positions leadership positions? If we’re saving the Army money and legitimizing the NCO Corps, then let’s be honest: CPL stripes are a joke. SGT responsibility at SPC pay. Maybe even shift skill levels to allow progression to begin at E4, i.e.: CPL=SL2, SGT=SL3, etc.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Jul 15 at 2022 8:21 AM

SSG Shawn Mcfadden — Fri, 15 Jul 2022 08:21:40 -0400

I look at it this way. I was in a platoon when everyone was SP4. However, you had to have someone in the platoon to be the squad leader. Since none of us had enough promotion points to be promoted to Sergeant, one of us was promoted to Corporal. WHY? Because an NCO was needed in that position.

Response by Amn Joseph H. made Jul 15 at 2022 6:21 PM

Amn Joseph H. — Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:21:53 -0400

As AF had similar concerns about Airmen 1st Class a Sargent, or not? But at Army buck Sargent pay grade, in the 1963 stone age I reported for duty:) There seem little reason behind any of the changes. Even the change of the form of the chevrons from the civil war should have been left alone:) The box fatigue cap like Castro made famous was much cooler, military lookin then some dumb baseball cap hat:) The SP4 information I have is that thry were usually awarded straight out of some specialty school. Which was usually attached pass was in evidence on same sleeve.

Response by SSG Brian Kerr made Jul 15 at 2022 10:35 PM

SSG Brian Kerr — Fri, 15 Jul 2022 22:35:47 -0400

The following article is a very interesting one that falls into this category/question...

https://www.army.mil/article/247183/soldiers_to_pin_on_corporal_after_blc

~Brian Kerr

Soldiers to pin on corporal after BLC

WASHINGTON — Soldiers soon will shoulder the responsibilities of noncommissioned officers earlier in their careers, following a new Army directive that...

Response by CPT Earl George made Jul 17 at 2022 7:45 PM

CPT Earl George — Sun, 17 Jul 2022 19:45:25 -0400

At one point when I was the platoon leader of a 4.2" mortar platoon in Germany in 1973, I had no members of my platoon who were E-5 or above. I had 9 individuals who were of SP-4 rank, the senior of which was a draftee. Yes, I had a platoon that was about half draftees and half voluntary enlistees. The senior SP4 did not want to be PSG but did a nice job for me until I got some NCO's.

Response by CPT Earl George made Jul 17 at 2022 7:48 PM

CPT Earl George — Sun, 17 Jul 2022 19:48:11 -0400

How many of you, (besides myself) have actually walked by someone in the Army who was wearing corporal stripes?

Response by SMSgt Michael Gleason made Aug 12 at 2022 4:55 PM

SMSgt Michael Gleason — Fri, 12 Aug 2022 16:55:02 -0400

I agree with the question of "Why aren't there still SP5s-SP9s?" I was quite proud (in my "Green days") to sew on that SP4 and eventually SP5 patch, and was incredulous when the Army did away with every Specialist rank from SP5-up! I took great pride in what I did in my Battalion S2/S3, and had no overwhelming need or desire to "lead" or "command"!

Response by SP5 Derick Johnsohne made Aug 13 at 2022 6:39 PM

SP5 Derick Johnsohne — Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:39:41 -0400

the military (and civilian) often promotes to the highest grade of inefficiency . specialist ranks would keep professionals who are not at their best for leading and the system would be much better . there are warrant officers, so why not specialist enlisted ?

Response by PVT John Maloney made Aug 14 at 2022 3:14 PM

PVT John Maloney — Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:14:11 -0400

I got out of the Army in 1975. I remember Spec 5,6,7's. For the most part, they were cooks in the mess hall and as such, they were shown respect. You don't want a cook to hate you.
Spec 4's, on the other hand, were just better paid privates. Team leader wasn't an authority position. I only remember them being designated on FTX. Even I was Fire Team leader as a PFC. And squad leaders were E-5 Sergeants.

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Aug 14 at 2022 5:52 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:52:58 -0400

IMNSHO the real reason the Army kept the rank of specialist is so they can use it as a recruiting tool. The Army will give you E2, E3, and on some rare instances E4 on enlisting, and as such you can be administratively advanced by the stroke of a pen in your COC likes you. The reality is quite different and in some MOS's you are looking at ten years to make E5. But hey, you got to get them to sign on the dotted like....

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2022 9:18 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Aug 2022 21:18:03 -0400

Its roots were actually a Congressional Budget Issue: The Army SP4 and USAF Senior Airman "SRA" Ranks were created to slow down promotions to Sergeant!

Response by SSG John C Quigley II made Aug 15 at 2022 11:20 AM

SSG John C Quigley II — Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:20:06 -0400

It is strange that they did away with the Specialist ranks, yet there are many NCO's who are specialists such as Nuclear, Computer Programmers, and for me I was a E-6 supply Sgt. I kind of look at that as a specialty and there are others that might be seen as specialty ranks as well. But like all the nonsense the military has experimented with over the years, this is one more.

Response by SGM Michael Culbertson made Aug 15 at 2022 1:27 PM

SGM Michael Culbertson — Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:27:40 -0400

Sir, the Army attempted to differentiate between NCO and technicians long before the 1960s. The post-Civil War Army had ranks like Quartermaster Sergeant, Commissary Sergeant, Ordnance Sergeant Saddler Sergeant, Farrier, Principal Trumpeter, etc. By the end of WWI there were over 120 insignia of enlisted rank, most of which reflected the skills of the individual soldiers. When GA John Pershing became Chief of Staff of the Army after the war, he directed that all enlisted Soldiers wear chevrons that only showed their pay grades: Master Sergeant, Technical Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Sergeant, Corporal. During WWII, the Technician system was devised, so that Soldiers with necessary skills could get paid more without being given NCO responsibilities for which they were not trained. Technician Third Grade (Tec3) was in the same pay grade as SSgt, a Tec4 was paid the same as a Sgt, and a Tec5 was paid the same as a Corp. The Technician system went away in 1948, and the Specialist system started in 1955. The SP9 and SP8 ranks were discontinued in 1968, SP7 went away in 1977, and SP6 and SP5 went away in 1985. Today's Army sends college graduates to basic training as SPC, as a recruiting incentive. Would you suggest that those E-4s be immediately given NCO rank and responsibility?

Response by SGM Art Hudson made Aug 17 at 2022 9:26 AM

SGM Art Hudson — Wed, 17 Aug 2022 09:26:31 -0400

Because of the specialization of this rank. all will not be in a leadership position to wear the rank of corporal. So this rank recognizes those in a non-leadership position.

Response by SFC William McMillian made Aug 17 at 2022 4:24 PM

SFC William McMillian — Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:24:47 -0400

I was a 52E Prime Power Production Specialist operating a research reactor, SP6 promoted to SFC. I did not want to be a leader, I had worked hard to be specialized in nuclear and did not want the responsibilities associated with a leadership position and the distinct possibility I would be assigned to another specialty.

Response by SSG Jack Scott made Aug 19 at 2022 12:08 AM

SSG Jack Scott — Fri, 19 Aug 2022 00:08:17 -0400

The Army is set in its old, old ways! Every other Branch of American Military has junior NCO’s in E-4 CPLS and Petty Officers the system works for junior leadership. Plus every other Military branch around the World has junior NCO’s CPL’s and Petty Officers and the system works. But maybe the entire Worlds Military’s are wrong but I don’t think so!

Response by SGT Erick Holmes made Aug 19 at 2022 3:32 PM

SGT Erick Holmes — Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:32:40 -0400

Ahhhhh the famous E4. The best rank you can have LOL. I hope they don't change this rank. I think there should be more opportunities for the e4 rank. At the time I was in it was WLC. This shouldnt be a pass or fail it should more of knowledge and training.

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made Aug 20 at 2022 5:47 PM

LCpl Michael Cappello — Sat, 20 Aug 2022 17:47:05 -0400

Because they are "Special". So Special.

