Should NCO rank progression and commissioning be tied to educational degrees?

2023-09-01T08:05:55-04:00

This topic popped up recently in the CSM Facebook group (credit: CSM Sloan).

The idea is that at a certain point in an NCO's career (say E6), they should be eligible for commissioning (with a degree) to 2LT. The military could retain direct commissioning, but eliminate NCO progression past that point and bring back the technical ranks. The example given in discussion was to follow concepts of law enforcement rank progression.

I found that it was an interesting discussion and see the pros and cons. Obviously SEAs would be eliminated as well as PSGs and 1SGs. This would put the brunt of running small units back on the officer.

Response by CSM Chuck Stafford made Sep 1 at 2023 9:32 AM

2023-09-01T09:32:43-04:00

I saw that too. Interesting concepts that I'd not given any thought towards. The institution is too big for a revolutionary re-set. That said, supplementing the current promotion system with an officer path in conjunction with the a DA centralized board may be a value added proposition.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2023 10:37 AM

2023-09-01T10:37:38-04:00

I think one of the major barriers to this idea is the cost. If NCOs start receiving officer pay past the SSG level the salary increase would be substantial. We would have to see the actual data proving this assumption—obviously I’m just making my own guess.

A few years ago the SMA circulated a revamped pay scale for senior NCOs that would have increased salaries significantly. There were many arguments made to justify the change, but the proposal never saw the light of day because of the cost. I think the same would happen with the OP’s suggestion.

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 1 at 2023 10:38 AM

2023-09-01T10:38:15-04:00

I would think that you would be in a much better position to speak to the advantages and disadvantages of getting rid of the senior NCO ranks, but let me pontificate from the officer side.

Going way back to my 2LT days, I have to say I was 'raised right' in respecting NCOs. My father was career military and pretty much beat into my head that the main difference between a 2LT and a PFC was that the 2LT had a college degree and the PFC was promoted twice. Both were new to the military and had a LOT to learn.

When I took command of my first platoon, that education of "here's what they didn't teach you before" wasn't by the company commander (though he did help), it was my second platoon sergeant (I'll skip over the first one that was relieved within my first month there).

Throughout my career I've often agreed with a comparison of the commander and his senior enlisted (Platoon Sergeant, 1st Sergeant, CSM, etc.) as being more of a partnership instead of a superior/subordinate relationship. Each has a distinct role they perform within the structure, and those roles are tied to the experience, skills and knowledge that those individuals are expected to possess by someone of their rank.

Unless we significantly reshape the military, ESPECIALLY the Army and Marines, there will be critical shortfalls if those senior NCOs (as we currently know them) aren't present - those roles would have to be replaced with someone with the experience, skills and knowledge to fulfill that role.

I wonder at the "rest of the story" to the suggestion by CSM Sloan. Is it just an academic exercise for debate or is there something else? I absolutely can see an argument for address whatever underlying reasons might be driving this suggestion (I saw something along these lines last year in an article in CSIS*), but getting rid of senior NCOs (you would have 'senior enlisted technicians', but no senior NCOs) would need a significant structural change to maintain the advantages our current one has ('Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater').

If you compare our NCOs to to other countries and look at their can look at other countries that actually have a model you describe you can easily see a predictor of what it could become. Take Russia for example. While the difference between the two models is that there are still junior NCOs in the one you described, there are practically no NCOs (~7%) in their army, and it shows. It really shows. In our military, the senior NCO's establish standards, outline the expectations, and develop leaders across their formation and this goes down to the lowest junior Soldier.

NCOs in our military are the envy of our partner nations - our NCO Corps is the reason that the military is considered the best in the world for the simple reason that our military culture has evolved through generations to 'power-down' leadership and decision making capability to the lowest level. Senior NCOs develop those junior NCOs who in turn develop the lower enlisted ranks. Removing the senior NCOs form the process will affect the development of all those downstream.

As SMA William Connelly (the Army's 6th SMA), "Good NCOs are not just born. They are groomed and grown through a lot of hard work and strong leadership by Senior NCOs".
--------------------------------
* CSIS article - https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-the-officer-enlisted-divide/

Bad Idea: The Officer-Enlisted Divide | Defense360

The officer-enlisted divide stymies the effectiveness of today's armed forces, writes Nicholas Wood. Merging officers and enlisted into one hierarchical pyramid will unleash untapped leadership potential, remove redundancies, and put people in the positions for which they are best suited.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Sep 1 at 2023 10:49 AM

2023-09-01T10:49:55-04:00

Of course, PSGs have been gone for a long time. AFAIK, they converted them all to SFCs. If converted to Technicians, they would be Technical Sergeants. 1SG would be a job, not a rank. We would have to rename the Technicians since pay grades have been reversed. For example, a Tech 4 would be a Tech 5 and a Tech 5 would be a Tech 4. Tech 3 would be a Tech 6. Already discussed Tech SGT.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Sep 1 at 2023 10:56 AM

