Honor the NCO Corps by overhauling the rank structure

[Myyar]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

[SuperPog0151]

Bro, as awesome as that plan is, they're NEVER going to put us in charge of officers. After all, we're just lowly enlisted troops...

[forcedj]

What officer do you think will buy off on that plan?

What if the O1, O2, or O3 is an LDO (i.e. prior enlisted SCPO or MCPO)? Do they suddenly rate less responsibility because they're now a J.O.?

Where do CWOs fit in???

Dan

[SeaChicken]

Frankly I think this is a stupid idea.

"These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps."
- None of the Chiefs I ever worked with needed HR gimmicks to feel pride and confidence in themselves and their fellow Chiefs.

"NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes."
- If their responsibilities and authorities change, to include command, how exactly do their roles and functions stay the same? How convaluted is it when a CPO works for the ENS until he makes SCPO, now all of a sudden he works for the MCPO?!?! I work for the billet, not the device on the collar of the person occupying it.

"the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service."
- The SCPO may not outrank the ENS, but he/she sure has a greater impact on the E6 and below that they are BOTH TOGETHER charged with leading.

[YomanDenver]

I honestly don't see a reason for this. I mean yes, an O-1 who's all of 21 years old has rank over me. If they direct me to do something that doesn't make sense I will mention the normal procedures and ask them if they would still like me to carry it out their way or the way that's been established. Just because they're young and inexperienced doesn't mean that they don't have new ideas.

If anything could be changed, I would say change the process for E-3's that are brand new in the Navy taking the E-4 exam 3 months after checking into their first command. Granted, they may have the knowledge in their rating to perform tasks, but with the crow comes increased responsibility, and in some cases, a leadership role. I can't follow someone who doesn't know s#!T from Shinola.

Overall, the way things are now aren't terribly bad, nothing that requires the re-work you want to do. If everyone acted like adults, there would be no need for this re-structuring.

[Combat correspondent]

What are you talking about? The pride of NCOs stems from our ability to lead from within. Are you suggesting that the following will be the rank structure (in this order)?: O10, O9, O8, O7, O6, O5, O4, E9, O3, E8, O2, O1, E7, E6, E5, E4, E3, E2 and E1? What sort of nonsense is that? Where did you come up with these shenanigans?

[MERC8401]

Sounds pretty confusing to me...besides this is how it's always been done since the dawn of the military. If the system is broken its not due to how the rank structure is set up. Oh and by the way...posting this over and over on mutiple rooms in this forum is very bad forum manners.

[Myyar]

Sounds pretty confusing to me...besides this is how it's always been done since the dawn of the military. If the system is broken its not due to how the rank structure is set up. Oh and by the way...posting this over and over on mutiple rooms in this forum is very bad forum manners.

Thanks for correcting me on posting this over and over on multiple rooms. I am sorry and it won't happen again.

[BRUWIN]

Yep. This guy is off his rocker.


I think we need to get Smarg's view on this before we just arbitrarily blow the guy off. Smarg, roll in anytime. So what kind of support do you think we can give this guy? Keep in mind...his proposal will have me out ranking you despite not having a Bachelors degree. Can we count on your approval?

[BTDTNM]

Or we could have Warrant Officers who are sort of the same thing. Makes no sense.

[Myyar]

Thanks for all the replies. I hope we can continue this conversation in a mature and constructive way. I don’t mean any disrespect towards the Officer corps.
I never said that it will be an easy or simple proposal, yes it will be complex and confusing for some but I truly believe that we have such a huge pool of smart and intelligent people in our military which can be used to work out all the details.

We can provide educational opportunities and resources to our enlisted men and women. Make changes in military school system and training courses to be able to acquire college credits. Put them on a track to finish at least about 60 - 90 college credits before they make their E-8 and bachelors degree before they make their E-9. We have the best trained, educated and professional NCO corps in the world, which our allies envy and our foes fear.

Officer corps alone won’t be able to help us make this change happen. We will need the help of each military branch’s civilian leadership, SEC DEF, Congress and the President.
Which means it will take many letters to Congressmen/ women and Senators. It will also require hundreds of hours of lobbying through various military lobbying groups.

The rank system we have in our military is more than hundred years old and I am sure it can be improved to better fit the needs of 21st century and future servicemen and women.
The change I am talking about may be new to our military but it is not new for many Armies, Navies and Air forces of the world including our allies.

Few examples are:

United Kingdom:
In the British Army and the Royal Marines the Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class One and the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class Two. Warrant Officer Class One (WO1) is higher than Warrant Officer Class Two (WO2) in the British Military.

South Africa:
Same as the British Military.

Canadian Forces:
The Regimental Sergeant-Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States is the senior appointment in a battalion-sized unit, including infantry battalions and artillery, armoured, engineer, and signal regiments. (RSM) holds the grade of Chief Warrant Officer (CWO). In company-sized units, the Company Sergeant-Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States generally holds the grade of Master Warrant Officer (MWO). (CWO) is higher than (MWO) which is higher than Warrant Officer (WO) in the Canadian Forces.

Indian Military:
The Subedar Major (SM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade of Junior Commissioned Officer he or she is also refer to as Honorary Captain . Although commissioned, they are senior enlisted men and women. A Battalion's single Subedar-Major assists the commander in much the same way as a Regimental Sergeant-Major would. Subedar equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade of Junior Commissioned Officer he or she is also refer to as Honorary Lieutenant, this rank is equivalent to O-2 in the United States.

[Smeghead]

United Kingdom:
In the British Army and the Royal Marines the Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class One and the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class Two. Warrant Officer Class One (WO1) is higher than Warrant Officer Class Two (WO2) in the British Military.


The RSM, WO1 and US E-9 are all enlisted OR-9s. US Forces' Warrants are not. Same goes for WO2, CSM and E-8s. They're not put in any special career progression path for making OR-8 and OR-9, an RSM=WO1=E-9. I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't hold. Royal Army WO does not equal US Army WO.

[CrustySMSgt]

Few examples are:

United Kingdom:
In the British Army and the Royal Marines the Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class One and the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class Two. Warrant Officer Class One (WO1) is higher than Warrant Officer Class Two (WO2) in the British Military.

South Africa:
Same as the British Military.

Canadian Forces:
The Regimental Sergeant-Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States is the senior appointment in a battalion-sized unit, including infantry battalions and artillery, armoured, engineer, and signal regiments. (RSM) holds the grade of Chief Warrant Officer (CWO). In company-sized units, the Company Sergeant-Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States generally holds the grade of Master Warrant Officer (MWO). (CWO) is higher than (MWO) which is higher than Warrant Officer (WO) in the Canadian Forces.


Now you're mixing apples & oranges... warrants don't outrank an O-1... so these examples do nothing to bolster your position. :rolleyes:

Here in Japan Chief's eventually transition to WOs also... but that doesn't jump them above any of the Os. So changing the name from SMSgt or CMSgt to WO doesn't change the progression that got them there or the status they hold.

[smarg]

Every qualified Army enlisted person can apply for a Warrant or Commission.

[USMC_8156]

Or we could just stop handing over bars for college diplomas. What a joke that has been. You should choose at some point in your career if you are going to continue as a Sergeant and be a technical expert, or take on administrative leadership responsibilities and become a Lieutenant. Either way technical training or college education respectively should be mandatory. I think my way is simpler.

[Lone_NCO]

I would like a change in the rank structure. Never have even agreed with the process of officers at all. In fact the only thing I feel is right about is the diffuculty of there training at quantico. Even that is fairly lax though. My main issue is how does education equal leadership? There is book smart and street smart, school only requires one of the two. In addition you can say that getting your education shows determination. however there is no degree that teaches you what you need to know to be put in charge of hundreds of Marines lives after a few months of training. Nothing can replace time and experience, and I never thought putting a 1st or 2nd Lt in charge of a SSgt GySgt whos been in over 10yrs made any logical sense. Just how I feel, never know though I might go over to the dark side in my future.

[LeaderOfMarines]

Go mustangs!

[PAMICH]

I actually am favoring an idea of making enlisted structure (for pay purposes) from E-1 to E-12.
E-12 = MCPON, E-11=FLT/FORCM, E-10= CMDCM, E-9= MC, E-8= SC, E-7=C etc....

I also want to see typically two pay scales for each rank from E-5 to E-9. They could be listed as 2nd Class lower, and 2nd class upper or 1st class lower and 1st class upper. Ive always beem saddened by a hard charging 1st with 4 or 5 years making basically the same pay as a young 1st who just made it this cycle. Of course it's a tough sell because the upper and lower scales would need to be based on merit.

[Yggdrasil]

The only services that need to change their rank structure are the Army and Air Force. OJT for leadership is at the E5 level, because they were never NCO's when they were E4's; although there are extremely rare cases of Corporals in the Army, but the vast majority being Specialists.

The Air Force needs to move their ranks up one paygrade as well - Staff Sergeant at E5 and Master Sergeant at E7 confuses alot of people.

[Myyar]

I don’t mean any disrespect towards the Officer corps.
I never said that it will be an easy or simple proposal, yes it will be complex and confusing for some but I truly believe that we have such a huge pool of smart and intelligent people in our military which can be used to work out all the details.

We can provide educational opportunities and resources to our enlisted men and women. Make changes in military school system and training courses to be able to acquire college credits. Put them on a track to finish at least about 60 - 90 college credits before they make their E-8 and bachelors degree before they make their E-9. We have the best trained, educated and professional NCO corps in the world, which our allies envy and our foes fear.

Officer corps alone won’t be able to help us make this change happen. We will need the help of each military branch’s civilian leadership, SEC DEF, Congress and the President.
Which means it will take many letters to Congressmen/ women and Senators. It will also require hundreds of hours of lobbying through various military lobbying groups.

The rank system we have in our military is more than hundred years old and I am sure it can be improved to better fit the needs of 21st century and future servicemen and women.
The change I am talking about may be new to our military but it is not new for many Armies, Navies and Air forces of the world including our allies.

Few examples are:

United Kingdom:
In the British Army and the Royal Marines the Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class One and the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade equal to Warrant Officer Class Two. Warrant Officer Class One (WO1) is higher than Warrant Officer Class Two (WO2) in the British Military.

South Africa:
Same as the British Military.

Canadian Forces:
The Regimental Sergeant-Major (RSM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States is the senior appointment in a battalion-sized unit, including infantry battalions and artillery, armoured, engineer, and signal regiments. (RSM) holds the grade of Chief Warrant Officer (CWO). In company-sized units, the Company Sergeant-Major (CSM) equivalent to E-8 in the United States generally holds the grade of Master Warrant Officer (MWO). (CWO) is higher than (MWO) which is higher than Warrant Officer (WO) in the Canadian Forces.

Indian Military:
The Subedar Major (SM) equivalent to E-9 in the United States holds the grade of Junior Commissioned Officer he or she is also refer to as Honorary Captain . Although commissioned, they are senior enlisted men and women. A Battalion's single Subedar-Major assists the commander in much the same way as a Regimental Sergeant-Major would. Subedar equivalent to E-8 in the United States holds the grade of Junior Commissioned Officer he or she is also refer to as Honorary Lieutenant, this rank is equivalent to O-2 in the United States.

[wzgriffith]

I don't really agree. I think that the jobs of officers and enlisted are different, so the training system is designed to prepare us for whichever side we are headed for. Enlisted are the boots on the ground, making the more tactical decisions. Officers are more for policy. An officer says they want something done, they should leave the how to their Staff NCOs and NCOs. While techniacally a 2ndLt. outranks the Co. Gunny, of the SNCOIC of a shop, a good officer will let his senior enlisted run the shop they way they should. And it should be the senior enlisted Marine that teaches the young bootenant how to be a good officer. Besides, being enlisted is more fun than being an officer (in a lot of cases). Officers have to play the politics game with their superiors. Enlisted can tell the truth, we should anyway, without having to worry about the XO getting offended and blackballing us for promotion.

[DevilNuts]

I like the idea of requiring Sergeant before giving them the option to go officer. Nobody is going to appreciate a 22 year old OIC as much as they would appreciate a 26 year old prior enlisted with actual working knowledge of the Marine Corps.

[wzgriffith]

I like the idea of requiring Sergeant before giving them the option to go officer. Nobody is going to appreciate a 22 year old OIC as much as they would appreciate a 26 year old prior enlisted with actual working knowledge of the Marine Corps.

It would be nice in theory. But maintaining an officer core would be near impossible. Plus, you'd have officers coming from MOSs that have 1500 cutting score for Sgt so you'd still have the issue with know-it-all punks with shiny collars.

[Yggdrasil]

The only services that need to change their rank structure are the Army and Air Force. OJT for leadership is at the E5 level, because they were never NCO's when they were E4's; although there are extremely rare cases of Corporals in the Army, but the vast majority being Specialists.

The Air Force needs to move their ranks up one paygrade as well - Staff Sergeant at E5 and Master Sergeant at E7 confuses alot of people.

[ringjamesa]

The only services that need to change their rank structure are the Army and Air Force. OJT for leadership is at the E5 level, because they were never NCO's when they were E4's; although there are extremely rare cases of Corporals in the Army, but the vast majority being Specialists.

The Air Force needs to move their ranks up one paygrade as well - Staff Sergeant at E5 and Master Sergeant at E7 confuses alot of people.

Absurd. Every branch has different names for their enlisted ranks. If you ask me, the only branch that should be required to change is the Navy Officer coprs. Every other branch uses the same names for their officers except the Navy. If you want all the enlisted ranks to have the same name no matter what branch, fine whatever but to have 3 out of 4 use the same officer rank and the 4th use a completly different one (but use the same name for a couple-Lt and Capt), that is absurd.

[Yggdrasil]

Absurd. Every branch has different names for their enlisted ranks. If you ask me, the only branch that should be required to change is the Navy Officer coprs. Every other branch uses the same names for their officers except the Navy. If you want all the enlisted ranks to have the same name no matter what branch, fine whatever but to have 3 out of 4 use the same officer rank and the 4th use a completly different one (but use the same name for a couple-Lt and Capt), that is absurd.

I have no problem with the Navy and Coast Guard Officer ranks, because that goes way back before even the US military.

As for the enlisted ranks, I'm not saying all services should have the same names - for example, Sergeant First Class and Gunner Sergeant - no problem. But the Air Force ranks? At least in the 1950's, when the E8 and E8 paygrades were added, for example, the Navy and Coast Guard worked out what each paygrade would be called. Same name, different paygrade among enlisted is what gets me. Another example is Army E3 and below compared to Marine Corps E3 and below. The Army makes it's non-NCO Soldiers look junior to non-NCO Marines with it's names.

