Why don't officers wear marksmanship badges?

So if I remember the history about this, it dates back to the Continental Army. COL Smallfield is correct in that there is no regulation prohibiting this, and that it is a culture part of officers.

In the Continental Army if you were an officer, it was expected that you were already an “expert” marksman. It ended up becoming a tradition, though nowadays that is not always the case.

To be perfectly clear, every Soldier who has attained the requisite proficiency can wear the appropriate badge. This is irrespective of rank and you need look no further than AR 670-1 to know it is so. It actually shows a picture of where to place it on male and female officer uniforms.

Some of the other comments allude to the beong experts across a variety of skills and I have personally heard this argument before on several occasions. Generally, I can tell you that given the level of proficiency some of us attain; I might also be inclined to not showcase to the world my skillsets limitations. The basis of this position is frankly sorely lacking. To say I don't wear something I've earned because I was supposed to be great at it to begin with might as well form an argument for not wearing any awards at all. Simply put: All Leaders are supposed to be subject matter experts and our expectations are higher as a matter of course, but if you're embarrassed by your own proficiency to the point you avoid showcasing it; then you're lying to yourself and your Soldiers when you imply expertise not earned.

Bottom Line: Never, ever insinuate to anyone that you are something you are not.

Others speak of the officer's role as being more aligned with collective rather than individual training. I would argue your role is more in planning than execution as every Soldier is directly involved in training at all levels. Who's doing the leg-work on all the training you plan? Your NCOs, who wear their badges whether it is marksman or expert. I fail to see a connection between showcasing personal skill and how it might translate to an officer's role in training development.

Whether you wear it or not, your Soldiers go to the range with you and generally they remember things like having to jam more mags for you or help you zero. I personally love teaching and am always willing to help. Currently I teach officer's in ABOLC. I have these types of conversations almost daily with the Tactics Officers (I literally spoke with one CPT yesterday about this very subject). But I'll tell you this that I learned from being an Army Instructor who teaches Lieutenants every day, one of the very few who gets to train their future bosses; you can gain the measure of an officer (or anyone) by how they see themselves and skirt that line between cocky and confident. I personally have a healthy respect for those (very few) Lieutenants who own mistakes and deficiencies in front of their peers and ask me how to fix their personal shortcomings. This Lieutenant is likely to be successful as he/she is always trying to be better. The flipside is the Lieutenant in the back of the huddle, not asking questions and nodding as if they understand, he fails because he doesn't understand fundamentals and only asks questions when he can pull you aside. In that officer's mind, shortcomings=weakness and he will only admit it when there is no other alternative. This person has higher potential to make horrible decisions and get people killed.

Now I know, I went off to an extreme, negative tangent but to my mind it's an integrity issue. If someone is unwilling to show their faults and own them they are unlikely to improve. I say, in your command, go the opposite way with it. Force everyone to wear their current qual level. Maybe the good-natured ribbing your Captains and Lieutenants eat for it will be the catalyst for them buckling down and improving so they can proudly earn the expertise they so flippantly claim.

I apologize for my psuedo-sarcastic and probably aggressive tone, but I care about our Leadership climate and its seeming shift during my career.

Because as a commissioned officer, it's expected that you will be proficient in marksmanship. For the same reason, officers don't get good conduct medals, good conduct is the standard. On the flipside, there's no such thing as conduct unbecoming an enlisteman nor conduct unbecoming an NCO nor conduct unbecoming a WO but there is conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Rank hath its privileges but it also hath its responsibilities.

I am Mustang, I earned my marksmanship badges as enlisted and maintained the same raiting as an officer. I still wear my badges on my Officer uniform. Yes, that is a break from tradition. However it also links my career as crossing over both enlisted and officer time.

Marine officers wear them. Actually everyone in the Corp is considered a rifleman.

I would expect officers to wear all earned badges. It's not just about showing off, but showing experience. I would think it would be more difficult for one to inspire excellence if they are not also exceeding. Leading from the front also comes to mind.

If they earned them, why not

Check my photo and you will see marksmanship badges on my uniform.

While there are many opinions on the efficacy of officer's wearing marksmanship badges, I would only offer this simpler observation. In addition to leading by example officers should also strive for humility. At a certain point too many things on the uniform actually look gaudy and less than professional.

In my experiences prior to deployment train-up for Iraq, Officers only qualified with the pistol. My MTO&E weapon was a pistol even though I was issued and assigned an M-16. In our training for deployment, everyone was required to qualify with the M4 and the M9 in both day and night situations. I never thought about wearing my marksmanship badge on my uniform as I was enlisted in the Marine Corps prior to being commissioned as an Officer. I qualified Expert each year for the 8 years I served on active duty in the Marine Corps.