Do you feel having an officer and enlisted rank is needed or just having one rank structure be better?

Sgt Arthur Went — Mon, 05 May 2014 23:37:38 -0400

There was a topic about this that was brought up and I would like to see what others think. I do feel we need both enlisted and officer rank.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2014 4:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:46:00 -0400

I agree that there needs to be this division of forces. The enlisted are supposed to be the technical experts in their career path and officers are supposed to manage and lead us. One doesnt really work without the other. As it is, we have too many people wearing too many hats as it is. Without this divide we really wouldn't have the time to develope our technical skills while also developing leadership skills. In the end we are all still the same, we just have a different emphasis on what skill sets we need to develope first.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 11:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:18:42 -0500

I have oftened wondered about this one myself, and have though that what we really need is a hybrid sort of promotion system. I know my views are biassed, as a prior enlisted guy, but I always though it would work well if it went something like this: Everyone comes in enlisted, and works there way up to SPC. As a SPC, people are evaluated for their potention to serve as NCOs, WOs, or Commissioned Officers. From here, Soldiers would be selected for either WLC, WOC or OCS. I am sure it has many downfalls, but that always seemed like a potential way of doing things that may have some beneftis. Of course, this in no way addresses the service academy guys, maybe graduates would automatically get a spot in OCS? Who knows, just something to ponder!

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jan 8 at 2015 9:52 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:52:41 -0500

Gents, long (and sometimes heated :)) discussion here.

Should we move to a single tier rank structure? | RallyPoint

The ancient officer/enlisted tiered rank structure is based off nobles and peasants. Such a structure is inherently unamerican. It can be said this structure leads to the out of touch senior leaders and an 'entitled' commissioned culture. Eisenhower looked into this after WWII and it was decided the education level wasn't there yet. This has changed. Such a structure also provides unnecessary duplication with OICs and NCOICs. Should we...

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 4:22 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:22:57 -0500

Hmm. After being in the civilian world a while, I wish we had the senior enlisted structure. Out here it's hybrids, but in many ways, the troops morale is not being addressed. We use employee surveys, but having "senior enlisted advisors" from the top to the bottom would help.

"Back in the day" this structure grew out of the societal hierarchy. Not just the education levels. Those lines have blurred somewhat. I think where the rubber meets the road in this conversation is in the mid-level management space.

So maybe the separation ought to occur during the "NCO phase" as someone mentioned. The officer requirements remain the same -- degree, etc. But, we're talking about folks roughly within the same age group 25 - 30, so it shouldn't be a major issue. Skim cream for the officers. And they'll have credibility with the enlisted.

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Feb 17 at 2015 4:34 PM

SPC Ryan D. — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:34:04 -0500

You must first understand where the rank structure came from to understand why we currently have the system we do.

While the Middle Ages were in a spin down, the officer and enlisted structure started to solidify its place in military culture.

The need for a 2 tiered rank structure came from the different classes of people that existed during these times; Those with royal commissions and everyone else.

The entire system came about due to classism and the un-equality of man, with the need for higher ranks (Non commissioned officers) among enlisted soldiers coming a little further down the road.

There is absolutely no need for a 2 tiered system in today's technological world. A single tiered rank structure (similiar to how the Romans structured their early armies) could and would work without any command and control issues.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 9:24 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 21:24:03 -0500

Ive thought about this a lot a while back and i get the reason for having a split system. However i have to say looking at the evidence that Mustangs or prior enlisted officers do perform better in general over just any other officer that joined after college. If you compound this fact with the concept of having Officers (blue bloods) and Enlisted (red bloods) separated due to a long tradition of history, it makes no sense to break the command based upon education level. While a higher education level can indicate a higher level of thinking, it is in no way reflective of an individuals leadership.

Some of the best leaders ive ever met have been enlisted, i dont think just because there enlisted should limit there career to what there command capabilities are.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Apr 15 at 2016 2:45 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:45:17 -0400

BUT...sputter....But where would we get the young pilots and arrogant lt's?

Response by PO2 Karl Lehn made Jun 13 at 2018 11:22 PM

PO2 Karl Lehn — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:22:48 -0400

Yes. There has to be a two tier system with the military service. Simple as this- officers have to put their men in harm's way or even deaths way. It would be very hard for them to issue and order that could send your friend to his death. The officer/enlisted system has a functional purpose in enabling officers to give commands to men under him without attachment.