Response by SSG Brian Carpeneter made Aug 20 at 2022 11:06 PM

SSG Brian Carpeneter — Sat, 20 Aug 2022 23:06:19 -0400

Keeping it really simple Tech ranks would have no authority but would still want to yell bitch and moan at any NCO rank below them. But alas if you were a tech rank the NCO rank automatically outrank you when it comes to troop training and discipline issues in such there is your dilemma. A SGT can tell a SPC8 to go fly a kite if they wanted to.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 21 at 2022 2:48 AM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Sun, 21 Aug 2022 02:48:23 -0400

The rank of SPC is a very common rank and defines typically you role and what you might need to learn before you become an E-5

Response by SFC Tomaso Santomauro made Sep 21 at 2022 11:53 AM

SFC Tomaso Santomauro — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:53:42 -0400

Excellent point Sir.

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Sep 21 at 2022 1:17 PM

SSG Harry Herres — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:17:34 -0400

Where have all the worker gone? The army has become so stripe happy! Used to be stripes lead, sp- 4, 5, 6 did the work. Must be a new ego boost. As a Sp-5, I was the senior radar operator on both our ground surveillance radar Tps-25 and Q-4 artillery radar. I had a warrant in charge, all he did was repair work. I made SSgt E-6 as a ground surveillance radar section leader in charge of 4 radar sections. You followed the most stripes. If everyone has stripes who leads? To be politically correct, to many foreman and not enough workers. Army is starting to look like the Marine Corp. Glad you got rid of the black beret. Old school 69-75

Response by CPL Sheila Lewis made Sep 22 at 2022 1:47 PM

CPL Sheila Lewis — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 13:47:34 -0400

After hs graduation, I attended Army Basic and learned as I went ....ROTC in hs sure would have been a big help.

Response by MAJ Robert Walters made Sep 26 at 2022 9:41 PM

MAJ Robert Walters — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:41:19 -0400

Exactly, but let's ditch "Spec" for something more cool.Any ideas?

Response by SPC James Williams made Oct 8 at 2022 2:31 AM

SPC James Williams — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 02:31:38 -0400

I had no desire to be an NCO. I had the points to do it, but had no plans on reenlisting, so never went to the board. There were plenty of soldiers that wanted to make a career out of the Army, so why take an NCO slot? That was my thinking.

Response by SPC Steve dePinet made Oct 18 at 2022 12:33 PM

SPC Steve dePinet — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:33:49 -0400

I was a Computer Programmer/Analyst (74F30P3), working on Communications (Signal) computers, had no one reporting to me, as a SP4, and worked with SP5s and higher NCOs, our NCOIC was an SFC, and some of the NCOs were Sgt and SSG. Since I supervised no one (and the SP5s also did not supervise), there was no reason that we couldn't just be Specialists (which we were, in both senses of the word).

Response by SFC Jerald Bottcher made Oct 18 at 2022 11:01 PM

SFC Jerald Bottcher — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 23:01:56 -0400

I personally think that getting rid of the Spec 5 through Spec 7 ranks was a big mistake. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader. an NCO whether Corporal, Sergeant, Sgt 1st Class, 1st Sgt Sgt Maj is a leader. There are a lot of jobs in the military that require a great deal of technical expertise but do not
require leadership abilities. A senior specialist can still be as accountable as anyone else in their pay grades. There are a lot of folks who want to be a doer and not a leader. The current structure forces them to become a leader even if they are not a good fit for it. As a result a lot of good folks leave when they don't move up

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2022 4:36 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:36:20 -0400

They need more privates of the guard than they need sergeants of the guard.
A corporal is an NCO, but a SP4 is not.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2022 8:16 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:16:57 -0400

Cause with no SPC's there would be no E-4 Mafia... MAJ Norm Michaels..!

Response by SGT J M Porters made Oct 20 at 2022 5:58 PM

SGT J M Porters — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:58:15 -0400

It is called the process of elimination. It is social experimentation. You think about it who joins up to do what is required of the Military? It is the mover and shakers that get the job done. An SP4 is a good rank. You do not get paid a lot but can still have fun. It allows you to get some experience but then it does not put you in full command. You can train a man to make right decision but you can not teach him how to take command. Me, I was an SP4 for three months before I made Sergeant. When I realized it was better to make the rules than suffer the brunt of them. My whole career changed. The Army was a great place to grow up.

Response by SGT Frank Barnes made Oct 20 at 2022 10:34 PM

SGT Frank Barnes — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:34:52 -0400

I was a corporal as an MP, back in '86, because promotions were frozen, and I had been acting as Patrol Sergeant for months, with no end in sight. My Platoon Sergeant did the work to reward me. In 90, while I was MI, I was able to make a case that one my Specialists was acting as an NCO, leading an Analyst team, and I mean leading it. I got him his two stripes. He pulled 20 years. I don't know about now. But back then, if you believed in your troop, and were willing to put in the work, he could get that 2 stripes. It was just a matter of the leader being willing to put in the work to reward his troop, and recognize his effort.

Response by MAJ Norm Michaels made Oct 21 at 2022 11:58 AM

MAJ Norm Michaels — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:58:26 -0400

What I have learned from this exercise question about Soecialists is that the majority prefer having Specialists of all ranks. But should it be based solely on the MOS?

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Oct 21 at 2022 4:44 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:44:54 -0400

Because they are the runners (doers) at the lowest level.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2022 8:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:59:13 -0400

What's the point of a Warrant Officer of there are SPC 5-9.
A better question. Why have the Specialist tank at all and not promote to CPL to start training for leadership earlier?
The Navy has 3 Junior Enlisted, 3 "NCO", and 3 Senior "NCO" ranks. Marines the same. Why do we have SPC at all?
*I put NCO in quotes because the Navy calls them Lead Petty Officer or Senior Lead Petty Officer. (2 joint assignments)

Response by SSG Michael Schneider made Oct 23 at 2022 9:06 AM

SSG Michael Schneider — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:06:14 -0400

The Specialist ranks were started as a extension of the WWII & Korea War eras of the 'Technical' ranks. Was in the late 50's or, early '60's that they started. When I enlisted in 1965 the only Corporals were gun captains in Artillery units or, NCO's that had been reduced in rank. My entire service was in the Infantry and when promoted from PFC it was to SP4, next promotion was to Sgt, and then Ssg.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2022 11:28 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 11:28:28 -0400

To my understanding this was the forerunner to that:

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2022 11:29 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 11:29:12 -0400

To my understanding this was the forerunner to that:

Response by Sgt William Margeson made Oct 24 at 2022 1:31 PM

Sgt William Margeson — Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:31:33 -0400

Sp4 and Corporal. Corporal rank is an NCO, while SP4 is not. Corporal, generally is in Combat Arms, SP4 in support units, not requireing NCO Status. Other benefits of SP4 is more pay, otherwise member wouldf be kept at E3 rank

Response by CW5 William Gasaway made Oct 25 at 2022 4:45 AM

CW5 William Gasaway — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 04:45:35 -0400

I agree partially with SPC Ford. The issue I have with his statement is that even senior tech people have to lead occasionally, not like a senior Sgt does but in his field of knowledge. They need to be able to share their knowledge and skills with their juniors and make sure they are doing the things they need to be doing to get the job done. But paying people more for the skills and knowledge they have? That is a no-brainer!

Response by SSG Ralph Belander made Nov 19 at 2022 10:13 AM

SSG Ralph Belander — Sat, 19 Nov 2022 10:13:14 -0500

It wasn't "started in the 1960s." In WW2 we had technical Sergeants and in WW1 and before we had NCO ranks tied to vocational areas like "Mess", "Motor", "Farrier" "Transport" etc that were identified as specialized, non combat leader skills. The idea of making everyone the same with a simplified rank structure is actually the modern "social experiment" within this discussion.

