Posted on May 16, 2022
Why does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4?
86.4K
1.38K
326
292
292
0
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?
Team Leader
Squad Leader
Leadership
Career Counselor
Career Advice
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 163
4
4
0
I’m glad not to have had a leadership role. I was good at driving landing craft and happy to have been a SP5.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert Walters
I think that was done in the past. It begs the question of who is in charge. Say a situation where the highest rank is a SP6 but there's a buck sergeant or even a corporal on the scene. Perhaps part of a convoy. Who's in charge?
Also, what about a Combat support (like SignalCorps or Cyber) CPT who finds himself attached to a CBT company (INF, AR, AVN, FA) and the company CO is not around. The XO (1LT) should be uncharge, not the SC CPT.
Also, what about a Combat support (like SignalCorps or Cyber) CPT who finds himself attached to a CBT company (INF, AR, AVN, FA) and the company CO is not around. The XO (1LT) should be uncharge, not the SC CPT.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
After hs graduation, I attended Army Basic and learned as I went ....ROTC in hs sure would have been a big help.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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!
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SGT Chuck Freiman
CPL Schroeder, you are exactly right. I was on Active Duty, it was either '85 or '86, when the ranks of SP5 and above were eliminated. Nobody was happy. SP5 and above were expected to be instant leaders, regardless if they had the training or not. And many did not. Us SPC-4s were unhappy because E-4 CPLS now outranked us. I remembered all us SPC-4s wanted the "hard stripe" because we didn't want to be bossed around by our fellow E-4s, who were CPLs. However the hard stripe was reserved for E-4s serving in combat arms. Our dreams of being an NCO, were dashed unless and until we made
E-5.
E-5.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
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.
If you want to do nothing but tech work, go Warrant.
(3)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
But warrants are commissioned officers - we still expect them to lead.
Where do we put technical experts who are just not inclined or able to lead? Right now the answer is "on the street.". Which means we lose highly capable folks. I see this most often in maintenance. We have guys that can keep a HMMWV running long enough to get back to base with nothing more than pantyhose, duct tape, bubble gum, and a few paper clips. They KNOW their vehicles, inside and out, and can do WONDERS. But put them in charge of someone and now you have privates who are lost somewhere in the training area - and a lost SGT trying to find them. And Gods forbid you ask them to PLAN anything. So we have a choice - incompetent NCO, or loss of expertise. Or, as you seem to suggest, incompetent WO.
Personally, I HATED leading Soldiers. Not my cup of tea. I prefer doing. All day, everyday. Give me a problem, give me resources, and give me an end state. Then let me go to work. If necessary resources includes manpower, sure, LOAN ME the troops to get it done. But holding PVT Snuffy's hand to make sure he is at formation, or checking SPC Smith's room EVERY @$$#&#$# MORNING because he doesn't know how to take out trash or do a load of laundry? Or getting called at 0130 because PFC Jones and her husband got in a fight... again? No thanks.
I had no problem teaching, coaching, mentoring, developing... on a task by task basis. If I was doing something, and you were standing around, sure I'll teach you. If you were doing something, and I knew a better way, sure I'd offer my advice. If you came to me with a problem - personal or professional - and wanted feedback or advice, I'm right here for you. Anytime. But asking me to come up with a comprehensive plan to train 350 individual and collective tasks, and ensure each and every Soldier is proficient on all of them? Does not sound like a job I want.
Of course, the Army didn't ask me what I wanted. They told me what I would do. And do it I did, to the best of my ability. And, judging by my NCOERs and feedback from both seniors and subordinates, I believe I did so to a relatively high level.
But if the Army HAD asked me, I would have JUMPED at an SP7 - or even an SP6 - slot. I was, I believe, a good, not great, SFC. Well above average. I would have been, I believe, an AWESOME SP7. 10/10 would recommend.
Where do we put technical experts who are just not inclined or able to lead? Right now the answer is "on the street.". Which means we lose highly capable folks. I see this most often in maintenance. We have guys that can keep a HMMWV running long enough to get back to base with nothing more than pantyhose, duct tape, bubble gum, and a few paper clips. They KNOW their vehicles, inside and out, and can do WONDERS. But put them in charge of someone and now you have privates who are lost somewhere in the training area - and a lost SGT trying to find them. And Gods forbid you ask them to PLAN anything. So we have a choice - incompetent NCO, or loss of expertise. Or, as you seem to suggest, incompetent WO.