2023-09-01T10:56:43-04:00

The biggest mistake the Army did was doing away with the Specialists ranks above Speedy 4. Not everyone is a leader. I have served with many who were not leaders, yet they were in a leadership position. I have seen the Army loose many good soldiers because they were technically and tactfully proficient, but they were not leaders nor did they want to be - they just wanted to do a job. For me, yes leadership traits can be taught, but the best leaders are "born" leaders, those who have the ability to know what to do, when to do, how to do without being to school to learn it. Yes, going to school does help, in knowing how to focus, find the courses of action, knowing how to lead the troops. But there are some things which just can't be taught. This would lead to a higher quality of leaders, on the flip side, this would also lead to better quality, more dependability in those who don't want to lead, but just want to do a job. I believe the retention of higher skilled soldiers would have been higher if the SPC 5,6,7,8 was here today. After all they did this for the officer ranks - thus the Warrents.

As to the question, no I do not. I do not believe SNCOs should be required to obtain a "degree", leave that to the officers. The NCOs of the United States Army are the backbone of the Army and always will be. A good SNCO doesn't need a degree to do his/her job.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Sep 1 at 2023 12:40 PM

2023-09-01T12:40:57-04:00

This type study, along with many others has been reviewed, and analyzed over the decades, generally vetted through the SGM Academy along with panels assembled by the Commandant and or the Battalion Commander At the direction of and for the SMA. Of course something this huge always has the watchful eye of the TRADOC as well.

In any case there has not been a major shift regarding direct paths for enlisted to become officers aside from what exists today.

Having said all of this my recommendation would be to have the architect of this particular plan process, go through his SEL to set up a dialog to determine whether something similar to his ideas have been vetted or not.

If there is interest the Commandant would have the wherewithal to put this in the pipeline for evaluation and review.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2023 7:21 PM

2023-09-02T19:21:11-04:00

How would that affect the way we fight, considering ATP 3-21.8? Doesn't seem outrageous, but would it be worth it? That would be a pretty big shift.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2023 7:47 PM

2023-09-02T19:47:28-04:00

Who in the hell would enforce the no walking on the grass rule???? It would be utter chaos!

Response by SSG Dale London made Sep 3 at 2023 8:39 PM

2023-09-03T20:39:10-04:00

Interesting question. We might do well to look at the British army's "Late Entry Officer" program, which is essentially the same as what you suggest. It opens the door for senior NCO's and warrant officers to receive direct commissions and seems to work pretty well.
It is not the route I followed as a chaplain (Professionally Qualified Officer) but it does work to keep highly skilled NCOs in army leadership when they've reached the top or near-top of the progression ladder.
Check out this link for the details.
https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/military-training/armed-forces-of-the-united-kingdom/british-army-phase-1-initial-military-training/british-army-late-entry-le-commissioning-process/

British Army Late Entry (LE) Commissioning Process

PART ONE: BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction This article provides an overview of the British Army’s Late Entry (LE) commissioning process. A number of Arms and Services (A&S) within the British Army …

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Sep 13 at 2023 12:51 PM

2023-09-13T12:51:12-04:00

CSM, I have seen both, and came in with an Associate- all the Army wanted to do was send me to OCS, If you're a grunt, what does a mechanical engineering degree do for you, What does it do for your leadership, and technical skills? After my time- my degree meant squat for the civilian world because I was trained to be a supervisor/leader- Accountants don't have such slots until you reach the CFO level of a company. If you going to force them a degree- then you will lose a ton of mid-grade NCO's to OCS. Better pay, better living conditions, etc, why let them take the seed of the Corps?

Response by SPC Matt Ovaska made Sep 14 at 2023 8:18 AM

2023-09-14T08:18:51-04:00

As a SPC 4 with a HS diploma equivalent, I turned down OCS, I was the company clerk. I ran my company. Education may or may not produce wisdom.

Response by SPC Matt Ovaska made Sep 14 at 2023 8:50 AM

2023-09-14T08:50:07-04:00

PFC York was one of the most decorated soldiers from WWII.

Response by 1SG Carlos E Bonet made Sep 14 at 2023 7:32 PM

2023-09-14T19:32:50-04:00

Definitely college will enhance the type of nco, but I deeply believe that if the system brings back an SQT test of some kind, that by itself will ensure that our soldiers have a knowledge NCO, with the appropriate expertise at his or hers current pay grade. War demands our best, not everyone is equipped to get the mission accomplished under duress. That’s why we trained as we fight, so it becomes a reaction, hopefully in the right direction. NCOs are needed, well trained and capable of looking out for his soldiers at all times.