Response by SP5 Clyde Carlile made Nov 19 at 2022 9:05 PM

SP5 Clyde Carlile — Sat, 19 Nov 2022 21:05:59 -0500

I was an SP5 when I was discharged from the Army. I did primarily Technical duty instead of leading troops. Even though I wasn't technically a leader type NCO I found myself as squad leader and temporary platoon leader. I believe I filled both roles quite adequately. If an regular NCO showed up He/She would take over leadership duties. I simply filled in when necessary.

Response by CPL T.A. Nelson made Nov 20 at 2022 9:31 PM

CPL T.A. Nelson — Sun, 20 Nov 2022 21:31:59 -0500

The SPC 4-9 used to be a path for Warrent Officer but now it is a non-leadership role to prepare people to become SGT without a serious qualification of leadership. We need the SPC to go back to what they were meant for and CPL to gain it's importance again...

Response by CPT Bob Mason made Nov 21 at 2022 7:42 PM

CPT Bob Mason — Mon, 21 Nov 2022 19:42:28 -0500

Not to be too nitpicking, SP4 is not a rank. It is a pay grade. Having said that, I fully endorse the comment by SPC Kevin Ford. I will not elaborate as I cannot express it better than he.

Response by SP5 Gary Perkins made Nov 23 at 2022 10:09 AM

SP5 Gary Perkins — Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:09:32 -0500

I’m a proud former SP5 experiment!

Response by William Drummond made Nov 27 at 2022 6:26 AM

William Drummond — Sun, 27 Nov 2022 06:26:32 -0500

It was interesting reading the different answers. As an Army brat and a career DOD civilian (Ret), I remember the higher Spec ranks.

As the military moves toward more technical jobs requiring increased STEM knowledge, perhaps it is time to bring back the higher Specs to address those needs. After all, we have warrant officers, which is also a technical skills rank class through CW-5.

Is there a good reason to eliminate leadership responsibility from the Spec ranks? If you have a unit with network gear, do you need an SFC with them when a Spc-7 could provide the leadership and have the STEM knowledge? That leaves the SFC available for combat-related positions. Perhaps the Specs do not have tactical command authority over anyone other than the Specs. That is similar to the warrants, who, in reality, receive a lot of respect from the enlisted and commissioned because of their proficiency in their field.

Leadership training for Spc-5 and higher is necessary, but not at the intensity of NCOs. It also offers more incentive to become a warrant officer to provide unit-level leadership. The military must retain the most proficient techs.

Perhaps the specialist career fields could see a pay incentive to continue their enlistment instead of four-and-gone.

I know a military firefighter who did not want NCO command responsibility but would accept fire crew leadership. They did not wish to have NCO responsibilities. Spc-5 was long gone, and they left the Army even though they did not want to go. The Army lost those years of experience, but the civilian side of firefighting gained it when they returned as Department of the Army civilian firefighter, making almost $15K more yearly. Army one week and DAC the next.

Without a doubt, there are great arguments for and against the idea. However, if retaining the best talent is one of the Army's goals, they are leaking the more experienced technical troops only to replace them with someone fresh from basic and MOS schools.

That is my two cents worth. If you need any change because that was too much, let me know.

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Nov 29 at 2022 3:58 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:58:55 -0500

A better and more relevant question is why does the Army persist with the rank of Corporal? Why doesn't the Army just promote E-4s who run their own shops to E-5 so they can get not just the authority but the rank too? Why make an E-4 pay NCO Club dues if you are not going to raise his pay to Sergeant?

Response by SPC Robert Bobo made Jan 12 at 2023 6:00 PM

SPC Robert Bobo — Thu, 12 Jan 2023 18:00:16 -0500

I remember several SP6 and SP7 however, that was 73-77, personally I think E4 Corporal was and is more appropriate

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2023 7:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:10:40 -0500

I started my 20+ yrs. in the Army in 1979, had 3 specialist ranks before making SFC, and yet I have no idea what some of you are talking about - in all of my specialist MOS's I had leadership duties, was sent to PNCOC, SNCOIC, SEJPME, etc., and retired as head-NCO of a med battallion section, w/ only my 1SG, CSM and Commander above me in my unit (also had some limited exposure to MI before retiring). How did most of that happen during my specialist ranks if I had no leadership duties or skills? W/ those specilaist ranks I also had to train on the shooting range regularly w/ 45 pistols, M-16s, some M-60s & grenades, ran 5 miles minimum every day but Sundays, had regular BIVACs & field training (not in CONUS)... I'm confused by this ever-recurring subject.
Warriors Forever!
-Ed Boles

Response by SP5 Joseph Coble made Feb 5 at 2023 5:15 PM

SP5 Joseph Coble — Sun, 05 Feb 2023 17:15:00 -0500

I left the Army with the rank of SP5. They tried to challenge me to re-up and try to make it a hard stripe. I just smiled and said I get paid the same as a Sargent but don’t have to go to command meetings.

Response by SGT George Edward Brown made Feb 6 at 2023 7:33 PM

SGT George Edward Brown — Mon, 06 Feb 2023 19:33:36 -0500

I BECAME A SP4 IN VIETNAM, 11B4P, AND IN MY UNIT A TROOP 2/17th CAV, 1st BRIGADE, 101st "AIRBORNE" DIV. UNTIL I BECAME A SGT E-5 I WAS OFTEN TASKED WITH LEADERSHIP ROLES WELL ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, FIRE TEAM LDR, SQUAD LDR, PLATOON LDR FOR GENERALLY SHORT TIMES, WHEN HIGHER UPS WERE ON LEAVE OR R&R. IT SUCKED WHEN I WAS A ACTING SQUAD LDR BUT ONLY BEING A SP4 HAD TO PULL KP WHEN MY SQUAD HAD A MISSION. IF A SGT E-5 GOT DEMOTED FOR WHATEVER HE WAS MADE A E-4 CORPORAL, NOT A SP4. LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY. AT BRAGG WITH THE 82nd FOR MY REMAINING SERVICE (RA) STILL SERVED AS A SQUAD LDR AS A SGT E-5 THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE A E-6 ON ME AS I WAS A SHORT TIMER WITH NO DESIRE TO RE-UP.

Response by SPC Bill Johnson made Feb 7 at 2023 9:25 AM

SPC Bill Johnson — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 09:25:36 -0500

Being part of the E4 Mafia is a position I enjoyed for 4 years. SFC would tell us what needed to be done and we did it. I was a teamleader, with soldiers under me, yet I didn't have to deal with all the NCO bs. On some occations, I was over multiple teams. I think the Army kept the SPC 4 rank because promotions, especially in my field to NCO, were few and far between. In six years, I only saw two soldiers promoted to E 5 and only one soldier promoted to E6 - in 6 YEARS (86-92).

Response by 1SG Brian Holt made Feb 7 at 2023 11:51 AM

1SG Brian Holt — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 11:51:25 -0500

I think they did away with SPC 5 through 8 because they thought that warrant officers could fill the void... but like others have said, not everyone can be a good leader.

Response by CPL Sheila Lewis made Feb 7 at 2023 3:35 PM

CPL Sheila Lewis — Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:35:18 -0500

My high school did not have ROTC.

Response by SP5 Wick Humble made Feb 8 at 2023 12:35 PM

SP5 Wick Humble — Wed, 08 Feb 2023 12:35:13 -0500

Of course, it was 53 years ago, but my 'terminal' rank (a draftee) was SP5, same pay grade as SGT (E-5). What happened to those ranks, which were the equivalent of the old Tech Corporal/Sergeant ranks instituted in WWII? My dad, 23rd Corps, X Army on Okinawa, was a Tech Sergeant, and wore five stripes like the SFC did later. I was given the three stripes to put on at Ft. Sam Houston, but had to accept the chore of being barracks sergeant, which because of the extra dutes and my short-timer status, I declined -- tho I still have the patches! I was beyond bucking for anything except my ETS!
It was funny; nobody in civvies ever knew what a Spec rank was (if they cared) even tho Elvis put up SP5 before he got SGT stripes! Also, SP Fifth class sounded ungood, versus PFC, which meant first class. The numeral on the former matched the E-pay grade, but not on the old Private, First Class. Go figger! Wick

Response by SPC Jerry Gobble made Feb 8 at 2023 3:28 PM

SPC Jerry Gobble — Wed, 08 Feb 2023 15:28:59 -0500

I was a Spec4 in 1959 and my Section Chief was a Spec5, so I believe the "social experiment" started before the late sixties.