[Combat correspondent]

I don't have a problem with anyone’s ranks and took the time to learn them all. A SSgt in the AF being 1 pay grade below a SSgt in the Army or USMC is no different than a Pfc in the Army being 1 pay grade higher than a Marine Pfc.

Unless you are advocating all branches streamlining their ranks, then this argument is absurd. In any regard, why should the Navy change their Officer rank structure to mirror the Army's? I am growing increasingly tired of Big Brother Army expecting everyone to conform to their way of doing things.

For that reason, I call an area to "attention!" when a senior officer approaches whereas soldiers simply shout out "at ease!" In my world, "at ease!" is what an officer replies when "attention on deck," "room attention," etc. is called. In my world and any non-Army world it is the officer's prerogative to put people in the area "at ease," not whatever random soldier see's him/her. ----Just one more example of service-related differences to add to the rank discussion.

[SeaChicken]

I do agree with yggdrasil that if you are going to use the same name, they should be the same paygrade, the junior service being required to acquiesce to the senior. If you want a different name that's up to you, but same name = same pagrade.

I haven't read everyone's profile here, but I'm willing to bet that anyone who buys into this idea of making Chiefs and SNCOs actually higher rank than Junior Officers is not in fact either a Chief or an SNCO, nor do they understand the role that a good one plays in an organization. Chiefs are so effective in part because they still maintain that connection with the Junior Enlisted, but have also earned the respect and deference of the Junior Officers whom they follow.

I sat in a room once with about hundred or so O5s and O6s. When the O6 on the stage was trying to talk there was a lot of conversation in the seats and not a lot of listening. When the option was given between lunch and listening to the Master Chief, it was unanimous that the Master would be next and there was dead silence as everyone listened intently.

A CHIEF knows exactly where they fit in the chain of command and strives to become a CHIEF because of it.

[mikelentz]

I sat in a room once with about hundred or so O5s and O6s. When the O6 on the stage was trying to talk there was a lot of conversation in the seats and not a lot of listening. When the option was given between lunch and listening to the Master Chief, it was unanimous that the Master would be next and there was dead silence as everyone listened intently.


Outright disrespect makes everyone look like an idiot. To include you.

As far as this rank reorganization comes, the person proposing the idea and the posters agreeing with it (having Enlisted in charge of Officers) have NO IDEA how the military works, the legal and social aspects of American policy regarding the Armed Forces and makes no sense whatsoever.

Officers receive an Appointment by way of Commission or Warrant (even those with Warrants eventually receive their Commission) from the President or in the case of a Warrant, the Secretary of the particular service acting on behalf of the President. Officers are legally bound to certain rules and regulations, have certain rights and responsibilities and are charged in doing things totally different than what enlisted members swear to do in their oath. Officers are representatives of the President.

Has anyone here actually read the two Oaths back to back?? Read the Oath Officers take and then read the Oath Enlisted take. Way different things. One Oath requires the member to obey the orders of Officers. The other makes an individual part of the Federal Government.

It does not matter if an Officer has 1 day of experience or 30 years of experience, all Enlisted Members swear (or affirm) to obey them. Some may not like having to follow the orders of a 21 year old 2LT, but everyone has the option to choose what route they eventually decide to go (Enlisted of Officer).

The original poster cited that Senior Enlisted need to lead junior Officers, and have more experience than them. I would suggest asking a Senior NCO their thoughts on the subject, and I bet they would say something similar to what I have said.

For the record I had six (6) years in, eventually becoming an NCO myself. I have got to say, the NCO leadership was lacking, there was no real education system (maybe on paper) and the pay was terrible. If we change anything, lets change; pay, education systems and benefits for NCO's.

Speaking as an 0-3, I would never support any decision to ever place an Enlisted member over an Officer (authoritative and regulation wise). This would never happen! Lets also not forget that Officers are "Generalists", meaning they know a little bit about everything, while Enlisted members are supposed to be technical experts knowing a lot about their chosen field. The roles are very precise and have worked for well over two-hundred years. Finally, I take offense to those that think Officers (of any grade or age) do not have the ability to lead simply because of lack of experience. Granted most do not go to Basic or AIT, but they do have their own set requirements that must be met for Commissioning. To make the comparison that they "get a diploma and become an Officer" is showing that you don't know anything about the Military you serve.

~Mike

[Combat correspondent]

... is showing that you don't know anything about the Military you serve.

~Mike

Hello Mike. Nice name, Mike. If you are indeed an O-3 then please act like it. I assume you are an Army Captain, correct? Well, surely even in the Army it is very inappropriate to sign your name 'Mike.'

[smarg]

I do agree with yggdrasil that if you are going to use the same name, they should be the same paygrade, the junior service being required to acquiesce to the senior. If you want a different name that's up to you, but same name = same pagrade.

I haven't read everyone's profile here, but I'm willing to bet that anyone who buys into this idea of making Chiefs and SNCOs actually higher rank than Junior Officers is not in fact either a Chief or an SNCO, nor do they understand the role that a good one plays in an organization. Chiefs are so effective in part because they still maintain that connection with the Junior Enlisted, but have also earned the respect and deference of the Junior Officers whom they follow.

I sat in a room once with about hundred or so O5s and O6s. When the O6 on the stage was trying to talk there was a lot of conversation in the seats and not a lot of listening. When the option was given between lunch and listening to the Master Chief, it was unanimous that the Master would be next and there was dead silence as everyone listened intently.

A CHIEF knows exactly where they fit in the chain of command and strives to become a CHIEF because of it.

Know the difference between a Navy CHIEF and a hippopotamus?

The hippopotamus doesn't have a dirty, stained uniform. :D

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

Outright disrespect makes everyone look like an idiot. To include you.

As far as this rank reorganization comes, the person proposing the idea and the posters agreeing with it (having Enlisted in charge of Officers) have NO IDEA how the military works, the legal and social aspects of American policy regarding the Armed Forces and makes no sense whatsoever.

Officers receive an Appointment by way of Commission or Warrant (even those with Warrants eventually receive their Commission) from the President or in the case of a Warrant, the Secretary of the particular service acting on behalf of the President. Officers are legally bound to certain rules and regulations, have certain rights and responsibilities and are charged in doing things totally different than what enlisted members swear to do in their oath. Officers are representatives of the President.

Has anyone here actually read the two Oaths back to back?? Read the Oath Officers take and then read the Oath Enlisted take. Way different things. One Oath requires the member to obey the orders of Officers. The other makes an individual part of the Federal Government.

It does not matter if an Officer has 1 day of experience or 30 years of experience, all Enlisted Members swear (or affirm) to obey them. Some may not like having to follow the orders of a 21 year old 2LT, but everyone has the option to choose what route they eventually decide to go (Enlisted of Officer).

The original poster cited that Senior Enlisted need to lead junior Officers, and have more experience than them. I would suggest asking a Senior NCO their thoughts on the subject, and I bet they would say something similar to what I have said.

For the record I had six (6) years in, eventually becoming an NCO myself. I have got to say, the NCO leadership was lacking, there was no real education system (maybe on paper) and the pay was terrible. If we change anything, lets change; pay, education systems and benefits for NCO's.

Speaking as an 0-3, I would never support any decision to ever place an Enlisted member over an Officer (authoritative and regulation wise). This would never happen! Lets also not forget that Officers are "Generalists", meaning they know a little bit about everything, while Enlisted members are supposed to be technical experts knowing a lot about their chosen field. The roles are very precise and have worked for well over two-hundred years. Finally, I take offense to those that think Officers (of any grade or age) do not have the ability to lead simply because of lack of experience. Granted most do not go to Basic or AIT, but they do have their own set requirements that must be met for Commissioning. To make the comparison that they "get a diploma and become an Officer" is showing that you don't know anything about the Military you serve.

~Mike

Excellent post sir. From a former SNCO now Warrant Officer. Its easy to be critical but you really have to experience it to understand it and always offer a solution or alternative to the problem.

Warrants dont go by first name but by last Mr/Ms So and so lol.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I like the idea of requiring Sergeant before giving them the option to go officer. Nobody is going to appreciate a 22 year old OIC as much as they would appreciate a 26 year old prior enlisted with actual working knowledge of the Marine Corps.

Prior enlistment as a pre-requisite to making a good officer is just a myth. I was prior e-4 before I became an officer. All being prior enlisted teaches you is how to be a good enlisted man. It does little in the officer arena because it is an entirely different ball game. It does not mean that I think that officers are better people. Rather, I am emphasizing that they are just different in working environment and expectations. Finally, the notion of giving authority just on a diploma shows that the poster has no clue on how officers are recruited and trained. Just because you have a degree does not mean you will get a commission. I personally know of people who were not commissioned out of rotc despite finishing their diplomas. They were not deemed as officer material and had to pay off their service committments as enlisted. I have seen good and bad come from every commissioning source. Being a prior does not make one a better or worse officer. Rather, it is the committment to integrity, mission and to the people you are given the responsibility for that makes a good officer.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Hello Mike. Nice name, Mike. If you are indeed an O-3 then please act like it. I assume you are an Army Captain, correct? Well, surely even in the Army it is very inappropriate to sign your name 'Mike.'

This is an open forum. As such, we are all with equal voices on this forum. Mike is acting like an O-3 by putting forth his opinions and letting them stand on their own merits, instead of trying to fall back on his rank. To me, that's a commendable atitude. So, if he wants to sign his posts with Mike, then so be it. I highly doubt that the world will collapse with him signing in such a manner.

[SeaChicken]

Outright disrespect makes everyone look like an idiot. To include you.
I may not have been clear in my point that Senior Enlisted garner respect because they have paid their dues to get where they are and that O6s respect the E9 even more than they respect each other. We don't need to place them above Junior Officers because the Junior Officers already listen when they talk and even the Senior Officers do. I do take umbrage at your inference that i am somehow an idiot and I demand satisfaction. Pistols at dawn shall we?

Finally, I take offense to those that think Officers (of any grade or age) do not have the ability to lead simply because of lack of experience. Granted most do not go to Basic or AIT, but they do have their own set requirements that must be met for Commissioning. To make the comparison that they "get a diploma and become an Officer" is showing that you don't know anything about the Military you serve. Amen ... It's always bothered me that I've gotten a vibe from enlisted that they think just because have a degree my commission was handed to me. Just like Senior Enlisted earn their stripes, Officers have to earn their bars, we just take different paths.

[grandpa mike]

I am a grandfather (whose grandson is deploying if a few weeks). I have not been around the military for over 40 years (I may be somewhat outdated). But I have recently taken a more renewed interest in military matters (for the reason stated above). So I thought I would throw in my two cents.

In earlier times, any PSG had O1s to deal with (I doubt if that has changed). It was an integral part of an experienced PSG's duties to take his butter bar through real life "finishing school". Any effective officer who went through that finishing school should admit how much they learned about hands on leadership (or at least admit to some benefit), as well as the army in general, from his NCO. Troops need good leadership from both officers and ncos (their duties are vastly different and should be). Small things count. An O1 fresh out of ranger school wanting to pull a white glove in the field is a new idea but probably not good for morale. NCO experience helps them avoid and learn such things. Perhaps a minor example. But an effective officer soon learned the benefits of NCO interconnectiviy and ability to make "work arounds" in a sometimes rigid military system. Grunts benefit from both leaders. Although NCOs may get commisioned (if they wish) many of them prefered working directly with troops and did not necessarily want to move away from it. Grunts need both and grunts do the heavy lifting. I like new ideas, they provide opportunites for improvement. At best they cause improvements and at the least they give us new perspectives. All in favor of that. Not all new ideas are cause for change. But taking a new look is never a bad thing. Many a psg had to help an O1 understand this difference. The old mantra "if it ain't broke, don't fix it) still holds true. I believe there are far too many pros to the current system to change it. It can be galling for an NCO to have a slow learner but that also helps the NCO develop new skills. I always look for the opportunity to learn, even from doorknobs. Anything that strengthens our military sructure is a good thing and separation between officer and nco strengthens our system. My two cents.

Regarding the different titles, well our military structure is strong enough to allow it (especially considering the widely different missions each branch has). It should not be a problem. Units often become more effective because of intangibles like unit history,rank label differences, unit specific flags, unit names, etc. My grandson benefits from being in a unit with a history stemming from WW2 (although it is buried in a new DIV) I hear it in his voice. If it makes marines better to call them "Lance CPLs then why not. Commadore or whatever, the guy should know his job to get there and that is what counts. In fact, if I had an axe to grind it would be with constantly redesignating units identities and losing proud histories. But that is another story.

[highflyer]

What sense does this make. Take time to read the Oath of a Commissioned Officer and that of the Non-Commissioned Officer. Understand the authorities of a Commissioned Officer and that of a Non-Commissioned Officer. Having served as both, I can not understand the thought process here. To me this sounds like an NCO that has difficulties with junior leaders, and instead of helping to mold a junior officer, simply wants to be giving authority over such. The roll of the NCO is to train Soldiers, not just junior enlisted.

[Combat correspondent]

The kid using his first name "Mike" is an example of what I talk about with officers commanding respect. MIke is probably a young officer that believes by allowing subordiantes to call him by his first name he wins the "popularity" and "coolness" vote. mike had a good post though.

Wouldnt it be great to hear ANY commissioned officer just come out and say, "I'm a captain because I EARNED it. If you want a commission, get off your ass, go through the process and EARN it!" Most officers have so little respect for themselves and their commissions, they literally cannot do this. Consequently, they can't lead people. Same thing with Soldiers and Airman who think they are "entitled" to stripes.

I am with you here and that is why I made sly remarks about "Mike." Funny thing, Kojack, if you ask many here, some will know I am an E-6, some will know my career before the AF, my job is in my name but no one knows my 1st name ---- likewise, I can name about 20 people who post here regularly by their screen name, their rank and their jobs and I respect them all in different ways - I don't know any of their 1st names and they don't feel we have to go drink '40s together on the weekends to be cool.

Mike and many of these people need to wise up and grow up. The office they discharge as officers (be it commissioned, warrant or non-commissioned) is larger than themselves and it's that simple.

[SeaChicken]

it changed a long time ago.