Response by MAJ Jay Callahalm made Sep 25 at 2023 6:25 AM

2023-09-25T06:25:50-04:00

No. I think that educational credentials have a place in consideration for rank, but a lot of mighty find NCOs never bothered with going to college, didn't want to bother with it. They WANTED only to be good NCOs, were/are good NCOs and should STAY NCOs. I can't imagine a much bigger "come-down" than going from E-8, E-9 to 2LT! The very thought of doing away with PSGs and 1SGs and such is absurd. We NEED those ranks and the good men and women who serve in them. When I was a 2LT, I learned rather quickly that it was a good idea to listen to those guys. I found that my greatest value in the early days was being a buffer between them and higher-ranking officers in the company-BN to take care of BS meetings and administrivia while they got the jobs done, and while I was learning about the real world in the military. Yeah - the'll already have that real-life experience, so will have an advantage, but still will be butter-bars for a while. I think that turning those NCO levels into specialist grades rather than "hard-stripe" NCOs in the chain of command would lessen their effectiveness significantly. I vote NO. That's the model that the Navy uses, with "ratings" rather than "ranks" and it works for them, and might be okay in Finance, Ordnance, even Engineers, Quartermaster, and Transportation, but NOT for combat units..

Response by A1C William Blakeney made Sep 25 at 2023 2:07 PM

2023-09-25T14:07:43-04:00

The rules are the same for any great corporation or massive army complex. Great leaders that inspire confidence and raise morale are priceless. All the rest are replaceable. it’s just that simple. Education has nothing to do with it, great leaders are instinctive great tacticians are tought.

Response by SSG Douglas Shaffer made Oct 3 at 2023 5:43 PM

2023-10-03T17:43:02-04:00

Oh, I have seen what happened when the Army did away with the Skills Qualification Test (SQT) I think it was around 1988. It was a test for your skill level equal to your rank. In order for promotion to the next higher rank you had to pass the SQT. Then the Army did away with the SQT, and people I know for a fact that failed the test at their skill level were getting promoted to the next higher rank. Now tell me would you want a Sergeant promoted to Staff Sergeant who could pass their skill level as a Sergeant.
There is a correspondence education system in the Army. completion of each of these courses would give you a few points towards promotion. The same group who failed the SQT would each order a separate test when they got the results back, they would share the answers with all the other guys. then they only had to pencil wipe the that test that the others had passed. they were just round robin the test answers. Scoring up points and when the SQT was dropped they were promoted quickly. I reported the situation to my command as to their action and I was just blown off "It not hurting anyone but them" I disagreed that they would be promoted over others that did know their job and duties therefor denying those who are qualified. Up my concerns fell on deaf ears, for it wasn't like they were commissioned officers or something.

Response by 1SG Ron Schlatter made Oct 4 at 2023 4:00 PM

2023-10-04T16:00:42-04:00

I have always thought that the specialist ranks should have stayed in place. Mechanics, Medics, Cooks, Supply support and other personnel in support roles should be given the option to continue as a specialist. If they should decide to take the NCO position they should be held accountable as a NCO. Not all soldiers are leaders no matter how much education they have. What I remember happening was at E-5 SGT pulled CQ and other additional duties. The Spec-5 didn’t pull additional duties, he was expected to be in the motor pool, mess hall or supply room. They had equal pay and this was the problem. This was in the 70’s. I supervised really good mechanics that didn’t want to be in a leadership role. Their goal was to maintain and repair tanks, trucks and other equipment.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2023 11:02 PM

2023-10-04T23:02:25-04:00

I think it could work, if anyone has read the Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger, during the Great War or WW1, Ernst Junger volunteered into the German Imperial Army going from Soldat (Private) to becoming an NCO then he was admitted as a Cadet in 1916 and became and Officer that year. He served as a Junior Enlisted, NCO and Officer by wars end with no fancy degrees or academy. He was a well renowned Officer and National Hero of Germany, earning the Highest Award of German, the Pour le Mérite, their version of the Medal of Honor. In Germany too at the time they only had seven Enlisted Ranks and Company Sergeant was the last level an Enlisted would go in his career unless they wished to become an Officer. The Germans were always renowned for have a great Army performance, typically because of the quality of their Officer Corps. Imagine if we took the talent from the Enlisted and brought it over to the Officer Corp, E6s receive a commission without needed a degree, just their experience. I think it would work.

Response by CPT Bob Mason made Oct 5 at 2023 10:18 AM

2023-10-05T10:18:38-04:00

I have met many in my active and active reserve duty who were very good technicians, but who did not desire or were not up to leading others. I too believe the higher specialist rankings should be restored to acknowledge their value and hopefully help with retention. Likewise for officers, continuing education is useful to remain current. But there are “natural” leaders of troops whose advancement should be on merit (I.e performance) even if they lack certain education certificates.

Response by SGT Dan Keeler made Oct 6 at 2023 8:09 AM

2023-10-06T08:09:48-04:00

As a military vet (8 years US Army) and a current police lieutenant, I'd like to weigh in. First, law enforcement is para-military, the military is not para-police. LE models itself after the military by taking aspects of military that work well for our profession, including (loosely) rank structure. However, there is a MASSIVE difference between the two. First of all, the huge majority of police agencies have fewer than 100 officers. So, having 9 enlisted ranks, 5 WO ranks, and 10 officer ranks just doesn't make sense. It would just muddy the waters. Our agency (50 sworn) has patrol officers, detectives, sergeants, lieutenants, a deputy chief, and a chief. I can see some agencies adding a few ranks in between, but for most agencies, that is plenty.

