Should we unify and have one rank structure? Why or Why not?

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:42:11 -0500

Is it time to unify the rank structure of the armed forces? I worked with a Navy Captain. After serving in the Army and referring to "full birds" as Colonels, it's a little uncomfortable to call as O-6 a Captain when that's rank of O-3 in the Army. Likewise, we have ranks with the same title, but different grades. For example, a master sergeant is E-7 in the USAF and E-8 is USMC. Since we use the same pay charts, wouldn't make since to unify the ranks so say a staff sergeant is an E-6 is all branches? Would are your thoughts?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 5:47 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:47:39 -0500

I have felt that way for years. The history of each branch is what will prevent it from ever coming to fruition though.

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Feb 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

MSgt Michael Durkee — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:48:40 -0500

I think the Enlisted Ranks are already fairly established, but it is frustrating to look at a Navy Lt's bars and have to remember that they are not a Captain, or seeing Oak Leafs and focusing on the Lt Commander and not a Major thing :D

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Feb 27 at 2015 5:58 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:58:01 -0500

If we are going to do this, we may as well decide on a uniform to be worn by all branches too. Hell, for that matter, let's make it even easier and do away with the different branches too! We can just be one "unified armed force" . . . why not?

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 27 at 2015 6:21 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:21:44 -0500

From my time in the Joint world, the problem is on the Enlisted side that the expected responsibility and capacity for independent action without seeking guidance from a higher rank varies greatly from Service to Service. If I see an E4 from one service I may know I can ask them for a particular item or service. I also know that if I see someone from another service it may take as much as an E6 or E7 to approve the same request.
The unified ranking would only work IMHO, if there was also only one unified Service.
Which I am also vehemently against, but that's another topic.
But if you wanted to make the Officer ranks unified, I think that might work, maybe an Officer or two could weigh in with their thoughts on that, but I think the Enlisted need to stay the same.

Response by SPC Mark Beard made Feb 27 at 2015 6:36 PM

SPC Mark Beard — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:36:47 -0500

think we need to stay army navy marines air force coast gaurd all have different missions and different uniforms like in the army different fractions and patches why change somthing thats not broke like giveing the ranger beret to all army should never have happened the black beret was earned not given so bottom line leave everything the way it is

Response by PO2 Michael Ryals made Feb 27 at 2015 6:55 PM

PO2 Michael Ryals — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:55:04 -0500

Or you (universal you) could learn the other branches ranks and structure and respect the individual culture of each service. When posing this question I assume you mean everyone adopt the army rank structure. Why not make every NCO a petty officer? And further more every E4 is not treated the same ie army specialist and corporal and the PO3 is not treated the same as a Marine Corporal. Look at E6 in the navy and Marines. The Ssgt is a SNCO where as the PO1 isn't.

Response by Cpl Tim Linville made Feb 27 at 2015 7:36 PM

Cpl Tim Linville — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:36:33 -0500

Tradition. Viva la differance'

Response by SN Kyle Carpenter made Feb 27 at 2015 7:47 PM

SN Kyle Carpenter — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:47:50 -0500

I have no good reasons, only selfish ones. I prefer the Navy's rank structure and don't want some Army soldier screwing it up...haha

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 27 at 2015 11:12 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:12:48 -0500

I'd love to say I support it, but I can't, and there's a few reasons.

First is the Constitutional reason. Congress has a Constitutional Obligation to MAINTAIN a Navy, but only a Requirement to RAISE an Army.

Despite our jokes about being the "Men's Department," the Marine Corps is a member of the Naval Services. Much like the Air Force has it's roots in the Army Air Corps.

That leads me to tradition. Each Service has tradition tied to their ranks. What would the Marines be without our "Gunny's," or the Navy & Air Force without their "Chiefs."

The officer ranks are very delineated, with 3 of the 7 uniformed services using "ground" ranks, while remaining 4 use "naval" ranks (and uniforms). The enlisted ranks are very similar as well, however the introduction of the E-8 & E-9 with the military pay act of 1958, that things became "skewed."

Personally, I do agree about Sergeant (E5), Staff Sergeant (E6), and Master Sergeant (E8) being the same however. That's just a personal preference though.