Comissioned officers maintain and command very little authority and respect. in fact, the commissioned commanders are no longer allowed any authority over enlisted training. The enlisted commander, 1SG or CSM, is now responsoble for approving all enlisted training in the unit-not the capatin or LTC. You dont see the commissioned commander briefing enlisted training in the unit he "commands" anymore, the 1SG and CSM are legally responsible for it as fellow commanders. In the Army, an E9 is considered lawfully to be a general officer and God help any commissioned officer who thinks that he somehow "outranks" this senior enlisted man. I beleive its only a matter of time before NCOs will actually be rating and even senior rating commissioned officers in the Army.Forgive my continued Navy bent, but this thread wasn’t originally solely in the Army forum.

If this is all true, than I seriously worry for the future of the US Army. Since when can a commander not be “allowed” authority for training those under his/her command? I can envision that the Senior Enlisted would likely bear the majority of tasking for training and would be the Commanders primary advisor on training, but you can’t seriously tell me that Commissioned Officers are nowhere in the loop on the training of Enlisted Soldiers. CSMA is the final authority on training and it all flows from him through the Senior Enlisted Ranks?

An E9, “Lawfully a General Officer”? I seriously doubt that, can you cite some law, policy or regulation that states this? I do believe that an E9 is respected as much, lawfully? In the Navy I’ve heard it said that Master Chief (E9) is like Enlisted Flag rank. The emphasis is on LIKE. I definitely have seen Master Chief’s respected by Senior Officers as their peers, but in the end, even the E9 knows that he is lawfully outranked by the O1. Now would said O1 find life extremely difficult where he to throw around his rank and treat the E9 like an E1? I’m an O4 and I wouldn’t even do that, but I also know that that E9 if he is in my Chain of Command is UNDER me, not equal to or over me and I can never defer to him and try to pass the buck to him.

“Commissioned Commander” and “Enlisted Commander”? Seriously, WTF is that?

Hell yes I EARNED my rank. Not just getting my commission to begin with, but my promotions along the way. I did that by ensuring my sailors had all the tools to complete the mission, they were treated justly by “the system”, and they received whatever compensation/awards/accolades/thanks I could get them. When necessary I put them before me to the point of pissing off my wife, putting my career on the line and giving up my perks to ensure they got what they needed/deserved.

I see the Commissioned Officer/Senior Enlisted relationship this way. We are both BS screens. You screen it from below and I’ll screen it from above and we’ll all be happy campers. It’s worked well for me so far.

[SeaChicken]

I'm good at ignoring people, just ask my wife.

Seriously though, It always bugs me the same people who complain about a lack of good Officers and leaders want to completely marginalize and discount the Junior Officers, particularly O1 and O2s. Don't you realize that is your opportunity to help that young and impressionable O1 or O2 develop into the rock solid O4 and O5 that you want to go to war with? Leadership isn't a one way street. It can go up the chain too.

[Hoss]

it changed a long time ago.

Comissioned officers maintain and command very little authority and respect. in fact, the commissioned commanders are no longer allowed any authority over enlisted training. The enlisted commander, 1SG or CSM, is now responsoble for approving all enlisted training in the unit-not the capatin or LTC. You dont see the commissioned commander briefing enlisted training in the unit he "commands" anymore, the 1SG and CSM are legally responsible for it as fellow commanders. In the Army, an E9 is considered lawfully to be a general officer and God help any commissioned officer who thinks that he somehow "outranks" this senior enlisted man. I beleive its only a matter of time before NCOs will actually be rating and even senior rating commissioned officers in the Army.

That has to be one of the silliest, most factually incorrect things I've ever read on the internet. A quick look at AR 350-1, paragraph 2-35 would set you straight.



c. Battalion–level commanders are the principal training managers and will develop, coordinate, implement, supervise, and evaluate performance–oriented training programs within the guidance and resources provided by higher headquarters; develop specific training plans to correct training deficiencies; reduce training detractors and personnel and unit turbulence; and coordinate resources for subordinate units.
d. Company–level commanders are the primary trainers. As such, they assist the training managers in developing training plans, and prepare and execute the training program.

Which regulation designates a CSM (Does this include plain old Sergeant Majors?) as a General Officer. If this really were the case I would be upset if I was a CSM. The lowest a General Officer gets paid is $7,553 a month and the highest a CSM gets paid is $6,863. What a rip off. What makes it worse is a General could be making that $7,553 on his first day in the Army. A CSM has to wait 38 years before he makes $6,863.

What I don't think some people understand is what the sources of authority are. Commissioned officers gain their authority from the President. NCOs gain their authority from from commissioned officers. As such officers will always "outrank" NCOs. Does this mean a fresh faced 2LT straight from BOLC III has more influence over company operations than a 1SG. Of course not. But that fresh faced LT still is in charge of his platoon. He most certainly needs to listen and learn from his PSG, but at the end of the day the PSG is rated by that LT so it's in his best interest to maintain a good working relationship with him. Yes, the PSG will have 10-15 years of experience under his belt, so it is the best interest of that LT to accept advice from his PSG and in most cases do things the way his PSG wants. But it is still his decission to make. That PSG is bound by regulation and his oath to obey his platoon leader.

Now, on to the issue of Soldiers openly declaring that they don't have any respect for, or listen to lieutenants. They are openly declaring that they have no integrity. Every enlisted Soldier in the military has sworn an oath and accepted that they are bound by regulation to obey and respect officers. That's it, bottem line. If you think it's wrong and can't abide by that then leave the military or accept the consequences.

I have done both jobs, NCO and officer. I can tell you from experience. Learning to be an officer is harder, much harder. The difference is that you learn to be an NCO over a period of years. You typically have 3-5 years of experience under your belt befor you pin on stripes. Even then, as a brand new SGT. your responsibilities are minimal, typically having about three Soldiers to look after. Learning officership is like drinking from a fire hose. From day one of being in the company I was responsible for an entire platoon and roughly $30,000,000 worth of equipment. I was grilled left and right by my Battalion Commander and Battalion XO about tactics, maintainence, Soldiers' personal information, SOP's, and much much more. After only one month in I had take my platoon through certifications. I was very lucky. I had an excellent PSG. He taught me everything I needed to know. Even more importantly, he never tried to undercut my authority and was supportive of me in everything I did. He never dissagreed with me in front of the Soldiers. If he thought there was a better way of doing things he would pull me to the side and tell me. Most of the time we went with his way. But in the rare times that I didn't agree with him that was final. He never argued or complained. He ensured my guidence was followed. I am a better officer because of him, and as I progress through the ranks I run into more and more NCOs that are just like that. NCOs that when given respect and reguard, return it unquestionably. It is unfortunate that there are a few Bad apples (both Officer and NCO) out there that give the rest a black eye.

[CW5mgsmith]

Enlisted do not "command" anything, despite titles like Command Sergeant Major, Command Chief Master Sergeant, Command Chief Petty Officer. Only those with commissions can actually command, enlisted dispense orders in lieu of an officer. I can understand the angst when a 21 year old 0-1 outranks a seasoned E-9. Imagine how I feel as a CW5, but that is how it is. I can take solice in knowing that my pay is higher than any 0-5. It isn't a perfect system, but keep in mind that the Eisenhower's, Patton's, etc. were once young, inexperienced 0-1s. Enlisted are oranges, officers are apples..........I guess we warrant officers are pears, but however we are classified we are distinct and represent a hierarchy. That is the way it was designed and must remain in order to maintain good order and discipline.

[rdskin27]

ALL:
This whole ideal has been around since I intially joined the Army. I am now a CPT with 18 years and they are still discussing the same post. I go by my first name and I don't do it to look cool just live in an enviroment that allows me to do this with my Soldiers.

The true problem I have seen is the blurring of the lines and the distinction between the Officer and NCO ranks. I have always ensured training was being conducted and I approved training for my company. I don't know where some people get the idea that we work for enlisted Soldiers, I haven't forgot nor will I forget where I came from , but I made a conscience decision to get a commission and pursue command actively.

This will be my only post on this subject, but get over yourself and post replies that contribute to the forum not personal attacks on post.

Rob

[grandpa mike]

"...it changed a long time ago.
Comissioned officers maintain and command very little authority and respect. in fact, the commissioned commanders are no longer allowed any authority over enlisted training..."

As I read the above I wondered if things really had changed that much. I am much encouraged and reassured by HOSS's (and others') posting. But perhaps more to the point I would hope my grandson serves under an equally enlightened and experienced officer (and ncos). Thanks HOSS for squaring that away. I reckon grunts will best be served by both officers/ncos and the necessary command structure to execute hard things in bad times. The world is filled with folks who (for whatever their reasons) wish our country as bad of times as they can create (that will never change). Effective officer/nco teamwork means my grandson will have far better chances. Training, experience, top level equipment and effective leadership increases probability of success (everyone comes home and the enemy does not).

Discussion is good. New ideas may have merit, but somethings are that way because they work.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

it changed a long time ago.

Comissioned officers maintain and command very little authority and respect. in fact, the commissioned commanders are no longer allowed any authority over enlisted training. The enlisted commander, 1SG or CSM, is now responsoble for approving all enlisted training in the unit-not the capatin or LTC. You dont see the commissioned commander briefing enlisted training in the unit he "commands" anymore, the 1SG and CSM are legally responsible for it as fellow commanders. In the Army, an E9 is considered lawfully to be a general officer and God help any commissioned officer who thinks that he somehow "outranks" this senior enlisted man. I beleive its only a matter of time before NCOs will actually be rating and even senior rating commissioned officers in the Army.


Oh BS, Kojack. Show me the proof. Get it through your head, an officer commands by commission from the President. An nco command by authority delegated by an officer. An nco will never, ever command an officer. So quit slinging your line of horseshit about enlisted generals. No one believes your crap.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

The kid using his first name "Mike" is an example of what I talk about with officers commanding respect. MIke is probably a young officer that believes by allowing subordiantes to call him by his first name he wins the "popularity" and "coolness" vote. mike had a good post though.

Wouldnt it be great to hear ANY commissioned officer just come out and say, "I'm a captain because I EARNED it. If you want a commission, get off your ass, go through the process and EARN it!" Most officers have so little respect for themselves and their commissions, they literally cannot do this. Consequently, they can't lead people. Same thing with Soldiers and Airman who think they are "entitled" to stripes.

If he was using Mike in the office with his ncos and enlisted, I would agree. However, this is a forum, which means that we are all with equal voice in this forum. This isn't an official military website. As such, we are all PFCs. Private Fxxxing Civilians.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

IMagine how the battalion cdr feels, who actually is a commander, to be taking home a smaller paycheck than a subordinate CW5 who has far less responsibility? Why would anyone waste their time and assume the risk when they could earn a bigger paycheck and nicer quarters by AVOIDING the rank and work and staying a warrant officer?

The only reason a w-5 is earning more than an O-5 is because a w-5 has more time in service. If you matched an o-5 with equal time with a w-5, the o-5 earns more. Of course, that would be assuming that you could read a pay table.

[mikelentz]

The kid using his first name "Mike" is an example of what I talk about with officers commanding respect. MIke is probably a young officer that believes by allowing subordiantes to call him by his first name he wins the "popularity" and "coolness" vote. mike had a good post though.

Wouldnt it be great to hear ANY commissioned officer just come out and say, "I'm a captain because I EARNED it. If you want a commission, get off your ass, go through the process and EARN it!" Most officers have so little respect for themselves and their commissions, they literally cannot do this. Consequently, they can't lead people. Same thing with Soldiers and Airman who think they are "entitled" to stripes.

First, I am not a "kid". What constitutes a "Kid"? I have kids......I am also older than 30.

Second, I would never let any enlisted member call me by my first name, not even my last name unless it is preceded by my rank. The whole "order and discipline" is important in the military service!

Finally.... I "Earned my Commission" through hard work, dedication and sacrifice both personal and profesionaly. I took my oath very sacred. Many men and women have gone before me and many will follow, and we all shared the Oath of Office. I am bound by the words in that Oath to do my best in my profesional and personal life. Be it leading Soldiers in war, or making sure the families of my deployed Soldiers are well taken care of.

For you and others to lump Officers together and make it out that we are less professional in our duties, have no leadership experiance and should be following the orders of Privates is disrepsectfull.

One more side note, I put my name on the post, because this is supposed to be a "relaxed" type of forum, where we can all feel at ease to write what we truly believe. If you and others feel differently, than by all means call me SIR, and don't use my name.

[ringjamesa]

I think I have refrained long enough. I think this propsed overhaul is a load. As a SNCO, I don't have any objection to saluting a Lt. I have no problem reporting to an Lt. I don't think on my best days I outrank an Lt. What I do believe is that I have some valuable experience and knowledge that could help the Lt if he/she chooses to learn it. If he/she doesn't. I am not the one to say "I told you so." They are officers and I will afford them the respect they have earned by being officers. Do I like all officers? Of course not. Do I respect them all as people? Nope. do I ALWAYS respect the rank? I sure as hell do. There are multiple threads on this forum about why the younger generation/older gen are worse than they used to be. Can you imagine what the respect/disipline levels would be if no one could tell if an NCO in the Army outranked an officer in the Navy? Or a Chief in the AF outranked an officer in the Army? While I am sure this "proposal" had the best of intentions, there is no realistic way that you could say that an enlisted member oputranks officer a but not officer b. It is easier and more efficent to have ALL officers outrank ALL enlisted and deal with each other as such.

my 2 cents...

[ringjamesa]

First, I am not a "kid". What constitutes a "Kid"? I have kids......I am also older than 30.

Second, I would never let any enlisted member call me by my first name, not even my last name unless it is preceded by my rank. The whole "order and discipline" is important in the military service!

Finally.... I "Earned my Commission" through hard work, dedication and sacrifice both personal and profesionaly. I took my oath very sacred. Many men and women have gone before me and many will follow, and we all shared the Oath of Office. I am bound by the words in that Oath to do my best in my profesional and personal life. Be it leading Soldiers in war, or making sure the families of my deployed Soldiers are well taken care of.

For you and others to lump Officers together and make it out that we are less professional in our duties, have no leadership experiance and should be following the orders of Privates is disrepsectfull.

One more side note, I put my name on the post, because this is supposed to be a "relaxed" type of forum, where we can all feel at ease to write what we truly believe. If you and others feel differently, than by all means call me SIR, and don't use my name.

