Should the military implement a policy of professional Privates?

2016-04-21T20:21:37-04:00

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Apr 21 at 2016 8:22 PM

2016-04-21T20:22:48-04:00

911 occurred and Ft Riley was augmented at the gates by NG. One guard was a PFC and looked 60. As a 30some CPT I felt I owed him respect due to age.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Apr 21 at 2016 8:26 PM

2016-04-21T20:26:06-04:00

Back in the days of Regimental Service in the UK, and late 1800's and 1900's it was not out of the norm to see 20 and 30 enlisted personnel. They served in the same Unit for the entire time, and never progressed past a promotion or two. While they did not get paid very much, they were very proficient in their duties and the Unit was tight due to very low personnel turnover. What would happen id we enacted this policy today? Would anyone want to stay a LCpl for 20 years? Not sure if my joints or back would last that long in the infantry. But in some jobs it might not make a huge difference.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 8:43 PM

2016-04-21T20:43:20-04:00

We seem to prefer promoting people to the point of incompetence... instead of allowing people to continue to work at a level where they excel.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Apr 21 at 2016 9:58 PM

2016-04-21T21:58:16-04:00

During my 22 years I knew several Sergeants who would have made good Privates.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Apr 21 at 2016 10:59 PM

2016-04-21T22:59:24-04:00

Haven't they already? They're called E-1's.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 11:17 PM

2016-04-21T23:17:17-04:00

I would like to have seen the days when there were multiple specialist ranks. I think it would probably solve a lot of problems if they were used again.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Apr 22 at 2016 6:34 AM

2016-04-22T06:34:30-04:00

Depends on the MOS, and the availability to maybe go up if an opening does occur.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 22 at 2016 6:44 AM

2016-04-22T06:44:14-04:00

Privates by definition is not a professional designation. I was proud to be a private but yearned to be a Specialist, then Sergeant, then Staff Sergeant and so on. What does changing a title do, the military should continue to instill pride in service and let their younger troops know "daily" what hey contribute to the nations security.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-04-22T08:32:51-04:00

That is why we have contractors. If we need a temporary increase in manpower it would be best to use a trained work force that comes with its own force management package as well.

Response by LTC Tom Jones made Apr 22 at 2016 9:02 AM

2016-04-22T09:02:18-04:00

During my 26 years in Army Junior ROTC I had a half dozen or so quality kids who would have given their eye-teeth to serve but could not qualify. Mostly the were respectful, fit, patriotic young Americans (a couple of others being respectful, fit and patriotic but "undocumented") who I know would have made positive, mutually beneficial contributions to any of the uniformed services as a "professional private." That is, there are a host of jobs they could and would perform admirably if only in a single term enlistment. As far as I know (contract psychologists who put the thing together might weigh in), the ASVAB--the primary show-stopper for these individuals--does not test character and commitment. On a practical side, our Nation continues to be hard-put to find and attract qualified applicants to fill the ranks. When the Army's Recruiting Command acknowledges that only about five of every 100 young people in our Country can qualify to serve based on ASVAB, fitness or morality, we need to re-look the acquisition process.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 22 at 2016 3:27 PM

2016-04-22T15:27:20-04:00

It would require a cultural change in the Services to recognize that some people are good at what they do and quite happy to keep doing it for fair pay and benefits for a long time. I'm not sure "private" is the correct term for that type of person working as a "journeyman technician." Up-or-out policies sometimes force good people out the door only to be replaced by less experienced folks and those intensely interested in getting promoted (careerists). Private sector companies are often happy to have employees who do their job everyday meeting standards and not causing any problems. They offer them good wages and benefits and sometimes programs that allow bonuses for performance above standard. Is it reasonable for an E-4, who isn't an NCO to stay in the Service up to the earliest eligible retirement point? I don't know, but it's worth looking into.

The Air Force has wrestled with this problem every decade or so when the Service realizes that up-or-out forces good pilots and other aircrew members out the door. When the civilian market for pilots has an increased demand, the pilot exodus at the end of post-training commitment becomes painful for the Service. The AF then looks for ways to encourage pilots to stay. Some twice-passed-over captains or majors would be happy to stay on board and just fly airplanes. They are often good at the job and happy to take on responsibilities as instructors or evaluators, but have no desire to be a Commander of anything or career broaden into non-flying jobs or serve on higher headquarters staffs. They have little interest in PME and no desire to get a Masters Degree. In short, they don't want to do the stuff the AF says you need to do to get promoted. During my active duty time it was possible for some twice-passed-over captains to be allowed to stay to 20 years and retire; twice-passed-over majors usually had enough time in service to make it to 18 years (sanctuary) and then retire at 20. I don't know that the AF has found a way to resolve the issue since I retired in 1991.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Apr 23 at 2016 4:11 PM

2016-04-23T16:11:42-04:00

I loved being a SP5, the only people I could lead were other medics, but that's OK, learn to lead with very small groups for a long time builds up all kinds of experience

Response by SFC Don Ward made Apr 23 at 2016 10:14 PM

2016-04-23T22:14:45-04:00

The did this in 1986 with the "up or out" policy when they got rid of the specialist ranks above e-4. Up until then, the specialists in ranks up to e-7 just did their jobs

Response by TSgt Kerry Hardy made Apr 23 at 2016 10:28 PM

2016-04-23T22:28:11-04:00

Isn't Warrant Office the professional private? They are the SME of their MOS and just do their job. Allow E-4s to apply instead of E-5 and above.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Apr 24 at 2016 12:29 AM

2016-04-24T00:29:27-04:00

I remember reading somewhere years ago that at one time there were career privates.

Response by SFC Don Ward made May 16 at 2016 8:28 PM

2016-05-16T20:28:47-04:00

The Brass did a white paper to prove soldiers are a profession - that shows we've lost it.

Response by SGT James LeFebvre made May 16 at 2016 8:44 PM

2016-05-16T20:44:40-04:00

Well, to take a cue from the past (at least for the Army, can't speak for the Corps), we used to have higher level specialists. There are quite a few people in the military who are outstanding at their MOS, however show little leadership potential. These personnel might benefit from a promotion to SP5 or SP6 for example, rather than SGT and SSG.

Response by SGT John Ball made Feb 28 at 2022 2:57 PM

2022-02-28T14:57:46-05:00

The up or out policy is insane and only hurts the Military. I came within 6 months of my SPC RCP and like that promotion points drop like a rock and I made my cut off score. I was beginning to prepare to transition out, but accepted my promotion to SGT./E-5 instead. I do agree that the SP5, SP6, and SP7 ranks need to come back because some people are much better at their jobs rather than managing. Clearly, this will always be an issue for the services and those that would rather do the job they signed up to do.