NCOs, why are we identified by something that we are not? "Non" Commissioned Officers.

I met a CW5 when I was in Iraq. I was picking him up to take him to another FOB. Couldn't see his name tape since it was dark, but that feeling of sitting next to Moses is pretty darn accurate. I wish I had taken a picture, but I'm pretty sure the SD card would have been corrupted and I wouldn't have been able to retrieve the image.

SSG Adkins: Thank you. I believe all leaders should think in terms of professional cooperation and responsibility rather than source of appointment. Ask any be-medaled General: he can't win a single battle unless every NCO has properly trained and inspected his soldiers going into the fight, right down to checking water and magazines. NCOs lead the fight; and they are usually alongside or in front of a small group of very young men and women entrusted to them by a small group of parents, a LT or CPT commissioned by the President, and the Secretary of the Army. Forget the "pay grade". Look at that heavy leadership responsibility and the tremendous trust placed in the NCO as an officer by so many people.

SFC Griffin: In many cases, that is true. Regardless, they are awesome.

CW5s to me are my Blue Whales. I know they exist. I've heard of them. I've read about them. People tell me they've seen them but I personally have never seen one.

For the first 100 years and change in the greater history of the United States an NCO's rank was held at the behest of the regimental commander. Now we are fortunate enough that someone had the foresight to allow us to carry our rank from unit to unit. While I believe the US military's rank structure might still change once or twice in the next 30 or 40 years, I don't see us giving up the commissioned/warrant/noncommissioned nomenclature. Personally, I believe the use of the Continental/British rank system during the Revolution did a disservice to our democratic ideals, based on the aristocratic system of the UK as it was. I do recognize, however, the necessity of the system, considering most of my enlisted predecessors of the time did not have formal education of any sort. My preference would be to go to something like the Swedish rank system. It makes sense, and we already have an informal system like it in place.

This is a simplified explanation, but essentially the rank system in descending order of precedence (not including GOs) goes: O-6, O-5, E-9, O-4, O-3, E-8, O-2, E-7, O-1, E-6, E-5, etc. NCOs are seen as having that special "bridging" relationship between officers and enlisted, but based on their rank the senior NCOs actually outrank officers. So a SFC-equivalent outranks a 2LT equivalent and a CSM-equivalent outranks a MAJ-equivalent. While a US Army 1SG does not outrank a 2LT or 1LT, there is usually a certain amount of respect and deference to the 1SG because of their experience and expertise. The Swedes just take that a step further and make the 1SG actually outrank the LTs.

At least we aren't referred to as "Petty" Officers!

Here's a question 'Notice of Appointments' (under the auspice of the National Guard)? Is this just pertaining to Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers or does it also pertain to NCOs? I have been trying to research this under U.S. Code › Title 32 › Chapter 3 and numerous DA Pams NGR's NGB Pam's and AR's. No luck in finding anything definitive.

MSG (Join to see), that's a great question. Maybe one of our esteemed colleagues from either the JAG Corps or one of our IGs can provide input on that.

I would agree with you but we'd both be wrong. You are right about "contracts" so to speak other than when enlisted become INDEF. But I won't argue that point. I think you are misunderstanding or misapplying what the word commissioned means. Although they serve at the will of the president (we all do, he's the Commander in Chief) thats not what commissioned means, nor does it mean we (enlisted) don't serve at his will. Hence stop loss and such. Here is a quote from a recent article.
Historically, officers were prominent aristocrats or landowners who received a commission from the country’s ruler, giving them permission to raise and train military units. By contrast, the enlisted were “the common folk” the officers led into battle. This was once true even in the United States: Military units were raised for the Civil War by wealthy and prominent community members, who would obtain a commission to recruit and train the people in their home town.

Today, commissioned officers in the United States Military are no longer aristocracy, and the enlisted far from being peasants. However, officers are still the primary source of authority in any military unit, and the position maintains some of its aristocratic pedigree, as embodied in the age-old phrase, “officer and a gentleman.”

SSG Burns, the difference can be seen in the oaths. Officers say, "I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." While enlisted members say, "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Commissioned = appointed. Noncommissioned = promoted.

Again I don't know how you come to the conclusion from reading the 2 oaths that NCO=promoted.<div>Maybe you should also copy and paste the "promotion" orders for officers in here too. &nbsp;Because I have read them many times in ceremonies. &nbsp;The only difference is one says president one says secretary.</div><div>Im pretty sure when you see CPT(P) the "p" doesn't stand for appoint-able.</div>