Kudos! I would never consider calling an officer by their first name. Trust me I have had some ask me to do so. It doesn't work that way in my book. Same thing with Enlisted members that outrank me. As an E-4 I had a supervisor that was an E-6 ask me to do so. My reply? "Sir I do not feel comfortable doing so." Did I think they were better people than me? Not really. Had they earned my respect personally? No. Did I have respect for their rank? Certianly. Now, I will grant you that I do make exceptions. When I was an E-6 and spoke to some E-7s that I knew very well and for years, in a social setting, first name was comfortable. Professional setting? Not me.
Funny story. When I was an E-3, I was working with a LtCol and when he asked me if I could do something, I imatated the voice through the wall from 12 Monkeys and said "not a prob Bob." Ooops, his name was Robert/Bob-I didn't know I had always called him Col x. Never did that again! :-)

[Combat correspondent]

Kudos! I would never consider calling an officer by their first name. Trust me I have had some ask me to do so. It doesn't work that way in my book. Same thing with Enlisted members that outrank me. As an E-4 I had a supervisor that was an E-6 ask me to do so. My reply? "Sir I do not feel comfortable doing so." Did I think they were better people than me? Not really. Had they earned my respect personally? No. Did I have respect for their rank? Certianly. Now, I will grant you that I do make exceptions. When I was an E-6 and spoke to some E-7s that I knew very well and for years, in a social setting, first name was comfortable. Professional setting? Not me.
Funny story. When I was an E-3, I was working with a LtCol and when he asked me if I could do something, I imatated the voice through the wall from 12 Monkeys and said "not a prob Bob." Ooops, his name was Robert/Bob-I didn't know I had always called him Col x. Never did that again! :-)

I agree on the whole first name thing. I shared a B-hut with 7 Soldiers in the desert last year. All these Soldiers were in the same shop - same chain of command. The highest ranking was a SFC, lowest was a PFC. At work, they were professional but back in the B-hut it was first names and debauchery prevailed. Now, I agree with working hard and playing hard. I agree with camaraderie. I agree with thoroughly knowing your subordinates. But, the first name thing is a no-go for me, personally. So, at work we were all professional but at the hut I was sort of an outsider because I kept a bit of professionalism there too and called them by rank and forced those junior to me to call me by rank.

I guess they didn't like me ;) Oh well!

[MGH814]

I really to lazy/busy to read all 6 pages of this blog, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in. How about all Officers must serve X (I say 2) years as enlisted. Then they when they become an Officer they'll at least have some sort of idea what the ramifications of his orders are.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I really to lazy/busy to read all 6 pages of this blog, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in. How about all Officers must serve X (I say 2) years as enlisted. Then they when they become an Officer they'll at least have some sort of idea what the ramifications of his orders are.


I would disagree with that. I was an e-4 before I was an officer. You don't need to be a prior enlisted to know that your orders have an effect on the men you lead. Being a prior, a West Pointer, rotc, or OTS does not automatically make you a better or worse officer. It is the character within that counts. I find that developing a strong sense of ethics and personal responsibility does further for officer development than anything else.

[MGH814]

It isn't necessarily a tangible element. Don't get me wrong I've worked for some poor officers that were prior Enlisted. Also if your fresh out of college you have to start from ground zero with your troops. If you are prior Enlisted you are a step or two ahead of your peers.

I really don't care about my officer's philosophy, "strong sense of ethics and personal responsibility", as much as I care about his ability to conduct a malfunction drill on my 240.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

It isn't necessarily a tangible element. Don't get me wrong I've worked for some poor officers that were prior Enlisted. Also if your fresh out of college you have to start from ground zero with your troops. If you are prior Enlisted you are a step or two ahead of your peers.

I really don't care about my officer's philosophy, "strong sense of ethics and personal responsibility", as much as I care about his ability to conduct a malfunction drill on my 240.

I agree that it isn't tangible, but having a strong sense of ethics carries to everything you do. Yes, an officer should know his job. If he is fresh out of college and starting from ground zero, that's what his ncos are for to teach and guide him during his initial time as an officer. However, you'll appreciate his sense of ethics and loyalty when he has your back and protecting you from the staff weenies.

[Former_Marine_23]

I would like a change in the rank structure. Never have even agreed with the process of officers at all. In fact the only thing I feel is right about is the diffuculty of there training at quantico. Even that is fairly lax though. My main issue is how does education equal leadership? There is book smart and street smart, school only requires one of the two. In addition you can say that getting your education shows determination. however there is no degree that teaches you what you need to know to be put in charge of hundreds of Marines lives after a few months of training. Nothing can replace time and experience, and I never thought putting a 1st or 2nd Lt in charge of a SSgt GySgt whos been in over 10yrs made any logical sense. Just how I feel, never know though I might go over to the dark side in my future.

That's why those junior officers have senior enlisted (Company 1stSgt's and SNCOIC's) to help advise them until they pick up rank and experience. I've known plenty of 2nd Lt's who weren't trusted to shred paper by themselves but they still rate a salute from every enlisted Marine.

OCS/TBS for Marine officers is more challenging than bootcamp, lasts longer and teaches more. So you tell me that a basically trained 2nd Lt isn't cut out to lead Marines and I'll call you a liar.

[Former_Marine_23]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

I'm not sure this even quantifies a response but I'll bite.

This is the dumbest idea in the history of thinking.

Enough said!

[Yggdrasil]

The best thing they can do to "overhaul" the rank structure? Get rid of the "sham shield" in the Army; make all E4's in the Army and Air Force NCO's. The current situation is making for poor leadership at the E5 level in these services.

[Bruce]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

This may never be official policy, but any senior officer worth anything would tell their junior officers to take the "suggestions" of E-8s and higher as if they were orders from a superior officer. This applies not just to combat, but even to office functions. When my dad was an AF major in the 1960s, he said he learned everything there was to learn about personnel practice from the senior sergeants under his command.

[mikelentz]

This may never be official policy, but any senior officer worth anything would tell their junior officers to take the "suggestions" of E-8s and higher as if they were orders from a superior officer. This applies not just to combat, but even to office functions. When my dad was an AF major in the 1960s, he said he learned everything there was to learn about personnel practice from the senior sergeants under his command.

At the trial, would the "I was just following the suggestions of my SGT" defense work for the 2LT who was misguided by his NCO??

Junior Officers can, and should learn as much as possible from the NCO's that WORK for them, but in the end, it is the Officer who makes the legal decisions. No Officer would ever tell another Officer to follow the suggestions of the Enlisted members as though they were orders.

[BRAVO10000]

Overhaul the NCO Corps? Well, I am an Airman, period-dot - but I did see one practice that I agreed with wholeheartedly. It's the Marines' practice of role-splitting beyond E-7. One track is operational (Master Sgt to Master Gunnery Sgt) and the others are ones that the Marines like to call "motivators" (First Sgt, Sgt Major).

I won't say that I am "well versed" in its successes and failures...but I DO know that as a SNCO, I find it increasingly difficult to focus on being a management-only body. The economic and dot-com booms of the late 90s and early in this millenium swept away a huge chunk of our expertise. These days, I'm back-and-forth between "organize, train and equip" and "current ops". There aren't enough hours in the day to do what we're asked to do AND be the technical lead - as a result, I don't think we're as good at our jobs as we could be. I may be jaded based on my own focus - I work in communications, and many/most of my peers are retreads from other career fields. Career-comm folks are pretty rare these days.

There was a time that we answered these issues with Warrant Officers. I don't know the history behind that, but they were on the way out when I was on the way in.

I know, some might see these roles as too limiting or whatever, and I get that. I guess I am just an advocate of a move that allows our corps the breathing room to be the experts in their field. As it stands, I feel like the clearing house for everything and it dilutes the relationship between me and junior officers in the unit. I wonder if segmenting and defining roles wouldn't help...

[MGH814]

That's why those junior officers have senior enlisted (Company 1stSgt's and SNCOIC's) to help advise them until they pick up rank and experience. I've known plenty of 2nd Lt's who weren't trusted to shred paper by themselves but they still rate a salute from every enlisted Marine.

OCS/TBS for Marine officers is more challenging than bootcamp, lasts longer and teaches more. So you tell me that a basically trained 2nd Lt isn't cut out to lead Marines and I'll call you a liar.

Who said anything about someone being able to lead? I said an individual that has the respect of his subordinates will get willful and instant obedience to orders. Someone that isn't respected will get obedience to orders. If you're former enlisted, you walk in the door, having the enlisted respect you.

Here's another example: Do you want a mechanic teaching how to change out a heart valve? No, you want someone who has "been there done that" and fresh out of college Officers don't fall into that category.

[mikelentz]

Who said anything about someone being able to lead? I said an individual that has the respect of his subordinates will get willful and instant obedience to orders. Someone that isn't respected will get obedience to orders. If you're former enlisted, you walk in the door, having the enlisted respect you.

Here's another example: Do you want a mechanic teaching how to change out a heart valve? No, you want someone who has "been there done that" and fresh out of college Officers don't fall into that category.

Apples and Oranges, regarding the surgeon and new Officer. Fresh out of college does not mean "leading soldiers the day after graduating". There are further PME the new Officer must attend to first. I would also like to say I see more "ate up" soldiers who have been doing their job for 5 plus years that are not even close to being as professional as a new 2LT.

For the record I want instant obediance to my orders. I don't care if the Soldier likes the order, if it seems like he or she is not carrying out what I want in the manner and time frame I prescribe, they won't be around much longer.

You can dislike the Officer, you can even decide the orders are crap, but in the end you do your best to support the order by carrying it out as quickly and efficiently as possible, or you will find yourself at the door.

My philosophy is that if you don't agree with something you do your best to support it for as long as possible and if it truly is a bad idea, it will fail on its own! Don't be the guy who everyone later says "caused the plan to fail", by sabotaging it or not supporting it. That only hurts you, and everyone will forget about the plans creator and focus entirely on you!!

[kavi]

If anything could be changed, I would say change the process for E-3's that are brand new in the Navy taking the E-4 exam 3 months after checking into their first command. Granted, they may have the knowledge in their rating to perform tasks, but with the crow comes increased responsibility, and in some cases, a leadership role. I can't follow someone who doesn't know s#!T from Shinola.

Overall, the way things are now aren't terribly bad, nothing that requires the re-work you want to do. If everyone acted like adults, there would be no need for this re-structuring.




Wounded Soldiers (http://www.armywell-being.org)
Army Retirement Services (http://www.armywell-being.org)

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Who said anything about someone being able to lead? I said an individual that has the respect of his subordinates will get willful and instant obedience to orders. Someone that isn't respected will get obedience to orders. If you're former enlisted, you walk in the door, having the enlisted respect you.

Here's another example: Do you want a mechanic teaching how to change out a heart valve? No, you want someone who has "been there done that" and fresh out of college Officers don't fall into that category.

But we all have to start from somewhere. You forget, that 2lt will be a ltc or even a colonel or general someday. By the end of the fourth year and you are a captain, you either have a clue or you get out. Don't tell me that you were perfect as a junior e1 - e4. We all have to begin somewhere, that's why it is the job of a senior enlisted to mentor the junior officer. And no, making them prior enlisted will not help. It just makes them a better enlisted man. The officer world is a whole different environment. I was prior enlisted as an army man before I was an officer.

[Yggdrasil]

If anything could be changed, I would say change the process for E-3's that are brand new in the Navy taking the E-4 exam 3 months after checking into their first command. Granted, they may have the knowledge in their rating to perform tasks, but with the crow comes increased responsibility, and in some cases, a leadership role. I can't follow someone who doesn't know s#!T from Shinola.

Not true. At the E4 level, that is where leadership is developed so that we have strong leadership at the E5 level. The Air Force (Senior Airmen) and the Army (Specialists) don't have what we have in the Navy. Though, as I understand it, there are people in those services who want to change this.

Responsibility at the E4 level is more informal. E4's in the Navy are not what you're making them out to be unless they're Boatswain's Mates.

[MexDoc]

Not true. At the E4 level, that is where leadership is developed so that we have strong leadership at the E5 level. The Air Force (Senior Airmen) and the Army (Specialists) don't have what we have in the Navy. Though, as I understand it, there are people in those services who want to change this.

Responsibility at the E4 level is more informal. E4's in the Navy are not what you're making them out to be unless they're Boatswain's Mates.

Not true in all communities. If you are an HM3 with the marines, you are consired an NCO and you usually get placed as a senior line HM. I disagree with the Army E4 statement. I met plenty of squared away specialists that were considrered fire team leaders and were placed in charge of convoy ops. you are right, maybe they should be called NCO's like the Marines do though. My 2 cents is they should just bridge the gap in pay, and this is just a suggestion. Maybe if they started 01 pay to equal E5 pay and not around E8 pay. I just have a hard time seeing E8's retired and getting paid pennies compared to an O9 or even an O3..Some of us would like to stay enlisted after all, my Chiefs are outstanding...most of my officers are more number hungry and soul less..i didnt say all i said most! =P I.E. we had an officer that was charged with tasking out HM's to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Well I deployed with this O3 and she refused to go on the same convoy because "she was an officer in the navy and shouldn't be placed in a dangersous situation like that." were we were going is where I had been living for 4 months already and needed her to see female patients....the army captain I was working for told her to get in and shut up because If she dies or any enlisted dies all of our SGLI are the same.

[Yggdrasil]

I disagree with the Army E4 statement. I met plenty of squared away specialists that were considrered fire team leaders and were placed in charge of convoy ops. you are right, maybe they should be called NCO's like the Marines do though.

I still stand by what I'm saying - I'm stationed on an Army post, so I see this first-hand. In the Army, you're more likely to see an E9 than a Corporal. And I see how easy it is to hide behind the "sham shield" when it comes to responsibility. Making them all Corporals would eliminate this, and better prepare them for E5.

[MexDoc]

I still stand by what I'm saying - I'm stationed on an Army post, so I see this first-hand. In the Army, you're more likely to see an E9 than a Corporal. And I see how easy it is to hide behind the "sham shield" when it comes to responsibility. Making them all Corporals would eliminate this, and better prepare them for E5.

true but then how else would the Army save money? Getting promoted from E4 to NCO E4 is the best way!!!!:D Just Joking. You are right though.

[xlifeguard]

I understand this person's frustration; lets face it, he has probably seen one too many bad officers who entered the service too young, and wham, all of the sudden they have a tremendous responsibility, and they dont fully understand the gravity of the situation. But to infuse the rank structure that way would negate its purpose in the first place. A large purpose of the NCO corps is to advise the Officers corps, activng as a balance to the equation. Mission accomplishment married with soldier welfare from the command point of view becomes more difficult when push comes to shove. Would the seasoned 1SG be able to make the tough call, when years of training taught him to think one way, versus the other. A college degree has very little to do with it nowadays as many enlisted NCOs, and Junior enlisted have college degrees; enlisted personnel and officers have two different functions. From a prior enlisted point of view, being an officers is much different, and to some degree frankly, most people when it really comes down to it are more comfortable with being held accountable, versus being held responsible. And if you still dont know the difference then ask to go to OCS and become a better officer than the one's you didnt respect.