Response by PO2 Raul Cruz made Feb 9 at 2023 12:05 PM

PO2 Raul Cruz — Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:05:46 -0500

As I understand it, the Army really had to lower their standards during viet nam and this resulted in hoods and illiterates joining but as badly as they tried to deflect this after the war the army only became more popular with idiots and mongrels which resulted casualties during peace time than ever before, so the Army began "distinguish them" but under Senate discouragement they weren't allowed to discriminate until they actually did something stupid. So then they created the Specialist and whoever volunteered for that self incriminated them selves and now the Army could get on with their business.

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Feb 14 at 2023 10:47 PM

MSG Lonnie Averkamp — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 22:47:05 -0500

(Talking out of both sides of my mouth) I don't LIKE the Specialist Grades, but I think that they are good, especially in many technical jobs. In 1970, I was in Basic Training with a man who was drafted and was a Journeyman Plumber. Upon graduation, he was given Sp/5 pins. Should a man with 9 weeks in Service be a Sergeant? No. Does a Journeyman Plumber or Electrician rate E-5? Absolutely!

Response by SGT Dick Lindgren made Mar 5 at 2023 9:03 AM

SGT Dick Lindgren — Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:03:15 -0500

I was a Spec 4 on the flight line in 1969. They made me a Acting Buck Sgt in charge of the flight line. In 1970 some of us got promoted to E-5’s. They promoted me to a E-5 but wanted me to continue as acting Buck. I said no, if want to fill that slot, I get the strip, if not give the acting Buck title to someone else. There was a lot of responsibility that went with the Buck Sgt strip. I said I would go back to being a crew chief. Well I got the Strip and continued on.

Response by COL Carl Jensen made Mar 6 at 2023 9:04 AM

COL Carl Jensen — Mon, 06 Mar 2023 09:04:47 -0500

I was an Asst NCOIC as a speedy 4 in the early 60's. I gave briefings (instructions) to NCOs who were assigned to me on detail. Life was rough as an E4 in charge of a service club, but someone had to do it. The Army always put you where you were needed. I was an artist illustrator that was assigned to work with the USO ladies. It worked out fine, it was a great tour. SP4s to me were the technicians and talented troupes. The old Tech 4's. It was a great foundation that lead to better things.

Response by LTC Jeff Scribner made Mar 6 at 2023 3:44 PM

LTC Jeff Scribner — Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:44:05 -0500

Army wants to have "super privates" who are paid more but have no real NCO duties. This may be a head in the sand idea but it does allow for more soldiers to reach pay grade E-4 quickly without becoming a NCO. From time to time the Army has experimented with ways to pay more without requiring the soldier to become a NCO. Most of them have failed and SP4 is the only "Specialist rank" left. Army and soldiers would be better served to pay PFCs more and do away with the rank of SP4. Corporal and above should all be NCOs.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2023 7:12 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 07:12:58 -0500

As a specialist I acted as motor sergeant in Korea while on active duty, then transfered to the reserves and was acting motor sergeant several times as well when the current motor sergeant retired. This was because the points for my MOS were staying at 798, and that was pretty much an unobtainable total.
I would have been satisfied with Spec 5 the stripes were not as big an issue as the pay, and my COC has put me in the position so I had command authority even without hard stripes.
The specialist grades always sounded like the enlisted equivalent of a WO, subject matter experts, who chose to serve but we're excluded from some of the commissioned officer politics, and responsibilities.
In my opinion these ranks were a good idea, and allowed someone to serve while still becoming the highly trained professional needed for their MOS, but not needed at the front of the formation or in the staff meetings as much.

Response by SPC Ralph Ware made Mar 10 at 2023 9:02 PM

SPC Ralph Ware — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 21:02:38 -0500

I smell jealousy of the 'Mafia". Laugh if you will but E-4's are as indispensable as E-5's! The Specialist rank in my time pretty much designated a trooper trained in a specific MOS that required an ability to make use of all elements of their training and being an added component to the battle space. Combat Engineers are a good example. We had training in a long list of special skills. But in the end, either a Spec 4 or Corporal, that individual is needed!!

Response by SP5 Philip McClure made Mar 10 at 2023 10:36 PM

SP5 Philip McClure — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 22:36:03 -0500

Sp4 I get, it's the transition rank between being a private and reaching a level of actual leadership responsibility. I never figured out how as a gunner and 2nd in command of a $2M Abrams tank I was a soft stripe SP5 E5 yet inevitably the soldier that sat at a desk at brigade and did my pay/leave/statement of charges/whatever in a room full of similar clerks was a hard stripe Sgt E5 as were all of the other E5s in the room.

Response by CPL Theodore Moore made Mar 11 at 2023 11:21 AM

CPL Theodore Moore — Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:21:26 -0500

My father was in the army in WW II. I'm old by the way, and he did his 6 years and got to E6 as a Spec 6. My father was a radio and electronics guy. He said that under that system there was a lot of confusion caused by the fact that a Spec 6 outranked an NCO 5, but an NCO had authority while as Spec did not. Usually, common sense prevailed. If they were trying to hook up coms, for example, everyone did what the specialist said, and if it was combat you followed the NCO, but every now and then you would get people with ego issues that would interfere with military preparedness.

Response by SN Kristi Kalis made Mar 11 at 2023 9:52 PM

SN Kristi Kalis — Sat, 11 Mar 2023 21:52:52 -0500

Honestly, a specialist not on a leadership path should stay, while a corporal would be on a leadership path. I'm also on board for bringing back the different colors of insignia. It's harder to know what specialty a uniformed member is without squinting to see what's on a lapel from a distance. Also, probably a more controversial stance, CWOs should be gone altogether.

Response by SPC Rob Smith made Mar 13 at 2023 3:58 AM

SPC Rob Smith — Mon, 13 Mar 2023 03:58:26 -0400

No lateral they say in the day...
As a medic 91b sp4 i learned mil tech.
load & fire my 16. bived rain or shine.
and worked in hospitals..
11b my hats off to ya ..

Response by SPC Rob Smith made Mar 24 at 2023 10:34 PM

SPC Rob Smith — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 22:34:44 -0400

I made rank pretty quick through to e4...
based on merit and time in..
I went to BLC and PLDC with 1st armoered div. leadership course... As i remember the
spec was and is the backbone of the army. .

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Mar 25 at 2023 4:18 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sat, 25 Mar 2023 04:18:08 -0400

I recognize that there are some people who may be great at whatever task(s), but are horrible at managing people.

But I might be OK limiting their rank to E3. Compensation beyond that should imply you are (at minimun) capable of sharing/teach/coaching/training your expertise to others.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Mar 25 at 2023 5:09 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sat, 25 Mar 2023 05:09:51 -0400

How ironic…people whom supposedly have any real concept of service in their souls want maximum pay/benes for minimum performance.

So let’s connect some dots, shall we?

On this RP site we have topics/thread that almost respond to themselves. Of course I have an example:

Topic 1 “Specialist ranks for people avoiding leadership in any form or expectations.

Topic 2: People attending Ranger School only for the Leadership portion so they can slink back to the rear with a few more promotion points and a meaningless tab, as they have zero intentions of joining a Ranger Unit or performing the duties of real Rangers.

Topic 3
Some jibberish about “only real infantrymen went to Ft. Benning and have their “blue cord”.

Marine Infantry couldn’t care less about a blue cord. We can’t even automatically think to give a nod of respect to a Ranger Tab because it was probably some LD who only did the Leadership school then wants to maintain a Specialist rank to avoid leadership expectations.