Response by Spc 1 J W. made Feb 27 at 2015 11:56 PM

Spc 1 J W. — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:56:32 -0500

No. Just because you feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean it should change. I'm sure when you addressed that Navy 0-6 as Captain, they didn't feel uncomfortable about it. The end of March I will go over 33 years of military service. I started out in the Navy and now I'm in the Air Force Reserve. All of the armed forces talk about how their recruits are smarter than ever. I think our smarter than ever force can figure out who is what.

Response by SPC Daniel Cahill made Feb 28 at 2015 12:09 AM

SPC Daniel Cahill — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:09:21 -0500

It will turn out costing millions of dollars and no cost benefit as the cost of change would have benefit justification....save tax payers money to stave off sequestration.... that is a real issue to have the law changed to keep the services going.... over a 10 year period sequestration will gut all of the services.... focus efforts on getting that law changed!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:17 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:17:42 -0500

It does make sense, but we are a military of tradition. We are separate branches and have separate traditions.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:52 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:52:59 -0500

I think it generates a sense of identity. I can't imagine calling a Gunny "Sergeant First Class", or having a "Master Sergeant of the Boat". These ranks are part of our traditions, from the Master Chief to the Gunnery Sergeant.....and a Captain.

As for me, I laugh when I see the new SPCs frantically trying to identify the rank, or watching the LTs freak out and salute the PO1 because they don't know the structures and just see the bird.

As I've said in other posts, we are different branches. We have our own traditions, our own unique identities. That is what provides us with the Esprit de Corps. It is CRITICAL to the successes of the mission that we continue to take pride in the work we do, the heritage that we come from, and work together to forge our own identity. Together we are the United States Military, but we are not "identical quadruplets", just 4 "kids" from the same cloth. I enjoy my Soldiers getting to work with Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, because it serves to illustrate the differences between the branches that make us all great.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 28 at 2015 1:08 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:08:27 -0500

No. Although this can be confusing, it is also a tradition, which is important to these respective branches.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 1:35 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:35:22 -0500

Tradition matters. Unless we are just going to start wearing Armed Forces on the left side of our chest we need to retain the historical ties to our own branch.
The only rank I wish that the Navy would bring back full-time is the rank of Commodore. That should be what a 1-star is called instead of both a 1 and 2 star Admiral being a Rear Admiral. I just think Commodore is B.A.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 28 at 2015 2:10 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 02:10:47 -0500

In 2001 I was the SNCO of the USNSE in Pristina where I worked with all ranks of all branches. Yes I had to get use to a Navy Captain, learn the different Air Force ranks, but in the end, it's nothing but a thing. To combine ranks would take away the heritage of the Branch of Service. In the words of an old but good saying - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Nothing here to fix.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Feb 28 at 2015 5:23 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 05:23:19 -0500

Along with the same field uniform (camo pattern).........

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 10:35 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:35:56 -0500

The individual branches have a tradition of their ranks. Don't fuck with it.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 28 at 2015 11:37 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:37:26 -0500

Combining ranks would take away the heritage of the services and probably cause more in-service fighting of my rank system should be used over yours. I know the Marines would not want to give up their system just as much as the Army and the Navy. as SGM Mikel Dawson said learning the rank structure is just a thing.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Feb 28 at 2015 12:50 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:50:55 -0500

I see a lot of tradition in our rank structure. Tradition should never be given up lightly. If we are going to change, then we have to go to the Navy Ranking system. The officer sleeve insignia are pretty much standard world-wide. We could not abandon those rank insignias.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:57 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:57:03 -0500

While I agree in principle that the ranks ought to be the same across the services, there is too much tradition with each rank for any of the services to give them up. I know this from servicing in two joint commands with other services.

Also, since this is part of US Code Title 10, it would take an act of Congress and approval from the President to enact this change.

I don't see this happening within my lifetime.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Feb 28 at 2015 12:58 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:58:52 -0500

No.

Because tradition, customs and courtesies. Also history.

And just because.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Feb 28 at 2015 1:07 PM

CPT Richard Riley — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:07:53 -0500

Unifying the rank structure is not going to solve any longstanding problem but it will squander tradition for the sake of simplicity .....