[xlifeguard]

I understand this person's frustration; lets face it, he has probably seen one too many bad officers who entered the service too young, and wham, all of the sudden they have a tremendous responsibility, and they dont fully understand the gravity of the situation. But to infuse the rank structure that way would negate its purpose in the first place.

A large purpose of the NCO corps is to advise the Officers corps, activng as a balance to the equation. Mission accomplishment married with soldier welfare from the command point of view becomes more difficult when push comes to shove. Would the seasoned 1SG be able to make the tough call, when years of training taught him to think one way, versus the other. A college degree has very little to do with it nowadays as many enlisted NCOs, and Junior enlisted have college degrees; enlisted personnel and officers have two different functions.

From a prior enlisted point of view, being an officers is much different, and to some degree frankly, most people when it really comes down to it are more comfortable with being held accountable, versus being held responsible. And if you still dont know the difference then ask to go to OCS and become a better officer than the one's you didnt respect.

[MexDoc]

I think the rank structure is fine but the pay difference is still to far apart...yes a butter bar has his degree but an E9 usually has a masters also...if not the military schooling should equal..US Marshalls qualified 4 years of ACDU to an AS...dunno if they still do that =)

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I think the rank structure is fine but the pay difference is still to far apart...yes a butter bar has his degree but an E9 usually has a masters also...if not the military schooling should equal..US Marshalls qualified 4 years of ACDU to an AS...dunno if they still do that =)


Actually, less than 15% of the e7 - e9s have a bachelors and less than 1% have a masters. It doesn't mean that they are dumber than officers, but that their duties and deployments over the course of their careers make it difficult to complete a degree. Also, the enlisted pme structure does not facilitate getting an advanced degree, whereas for officers, there are programs where an officer is sent full time to graduate school to obtain a Masters. Currently, there are no programs where enlisted are sent full time to college and are allowed to remain enlisted. Most of the programs now are for programs to aid enlisted in obtaining a commission.

[MexDoc]

I am curious where those numbers are coming from, I was never asked if I had my degree or not....I sure don't believe it would come from the personnel office..they cannot even get my awards or SMART Transcript right....Sorry percentages are a huge pet peeve of mine because they mean nothing to me. They say a % number of people do this and that...I was never asked...it is BS that comes out of some college kids' school project...good example being the thread about USMC and Orgies by the University of Berkley....Are you going to believe it because they throw numbers? Did they go around asking every Marine? That thread is in this forum somewhere. I just know 100% of my enlisted E-7 and above leadership has their degree which does bring out my envy and motivates me to get mine...I have full respect and believe they derserve more then what they are going to receive...I do not want to argue I was just saying the pay is to far off...yes officers maybe have more schooling but enlisted usually give up more of their body and is more difficult for them to work later on..yet get paid barely enough to cover their morgage unless they had invested which wouldnt be very smart these days. Either way retirement at 20 years is great. I retire 2 years after my dad does :D

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I am curious where those numbers are coming from, I was never asked if I had my degree or not....I sure don't believe it would come from the personnel office..they cannot even get my awards or SMART Transcript right....Sorry percentages are a huge pet peeve of mine because they mean nothing to me. They say a % number of people do this and that...I was never asked...it is BS that comes out of some college kids' school project...good example being the thread about USMC and Orgies by the University of Berkley....Are you going to believe it because they throw numbers? Did they go around asking every Marine? That thread is in this forum somewhere. I just know 100% of my enlisted E-7 and above leadership has their degree which does bring out my envy and motivates me to get mine...I have full respect and believe they derserve more then what they are going to receive...I do not want to argue I was just saying the pay is to far off...yes officers maybe have more schooling but enlisted usually give up more of their body and is more difficult for them to work later on..yet get paid barely enough to cover their morgage unless they had invested which wouldnt be very smart these days. Either way retirement at 20 years is great. I retire 2 years after my dad does :D

those numbers are published annually by the personnel center of each individual service. In the case of the Air Force, it is published in their annual almanac that is provided to Congress. You can also find it by doing a search of military times in their annual almanac. I don't know where you serve, but during my time in service, I have never seen an organization where the e-7s are more than 20% having college degrees at the Bachelor's level or above. In my missile wing, 321st MW, I did a study once for the wing commander. He was determining the education levels within the wing's enlisted in order to assess the amount of funding he was going to ask for the next year's educational amount. We only found 10% of the e7s and above had a bachelors and only 1% had a masters. This was during the period of TQM, so we did a study to find out why the numbers were so low. It turned out that while programs were available, the work cycle for the maintenance crews made it difficult for them to work on their degrees. In the case of the security police, the sps were on constant deployment to the Middle East, which prevented many of them from attending classes. While there are more college educated enlisted in the force today, the numbers clearly show that the vast majority have not recieved a bachelor's or higher. That's just an urban legend circulating among the enlisted that the majority of enlisted do have bachelors. It simply is not the case.

[Sneezyone]

15% seems awfully low to me too *shrug*. 50% or more of the E-7 to E-9s I know have at least a bachelor's degree. I also know ppl with degrees who enlisted specifically b/c they wanted to learn a trade (and get the bonuses). Maybe the Air Force hasn't been pushing degrees as much as the Navy?:confused: Up until recently it was being phased in as a requirement for senior chiefs E-8 and above.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

15% seems awfully low to me too *shrug*. 50% or more of the E-7 to E-9s I know have at least a bachelor's degree. I also know ppl with degrees who enlisted specifically b/c they wanted to learn a trade (and get the bonuses). Maybe the Air Force hasn't been pushing degrees as much as the Navy?:confused: Up until recently it was being phased in as a requirement for senior chiefs E-8 and above.

Actually, the AF and Navy are the two services with the highest percentages of enlisted with degrees. As it is, only 20% of the nation as a whole has a college degree. 50% have attended college, but only 20% actually finished. Since the military is a reflection of the society as a whole, that would be pretty much in line with society.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

15% seems awfully low to me too *shrug*. 50% or more of the E-7 to E-9s I know have at least a bachelor's degree. I also know ppl with degrees who enlisted specifically b/c they wanted to learn a trade (and get the bonuses). Maybe the Air Force hasn't been pushing degrees as much as the Navy?:confused: Up until recently it was being phased in as a requirement for senior chiefs E-8 and above.

Also, the numbers come straight from each service. 50% is a bit too high.

[Sneezyone]

LOL, 50% might have something to do with the company I keep.

[MexDoc]

LOL, 50% might have something to do with the company I keep.

Did you note the part where I said personnel can not even keep track of my awards...there is a huge gap that says I was an E3 then skips to E5 in my record! I know they probably go off the TA they recieve but i will tell you that most of my shipmates used scholarships and got their degrees by other means...this being before TA was 100% free...also many had degrees before they joined. I find that hard to believe...I do not believe we reflect civilians...I went home..saw many lowlifes and decided to stay in...not that many lowlifes in the service..we hold a higher standard. Even if there is 1% e7 with degrees they should still close the gap..shoot I'm an E5 that was injured by an IED and I can barely run now...By the time I'm an e7 I may be crippled...I did it actually serving my country, unlike most officers that just sit behind a desk. you being in the Air Force will never understand...

[Sneezyone]

Oh no, I understand completely. DH's smart transcript and record didn't reflect his master's degree during last year's Chief board and he's had it since 2004. The records don't always adequately reflect what folks are doing. Dh also didn't use a lot of TA (it wasn't 100%) then so we paid some out of pocket and used some VA eligibility too. The best part is when various officers and senior/master chiefs talk to him (in my presence) about the 'importance of education' and how they worked so hard to get their aa/ba. We politely wait til they leave before rolling our eyes. Both of us have our ma/ms degrees and then some.

[Yggdrasil]

Currently, there are no programs where enlisted are sent full time to college and are allowed to remain enlisted.

There is in the Navy - the Advanced Education Voucher (AEV) program for E7-E9.

[MexDoc]

There is in the Navy - the Advanced Education Voucher (AEV) program for E7-E9.

Good to know! Thank you.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Did you note the part where I said personnel can not even keep track of my awards...there is a huge gap that says I was an E3 then skips to E5 in my record! I know they probably go off the TA they recieve but i will tell you that most of my shipmates used scholarships and got their degrees by other means...this being before TA was 100% free...also many had degrees before they joined. I find that hard to believe...I do not believe we reflect civilians...I went home..saw many lowlifes and decided to stay in...not that many lowlifes in the service..we hold a higher standard. Even if there is 1% e7 with degrees they should still close the gap..shoot I'm an E5 that was injured by an IED and I can barely run now...By the time I'm an e7 I may be crippled...I did it actually serving my country, unlike most officers that just sit behind a desk. you being in the Air Force will never understand...

first of all, I was infantry and then armored cav as an enlisted man. Second, as an Air Force officer, I was in tactical missiles and then tactical communications. I've had jobs that were in the field for most of my time in the service. While I thank you for your service and sacrifice, don't assume about others and don't assume anything about other services unless you have the facts. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of enlisted do not have a college degree. It is not a knock on them, but a fact. Even if they went off the grid to get a degree, the fact that they have a degree will still be a part of their service record. Simply put, it is a myth that the vast majority of enlisted have degrees. There are more with a college education now then there has been in the past, but having a college education and having a degree are two different things. The percentage who complete a degree and stay enlisted is pretty low because those who do complete a degree as enlisted quite often apply and are accepted for officer training. As such, when they get commissioned, they don't count against the enlisted who stay enlisted after obtaining their degrees, which is still a low percentage of the overall force.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Oh no, I understand completely. DH's smart transcript and record didn't reflect his master's degree during last year's Chief board and he's had it since 2004. The records don't always adequately reflect what folks are doing. Dh also didn't use a lot of TA (it wasn't 100%) then so we paid some out of pocket and used some VA eligibility too. The best part is when various officers and senior/master chiefs talk to him (in my presence) about the 'importance of education' and how they worked so hard to get their aa/ba. We politely wait til they leave before rolling our eyes. Both of us have our ma/ms degrees and then some.

then why are you content at working at a level far below that of your educational level? Why are you then content with underachieving?

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

There is in the Navy - the Advanced Education Voucher (AEV) program for E7-E9.

I stand corrected.

[Sneezyone]

then why are you content at working at a level far below that of your educational level? Why are you then content with underachieving?

Perhaps it's worth reminding you about your own words...something about not making assumptions, particularly about other services unless you've BTDT? 1st, I'm not AD, my DH is and second, my DH applied to STA-21 and/or OCS THREE TIMES while working on his BA (summa cum laude) and MA and was not selected. Instead, he was selected for E-7 1st time up after 10 years of service (and no, not in a fast-promoting rate). That's why he's enlisted. The services do not always promote E to O from within. Many have to change branches to make the switch. DH is applying for LDO this year tho so who knows what will happen.

[MexDoc]

The services do not always promote E to O from within. Many have to change branches to make the switch.

He brings up a good point...now if you were held to the Navy standard of E to O you probably wouldn't be an O right now, but since the ArmyAiforce facilitated that for you, you are one...I thought about becoming an Army PA mainly because it was the easiest road to get to O. Requirements throw in (lots o billets) e4, 60 credits and a few others...then 2yr PA school and BAM Masters with accelerated O3 ! its like making a cake! In the Navy you have to apply for many . You see the E to O freedom a lot more for the Army which may be the reason why there may not be that many NCO's with degrees...unlike the navy which only allows about 12 PA's per yea...you know our E-6 18D's were showing an Air Force PA out of school many things while we were in afghanistan...Those guys do a lot more yet when they retired they will probably not be hurting for cash because of their fat bonuses BUTt they could use better retirement pay. Thanks for the compliment and same to you..I never wanted to get into a degree talk...my main point is Senior NCO's/Staff NCO's/Chiefs should be paid a little closer to their junior officer counterpart. thank you for your service aswell...I think I better lay off the forums for a while my forum grammer and spelling is rubbing off on everything else lol

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Perhaps it's worth reminding you about your own words...something about not making assumptions, particularly about other services unless you've BTDT? 1st, I'm not AD, my DH is and second, my DH applied to STA-21 and/or OCS THREE TIMES while working on his BA (summa cum laude) and MA and was not selected. Instead, he was selected for E-7 1st time up after 10 years of service (and no, not in a fast-promoting rate). That's why he's enlisted. The services do not always promote E to O from within. Many have to change branches to make the switch. DH is applying for LDO this year tho so who knows what will happen.


Yet, you implied with the rolling of eyes that your DH was superior because he was enlisted with a degree over the officers above him. This despite the fact that he was turned down for OCS three times. Not to knock your husband down, but should he be knocking officers down when he himself wasn't able to be selected to be an officer? It's one thing if he applied, was accepted, then turned it down to stay enlisted. But for him to have applied, be turned down and then roll his eyes? It is an accomplishment to make e-7 after 10 years. However, don't knock on officers unless you've btdt, as you have stated in your own words.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

He brings up a good point...now if you were held to the Navy standard of E to O you probably wouldn't be an O right now, but since the ArmyAiforce facilitated that for you, you are one...I thought about becoming an Army PA mainly because it was the easiest road to get to O. Requirements throw in (lots o billets) e4, 60 credits and a few others...then 2yr PA school and BAM Masters with accelerated O3 ! its like making a cake! In the Navy you have to apply for many . You see the E to O freedom a lot more for the Army which may be the reason why there may not be that many NCO's with degrees...unlike the navy which only allows about 12 PA's per yea...you know our E-6 18D's were showing an Air Force PA out of school many things while we were in afghanistan...Those guys do a lot more yet when they retired they will probably not be hurting for cash because of their fat bonuses BUTt they could use better retirement pay. Thanks for the compliment and same to you..I never wanted to get into a degree talk...my main point is Senior NCO's/Staff NCO's/Chiefs should be paid a little closer to their junior officer counterpart. thank you for your service aswell...I think I better lay off the forums for a while my forum grammer and spelling is rubbing off on everything else lol

By any standards, I would have been an officer. I had 1580s on my sats and was a Westinghouse Prize finalist. I was accepted for both the Naval Academy and USMA. I had enlisted first because I wanted to know what it was like before I applied for an officer program. The only reason I went ROTC instead of the Academies were due to my eyes. Back then, USMA had a 5.5 diopter standard and ROTC had a 6.5 diopter standard for the eyes. Anyways, back to the point of the discussion, the stats behind the college education for enlisted are what are put out by the services themselves. Even if you didn't update your records, the majority do because it is in the interest of their careers to make sure their education is recorded. And if your record is not up to date, then it is up to you to keep them updated. When I transitioned from the Army to the AF, several of my Army awards and certs were lost. Fortunately, I always keep a copy of my service record with me and had it corrected. Finally, on your main point of senior NCOs being paid similarly to their officer counterparts, for the most part, they are. An e-7 with 17 years makes about the same as a 2lt and etc up to e-9 to a junior captain. Plus, if you look at the warrant pay, quite often, with their years of service, they make just as much or more than their 01 - 05 counterparts.