Let me say that again:
Seek Leadership School wasting the Army’s time and resources training people to lead…who have no desire to lead.

It’s ok. The only leadership the Corps needs the Army to handle is when the Army Civil Affairs people come clean up our battlefield mess.
Yut!!

Response by 1SG James Calamare0 made Apr 12 at 2023 9:56 AM

1SG James Calamare0 — Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:56:28 -0400

It depends on the individual soldier and the soldiers supervisor. If the Spc4 shows leadership then it is the duty of the supervisor to latterally transfer him or her to Corporal. Not only will the stripes develop confidence but it will instill the desire to improve.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2023 1:37 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:37:03 -0400

Do you want to persue a path to higher pay and more technical focus?
Apply to be a Warrant Officer.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Apr 13 at 2023 9:08 AM

SSG Bill McCoy — Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:08:37 -0400

When I was in, Corporal stripes were so rare that anyone wearing them were looked upon as someone sort of "special," in a good way. I was prior Navy and E-4's were NCO's (Petty Officer 3rd Class). It was an achievement attained by TIG/TIS and passing a written exam, etc. It was also one of the largest percentage of an enlistee's pay. It did not necessairly denote a leadership role, though it could and did in many MOS's, but it was the MOST junior level of NCO/Petty Officer. They were expected to act, and be more profesional in every sense. It was a good thing, and a good rank to achieve and was far from a "trophy" award. In fact, the status was viewed as one of the best ranks in that dirty jobs were passed down to E-1's thru E-3's; but that is not to say PO3's didn't get down in the dirt either - they were expected to, but more as a lower level supervisor without being expected to be perfect as it was as much a leadersip LEARNING step and rank.
The Army would do well to follow suite. Even in my day, SP4's were still viewed as being "seasoned" soldiers, so why not give that small boost of prestige?

Response by A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney made Apr 13 at 2023 9:19 AM

A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney — Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:34 -0400

"WHY does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4"?
EASY To Answer:
"Because SP-3 Doesn't Pay As Much As The SP-4" .

W.T.F., Ya Couldn't Figure THAT Out Yourself?

Response by SPC Kenneth Berry made Apr 24 at 2023 8:11 AM

SPC Kenneth Berry — Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:11:52 -0400

I was in '79 - '82. I was a SP4 most of my time in Germany. When I made SP4, I was made team leader. When a new NCO came in he would be put in charge of my squad until another Sgt rotated out, my Sgt would move to that squad and once again I would be in charge of my squad. When I rotated to Washington on my pprwk read squadleader. It happened to me again when I reached Ft. Lewis. ETS with E4.

Response by SP5 Paul Renard made May 1 at 2023 11:44 AM

SP5 Paul Renard — Mon, 01 May 2023 11:44:43 -0400

I was a Sp5 in the '70s. In 2001 I went back in and was given Sgt stripes. A short time later an E-6 slot opened, but I was not qualified until I attended two NCO training schools designed to lead combat sqauds/platoons. I was a Medic and should have been a Sp5 and then Sp6 not an Infantry NCO.

Response by CPL Frederick Michel made May 8 at 2023 3:07 PM

CPL Frederick Michel — Mon, 08 May 2023 15:07:10 -0400

Good Clerks run a company, HQ detachment, and Division schedules. We are specialist, qualified, and deserve to continue in rank without NCO schools or leaderhsip ranks. Bring back the SP5 through SP7. Keep your qualified specialist.

Response by MSG Todd Black made May 31 at 2023 9:41 PM

MSG Todd Black — Wed, 31 May 2023 21:41:13 -0400

I can relate and have agreement to this to an extent. Perhaps having up to SP5, but need to be NCOs beyond that, otherwise they have CPLs (NCOs) half their age giving them orders, since specialist/technical ranks were NOT NCOs and therefore had no legal authority. This is why they got rid of the technical/specialist ranks in the first place.

Myself, I also had a very great difficult socially connecting with people, reading social cues, etc. throughout life and it was/is a damn curse. I spent the first 10 years of my career as an intel analyst and was an S-2 NCOIC a couple of times - and was always mediocre at best. I could see that whatever it was I was doing (I didn't know!) was for some reason off-putting to people and subordinates often did not want to work with me. But most of the time being an analyst allowed me to work alone and I was highly praised and awarded for my work. At E-7 I went Special Forces. I had a difficult time in SFQC because of the social interaction skills and peered low all the time, but - as usual - was highly technically proficient. I was first an 18E (communications) then promoted to the team 18F (intelligence) and excelled in both - but as usual tended to isolate myself from the rest of the ODA especially while deployed and just do my job. Then, of course, I came down on the list for master sergeant and I knew right then I was in trouble, because I was going to have to be a manager and not a technical expert. As I predicted, I struggled a LOT as an E-8 in leadership positions but - as usual - excelled in technical proficiency and as a trainer/teacher. Being on the s**t list of msot of the Group E-9 mafia, I retired at 20 years. A few years ago, in my mid-40s, based on my own research and frustration I finally came to the conclusion that I am most likely high-functioning autism/Asperger's. Having this epiphany was like a load of bricks finally off my shoulders because I finally was able to put a name to what caused me a lifetime of struggle. Before that, I spent 13 years seeing psychologists, psychiatrists, adn therapists and taking the anti-depressants and ADHD meds they constantly pushed while having NO ideas what effect they would have. The most frustrating thing for me while seeing all those so-called doctors/experts is I brought up the possibilty of Asperger's but they immediately dismissed the possibilty because, according to them, I had been too successful and done too much in my life to be aspie. Five years ago I finally figured out that all those junk science experts said that because people in the mental health profession believe that aspies cannot be successful!Once I figured that out I dumped the pills and told them I was never coming back. Autism/Asperger's is a disqualifier for the US military, but these people have exceptional talents than can be used in specific skill sets. The Israeli army has special units for their autistics. In the US, approximately 80% of college graduate aspies/autistics are unemployed - because people simply do not want to work with them due to their lack of social skills. Fellow employees will complain an aspie makes them "uncomfortable" and management will fire the aspie with no real reason or recourse. Now, if an employee said that about, say, a transgender, what do you think would happen to the complainer?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2023 12:35 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:35:19 -0400

I'm not sure this solves the problem but the army tries to make everyone an e4 as fast as possible then let's them sit. The marines assign responsibility based on rank and an e4 has authority and knowledge. Sometimes more than an army e5. The army just wants to promote most likely to solve pay problems

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 17 at 2023 9:48 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:48:16 -0400

I know I am late into the game on this one. You hit it on the head, SPC ranks did not want to lead. Our unit had Spc6 with SSG in the same section, they fought the transition until threat of Chapter. Anyway it was a cool thing and the transition went fairly smoothly.

Spc4 is a good rank, it allows a transition by adding authority through the support of the SSG/SGT allowing the Soc to handle minor duties, maintain the prime weapon, ensure the Motor Poll was cleaned and ready for inspection, troops ready at for nation etc.

Response by SPC Lyle Montgomery made Jun 17 at 2023 5:40 PM

SPC Lyle Montgomery — Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:40:10 -0400

Sp-4 full bird corporal.

Response by SPC Tracy Murdock made Jul 3 at 2023 10:38 AM

SPC Tracy Murdock — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 10:38:59 -0400

In many support mos's, sp4 is a death nail that encourages separation. The points required to enter nco ranks are too high to gain promotion as ncos are not as needed in support units. If these mos's had sp5 thru sp9, I think soldiers would be more receptive to reenlistment.

Response by CMSgt Caryn Chipman made Jul 3 at 2023 5:03 PM

CMSgt Caryn Chipman — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 17:03:34 -0400

So, I’m curious … I can definitely see the need for technical specialists in the military, and the fact that not everyone is born to lead, or be a leader … How does the pay scale work for those who continue to excel solely as a tech expert versus those who become technical experts, then go on to lead members into effective mission accomplishment. Would the non-leading/non-supervisory technical specialists be paid more or less than military members who become technically proficient then proceed to supervision & leadership? In my opinion, a non-supervisory technical expert (say E-7) should not be paid as well as an E-6 supervisor. People management is worth Waaay more than Project management and Leadership is instrumental in ensuring experts meet mission (military and civilian).