In the military, though, you are talking about 1.4 million people spread across five branches (I can't bring myself to include the Coast Guard), and installations scattered around the globe, there needs to be a more robust rank structure. NCOs are needed for the direct leadership, while officers are more indirect leadership. I think of it like the difference between architects and construction workers. Architects can come up with some amazing designs on paper, but the construction workers and site foremen are the ones that know how to make it work in real life.

This is something, given time, that I could write a damn book on, but ain't nobody got time for dat!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2023 12:19 PM

2023-10-06T12:19:27-04:00

CSM from what I have researched and have gotten answers from old timers, I do believe that the technical ranks should be brought back but as for the rest of your post this sounds like to me (in a lack of better terms) 'someone had an idea'. I have been to 2 duty stations been in thr army now 5 years and in all the time I've been in E6s have always been out for themselves and not helping their squad/platoon (i understand that for the job of the E5's at the same time when an E5 cant find something or doesnt know how, who do they ask? The next higher rank). Now there are some exceptions but it's rare. I have the feeling that if this is implemented then it will just make the E6s worse. But at the same time the army already allows green to gold. I don't know how that works too well as I have no ambition to become an officer. But if some enlisted wants to become an officer there's always that option and it's not harped on. I will also say CSM that idea will most likely make retention SIGNIFICANTLY drop amongst all of the army.

Response by CSM John Cartwright made Oct 8 at 2023 7:34 AM

2023-10-08T07:34:57-04:00

Education is great in some situations,but common sense,experience,motivation,pride,and the school of hard knocks make great NCO'S

Response by Sgt Jeremy Winkles made Oct 8 at 2023 6:26 PM

2023-10-08T18:26:52-04:00

The fact that a degree is all you need to be eligible to be an officer is disgraceful and the epitome of what’s wrong with military. So many officers shouldn’t be in charge of wiping their own asses and well and SSNCO’s that should be running entire battalions. Stop qualifying people based on their buying into the “American Dream” of being in debt that will never be repaid. Textbook discrimination at its best. Until a Second Lt can figure out a fucking compass and topographical map, or that off doesn’t stand for officer, maybe we should stop putting shiny objects on dumbasses shoulders. But then we’d bitching up our military and that wouldn’t serve the government objective

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2023 10:48 AM

2023-10-09T10:48:04-04:00

I am one of many nco's that has more education that many officers. I choose to stay enlisted. Also the army is trying to promote so fast that we could do away with lower enlisted and just start at e4

Response by Linda Greer made Oct 9 at 2023 6:50 PM

2023-10-09T18:50:21-04:00

I think that officers have too much paperwork and organizational items and they don't have enough time with there juniors or with the regular enlisted folks. When my husband died in West Germany in 1988, I had no idea who his Captain or other officers were. It was like steering a small sailboat in a ferocious storm with 2 small children and being blind-folded as well. We had no home stateside of our own to go to, it took months to process the benefits and months to get the correct death certificate. The people in Pentagon actually sent someone else's death certificate to me by mistake the first time. That wasn't professional or ethical and it meant waiting even longer to get his insurance money and death benefits for us so we could buy our first home.

Response by Capt Tate Brummitt made Oct 11 at 2023 5:15 PM

2023-10-11T17:15:19-04:00

No, rank progression should not be tied strictly to the completion of educational degrees frankly for either the NCO or the commissioned side. Now that said, I am not including PME in that discussion as it does have its own place in rank progression for both sides. Your job performance, PME and skill set mastery should be the primary evaluators for you rank progression. Your secondary factors should include peer recommendations/evaluations, board performance and then your "outside initiatives" which is where you could include factors like degree attainment but don't make the degree a primary. Degrees can be used as differentiators but in the end all it really says it that you were capable comprehending material, doing assignments and taking test successfully. In the military, you already have to do that for your job.

On the officer side, too many good CGO's get pushed out because they don't go an get that outside masters degree before going up for O-4. They don't get it, because they're focused on doing the job and being a leader to their troops. Lot's of O-3's get passed over because their "peers" focused on checking all the boxes and getting that degree, all while their units suffered or they put themselves in a position where they were not required to be leaders, which is oxymoronic for officers, and could focus solely on their own professional development. This lead to many great leaders walking away from the military only to leave the ranks with officers tasting their sips of a leadership as an O-4 instead of as an O-1 or O-2. While some might not see this as an issue, I can tell it is a massive one. O-1's and O-2's can be much more easily molded and easily replaced. They also have more checks and balances around them. An O-4 who is a bad leader is much harder to fix and/or replace.