[kojack]

Setting aside my usual cynical comments, I think most are missing intent of commissioning and assuming that a degree automatically "equals" a commission. I believe that commissioning involves a lot of things and higher level education is one of them. Earning a degree doesnt automatically qualify you to be commissioned. Look at the complaints about that very thing thing here.

Does an E3 with a masters degree(and yes, Ive seen several over a 30 yr period) have better qualifications to be a plaltoon sergeant than the E7 with a high school certificate? No.

Having a degree is only a small part of being commissioned, at least the way I see it.

See? No scathing cynical remarks......

[Sneezyone]

Yet, you implied with the rolling of eyes that your DH was superior because he was enlisted with a degree over the officers above him. This despite the fact that he was turned down for OCS three times. Not to knock your husband down, but should he be knocking officers down when he himself wasn't able to be selected to be an officer? It's one thing if he applied, was accepted, then turned it down to stay enlisted. But for him to have applied, be turned down and then roll his eyes? It is an accomplishment to make e-7 after 10 years. However, don't knock on officers unless you've btdt, as you have stated in your own words.

Step back from the ledge, OK? My SAT beats your SAT is pointless and juvenile and does little to add to the discussion. You're just digging a bigger hole with assumptions that I could easily refute with facts. It's pointless. I don't have anything against officers, good ones. Hell, why would DH want to be one otherwise? No, we exchanged glances, as spouses often do, to indicate our mutual irritation that yet another person made the ASS-umption that only officers have degrees. Officers, in particular, have to be careful who they choose to lecture about education because they lose all credibility when they get it wrong and chances are pretty good that when they're talking to senior NCOs they WILL get it wrong a time or two. BTW, my best friend and college roomie is an AF officer too. I love her to death and she's a bright woman but I know her grades, OK? She was not well-suited to the major she chose. Still, the Af took her anyway, and not as an ROTC grad either.

The Navy does not promote a lot of people E to O unless it's LDO or Warrant. It's a whole different animal than the Air Force and Army. My husband's 2nd XO gave him his LT bars after switching Army to Navy for the same reason, he told DH that was probably his best bet but DH likes the Navy better, go figure. The truth is that the easiest way to get your commission is either direct or ROTC, period, so there are a lot of people who through choice or no fault of their own are enlisted and have degrees.

I agree with you Kojak and with MexDoc. Enlisted service and Officer service require different skills sets, they are different jobs but that does not mean that one is more/less challenging than the other or requires more/less talent. If senior NCOs were paid commensurate with the actual work they do, above junior officers, that would go a long way toward opening ppls eyes and keeping more hard-charging talent in the senior NCO ranks. Were it not for the pay discrepancy, I think DH would have no interest in LDO at all.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Step back from the ledge, OK? My SAT beats your SAT is pointless and juvenile and does little to add to the discussion. You're just digging a bigger hole with assumptions that I could easily refute with facts. It's pointless. I don't have anything against officers, good ones. Hell, why would DH want to be one otherwise? No, we exchanged glances, as spouses often do, to indicate our mutual irritation that yet another person made the ASS-umption that only officers have degrees. Officers, in particular, have to be careful who they choose to lecture about education because they lose all credibility when they get it wrong and chances are pretty good that when they're talking to senior NCOs they WILL get it wrong a time or two. BTW, my best friend and college roomie is an AF officer too. I love her to death and she's a bright woman but I know her grades, OK? She was not well-suited to the major she chose. Still, the Af took her anyway, and not as an ROTC grad either.

The Navy does not promote a lot of people E to O unless it's LDO or Warrant. It's a whole different animal than the Air Force and Army. My husband's 2nd XO gave him his LT bars after switching Army to Navy for the same reason, he told DH that was probably his best bet but DH likes the Navy better, go figure. The truth is that the easiest way to get your commission is either direct or ROTC, period, so there are a lot of people who through choice or no fault of their own are enlisted and have degrees.

I agree with you Kojak and with MexDoc. Enlisted service and Officer service require different skills sets, they are different jobs but that does not mean that one is more/less challenging than the other or requires more/less talent. If senior NCOs were paid commensurate with the actual work they do, above junior officers, that would go a long way toward opening ppls eyes and keeping more hard-charging talent in the senior NCO ranks. Were it not for the pay discrepancy, I think DH would have no interest in LDO at all.


No, I don't assume that only officers have degrees. My next door neighbor in Grand Forks was a correspondent with a bachelors degree. He remained enlisted because the broadcasting positions in the AF were only open to enlisted. However, with the exception of jobs like jtac or broadcasting or enlisted only positions, I honestly don't know why people with degrees would stay enlisted unless they are disqualified by age or medical reasons. The pay and privilige disparity between officer and enlisted is so great that it makes me wonder why anyone would stay in the ranks after their initial tour. It is all great when you are young and single, but if you are married and have a family to take care of, I can't understand why someone would then stay in the ranks if they have the opportunity to be commissioned. Now, please don't get me wrong, I do have a deep respect for the enlisted. They work harder and longer under some extremely difficult circumstances than most civilians would put up with. I also don't think that having a degree or a commission makes one a better person. However, if you have the chance to advance, why not?

[Sneezyone]

I still think you're burdened by the belief that being an officer is the bees knees, the ultimate accomplishment. I just can't concur. Being a Chief is an honor and a priviledge in and of itself and the work is no less challenging than that of a junior officer. Heck, DH is one/two promotions away from primo commissary parking. Food in the Mess (at least on a carrier) is a definite improvement and not having to sleep among the riff-raff isn't bad either. LOL. Does it suck that the pay doesn't match the workload? Does it suck that you don't have a mini state room, sure. Is it ridiculous that grown E men are sometimes treated like toddlers? Hell yeah! And for DH anyway, those are big things. Still, there is stuff that comes along with the O that's not so nice, like moving more often anld less predictably and having fewer available duty options/locations. Those things are important to/for us as a family. I worry that he's not going to like socializing with officers either. He's a minority now but would be even more isolated in the junior O ranks (in terms of age, ethnicity and ideology). I know my best friend feels that way. It's not my call tho, or place to judge.

ETA: I was recruited by A&M out of high school and decided to go on a tour (aid package was too good to pass up). Lovely campus, interesting history, but odd...really odd. It all began with upper classmen coming to pick up their "nerdlings" for the weekend and went downhill from there. There was a line dancing lesson, a midnight showing of the rocky horror picture show, and an unsolicited follow-up/apology letter from the dean of admissions about a week later. LOL. Sorry, everytime I see your name pop up in a thread I have vivid flashbacks.

[Pueblo]

Setting aside my usual cynical comments.....

Do you even know what cynical means?

Hint: typing "racist," "socialist," and "piece of shit" over and over again is not cynicism

[kojack]

Do you even know what cynical means?

Hint: typing "racist," "socialist," and "piece of shit" over and over again is not cynicism

Do you?

Those things still stand for the dictator in the "Red House"....

[Pueblo]

Do you?

Those things still stand for the dictator in the "Red House"....

You don't know what a socialist is. If you did, you would realize that in the practical definition of the word, you are one.

Commissioned officers really shouldnt be allowed to wear awards, ribbons, medals, etc anyway. One way to stop this is to create a board of "approval" which would be made of enlisted soldiers. Commanders would have to submit recoomendations for awards and this board would approve the awards the commander wanted to present. The enlisted board would also oversee the commander and also input into the commanders OER on how well the commander used awards. Just an idea on the new army

Excellent points. The main issue is that the officers(lts, cpts, majs, etc*) are essentially scared of you and have no real authority over you. You extend courtesy to them because you CHOOSE to, not because they are in a position of correcting you or even REQUIRING it. Lets face it, if you told a LTC to pound sand, what is REALLY going to happen to you? Nothing. You'll make some phone calls to a colonel or general and that LTC will look like the idiot he is. The LTC will be in trouble and you and his senior will be laughing at him behind his back.

For all sakes and purposes, the officers have no power over anything and really, what is their purpose anymore? What does a lt or cpt REALLY do that a private or airman cannot? The pay inequality between enlisted and officer is being corrected and now that many enlisted people make more than many officers, I think we will see many of the lower officer ranks simply go away because no one will want a comission and worse housing and lower paychecks than the people the lt supposedly "leads".

You really should read about the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" before you continue to embarass yourself by claiming you're against Marx.

[Pueblo]

[Cricket] [Cricket]

[Pueblo]

...still no appearance from Pvt. Hitandrun...

[vb123]

This is ridiculous. LOL.

[Master Tanker]

Myyar, why change a system that has worked for 200 some years in the US Army and is working to everyone's satisfaction in umpteen Armies throughout the world? In addition I'm not sure that senior NCOS want to serve as platoon leaders. What happened? Are you irked by young LTs your age around you that have more to say than you like? Well that's the way the cooky crumbles. If you don't like that do like I did: I was prior enlisted. After my time I entered a U, joined Army ROTC, got a degree, was commissioned 2LT and retired as MAJ 16 years later.

[Master Tanker]

Myyar, why change a system that has worked for 200 some years in the US Army and is working to everyone's satisfaction in umpteen Armies throughout the world? In addition I'm not sure that senior NCOS want to serve as platoon leaders. What happened? Are you irked by young LTs your age around you that have more to say than you like? Well that's the way the cooky crumbles. If you don't like that do like I did: I was prior enlisted. After my time I entered a U, joined Army ROTC, got a degree, was commissioned 2LT and retired as MAJ 16 years later.

[Yggdrasil]

Well... the very concept of officer and enlisted comes from royalty, nobility and peasantry.

When a normal everyday average person joined the military, they were enlisted. When anyone of royal or noble blood joined, they were officers. Later on, warrant officers were established for the illegimate children of royalty and nobility - since, because they were of royal or noble blood, could not be enlisted; and because they were illegitimate children of royals and nobles, could not be commissioned.

The concept of officer and enlisted in our military is one of many remnants of the concept of nobility that we have in the US. Because nobility does not exist in the US (at least not officially or on paper), they substite nobility with the educated elite. An American with a bachelor's degree 200 years ago was a de facto nobleman anyway.

[Master Tanker]

Whoever started this senseless discussion of decades over and over again does not realize the spiritual difference between Officers & NCOs. I was both and had no problems. It is not the rank from low to high, or pay or function. It is the responsibility that is attached to position. When I was a SSGT in the USAF fixing jet engines, my job was rated by the success of my reapair. When I was a tank company CO of 17 tanks, 100 men & scores of equipment, the boss came to me, not to the 1SGT when something went wrong. Let's just leave it all as it is, it works very well.

[TJMAC77SP]

Whoever started this senseless discussion of decades over and over again does not realize the spiritual difference between Officers & NCOs. I was both and had no problems. It is not the rank from low to high, or pay or function. It is the responsibility that is attached to position. When I was a SSGT in the USAF fixing jet engines, my job was rated by the success of my reapair. When I was a tank company CO of 17 tanks, 100 men & scores of equipment, the boss came to me, not to the 1SGT when something went wrong. Let's just leave it all as it is, it works very well.

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

[bubbagene]

:confused: I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

So now the junior officer will have to salute the e-8 and e-9?
Not going to happen,but alot of that e-9 working under an 0-4 already happens.

The senior NCO gets the respect from new officers anyway,he or she helps mold them into our future leaders.

[bubbagene]

Whoever started this senseless discussion of decades over and over again does not realize the spiritual difference between Officers & NCOs. I was both and had no problems. It is not the rank from low to high, or pay or function. It is the responsibility that is attached to position. When I was a SSGT in the USAF fixing jet engines, my job was rated by the success of my reapair. When I was a tank company CO of 17 tanks, 100 men & scores of equipment, the boss came to me, not to the 1SGT when something went wrong. Let's just leave it all as it is, it works very well.

Jet mechs do it with more thrust,Hello fellow jet mech.:cheers:

[standstillplease]

Honor the NCO Corps by overhauling the rank structure? If one was to honor the NCO Corps it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. The task at hand is not going to be easy and would require a five to ten year requirement. One great idea would be the return of skill qualifier test. This would ensure technically and tactically proficient leaders in their prospective career fields. Add to the fact it would eliminate bias and favoritism found in promotion boards. This would be the new foundation for the future.

As for Senior NCO's, they should be given advanced education opportunities. Their authority should remain restricted to the enlisted ranks as they are enlisted and not commissioned. As this would cause conflicts of interest within the chain of command if they were given authority over O-1 etc.

[smarg]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

My God, dude, you are an officer HATER big time.

If you hate authority and ranking persons, then the military is NOT for you. Go deliver pizzas or something.

If ANYTHING, the Army needs to stop treating its E-9s like they're got-dam pharoahs. I mean, those freaks get ornate offices, SUVs, drivers, butt boys, and guess what...THEY ARE ENLISTED. A lieutenant outranks them.

Word.

[highplainsdrifter]

You can honor the NCO Corps by allowing us to be NCO's again. And, BTW, enlisted outranking the O's might be the dumbest idea I have ever read. That's sad considering the rumour I heard about all Soldiers wearing beret's.

O's are O's, and E's are E's. Thats the way it is, and the way it should be.

I might have a unique perspective, as I'm a SNCO in the Army, and the wife is a W2.

I fully admit, my wife worked much harder for her W than I worked for my rank,lol. I spent a whole lot of weekends drinking beer and watching SEC football. She spent all those days in college classes.