Response by SP5 Roy Sonye made Jul 7 at 2023 4:16 PM

SP5 Roy Sonye — Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:16:26 -0400

The specialist were to give leadership roles in technical fields
I was a spec-5 section chief in FDC in artillery

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Aug 12 at 2023 9:16 AM

GySgt William Hardy — Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:16:13 -0400

I don't think your question can be answered directly since we do not have the input of those "in charge". I can say this for the sake of discussion. The Marines have their own version of specialist ranks but a different approach to the idea of what they do.

Every Marine, like the Army, has its ranks. A Marine who chooses the technical side become Master Sergeants and Master Gunnery Sergeants. Those who stay in side become First Sergeants and Sergeant Majors. Therefore, as a Gunny Sergeant I marked my evaluation form as remaining technical. I did not want to be a 1st Sergeant.

The difference between the Marines and Army is the function of people in those ranks. Regardless of whether or not you are in combat arms or support, everyone trains as a combat arms person. We had to pass the same PT test. We had to qualify with weapons. While doing our normal technical job, we got pulled from time to time to train in combat arms. As a fix station comm guy, I got pulled and went to training in Norfolk VA. We lined up on the Virginia Beach and pretended we just landed and then took the assigned objective. For a bunch of office poggies, supply clerks, and other assorted POGs, we did rather well. PS, POG stands for personnel other than grunts. When I went to Vietnam, I served at the Danang Air Base. We were all "Remington Raiders" of one sort or another, yet every one of us went on patrols around the Danang Area.

I guess I am saying you are hung up on "specialist". Get rid of the Spec 4 and make everyone a Corporal. Make everyone attend PLDC, BNOC, and ANOC or whatever they are called now. Make them leadership schools. They make the same people attend MOS specific schools as they advance. In the Corps I attended Comm Center school. Later I attended Comm Center Chief school. The Army can do the same. When I was in the Army National Guard, I attended PLDC and BNOC. I was also sent to numerous Intelligence courses in Georgia and North Carolina.

Get my drift? Make every a Soldier and then pick some to be other things. Make sure they all get a basic infantry education.

Response by 1SG James Calamare0 made Aug 18 at 2023 1:15 PM

1SG James Calamare0 — Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:15:12 -0400

If the SP4 lacks leadership qualities or potentail then It is up to his supervisors to develop him or her.

Response by SFC Edward Harland made Aug 23 at 2023 5:53 PM

SFC Edward Harland — Wed, 23 Aug 2023 17:53:05 -0400

What I understand is that no one was ever promoted to Spec8 or Spec9! Not sure if there was anyone who made Spec7! And what with the Extra pay that Specialist grade were supposed to get? When I was an Spec5, never saw higher pay! Glad they got rid of the Ranks! I remember going to Germany and reporting to my unit, which was Field Artillery. I was a 64C, Truck Driver, not a gun bunny, and told the 1SGT that I going to get promoted to E5/Spec5. He didn't know what to do with me, they only had one slot for a 64C, so I spend two years just walking around post trying to find things to do! Went to morning/evening formations, that was about it! Also, as I remember, enlisted were required to attend NCOES Schools! Never saw a schools for only the Spec ranks!!! If you are in a combat situation, and you are the next senior guy, do you tell the troops, sorry guys, I'm only a Specialist whatever, not a leader!!! Ohh, that right Specialists are supposed to stay in the rear!!!

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Aug 24 at 2023 10:46 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:46:05 -0400

Because the corporal is a NCO and not all E-4s are ready to be or capable of being NCOs. I agree with SPC Kevin Ford, to bring back the Specialist Grades in all pay grades. the Army's "Up or Out" philosophy denies to the service some highly competent technical specialists who are crappy leaders. If someone is a GREAT truck driver and has no desire to be an NCO then why force them to become one? Let them continue to drive their truck, promote them to Specialist 5 or Specialist 6 without putting them in a box that they do not fit in.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Aug 24 at 2023 12:23 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 12:23:01 -0400

My thoughts on this are, most E-4's are not ready , and maybe will never be ready to make CPL, but are technically adapt enough to get the job done without supervision.

Response by SGT Loren Hammons made Aug 25 at 2023 9:29 AM

SGT Loren Hammons — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:29:28 -0400

The Specialist rank is career specific. Not all jobs in the military are leadership roles. Squad leader roles are corrals but clerical may not involve other troops

Response by SP5 Skip Saurman made Aug 27 at 2023 10:33 PM

SP5 Skip Saurman — Sun, 27 Aug 2023 22:33:55 -0400

When I was in Vietnam, the SGT. lead us out to the field to do our "job." When we got into the field and set up our PRD (Portable Radio Direction finding) equipment , I (as a Spec/5) was then in charge. Shard leadership, worked great.

Response by SGT Joseph Dutton made Aug 29 at 2023 9:40 PM

SGT Joseph Dutton — Tue, 29 Aug 2023 21:40:04 -0400

The SPEC ranks needs to come back. They should have never been 86. The ranks was sent South one by one. I was a SPEC 5 when the Army converted me to SGT around 1985. When it came to lead, I lead. But was not a born leader. A Specialist rank was specifically to his / her techeninal MOS. A Hard Striper was a generic leader to all MOSes.

Response by SSG Stacy Carter made Sep 14 at 2023 4:50 AM

SSG Stacy Carter — Thu, 14 Sep 2023 04:50:34 -0400

I am not sure what you are talking about. There has not been a SP4 rank in the Army since before I joined in 1991. By your picture I will assume that you are from the Vietnam era and the SP ranks were very prevalent. The current Specialist rank was adopted in 1985 and only the old timers still call them SP4. And while a specialist in the position of team leader is the leader of that team he/she is not the same as a Corporal. They are not considered a Noncomissioned Officer they are still junior enlisted soldiers. When I was in service in order to pin Corporal stripes you had to do a few things. Be in the NCO position for a minimum of 90 days, be promotable and not have any negative actions pending. i.e. no bars or pt failure or weight control issues. Even then it was very rare to get laterally promoted to Corporal.

I will say that I do think that they should bring back the senior specialist ranks. There are some people that are excellent at their jobs, yet have no business leading Soldiers. And while we are talking about it once a Soldier makes the rank of Specialist they should get rid of the retention control points and allow them the ability to retire after 20-30 years.

Response by SP5 Gerald Santomassimo made Sep 24 at 2023 8:08 PM

SP5 Gerald Santomassimo — Sun, 24 Sep 2023 20:08:25 -0400

Specialists were supposed to be the enlisted 'technicians,' with emphasis on working in their skill area instead of taking time away for leadership responsibilities. Didn't quite work out that way. Most of the SP6 and above that I ever saw were in the medical fields. I made it to SP5 in EOD back in the mid-70s, but anything above that in my field carried Staff Sgt rank.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Sep 24 at 2023 11:06 PM

SSG Shawn Mcfadden — Sun, 24 Sep 2023 23:06:30 -0400

Simple. Because not all E-4's can be corporals. An E-4 is promoted to corporal when a Specalist doesn't have the points to be promoted to Sergeant, but an NCO is need in that particular section.