I saw too many times in my career, on both the enlisted and officer side, folks rushing to get a degree by any means possible just to get points for their promotion board or to get into OCS/OTS or ROTC. And what good is a degree that you received from one of the "Pay for an A" schools to you or the military? And don't anyone out here act like they've never heard of those schools before. They're all over every base through the education centers. I'd see troops rush to get a degree in some BS skill set just to check a box. Yes, officers did the same thing! The big difference is that the expectation was for us to get a Masters degree in something instead of an Associates or Bachelor's, which we already had. If you are going to make a degree a requirement, you'll need to make sure that the degree is in something that also benefits that branch. Degrees in philosophy, basket weaving or poetry don't correlate to an MOS, AFSC or Rate on active duty. Maybe basket weaving for the SERE folks, but that is a stretch.

Response by PO2 Scott M. made Oct 12 at 2023 6:08 AM

2023-10-12T06:08:16-04:00

Tied to degrees? No, absolutely not! Degrees and education are icing on the cake but honestly, the way the education system has been degrading, some of the DUMBEST people I've met in my life have had degrees.

Response by SP6 Peter Kreutzfeldt made Oct 12 at 2023 11:29 AM

2023-10-12T11:29:15-04:00

While I am sure that some people (military potentials) are born brilliant, the rest of us need to study. Nothing worse than having a Platoon Sgt. with an IQ close to that of a Zippo lighter

Response by SGT Skip Tribby made Oct 12 at 2023 8:34 PM

2023-10-12T20:34:28-04:00

I can offer a number of accounts that I know of personally where an educated person doesn't always turn out to be the best leader. There is book smart and there is experience smart. I'd take experience over book smart anytime.

Response by SPC Keith Lindsey made Oct 12 at 2023 8:53 PM

2023-10-12T20:53:59-04:00

In a word, no.

I served with several NCOs, a couple of whom were black women and I can tell you, they led by example! There was nothing that I wouldn't have done for them. I've often said, if they came to me and said, "I'm storming the gates of Hell" I'd have responded, "I've got your six, Sergeant!" I'd have gone anywhere they led. They were THAT GOOD of NCO's and leaders!

Degrees are nice and teach you how to do X or Y and are good for general knowledge, but leadership is learned ONLY by serving under a true leader. Selflessness, mission first, and personal responsibility are the mantra of a leader and they instill within those who serve with and under them the same. A true leader takes responsibility for every failure and no credit for every success; it's their people who made that happen. That's what I mean by selflessness. The leader is focused on successfully completing the mission, and defines their success by successfully completing that mission while learning from operational failures, adjusting accordingly.

In contrast, I also served with a new 1LT who came into the Army as a 1LT because he had a PhD. All he could say was, "fascinating". As a seasoned Specialist, I did what I could to orient him and clue him in on how things actually worked. I'm not sure he listened, though. I don't remember him being around very long.

These are the qualities that inspire troops to follow the leader and it's that inspiration that makes those troops a force to be reckoned with!

Response by SSG Ken Potts made Oct 14 at 2023 3:36 PM

2023-10-14T15:36:35-04:00

I think it's a shame that combat arms need nothing to be promoted, but a technical mos needs to max out everything in order to be promoted.

Response by Col Frank Hicks made Oct 16 at 2023 12:19 PM

2023-10-16T12:19:37-04:00

No!! Marine Major General Jim Day, the Medal of Honor recipient who also had three Silver Stars and a battlefield commission as a gunnery sergeant, didn't get his degree until he was a Brigadier General. Each case should be considered by senior leadership according to its individual merits rather than using overly officious rules.

Response by CW2 Louis Melendez made Nov 5 at 2023 1:56 AM

2023-11-05T01:56:59-04:00

Former Senior NCO here. Prior to switching to Warrant Officer, I wonder about a similar question since we have a more professional and educated NCO Corps than what we had in prior generations. There are a lot of NCOs these days with enough civilian ed (Bachelors and above) AND experience that makes them great candidates for a potential program like the one mentioned in the idea from the original post.

I would probably take a more radical approach and reduce the amount of slots for Officers that get commissioned from West Point and ROTC to increase the amount of OCS. That could potentially allow to the amount of NCOs going through commissioning training and return Officers to the workforce that have operational and institutional knowledge that’s meaningful at the platoon/company level. For example, if you take a SFC and you turn him/her to a 2LT by streamlining commissioning processes, that could translate into a potential solid and well-rounded 2LT that doesn’t need years to get trained by NCOs so they can do their job.

I think we are the only profession in 2023 that takes someone with just a degree and we put them in charge based on solely that factor. Probably, every single other profession out there requires managers to have education AND experience before taking charge of a section, department, etc. Perhaps, start the program at SFC level and the system allows them to either commission, go Warrant (for those that prefer to specialize), or stay as a Senior NCO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2023 11:30 PM

2023-11-14T23:30:27-05:00

Let me get this straight.... OP wants to be more like the Russian military? #nope this is a HORRIBLE idea.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2023 10:00 PM

2023-11-15T22:00:41-05:00

My gut reaction is "hell no".