[racaa13]

A change like this is unnecessary, however the Army needs to place it's focus on the NCO Corps that has been watered down for several years with NCOs that are not fit to be in the Corps. Address the issue of transition from junior enlisted to NCO utilizing the Corporal rank and eliminating the Specialist. Focus on Squad level training and basic soldier skills that are lacking in several Staff Sergeants and below. Focus on what we need to know to make us better soldiers not whether an Officer is in charge or not. Every NCO knows that they are only about themselves, that's not what we are about nor will we ever be.

[cameryxle]

I agree with the poster on this.

I think the commission rank is an out-dated and outmoded relic of the past. As we all know, the American military pretty much mirrors the military traditions of Great Britian. The roots of the commissioned officer with all its pomp and glory, is rooted in the traditional class distinctions of Europe. In Britian for instance, officer rank was giving to Aristocrats who could afford to "buy" their commissions from the state.

Commissions were sold at very high prices by the crown and therefore only blue-blood aristocrats who had enough money, became officers. The commision system in Britian was thus a way of distinguishing the aristocrates in the military from "poor-commoners" or enlisted ranks. Even if one earned their way up the enlisted ranks, they were still out-ranked by the aristocrate above them.

This aristocrate "blue-blood" system was duplicated in the United States and continues on today in what we still call "commissioned ranks". This "tradition" of "giving authority" to a football star fresh from college over a battle tested, proven leader (NCO) is totally counter to the American tradition of "working your way up," or "earning" through proven marit , one's authority and leadership responsibilities.

I say, all the ranks should be the same until E6; then at that level; one can choose to be a field grade officer (ARMY (Major and above)) or Sargent Major track (direct contact with the troops). I say this because enlisted ranks have to prove through marit and hard work over a number of years "full-time", that that they are leadership material. Then and only then will NCO candidate's packet be proved and moved forward to the NCO boards NCO certification training, to become a NCO or advance in the NCO corps. .

This is a big difference from getting up in the morning and doing a few drills and excersizes over the weekends and between classes.

[Sneezyone]

I agree with the poster on this. I say, all the ranks should be the same until E6; then at that level; one can choose to be a field grade officer (ARMY (Major and above)) or Sargent Major track (direct contact with the troops). I say this because enlisted ranks have to prove through marit and hard work over a number of years "full-time", that that they are leadership material. Then and only then will NCO candidate's packet be proved and moved forward to the NCO boards NCO certification training, to become a NCO or advance in the NCO corps.

This is actually one of the more interesting ideas I've seen posted here in a long, long time. How might it work if you had to do 4 years AD before choosing a track? Would the field grade officer track still require degree completion (could be obtained after accession through ROTC program or if you already have a degree, you join in the field-grade officer track and remain on a probationary level until your four years are up?).

[cameryxle]

Good point.

Hypathetically speaking of coarse, a person who desired the commission track would be required to go through a OCS type program. Once the candidate sucessfully completed the program, the candidate would be authorized to attend school either online or on-site depending on the needs of the unit they would assigned to.

The candidate would be given provisionary commission rank until their BA degree was completed. They would have to complete their college educaion within a set period of time to retain here provisionary rank and stay on the commission track. If the candidate failed to maintain a certain GPA and/or complete their college degree within the period required, the candidate would be sent back to their original NCO rank and responsibilities and would have to reapply for and would only be qualified for, the NCO career track.

If the candidate already had a degree, then they would only have to pass the OCS training program and they would be able to skip the provisionary rank part of the program all together. However, if such a candidate recieved performance reviews below a certain level for 2-4 years (shadows the provisionary rank time for the candidate who is working on completing there degree requirements) then they could be released from there commissioned rank and returned to NCO status.

Just a thought.

[cameryxle]

In reference to ROTC and college grauates; they would be able to enlist in the ARMY at a higher rank (similar to BA grads enlisting at E4 SPC rank as they do today). The candidate may not have to start at E1 but would still have to prove themselves in order to earn the right to be promoted to E5 and above.

[former31B]

The rank structure does not need to change. What needs to change is the way the military allows virtually everyone to reenlist. If the military became more selective on who reenlists, we would have better leaders in the NCO and officer ranks.

If only the best were allowed to stay in the military, first-termers would experience outstanding leadership. Some will be motivated enough to become outstanding leaders themselves. The truth is though that a large portion of people do and will join the military for just one stint...whether its for college money, job skills, or just something to do. Many do not want a military career.

[Pueblo]

I think the commission rank is an out-dated and outmoded relic of the past. As we all know, the American military pretty much mirrors the military traditions of Great Britian. The roots of the commissioned officer with all its pomp and glory, is rooted in the traditional class distinctions of Europe. In Britian for instance, officer rank was giving to Aristocrats who could afford to "buy" their commissions from the state.

The same thing happened in America, but now officership is earned. The enlisted force is meant to have technical expertise, while officers are trained in leadership. NCOs are hardly proven leaders. Their status as an NCO stems from test-taking abilities or knowledge of their career field. The latter is commendable, but has little to no relation to leadership. I've met maybe 3 NCOs who are leaders. On the other hand, I've met countless SNCOs who have made excellent leaders, but that's people who are at least 10 years into their career. So the tired notion the NCOs are the true leaders is exaggerated and a bit contrived.

[kmed]

Has anyone stopped to compare the civilian sector with military structure? Think of our parents when college degrees where becoming the must haves to be in managerial positions..when our parents boss was a 22 year old college grad..

The military is no different. They have a structure built around different tracks and different roles-and last I checked, we live in a nation that we choose the role we want to fulfill. Officers are managerial role, and yes, they have to start from somewhere and that is why they are pimped by senior NCOs and their superior officers. Enlisted Soldiers are meant for technical prowess and are given honor to this role-if they perform at set standards, if not they are pimped by their superior NCOs. The problem is when people do not fulfill their roles based on a "it's not fair" mindset.

Now, that being said, there is a parallel rank structure..starting at E-7. Yes, the E-7 will know more about military (he/she should-they've studied it for a long time) their responsibility is the parallel to the LT (who SHOULD be a good steed and learn from this NCO). Bear in mind, the SFCs role is not to train the LT how to lead troops-this is the job of the NCO. At the time this LT is learning from the SFC, they are being guided in how to lead a company..trust me this goes on and on up the chain..I have been on both sides of this..being an officer is no easy task-you would not believe just how much is expected of us.

The following is a great reference for leadership: http://ncohistory.com

[cameryxle]

I think there might be a little confusion concerning officer promotion and NCO promotion. FIrst of all, I greatly admire the leadership of many officers in the past: Patton, Stone-Wall Jackson, Washington, to name a few.)

But as for the contention that officer promotion is any harder then NCO's is greatly misunderstood. The first 3 ranks of the commission promotion structure are given through testing, time-in-grade and performance reviews. This is no different then E1-E3 in the inlisted promotional structure.

At O4 and beyond, the officer is under much greater scrutany then they were in earlier ranks, mainly because the officer is now moving to "field grade" level officer (04 and above). When a Enlisted soldier wishes to advance from E3 or E4 to Sgt E-5, the candidate is much more closly scutanized because they are applying to become a Non-Commissioned Officer. If selected (like the 04 candidate) the soldier will be sent to PLDC (Primary Leadership Coarse) FYI: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/PAO/training_closeup/100603.htm . (this link may clear up any misunderstandings about the "leadership" qualities expected of an NCO.

One thing to note, an NCO is an Officer; just one that isn't "commissioned" by the Commander and Chief (publically elected civilian). Rather, the NCO gaines his "officership" from Congress (Once a NCO obtaines the rank of Plattoon Sargent or above, it takes an act of congress to demote them.)

The Non-Commissioned-Officer is held to the same high-standards of performance and conduct as there "commissioned" bretheren.

[cameryxle]

In reference to kmed. I liked your analogy of civilian managment tracks being the same as Officer military career tracks.

So why not have a 21ish college graduate lead a battle-hardened platoon into battle? The reason; the military combat unit is totally different from a corperation, If you get (at the age of 21) a BA in business and fail at your first mid-level managament position, the worst that can happen is the buiness goes out of business. if you are a 21 year old untested business major who happens have the lives of a entire platoon in your hands and fail because of lack of experience, body bags get filled and filled fast. (there is no second chance or refining of ones resume for the next business opportunity)

In reference to my original posting, there is no good reason to have the O1-O2 ranks. The leader of a platoon should be the battle-tested and experienced Platoon Sargent not the 21 year old business major. This is not because the 21 year old business major dos'nt have some leadership "potential". It's because whom ever the leader of the platoon may be, they had better know what they are doing in leading there platton or body bages get filled fast.

With all due respect, O1 and O2's are "carried" by the Platoon Sargent and the rest of the platoon. War time or potential on-call war is not a place for a business-major to ride the traing wheels of leadership of soldiers or to learn how to effectivly lead a plattoon to victory one fire-fight at a time in a time of war.

I have nothing against the "commissioned officer corps". However, the rank structure needs to reflect experiance, leadership and knowledge. This is why it is my contention that every one should start as E1 or E4 SPC (if they obtained BA as is the current military policy). The enlisted candidate, through merit, time-in- grade and motivation should then "apply" for the field grade commission or the CSGM (Senior NCO) career tract.

[vette88]

It will be a cold day in you know where before this happens. As said above: Rank = Responsibility. Nothing is stopping the enlisted from becoming an officer. If you want the rank then go get it. In the past I've heard: "to become an officer, one should be enlisted first." Yeah right, then why aren't more and more enlisted lining up to become an officer?

[cameryxle]

The point is, I'm questioning the system itself not just accepting it. What qualities of a person seperates NCO's from Officers today?

Education: This was one argument when a college degrees was rare or hard to get, now, because of the easy access to college education, most NCO's are as educated as officers and many even have advance degree's and are "more" educated then there commissioned officer counterparts.

Leadership: The very definition of a NCO is leadership, one can't become a NCO without proving leadership, intelligence and a high degree of dicipline.

Management track: Even buck Sargent E5's have to manage a squad of 5 troops ( includes training, counsiling, and in a fire fight may even lead a entire platoon into battle if something hapens to the higher ranked NCO's.)

Battle savvy and intelligence: see managment track.

Apart from military academy graduates, there really is'nt a difference in credincials between NCO's and Officers. This is the reason in my opinion, there should no longer be O1-O2 ranks. In my opinion; green to gold route should be "the" way to commission not "a" way to commission. The leader of a platoon should be a battle tested and experienced NCO not a business major with a little simulated field military training and text book tactics. -> every officer, regardless of specialty in the military, should be able at a moments notice to lead a combat team in battle...further illustraites the need for the commission route change.

[cameryxle]

[QUOTE=kmed;257691]Has anyone stopped to compare the civilian sector with military structure? Think of our parents when college degrees where becoming the must haves to be in managerial positions..when our parents boss was a 22 year old college grad..

I agree and I get the impression you went the green-gold route when you became a officer. You illustraite my point. Green-Gold shouldn't be "a" way but rather, "the" way to Commission.

After all, what seperates officers form NCO's?

Educations: in the 1950's and before yes but now, most NCO's have BA's and many have advanced degrees beyond there commissioned counterparts.

Managment skills: NCO's lead, monitor performance of and train squad to platoons of soldiers.

As we well know, an officer has to be able to lead in combat a company or battalian at a moments notice. This is regardless if they are in the water sanitation, civil engineer or light infantry units. As we become more militarily involved in the world, we need experience leading the ranks not the impractical: "us" strict seperation aristocratics and "them" peasent malitia commoners. The stakes are just to high for such "traditional" games.

[kmed]

The idea that most NCOs have a degree is a fallacy..this is just not true. Many have some education, but a full fledged degree is the minority and is generally reserved to the level of 1SG or SGM in which this distinguishes them to be promoted to such a level (and generally fast track to it because it demonstrates a personal ambition and drive-to not only be proficient as a Soldier, but as well and individual development).

Now, I have been both an NCO and am now an Officer. I can certainly tell you that even as an O1 and O2 I had a lot more responsibilities and expectations placed upon me, more so than my 9 years of being an NCO. Not only was I learning Soldiering, but I was expected to be an innovator in my career field with many academic research projects placed on my shoulders. As an O3, this has been even greater. I am now expected to look for Masters degree education and a Doctorate degree to even be competetive-mind you, all of this as well as performing my daily duties/responsibilities which are huge.

I understand the principle of having a battle-experience leader being in charge; however, good senior NCOs will not let this young LT fail. It is not a discrepancy in who's who-it is a discrepency in which track one is on. The reason the LT gets paid as they do, is because it is based on obtaining a degree (the ability to complete complex managerial tasks with formal recognition) and the ability for the Army to reimburse comparable to what the Officer would make in the civilian sector.

This debate will always fall on the shoulders of the individual. You really don't know what you don't know unless you've been there done that. If you want something, you go for it. In the military and the civilian sector there are no secrets of what it takes to get what you are looking for. You strive for your level of contentment. I can sit here and place this in my field-I don't make as much as a Doctor, but I didn't do what it takes to be called Doctor....Point to ponder...

[cameryxle]

You had some good points.

I think it boils down to pay and skill. I mean...officers are at the very basic level, givin the duty and responsability to lead troops into war in a battle situation. However, from my observation in the military, most of the "commissioned" officers are "non-combat officers". These officers are jobs like lawyers, doctors, computer tech people etc. who on average would get much more money in the private sector then in the military.

Commissions are handed out to these skilled workers as a way of paying them more to keep their skills in the service and less because these skilled workers have any kind of proven leadership skills.

I see things from a combat MOS point of view. Heaven help the combat unit if the combat officers are killed and the doctor or water-sanitation worker with Captains bars, are thrust into a direct combat leadership role befitting their rank.

Perhaps the non-combat officers should be warrent officers and commission ranks be reserved for direct combat officers (this is for a different topical conversation.)

Our only disagreement is your reference to: A good Sr. NCO would not let a young LT fail. This goes back to my original contention that the LT should be a leader who leads (through personal experience and skill), the platoon to victory as the senior rank of the Platoon. The highest rank of the platoon should not be riding on the coat tales of their subordinent NCO. The leader should lead not follow there subordinents into battle.
If the young LT doesn't have the skill or experience to lead, he becomes more of a liability then a asset to the overall exicution of the platoon mission in battle.

The young business major should get his feet wet and get his experience first, before being given the high level of responsibility of being the senior rank in a battle platoon. They should start as a member of a platoon, then squad leader, then Plattoon Sargent (or E6/E7). After reaching Platoon Sargent level, the ARMY would be able to asses through practical experience, whether the soldier has "proven" skill to hold the rank and take on the grave responsibilities required of a commissioned officer and highest rank in a combat platoon, company, and beyond. It's not about "personal career choice", its about who is the best "proven soldier" who can lead the combat unit to victory. (much of the paperwork a officer has to do is delegated to enlisted and the actual leadership on the ground is exicuted by the NCO's, so what place does the young LT "actually fill" in a combat unit?