Response by PO2 Tom Hauser made Sep 25 at 2023 2:50 PM

PO2 Tom Hauser — Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:50:38 -0400

Navy does not have SPEC anything - lots of specialist rates (MOS) in the Navy but the same rank system and we wear our rate specialty on our uniform. If you are a Navy Chief (E-7) regardless of your rate you get the respect of your rank whether you are Boatswain Mate, Quartermaster, Gunners Mate or Yeoman which are some of the oldest rates in the Navy or you are one of the newest technical rates like Cryptological Technician or Cyber Warfare Technician. Do Navy people understand that Special Warfare rates, Boartswain Mates, Signalmen, Radiomen and a few others have kickass responsibility as it relates to operations - you bet and they should respect that. As far as our senior service goes my Wounded Warrior Son was in SOF with CENTCOM in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo got wounded, Army CID Agent, and PAO at 1st Cav - with the exception of his parachute & dive qualifications & ribbons on his uniform you probably would never know what he did in the Army. Maybe that's a good thing - but it's up to the Army to figure it out. These day with that WOKE racist SECDEF and those WOKE four-star cluster fucks at JCOS pushing out CRT, DEI, LGBTQ, ESG and fucking WOKE I can't wait until we get some real leadership back in the military and clean house and get these shit birds retired or court martialed.

Response by SGT Juan Robledo made Sep 25 at 2023 3:37 PM

SGT Juan Robledo — Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:37:08 -0400

To answer this question, yes and no, a SP4 has some leadership duties when that person is put in that roll, a Coporal steps right up when the occasion arises, both can lead, mentor, give advice, and look after their squad, and most of all be ready to carry out assignments

Response by SGT Jodi WittBailey made Sep 26 at 2023 9:24 AM

SGT Jodi WittBailey — Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:24:06 -0400

I wish the technical spec ranks had persisted personally. I was a spec4 for far too long. My skills advanced but my padid not. I was toying with ocs due to completion of my degree. But life circumstances and injuries kept me at E4 eternally I seemed.

Response by MSG Tony Hughes made Sep 27 at 2023 2:41 PM

MSG Tony Hughes — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:41:47 -0400

The Army being the largest force in the military doesnt really have an abundance of leadership roles for everyone advancing to E4. So when SP4 promotion comes and that soldier proves very effective his unit can recommend Corporal, get him to the Sgt board.
The USMC is a much smaller force. All promotions are based on performance or better known as fitness reports.

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Oct 1 at 2023 2:49 AM

MSG Lonnie Averkamp — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 02:49:00 -0400

During the Draft, many years ago, a platoon-mate of mine went from E-1 to Sp-5 on the day of graduation from Basic Training. He was a journeyman plumber, who had been drafted during the war. He had only 9 weeks time in the Army, and no leadership experience, but he had a non-college talent that the Army needed (Army plumbers also maintain fuel pipelines and related systems).

So, it made perfect sense.

Response by PFC Edward Krinsky made Oct 3 at 2023 11:39 AM

PFC Edward Krinsky — Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:39:41 -0400

A rank does not make a leader. Under General Mille, the most important thing in his life is how to properly address the opposite sex and queers and notifying China before, should we decide to attack.
This is not the armed Forces I was in. The Iranians continue to tweak our nose, Saudi Arabia laughs at us, Hezbollah considers the U S A military forces a joke. And we are discussing SP5? When agreed we going to wake up?

Response by PO1 David M Burns made Oct 3 at 2023 9:54 PM

PO1 David M Burns — Tue, 03 Oct 2023 21:54:13 -0400

The question can be answered very easily and not by key board commandoes, JUST ask the Army! I am sure that within ten years you will get an answer! there will be some of you who will not get the irony of this answer and say, he's a wise ass! well you are right!

Response by PFC Kathleen Woolrich made Oct 14 at 2023 7:14 AM

PFC Kathleen Woolrich — Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:14:09 -0400

I would not know.I am a permanent PFC lol..honorable too loooooool
I boughr my grave with PFC..lol.I am such a loser loooooool omg loooooool
E 3 ...FTW loooooool and honorable too.I just played around all the time..two branches tooooooo loooooooll.I never cared about getting promoted loooooooool.I am honorable which is so stupid...I do not even know how I did what I did...whatever.I am still cute and still stupid omgggg

Response by 1SG Russell S. made Oct 14 at 2023 4:31 PM

1SG Russell S. — Sat, 14 Oct 2023 16:31:36 -0400

It actually started just before WW2 and in WW2 became the “Technician” parallel pay grade.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2023 1:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:36:27 -0400

All I know is that I've seen crappy NCO's as well as "Specialists" with great leadership skills, and vice-versa. I say do away with the specialist ranks alltogether and put everyone on the same [leadership] level. I had both types of rank and I see no pressing need for the differentiation other than hurting group motivation.

Response by A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney made Nov 1 at 2023 8:15 PM

A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney — Wed, 01 Nov 2023 20:15:22 -0400

Just As Easy To Ask,
Why Should They NOT Still Have
A SP-4 Rating?.....What Difference Does It Make?...
Call It What You Will, The Occupation Remains The Same.

Response by Sgt Raymond Powell made Nov 1 at 2023 8:47 PM

Sgt Raymond Powell — Wed, 01 Nov 2023 20:47:31 -0400

What about the old USAF "Buck" Sergeant (E-4)

Response by SP5 Delphis Kaczowski made Nov 2 at 2023 12:56 AM

SP5 Delphis Kaczowski — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 00:56:15 -0400

I was a MEDICAL CORPSMAN in the Army. My training at Fort Sam Houston/Brooke Hospital in San Antonio was almost like going to Medical school to be a DOCTOR. They gave me proficiency pay because I was able to do medical procedures that an EMT or Paramedic cannot legally do in the States. AND remember that most medical personnel did NOT carry weapons because we were considered NON-COMBATANTS and/or religious conscientious objectors (many were draftees). I left because WE signed the Geneva Convention & I also had to perform life saving measures on the enemy (Nam 1962-1965). MOS 910/911 was my introduction to war casualties (ours, theirs, civilians, animals, etc.) PTSD is a nightmare for many veterans today.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2023 11:21 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:21:16 -0400

I think it's straight up a recruiting tool. If I recall correctly, no other service allows a pathway to enlist at the rank of E4 (as well, without a degree those with a commercial drivers license can get in as E4 as 88M's). Other than that I see no material benefit for it.

The whole CPL NCO role is kind of getting diluted as well now that all SPC's are being sent through BLC come out as CPL's. So CPL is now more or less an "I completed BLC" marker and effectively is the same as SPC(P).

With the advent of contractors the Specialist pay grade makes even less sense.

So in time of war, and need and when the DOD is ramping up recruiting, if one wants to enlist and isn't focused on a particular service then the Army can dangle that carrot.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Nov 2 at 2023 5:52 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 17:52:33 -0400

Because 99% are not ready to be Corporals after 24 months!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2023 6:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 18:04:37 -0400

They need more privates of the guard than they do sergeants (NCOs) of the guard.

Response by SPC Eric Gibbs made Nov 7 at 2023 11:28 AM

SPC Eric Gibbs — Tue, 07 Nov 2023 11:28:48 -0500

As an E-4, when I left service, I can tell you the following. The E-4s in combat MOS were used the same way Cpl was. I had soldiers I was responsible for, and my E-5 was in charge of both of our teams. The difference was all the BS our Cpl was expected to do to prove himself as an NCO vs me.

I had the technical know how that he did. I had the same experience level and exposure, and the same pay. What I didn't have was the separation. He was an NCO and therefore was not seen as the same level and actually had less respect that I did from the lower enlisted. He was a "Baby NCO", and that attitude was made worse by the senior enlisted and how they treated him.

Then came the school opportunities. I had way more than he did, because of his "Leadership Duties." Which mostly consisted of Gate Guard and Trash Detail because the senior enlisted would shuffle it off to him. I am all for paying your dues, but when you have an experienced squad weapon crew leader now shuffling paperwork, and doing all the crap jobs, and not on that M-60, you have a misuse of assets.

Bringing back the tech ranks would solve a lot of that. You would have people that are suited to command in command. Where the best 60 gunner I ever saw would be where he was happy, calling in artillery and rocking the 60. He left the Army after a year and a half with his stripes. He was planning to make it a career. He was a great soldier.