The reason why is that if promotion is now heavily dependant on higher education, then the Army had better give time for NCOs to attend classes. This would further dilute the significance of a college degree, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a market where experience matters a lot more, and it would make the Army look "better" because it would have a more educated force on paper but a degree does not equal competency outside of STEM.

Mirroring the progression of law enforcement could definitely work if technical ranks were brought back. Plenty of law enforcement officers just don't want to deal with the politics of a leadership position and would rather work as law enforcement until they retire. I would say the same of soldiers. It's not that people don't want to lead, but that people just don't want to deal with the bullshit.

Good question.

Response by SP5 Tony Seel made Dec 9 at 2023 6:32 PM

2023-12-09T18:32:13-05:00

What is the E5 rank called now?

Response by LTC Myron Opfermann made Dec 10 at 2023 11:09 AM

2023-12-10T11:09:36-05:00

For numerous reasons, I wouldn't change the current NCO structure. In combat arms platoons the staff sergeant squad leaders and platoon sergeant provide the vital experience and the eyes/ears to the platoon leader to run the platoon. Some NCOs don't want to become officers so what would their career path be? OCS is now a path for the ambitious NCO to become an officer. I don't see any advantage to this elimination of sergeants above E6 as the twenty-plus E6s in a company would compete for the five lieutenant slots along with the West Point and ROTC officers.

Response by SFC William Linnell made Dec 10 at 2023 11:48 AM

2023-12-10T11:48:12-05:00

I will have to strongly disagree with the CSM. Maybe it's that mentality of our Senior NCOs that have eroded the NCO Corps. Going backwards to the old Hierarchy of the OLD European method is just setting us up for failure. It's thinking like this that has taken away any NCO position of power. Being used and treated no better then an overpaid specialist. With having the privilege of working/training many branches at the Combat Advisor School. The Navy has it right with how the E-6 is promoted and transitions to E-7/Chief, is highly ceremonial with much respect and has authority and responsibility of that rank. The Marines do it with SSG and higher. Army, not so much, as a SFC is mostly treated as a Private with being mostly accountable by Command when shit goes sideways. Then the SFC or 1SG are held to account.
I do agree with bringing back the Specialist ranks, mainly focused on our support units. I was in when they ended it and now those SPC-5's, SPC-6, were now hard stripe NCO's. Which it should be in combat arms as those SGTs and SSGs are now holding a position of authority. Maybe they should do away with the SGM and CSM ranks past BDE level. What positions of authority do they hold in the S and G shops? Butterbars and 1LTs can do that job effectively.
Now in the wake of things, The Army has made it so that to get promoted a Soldier has to have college ed. Which is wrong to place SSGs, SFC and MSG/1SG on that as combat arms MOSs are at a disadvantage from support MOSs. As combat arms are mostly in the field compared to support units. An easy fix would be to allow SSGs have an allotted time off to get that associate degree. For SFCs to have the time like CPTs who go to college after they complete their checked off progression as a Company Commander to get that Masters Degree.
PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC are another check the block schools made mandatory by officers. The stuff they taught I already knew as a SGT SSG and SFC in my MOS. PLDC is the same for Combat Arms. Again, the vast majority combat arms Soldiers know the subjects taught in all three levels. Another hurdle to jump over in making higher NCO rank while Officers get promoted at completing a timetable. 18 months the butterbar is promoted to 1LT. At 3 years the 1LT is promoted to CPT. Many probably didn't know this as Big Army was hurting for CPTs back in 2007, gave Officers $20K, $30K bonuses to sign for another 3 to 4 years. Which some I worked with took the bonus as we were in country at the time. Bonus would be tax free, Combat Zone.
Another degrading moment. In the Scout Observers in the OH-58 had an Officer as Pilot and an NCO as 2nd set of eyes and co-pilot. it was changed to the chopper had to have 2 officers doing away with the NCO. WHY? The old mentality that the NCOs are competent enough to have such a position. Only Officers are.

Response by SSgt Clare May made Dec 11 at 2023 10:47 AM

2023-12-11T10:47:41-05:00

Interesting concept...but what this boils down to is the $. Better retirements for the "O"s verses the "NCO's... Anyway the heading was misleading so I'll attack that first:

Should education be a factor in rank progression? You want a book smart or a street smart individual?
Both have merits on their own, but I'll choose a street smart cop over an ignorant book reader any day. Why?

Proven Practical Hands-on Application That Works.

I've been there as a trainer. I've had book smart rookies with a degree. I've been on calls with the ignorant street stupid idiots... I.E. Domestic in progress, karate trainers home, o dark thirty, man with a club outside the home angry and yelling and drunk of course... as I slam on the brakes and put the asshole in the headlights at 75 feet, I'm out the door with my baton left foot sliding in the dirt to stop, stepping toward the karate instructor drunk, to beat the rat shit out of him if I have to, to stop this assault of his own family members... I'm in my headlights, I'm yelling at the drunk to stop...and and and...?

the hair on the back of my neck suddenly stands up... my collage educated rookie with a degree in criminal justice is still in the patrol unit, writing in his daily log..." August 18th, 1989, 3:37 AM, 10-97 (Arrived on scene), Luna 17, 10-6, (my call sign-busy), addressing suspect in a firm manner and has drawn out his service supplied riot baton while walking towards 10-48, 10--80, (armed and dangerous), suspect". A flat out "No shit" true story... He left out the part in his daily fucking logbook when I yelled at the chickenshit to get the fuck out of the car.