Personally, I HATED leading Soldiers. Not my cup of tea. I prefer doing. All day, everyday. Give me a problem, give me resources, and give me an end state. Then let me go to work. If necessary resources includes manpower, sure, LOAN ME the troops to get it done. But holding PVT Snuffy's hand to make sure he is at formation, or checking SPC Smith's room EVERY @$$#&#$# MORNING because he doesn't know how to take out trash or do a load of laundry? Or getting called at 0130 because PFC Jones and her husband got in a fight... again? No thanks.
I had no problem teaching, coaching, mentoring, developing... on a task by task basis. If I was doing something, and you were standing around, sure I'll teach you. If you were doing something, and I knew a better way, sure I'd offer my advice. If you came to me with a problem - personal or professional - and wanted feedback or advice, I'm right here for you. Anytime. But asking me to come up with a comprehensive plan to train 350 individual and collective tasks, and ensure each and every Soldier is proficient on all of them? Does not sound like a job I want.
Of course, the Army didn't ask me what I wanted. They told me what I would do. And do it I did, to the best of my ability. And, judging by my NCOERs and feedback from both seniors and subordinates, I believe I did so to a relatively high level.
But if the Army HAD asked me, I would have JUMPED at an SP7 - or even an SP6 - slot. I was, I believe, a good, not great, SFC. Well above average. I would have been, I believe, an AWESOME SP7. 10/10 would recommend.
(4)
(0)
SGT Apollo Sharpe
Go Warrant? How? When I got out, you had to be an NCO to go Warrant for the technical MOSes. So, if you didn’t want to become an NCO, your only choice was to get out -because there wasn’t a path from SPC directly to Warrant.
(1)
(0)
CPL (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally This is all too true, especially of the more technical MOS that exist. I had made my entire battalion 100 percent readiness for comsec. Including training soldiers on Thursday. I wanted to stay there but I had to change MOS because that one had maxed out points.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I remember several SP6 and SP7 however, that was 73-77, personally I think E4 Corporal was and is more appropriate
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SFC Jerald Bottcher
I was a Sgt in the MP's, reclassed to Transportation and was laterally made a Spec 5. Then they got ride of the SP5 rank and I was a Sgt again, then I got promoted to SSG, then reclassed to Field Artillery where I made SFC.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
CW5 William Gasaway
Probably not. I realize it is hard to imagine a SP7 Army Green Beret, but their are people in all MOSes that simply want to do their job and have no interest in being in charge. I had a SP4 with 8 years in and our new SGM decided he needed to be a SGT. After the SGM harassed him through a promotion board, he came to me and asked me to intercede as he had no interest in being a SGT. He was an excellent tech and since he showed me a disqualifying medical diagnosis and I really wanted to keep him I went to the SGM who basically told me to drop dead.
After the net promotion board, the SGM came to me and said we had to get rid of him. It seems he SPC had scored the highest of all soldiers until he got to the last question which was Why did he want to be a SGT? His answer - I DON'T. An additional question was why was he there? His answer - That SGM made me come.
Next day the SPC went to sick call, produced his civilian doctor diagnosis. It was confirmed and he was medically retired. I hired him back as a GS-9. He waited until he got his first VA check and first paycheck and ambushed the SGN in the hall and kissed her and screamed Thank you Thank you Look what you did!!! I'm rich. It did not go over well.
After the net promotion board, the SGM came to me and said we had to get rid of him. It seems he SPC had scored the highest of all soldiers until he got to the last question which was Why did he want to be a SGT? His answer - I DON'T. An additional question was why was he there? His answer - That SGM made me come.
Next day the SPC went to sick call, produced his civilian doctor diagnosis. It was confirmed and he was medically retired. I hired him back as a GS-9. He waited until he got his first VA check and first paycheck and ambushed the SGN in the hall and kissed her and screamed Thank you Thank you Look what you did!!! I'm rich. It did not go over well.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