Last item, the person below comparing the Marines to the Army... STOP!! Although they have crossover, the Marines and the Army are not the same. They have different mission profiles, history, and culture. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other. I compare us to one big disfunctional family. We love each other, are radically different, compete a lot, and protect each other. But you can not compare the services as apples to apples.

Response by SGT Clive Choat made Dec 18 at 2023 1:49 AM

SGT Clive Choat — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 01:49:30 -0500

Because it allows the Army to promote to the E4 grade without hitting Congressional strength limitations. The Army can only have so many Corporals, Sergeants, Staff Sergeants etc. Privates thru Specialist grades are unregulated.

Response by SPC Charlie Robinson made Dec 20 at 2023 12:58 PM

SPC Charlie Robinson — Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:58:59 -0500

It seems to me that the military has lost sight of what the specialist rank is for. Transportation for instance. Specialists drive the trucks. My most was 64B20. I drove a 5 ton S&P delivering stuff to all the military bases in most of West Germany, including Air Force bases. That required a specialist rank, not a Sgt. rank. If you want to be a platoon leader go to NCO school.

Response by CPO Melvin Miller made Jan 7 at 2024 3:01 PM

CPO Melvin Miller — Sun, 07 Jan 2024 15:01:19 -0500

I am out of my element to a point. I served in the Navy. We had NEC's. As we advanced we took leadership courses along with our MOS or NEC. Navy courses and navywide exams. You needed permisssion from chain of command to take courses and the Navywide exams. You would not be advanced without thse steps. Advancement meant more responsibilities for the rank and pay. You could be the best technician in the world but the leadership part comes with that. Onboard ship every manand woman needs to have the others six. That is why we were trained and cross trained.

Response by SPC Chris Ison made Jan 9 at 2024 9:08 PM

SPC Chris Ison — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 21:08:33 -0500

So that you can pay soldiers more, without having to make them NCO's.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2024 9:51 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:51:18 -0500

The thing that confuses me when I see questions like this, and all these replies, is this is exactly what the Warrant Officer corps is doctrinally designed to be; technical specialists and advisors almost entirely without leadership or command requirements. Many of the Warrant specialties do require E5/E6 rank for selection. However, the Army is considering removing *any* prior service requirements for some specialties - historically Aviation Warrants have serve as an example. If the selection process needs to be revised further to provide for that, we should do that.

Response by SGT Mark Moen made Jan 11 at 2024 11:20 AM

SGT Mark Moen — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:20:02 -0500

Supply, in a sense by essence of the job description, spec4 as clerk is a good thing rather than corporal, however for command staff and discipline within logistics need top notch NCO's like everywhere in the military.

My son is infantry, if the supply chains lack any necessary discipline, he struggles and we lose the infantry, well guess supply is going to have to be the front line

Response by SGT Robert Urbaniak made Jan 12 at 2024 9:26 AM

SGT Robert Urbaniak — Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:26:26 -0500

The specialist grade depends on what your MOS is.

Response by CPO John Moore made Jan 13 at 2024 2:44 PM

CPO John Moore — Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:44:19 -0500

I got out of the USMC in 1958, and joined the army guard as a Spec 4 in my home town. (117th AIB). When we went to two weeks of summer camp, the first thing I noticed that the Army was not on marching they could march in a straight line) but other that they were lost. (The master sergeant call me out of ranks one day while we were marching down the street, and said march them. I said I can’t march them as there some higher ranks them I am in the formation, he said march them. I gave them a command of “Left Oblique” the formation was all over the street. I called ‘Halt” fall in. the master sergeant asked what kind of command was that. So I went through some of the drill commands that we used in the USMC. That was the last time I was asked to march the formation.
From what I was of the army my short time in the Guard was that all ranks needed more training in leadership, and the job each man done in their unit. (We were taught in the USMC the job of each man in the fire team and if a PVT or any other rate could take command of the unit if he was he was highest ranking person left to command.
I had a E-6 working for me in the navy who didn’t want to go any higher (I would put him in for E-7 he would take the test, he said he marked number four on all the question and turned it in). He was an outstanding E-6 as he knew his job, trained his people well and set an example for the people he was in charge of, but he didn’t want to go any higher than E-6.
Maybe the Army need to rethink their training of their people.

Response by SPC Max Waller made Jan 13 at 2024 11:16 PM

SPC Max Waller — Sat, 13 Jan 2024 23:16:51 -0500

military and non military have ongoing deeds and activities regarding hierarchies and ranks and grades ranging fron sensical to nonsensical

Response by SPC William Wells made Jan 14 at 2024 2:41 AM

SPC William Wells — Sun, 14 Jan 2024 02:41:57 -0500

No it's not, I was SP4 in 1989 and 1990. I was a team leader and acting Squad leader of 4 teams when the Squad Sargent was hospitalized. I was scheduled for PLDC school, but Justcause popped up and was deployed to it.

Response by SP5 Edward Chapman made Jan 14 at 2024 2:51 PM

SP5 Edward Chapman — Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:51:52 -0500

I was a SP-4, SP-5 1961-1963. After active duty I ended as DAC personnel specialist, highest grade GS-13. The training I received on active duty required 8 months full time classroom equivalent. There really wasn't time for normal military skills training. I was on a 3-year enlistment. For the Army to get "its money back", have a rational investment in me they paid me for learning and exercising my skill. I was very good at my job and I believe the Army got its money back. However there was no way I was qualified to move into a combat arms unit. I would have gotten people killed needlessly. Another point not mentioned. During my DAC years I saw an increasing use of DACs in combat zones as advisors, technical specialist and trainers. There is an absolute need for technical specialists along side combat arms personnel. Whether the specialist is a DAC or an SP-5/6/7/8/9 needs careful evaluation by the Army. (think insurance, training, equiping, responsibility and chain of Command)

Response by SP5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2024 7:09 PM

SP5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:09:34 -0500

In my opinion, a Corporal is no more a leader than a SP4. They both get paid the same in the Army. And, a SP4 can also serve as a combat soldier.

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Jan 16 at 2024 2:56 AM

SSG Harry Herres — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 02:56:22 -0500

The new Army! What happened to sp-5,6,7, ? If you don't have stripes you don't mean nothing!

Response by SPC Martin Meyer made Apr 2 at 2024 11:53 AM

SPC Martin Meyer — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:53:19 -0400

I to believe the specialist ranks should be for those in technical fields and not combat arms. I still believe that corporal is a rank that should be used for combat arms to distinguish those from technical MOS. The problem lies in the factor is who decides who should be a specialist or an NCO with rank of corporal and above. It is left up to the unit commander and if does not like you, you become a specialist.

Response by SPC Mark Lawrence made Apr 7 at 2024 4:28 PM

SPC Mark Lawrence — Sun, 07 Apr 2024 16:28:50 -0400

In 1987 I had to run a Commo center tasking units for personnel and equipment during the fires in California at that time. When I would contact any of the units and say I was SP4 Lawrence. I would not get any cooperation from any of the units in the Division. I knew it was of the stupid Specialist rank. I asked my CO, since no one saw me, if I could identity myself as Corporal Lawrence. It was like night and day with the cooperation I got after that. So, yes! A SP4 is treated like just another private, a joke of a rank. It is just another one of the Army's really dumb ideas. I taught 50cal, M203, M60, and Com-Sec. Also ran a Company level TOC during annual training. All as a lowlife SPC4. When I had Sergeants come to my classes who did not know me. The disrespect they would show me was a little hard to take. Not all were that way but enough to piss me of sometimes. I would have to remind them who's class or range they were on or in. So, in the long run of this rambling. The rank of Specialist is one of the dumbest ideas the Army has. Along with a few others a lot of you could also name.

Response by SPC Mark Lawrence made Apr 8 at 2024 10:40 AM

SPC Mark Lawrence — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:40:57 -0400

You need to understand that at times all troops can be called to take up leadership positions. Being a spec4 who on had leadership positions was a hindered my ability to do my job. In time of war that can get troops killed.