So you can see why being book smart is a totally ignorant concept of higher education being used as a factor in promotions.. Shit or get off the pot. Secondary educational systems right now in America are geared way too far to the left, progressive, liberal and them book smart fucknuggits will get you killed until they become street-smart or they put you in prison not defending your actions (Arizona Inmate Derick C. from Minnesota, his Chief testifying on the stand that that neck knee maneuver wasn't part of the approved training curriculum)... The chief told a flat out bullshit lie to save his fucking ass and got away with it.

Why E-6? If you can see from a man or woman's performance, (there are no other sexes contrary to what is being taught in the secondary educational system). Why not E5? E4? E3? You want retention of the finest? Why not try something that WILL RETAIN the street smart individuals who couldn't make the time to formerly indoctrinate themselves in the feel good-unicorn-rainbow-fairy-tree-huggin- coalition-fan clubs that permeate the secondary educational American school systems?

And... IMHO, too many Chiefs and not enough Indians will not make a military a grade effective organization.

Make the enlisted, who get a new type of "FIELD GRADE COMMISSION to OFFICER STATUS" and permit them to continue to perform the tasks they accel at, then send them to places like West Point or the Air Force Academy, for the all service military tactics education or Air Base ground Defense schools, when or if they want to go, and give them a unique identifier on the uniform... A diamond around the rank insignia or even a circled wreath around the rank insignia...that shows their teammates they accel at whatever job position they are.

Because that is what being a soldier, airman, marine or seaman is about isn't it? Team.... work?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2023 1:07 PM

2023-12-11T13:07:57-05:00

I see value in direct commissions for certain MOS. I can also support return to SPEC 5-8 for technical skills, supporting a leadership track for those who want to lead. Eliminating senior NCO ranks would never happen nor should. Enlisted need a career path, and coaching and mentoring by those enlisted leaders who made and learned from their mistakes. Officers from company level up need that NCO to tactically implement the commanders intent.

Again, room to tweak the system but let’s not go too far afield.

Response by SGT Joseph Dutton made Dec 12 at 2023 12:55 AM

2023-12-12T00:55:28-05:00

I say no! If a person wants to be an officer (Green to Gold) then it is the individual to pursue that journey in his/her career. But to require enlisted personnel to get a a college degree to only get promoted to the next E rank is BS. I'm not college material and that's why I retired as an E-5. But to get back to the question. If a enlisted person has a college degree should not be pushed into the officer ranks by way of a commision. Like someone said! not everyone is a leader but you have followers and doers. When they took my SP5 away and hard striped me, not only I was a leader but I was a doer and helper along with my soldiers.

Response by SFC Eddy Weezar made Dec 12 at 2023 8:43 PM

2023-12-12T20:43:40-05:00

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2023 9:10 PM

2023-12-16T21:10:11-05:00

I'm a big proponent of education. That said, is a chief with an humanities degree any more valuable than one without? Is an infantry sergeant really that much better equipped for combat with an electrical engineering degree?

As important as education is, we shouldn't make it MORE than it is.

Response by SSG Jacen Black made Dec 16 at 2023 10:53 PM

2023-12-16T22:53:19-05:00

Unless they start getting degrees in things like small unit tactics or the like... Getting a degree shouldn't be tied to promotions.

Response by SMSgt Billy Cesarano made Dec 17 at 2023 2:39 PM

2023-12-17T14:39:23-05:00

If it produces Smart, smart soldiers than yes. If produces Stupid, smart soldiers.... NO. Of course, this opens a whole new discussion.

Response by Cpl George Matousek made Dec 22 at 2023 12:37 PM

2023-12-22T12:37:51-05:00

No, should deal with ability and knowledge of their job.

Response by MGySgt Samuel Steen made Dec 24 at 2023 10:14 AM

2023-12-24T10:14:13-05:00

My question to that theory about getting rid of the ranks Staff Sergeant (E-6) thru 1st Sergeant/Master Sergeant (E-8) but Keep CSM (E-9) my question is how would you get promoted to CSM (E-9) if there are no more E-6 thru E-8. Also if I understand you correctly you would have to become a 2nd Lt or then what, get kicked out because, you can’t progress from E-6 to E-9 and I don’t see an O-3 Major reverting back to become a CSM (E-9) or I’m I missing something about the Army promotion system. I’m a retire Marine MGySgt (E-9) and I personally believe from 32 years of service your NCO and Staff NCO ranks are the backbone of small unit leadership and the Junior Enlisted are the backbone of the service. In my humble opinion that would be a train wreck and reduce your actual fighters and hurt the career progression of all, especially the Officers Corps.