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 1:43 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:43:59 -0500

I would not change it, not just because of tradition. In a practical matter, in almost every modern Navy, the Captain is universally a senior officer. Their insignia of 4 braids is almost universally recognized as well,

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 1:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:49:02 -0500

It would make it easier for all uniformed persons. Then even people fresh out of basic would know how and when to deliver the appropriate respects when around members of other forces.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 2:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:25:48 -0500

It's really not that hard to learn it but I also received a block of instruction about it in basic. I thought it was important to know them all as an E-2 because I didn't want to look like a fool when if I ever came across someone from a different service and couldn't address them properly.
The only change I would like to see is that all enlisted personnel (every service) wear their rank on their sleeves and officers wear them on the collars. Officer's rank is basically the same (just different colors in work uniforms) compared to how enlisted ranks are. From a distance it can be hard to tell a USMC MGySgt from a SgtMaj (especially in woodlands) or even a USN/USCG CPO from a SCPO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 3:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:17:08 -0500

I do not feel that it matters that ranks look different in other Branches, that is what makes each Branch unique and it just laziness on the individual to not learn the different ranks of who they will work with.

Response by PO1 Joan (Tipka) (Plummer) Fisher made Feb 28 at 2015 3:51 PM

PO1 Joan (Tipka) (Plummer) Fisher — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:51:13 -0500

The Navy's Ranking not only goes back in history but also displays a persons actual rating for enlisted and what Corps the Officer is. You can look at a Petty Officer's Rating Badge and service devices to determine if they are Aviation, Surface, Submarine, or Medical and what their Job is. Also the Fowled Anchor of the Chief Petty Officer has Naval symbolism. The Entire Naval Uniform and Rank structure has a long respected history.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 5:13 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:13:51 -0500

One word. Tradition.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Mar 2 at 2015 2:57 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:57:24 -0500

Ranks are fine the way they currently are. I will say however that there needs to be an emphasis on teaching people the ranks of other branches. I personally went through tech school with other branches so I learned them quick but I know many people who won't have a clue what I am talking about when I use ranks from a branch such as the Navy or Coast Guard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 2:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:59:39 -0500

No. Even though I could probably think of several different reasons, two of my more passionate reasons are history and tradition. Some may disagree, but IMO each branch has strong foundation of tradition that should not be dismissed by the good idea fairy. It is what helps to define us as branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. Each individual worked hard to attain their place in their branch and have a certain sense of pride which they all deserve to have. I think it would hurt morale to a certain extent by trying to "simplify" things. There has been talk for some time of everyone going to one uniform which I hope never passes, but to totally strip tradition would be a major black eye to Esprit de Corps.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 4:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:27:37 -0500

No, the branches are all separate entities with histories and lineage.

Response by TSgt Terry Hudson made Mar 6 at 2015 7:38 AM

TSgt Terry Hudson — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 07:38:19 -0500

Making a move like that completely ignores heritage and tradition.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 7:56 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 07:56:20 -0500

It's all about tradition, so keep it the way it is (and I'll get in trouble for saying that because the Air Force is anti-tradition, lol).

That being said, what we do need to do in all branches is eliminate the two parallel ladders of enlisted and officer. With more and more enlisted earning their degrees, it's time we get rid of this archaic, outdated system of allowing a 22 yr old bossing around (read: more authority/responsibility) a far more experienced, qualified, and educated Chief or SgtMajor. A single rank ladder, with those that acquire the necessary prerequisites can then be selected to attend OTS or a service academy and come back to their unit commissioned. In other words - everyone starts off as an E1 and goes through boot/basic. Those that don't want the additional responsibilities of being an officer can stay on the enlisted track or jump to the WO track (if the service has such).

Response by Cpl Bo Dronet made Mar 6 at 2015 8:04 AM

Cpl Bo Dronet — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:04:39 -0500

The branches are like different worlds and bringing them together would ruin he history behind them all.

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Mar 6 at 2015 10:02 AM

CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:02:52 -0500

No! Because I like being called by my first name.... Chief

Response by SCPO Ron Chandler made Mar 6 at 2015 1:44 PM

SCPO Ron Chandler — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:44:30 -0500

Navy Chief, Senior Chief, and Master Chief Petty Officers differ from every other service. Also, the Naval Officer Rank structure is steeped in tradition and is in line with other navies that share the same heritage.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 2:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:03:36 -0500

Every branch of the military has some sort of history behind their rank structure that makes them unique to their respective branch. History is important

Response by SSG Harper Peterson made Mar 12 at 2015 3:30 AM

SSG Harper Peterson — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:30:47 -0400

Because you're uncomfortable we should all change to suit you? He'll no we shouldn't unify anything. We are separated the way we are for a reason. I'd expect a Sergeant First Class to be able to adapt in the military.