Posted on Aug 1, 2017
Will adding new Senior NCO Ranks (E10 & E11) improve the NCO Corps?
9.61K
55
34
9
9
0
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/14/army-mulls-creating-new-pay-grades-for-senior-ncos.html
SMA Dailey discusses the pros of having E10 & E11 ranks for nominative CSMs duty positions that are aligned with specific GO level positions. My thoughts are that the Senior Officer rank is where the authoritative power lies and with the general authority power as a the Senior NCO working for that GO, you should have no issues working with peered (by rank only, not position) Senior Noncomms. I see no true value added other than a DD214 and very specialized blue ID card.
SMA Dailey discusses the pros of having E10 & E11 ranks for nominative CSMs duty positions that are aligned with specific GO level positions. My thoughts are that the Senior Officer rank is where the authoritative power lies and with the general authority power as a the Senior NCO working for that GO, you should have no issues working with peered (by rank only, not position) Senior Noncomms. I see no true value added other than a DD214 and very specialized blue ID card.
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Professional Development
Leadership Professional Development
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 20
1
1
0
The purpose of these new ranks are solely based on raising the pay of the nominative CSMs, nothing else. When a BC, usually a LTC gets promoted to BDE Commander, usually is because they got selected to the rank of COL. This equals more pay with the added responsibility. in the enlisted side a BN CSM gets paid the same as a BDE CSM or higher. Isn't fair for a person to get a pay raise if they have more responsibilities?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Such ranks might have a place under the specialist rating, but not so sure about general military occupational fields like infantry, armor, artillery, etc. Good troop leaders and command advisors have always seemed to do fine at E9 and such a promotion would be more like a longevity bump in the opinion of some.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Why? Just more incentive for dead wood on the ROAD program. Is something not getting done with just 9 Enlisted pay grades? There once were only 7 and historians probably can do better than that. Even more basic = Chiefs and Indians. Already too many Chiefs. Not talking about CPO's so check fire Chiefs.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
So he is proposing something that may effect his own pay. Don't get me wrong I don't think enlist pay comes anywhere close to Officer pay. But duty position payment or additional pay would make more sense. a CSM might not be a CSM for his entire career as an E9. So say Leadership pay for 1SGs, CSM, and other leadership type positions. Talking about E--whatever seems more like a pay thing than acknowledgement of their duties and position.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
You have to determine that. My thoughts are, this is not about pay, but about entitlement. I know a few high up CSM, but at the core, humility is what makes a true NCO.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
As it stands now, there are too many ranks. I actually hold the opposite opinion that the number of ranks should be reduced and the organizations realigned around that. From a cost perspective, less ranks is less money spent on maintaining 13 different enlisted rank insignia (army).
(1)
(0)
The only other thing I can see as a PRO is these proposed ranks may open up the bottleneck that occurs at the lower levels.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
By the way the article presents, it will not create new positions, just give BDE level and above the higher ranks.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Let’s look at how many new positions would be available worldwide. Currently the senior NCO rank structure is stagnated. Too many staying in after 20 yrs slows promotion for others to advance.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
MSG (Join to see) When 8s and 9s were introduced we were going to get rid of Warrants. 8s and 9s are more than enough. Many commands do very well without them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google