Response by PO1 William Ewing made Jun 15 at 2018 12:01 AM

PO1 William Ewing — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:01:58 -0400

Yes. At least in the navy, enlisted are the specialists in their field, while officers are generalists. A broad, shallow knowledge base over a deep, narrow one.
What I would like to see is enlisted time first. Any E-5 with 5 years in, at least 3 at sea, and a warfare pin can apply. Any ROTC or academy grad goes in as enlisted, and if they make e5 in 5 years or less, have 3 years sea service, and a pin, automatically commissions. That would end the classism and arrogance some have from never being in the ranks.

Response by CPO Dave Royce made Jun 19 at 2018 11:02 PM

CPO Dave Royce — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:02:41 -0400

So SPC Dow, how would you pick the leader?
Draw straws, I know some of the finest officers
I had the privilege to serve with were Mustang,
They knew what it was like to be enlisted , But
Than again I had a Marine CO, Rocky Ball ,
That was one hell of a Leader , and knew how
To protect and treat his men , just my opinion ,

Response by SFC Mark Biggs made Jun 20 at 2018 2:24 PM

SFC Mark Biggs — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:24:50 -0400

This is similar to the system that is used in the Israeli IDF.

Response by Capt Stephen Loop made Jun 21 at 2018 1:05 AM

Capt Stephen Loop — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:05:37 -0400

Having spent ten years in the enlisted ranks and ten years as an officer, l believe having served as an enlisted member made me a better officer. The best officer I served under in the Navy was a Mustang.

At my graduation from OCS, I was informed that the most important words for us to remember when we returned to our commands was "Take charge, Sargent" We were expected to understand the big picture and make decisions accordingly. The sargents were the experts in their field. I still think that the two tiered system has more positives than negatives.

Response by CSM Frank Supinski made Aug 20 at 2018 7:29 AM

CSM Frank Supinski — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:29:54 -0400

As one who went through the ranks from E1-E9 I have to say that being enlisted allowed me a perspective that Officers would not have unless they had been enlisted. In today’s military their are many serving who have a college degree who are not Officers and are doing great things for our nation. Perhaps my bias is showing but I believe that leadership takes more than a degree to obtain the skills needed to inspire those who you are charged to take care of.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2019 10:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:17:36 -0400

We absolutely need to have officers and NCOs. They serve different roles. You can debate on how each gets there, which seems to be what most of these comments are about, but you can't really debate that they are required.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2020 10:17 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:17:19 -0400

A diverging structure is interesting. Allowing those who can lead to lead and those who suck at leading but great at other skills to continue to specialize.
I see it more as at SPC4 the decision would be made to follow leaders path or specialist path. Specialist contijuebas SPC5, 6, 7, 8, 9, W01, CW2, CW3, CW4, CW5. Leaders go through the NCO ranks with the top, say 30% of ALC grads becoming Officers.
This would ensure everyone had the same start but would actually promote off potential and performance, not just that toy have a communications/criminal justice degree and therefore must be a great leader.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2021 7:49 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:49:25 -0400

The separation is needed. Allow me to explain. I might see the point in careers like infantry. But if I for example I need a medical officer I want him in college and at the hospital training. Completing that training will take him 10-12 years. I don't need him running around in the field. I do not care if he can't shoot. I want his brains concentrated on saving lives. Same with many other specialties. For the others we have OCS and warrant officer schools. Big example is how SF stopped bringing 2LT and trained senior NCOS to become warrant officer. Because that's a place where you need the technical knowledge and the soldiering and the combat experience. Many other do not need that.

Response by PO1 Robert Ryan made Sep 4 at 2023 10:42 AM

PO1 Robert Ryan — Mon, 04 Sep 2023 10:42:51 -0400

Guess I am old Scholl. NCO's are the backbone of the enlisted ranks, But with out E-1 -E3 are the the ones who will eventually be the NCO'S help new officers learn how to be leaders. I was fortunate enough to have good officers who not only cared about the mission but cared about the soldiers needed to accomplish the mission. One was Lieutenant Martinez. He was from the Barrios of LA, and was the first person in his family to attend West Point, He was our platoon leader when I was with B 1/22 Infantry 4th ID.