Response by SSG Douglas Shaffer made Dec 24 at 2023 11:50 AM

2023-12-24T11:50:04-05:00

Here is another question, why are we forcing rank progression? The Idea of you have to be of this rank or your out. Just how is this helping with keeping professional soldiers? I knew E-4s that were great at their jobs and didn't want to be promoted. Why would we want to make this individual be promoted to a ran they don't want and if they didn't take it, they were forced out. I had professional soldiers under me in the early 80's they didn't want promotions they loved their jobs. My point man an E-4 loved being a point man and was damn good at it, how many soldiers today can go walking through the bush and find a tripwire or a mine today or find one moving down a road in the dark. My M60 Gunner another E-4 could hit a 200m target, squeezing a single shot off the belt while standing with a M17 gas Mask on. But yet these are the people that the military said get promoted or get out.

Now, you want to draw from the NCO corps to fill out the officer ranks or require said NCOs to get a college degree or maybe face the possibility to be forced out. We are facing a retention problem maybe if we were not forcing folks to do something they don't want to be, we might not have such a big problem. I know I would have loved to stay in, if it wasn't for the fact that I was an E-6 at 20. If you want NCOs to get a degree, give them the time off to do so. I know being an NCO in the Infantry and rising a family there was very little time to do so, What time off I did get I wanted to be with my family and not have my nose stuck in a book while my kids wanted my attention.

Response by CPT Edward Baker made Dec 25 at 2023 6:55 PM

2023-12-25T18:55:37-05:00

From my personal experience I would strongly disagree. A degree doesn't make you a better soldier or leader. It also does not make a soldier proficient at their Job. What is being over looked is a soldiers knowledge in their chosen career path. Doing away with mentoring and specialized testing was the big mistake. It created NCOs and officers that did not have the Knowledge, related to the MOS, for their rank/position. As an E-4, I was selected by my NCOs, within my MOS, for consideration for E-5. I was then called in to take a written test, on my MOS, to see if I had the required knowledge, again within my MOS, to be promoted. I do not remember what this test was called, hoping someone will. I was then drilled, by my NCOs, in a board, on different problems that could arise and how I would handle it, within my MOS. I passed and was off to PLDC. However, due to a case of Bell's Palsy, I was not given the chance to complete the course. So, no E-5 for me even though I had the knowledge and skills for the rank.

That is where the Problem is. As an Enlisted E-4, I had more knowledge than the S-4/CPT, PBO/1LT and all ranks in-between. However, I'm locked in at E-4 doing their Jobs. Locked in because the Army moved away from a soldier knowing their jobs, an on to needing to know everything except their jobs.

Response by CPL Sheila Lewis made Jan 4 at 2024 10:59 AM

2024-01-04T10:59:36-05:00

should be case by case.

Response by SFC Nello Lopez made Jan 7 at 2024 8:33 AM

2024-01-07T08:33:33-05:00

I totally agree. The Army should also go back direct appointment of Warrant Officers (Technicians) from senior NCOs with significant of service and technical skills. Should adapt the Navy and Marine promotion to WO, to retain highly technical qualified personnel. The Army WO (technicians) system now require 8-10 yrs of service (12 with waiver) is insufficient; having to teach intermediaries in great length of time to hopefully fulfill their duties. This is not necessary for SNCO (E7 & above) with 17 years of technical expertise. My brother serve in the for 30+ years, having directly appointed to CW2 from E7 at 17 yrs of service. He served the U.S. Navy extrisically and intrisically rewarded.

Response by MSG Chuck Pewsey made Jan 20 at 2024 3:51 AM

2024-01-20T03:51:26-05:00

My first reaction, "who the hell wants to be an officer?"

Response by CAPT Edward Schmitt made Mar 2 at 2024 7:18 PM

2024-03-02T19:18:15-05:00

Personal opinion NO. I have known too many people who were great test takers but incompetent. Need a mix

Response by PO1 RIchard Petty made Mar 6 at 2024 1:26 PM

2024-03-06T13:26:32-05:00

CSM Everroad to answer your question it depends on the service and what they are looking for I know CWO's and LDO's (Limited Duty Officer) in the Navy that have various levels of degrees from AA to Doctorate, but they are looking for that when being considered for the next rank and dependent on the job. For a CWO to be considered you have to be a Chief Petty Officer (E7) or above with 14-20 yrs. for CWO2 (E7/E8 applicants) and Master Chief Petty officer (E9) with 14–22 yrs. for CWO3 (E9 applicants) and LDO E6 maybe E7 8-14 yrs. for LDO ENS (Non-NUC applicants) and 8-16 yrs. for LDO ENS (NUC applicants). First Class Petty Officers who wish to apply for LDO must have taken the CPO exam in January of the year the application is due to NPC and be selection board eligible. The current year exam "profile sheet" must accompany the application.