I was a battalian scout and reinlisted to military intellegence. Believe me, I understand what officers have to do. , I and other enlisted handled much of the OIC's administrative and managerial responsibilities. I am refering to my experience as a combat infantry scout, in a combat unit.

[kmed]

Listen, you can say the same things many different ways...however, it still does not undo the reasoning that the Platoon Leader has to start from somewhere. I do understand your point that they are in charge of people's lives and that those lives are at stake due to a LTs inexperience..I get that..but, that is what they have NCOs for-to fulfill and execute (through their experience). If they eliminate the rank of LT then you would just have more junior CPTs with no leadership experience. As I said previously, this is the same in the civilian sector-think of the floorman who has been working for 20 yrs who could run the business with his eyes tied behind his/her back and that person answering to the manager who just graduated college. As said previously, the structure of the Army is built on this same concept..plus, there is a whole lot more to being an Officer than you will ever know until you experience it..trust me, I had some similar ideation prior to my commission.

Get this...when I went out on convoys in Iraq, I knew if the poop ever hit the fan, my job was to fight like hell for mine and others lives if in a position (though truly I lose my medical status should I do so); however, I would never take over and try to lead a combat patrol (this is taught to us in OBC)-I am just plain not trained in that. Though OBC is a compilation of basic training, PLDC, BNCOC, and some ANCOC (still more of intro to Officer/managerial skills vs combat skill sets; this is why Combat Officers have to go further to train in their skill set vs a med Officer who has a civilian license), I still would not have the skills to lead that sort of thing. That being said..running a clinic is no joke-I have a great friend who is a Spec Forces Officer who told me one day that he didn't realize just how much medical personnel worked.

The idea that they should make noncombat Officers Warrants is absolutely absurd. What it took to obtain my specialty meant an extreme amount of hard work due to the complexity of my degree. I would have taken a considerable pay cut to come into the Army without 16 years of prior service and the incentive of retiring soon..sorry, money talks-I would not have joined otherwise. So if you cut pay, you will get lower leveled professionals, my field alone only has 80 personnel-all of whom graduated at the top of their class because the Army has the ability to be picky in our specialty. Do not get me wrong, I certainly enjoy working with Soldiers-they are generally a healthy bunch who get well medically barring the 10% who look to get out of work. Plus, think about who you want treating you or your family-don't you want the best of the best?

I don't always agree the things are fair..but, there is a reasoning for the why's. I watched my dad retire enlisted and was unable to get a good paying job because he didn't have a degree (or a specialty that would transfer to the civilian sector) though he had a wealth of managerial and get it done experience. My dad ended up going back to school and is working as an engineer, and now he is looking at going back to get his master's so he can be more competitive is his field (for promotion).

[cameryxle]

You have some great points.

I agree, considering the amount of time and effort it takes to become a doctor, a lawyer, a minister (many main-line chaplins have to get nearly as much education as doctors) The commission pay scale is the only real way the military has to attract and keep there doctors, chaplins, administrators and other highly trained personal.

However, much of my arguments were not originally intended to be focused on non-combat but rather, combat Lt's and leadership positions. As is well known, for every 1 soldier you have about 5 non-combat support personal. I am primarily focusing on combat LT's not on non-combat officers like: chaplins, doctors, and hospital administraitors etc. who by and large manage a mix of civilian and military personal. The only military authority structure avalable in to these leadership positions are commission officer authority.

I appreciate your service and what you do to support the troops and there families.

[kmed]

Listen, Cameraxle..I agree...you make great points as well..thank you for your gentlemanly debate..this is a debate that has the propensity to get ugly..KMED

[chucksnee]

I'm not going to read this entire thread....but, my comment is....If you don't like the way an 0-1,2,3 is treating you then pull them to hte side and explian to them....just becasue they are officers does not mean they do not need mentoring....I've had to do it, and then we seen eye to eye.....no way a 7 year 0-3 knows more than me about Aviation.....after 21 years of being in Aviation....

[mikelentz]

no way a 7 year 0-3 knows more than me about Aviation.....after 21 years of being in Aviation....

Wow....that is awfully arrogant. Also pulling an Officer aside so he and you see "eye to eye", well that is the wrong way to approach it. Having not been burned doing that yet, I attribute to luck on your part.

Get this......An Officer has no need to see "eye to eye" with any NCO. An NCO needs to follow orders, accomplish tasks and do what he swore to do (that whole Enlistment Oath thing....remember??)

The Young 22 year old 2LT, has done one HUGE thing different from every enlisted person. Anyone guess what that was?? Take the Oath of Office as an Officer of The United States Government. Don't forget there is a big class system in the military where Authority to give lawfull orders comes from a Commission (POTUS), and NCO's as well as all other Enlisted members get authroity to carry out those orders from the Officer giving them.

Some of you need to step back and pick up a book on how the Army operates.

From what I read, it is OK to have Doctors and Lawyers as Officers, but leading men in Battle takes an NCO.

How about instead of reworking the Officer system lets get rid of the Non-Commissioned Officer lexicon tag. I would point out that it is a title supported by nothing more than tradition. NCO's are no more Officers than a Dog is a Cat.

Please do some reading about what roles Officers and Enlisted play in Armies. You will be surprised by what you learn.

[chucksnee]

Wow....that is awfully arrogant. Also pulling an Officer aside so he and you see "eye to eye", well that is the wrong way to approach it. Having not been burned doing that yet, I attribute to luck on your part.

Get this......An Officer has no need to see "eye to eye" with any NCO. An NCO needs to follow orders, accomplish tasks and do what he swore to do (that whole Enlistment Oath thing....remember??)

The Young 22 year old 2LT, has done one HUGE thing different from every enlisted person. Anyone guess what that was?? Take the Oath of Office as an Officer of The United States Government. Don't forget there is a big class system in the military where Authority to give lawfull orders comes from a Commission (POTUS), and NCO's as well as all other Enlisted members get authroity to carry out those orders from the Officer giving them.

Some of you need to step back and pick up a book on how the Army operates.

From what I read, it is OK to have Doctors and Lawyers as Officers, but leading men in Battle takes an NCO.

How about instead of reworking the Officer system lets get rid of the Non-Commissioned Officer lexicon tag. I would point out that it is a title supported by nothing more than tradition. NCO's are no more Officers than a Dog is a Cat.

Please do some reading about what roles Officers and Enlisted play in Armies. You will be surprised by what you learn.

Those are some of the most stupid comments I have ever read.....maybe an officer should listen to an NCO instead of worrying about his OER.....you know the guy who has been in more than 7 years....who has the experience...

Oh wait....he is a "ring knocker" (west point) well hell he must know everything then....4 years of college lets put him in charge of a company....

I did not become a senior NCO by luck....I did my job and did it damn good....I may be arrogant...

When i said I pulled an officer to the side, I did not do it in front of everybody....it was behind closed doors....no yelling, just the hard facts with regulations backing me up and thats when we seen eye to eye......just becasue your an officer does not mean you are correct....you assume that because someone is higher ranking means he knows more is not always the case....

So a 7 year Captian knows "how to run a platoon" after never running a platoon....Yep you must be right...I have been running that platoon for years and don't know what i'm talking about....You are the typical officer....I'm better than you becasue I am an officer....

As for your little comment about getting rid of the officer in NCO, Oh never mind....

[vette88]

Those are some of the most stupid comments I have ever read.....maybe an officer should listen to an NCO instead of worrying about his OER.....you know the guy who has been in more than 7 years....who has the experience...

Oh wait....he is a "ring knocker" (west point) well hell he must know everything then....4 years of college lets put him in charge of a company....

I did not become a senior NCO by luck....I did my job and did it damn good....I may be arrogant...

When i said I pulled an officer to the side, I did not do it in front of everybody....it was behind closed doors....no yelling, just the hard facts with regulations backing me up and thats when we seen eye to eye......just becasue your an officer does not mean you are correct....you assume that because someone is higher ranking means he knows more is not always the case....

So a 7 year Captian knows "how to run a platoon" after never running a platoon....Yep you must be right...I have been running that platoon for years and don't know what i'm talking about....You are the typical officer....I'm better than you becasue I am an officer....

As for your little comment about getting rid of the officer in NCO, Oh never mind....

Anybody SHOULD know that the PSG is the backbone of any Platoon. The PL SHOULD take adivce from his PSG for decision making. Any PL that doesn't do that will be flapping in the wind. As for making any NCO out rank an Officer (Officer salutes an E9/takes Orders from an E9), that will never happen. The rank has worked for this long, so I'm going to say it's safe to say it doesn't need to be "Overhauled" like the author suggest.

[cameryxle]

From a combat leadership point of view. No one has really addressed my original contention.

Can we all agree that, just because a person completed a 4 year degree in business or basketweaving, did a little Drill on weekends and PT in the mornings in between college classes and keg parties and took a "Basic-nonpractical-officer 2 month military managment coarse that they can be said to be truly qualified to lead a platoon of battle trained and highly experienced soldiers to victory in war? The Platoon Leader should lead not follow there NCO's to victory.

Today the 20ish platoon leader is more of a follower then a leader, its not there fault, they were put in that position. The battle platoon sees non-Green/Gold Platoon Leaders as nothing more then a inexperienced and untested privates with a Presidential commission, demanding a solute that they niether earned nor have the experiance to back up.

The point is, if the Platoon Leader is a former senior NCO, they will have both the experience and "proven -leadership" abilty to lead the platoon and truly lead the platoon to victory. You put Senior NCO experience with the tactical and managerial training of Officer Basic Coarse and you would have a truly "competent commissioned" leader of a combat platoon, company, battalian, and Division.

The Green-Gold route to commission should no be "a" way but "the" way to commission leadership.

[vette88]

From a combat leadership point of view. No one has really addressed my original contention.

Can we all agree that, just because a person completed a 4 year degree in business or basketweaving, did a little Drill on weekends and PT in the mornings in between college classes and keg parties and took a "Basic-nonpractical-officer 2 month military managment coarse that they can be said to be truly qualified to lead a platoon of battle trained and highly experienced soldiers to victory in war? The Platoon Leader should lead not follow there NCO's to victory.

Today the 20ish platoon leader is more of a follower then a leader, its not there fault, they were put in that position. The battle platoon sees non-Green/Gold Platoon Leaders as nothing more then a inexperienced and untested privates with a Presidential commission, demanding a solute that they niether earned nor have the experiance to back up.

The point is, if the Platoon Leader is a former senior NCO, they will have both the experience and "proven -leadership" abilty to lead the platoon and truly lead the platoon to victory. You put Senior NCO experience with the tactical and managerial training of Officer Basic Coarse and you would have a truly "competent commissioned" leader of a combat platoon, company, battalian, and Division.

The Green-Gold route to commission should no be "a" way but "the" way to commission leadership.


I'm going to guess that by you saying "the" way you mean the ONLY way a person should be commissioned is by being enlisted first. Am I correct?

[cameryxle]

Yes for the reasons listed...

[vette88]

Yes for the reasons listed...

Now lets see if that is doable:

1. You're going to tell a college graduate that he/she has to spend lets say 4 years as enlisted first, and THEN become an Officer. You REALLY think a college graduate will say yes to lower enlisted pay??? Dream on.

2. As I stated before, a PSG is the Platoon's backbone. A PL should be smart enough (I realize not all are) to take advice from his/her PSG and any NCOs as part of decision making. It's the PSG job to at least give advice to the PL, and the CPT should be over watching the PL to make sure he/she is listening. Any PL that doesn't, has his/her nose far up in the air, and will eventually be flapping in the wind.

3. If I'm not mistaken, the Army is short 2000 or 3000 CPTs, and short 2000 MAJs. Now lets put your idea in place. The Army would be short even more Officers. Hmmm, doable? NOPE.

4. Is there ANYTHING stopping Enlisted from becoming an Officer??? If not, then why aren't the Officer ranks filled to the top with Officers with prior service? Many "talk the talk", but only a few "walk the walk".

5. Rank = Responsibility, if you want the rank, then you need to accept the responsibility. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility, then you shouldn't have anything against those who do.

[cameryxle]

You have some well thought out points. I'm not suggesting that in changing the rank structure there wouldn't have to be other compensation adjustments as well. In the current system, a person with a BA will inlist as a Spc E-4 then apply for comission.

Perhaps, just as there is hazardous duty pay and seperate rats during deployment and jump pay for those who are airborn certified and have so many jumps throughout the year. Perhaps there could be a additional pay bonus for college status enlistes.

Assuming we could adjust the "pay" according to educational acomplishment, (similar to the compensation teachers get paid...more education you have different and higer pay scale you qualify for.)

The reason there arent as many green-gold officers in the ranks is because of the "alturnative and short-cut routs to commission (ROTC, Military colleges, etc). Most people will always chose the route of "least resistence" if they can. If the pocess changes, so will the percentage of officers green to gold also will change, if green-gold is the way to commission. If the "proving through practical experiance" scares 'certain people from becomming officers, perhaps these certain people don't want to be officers bad enough or they really arent cut out to be career leaders of the military if they arent willing to "earn there stripes first".

Why don't we make college students "Airborne Rangers" without proving themselves? I bet the braging rights alone would draw more of them into the military, if thats what it takes to lure more people into the comission ranks.

[cameryxle]

Oh one more thing. Perhaps we should expand a forgotten and little used route to military commission, field promotion. During WW2 and Vietnam when there were a shortage of officers, "field grade" officers promoted able Sargents to O-1 after the Sargents had proven there leadership abilities. Maybe a system like that could also augument and increase the number of officers in the military. Increasing the battle-commission ranks with highly qualified, experianced people with proven leadership qualities. so two routes:

1 green-gold
2 field-grade promotion enlisted to commission.

I think the problem is that we in our modern approach to commission qualification have focused to much on the sililarities between the private-sector (managment qualification) and military leadership without understanding or remebering the "differences" between the two. I doubt if some of the great generals of the past would even qualify to be an officers today.

[cameryxle]

I'm sure i'm not thefirst bloke to come up with this enlisted/commission integration idea.

The "real" issue and a issue everyone knows but doesn't care to talk about is the tradition of absolute seperation of the "us" commission class vs. the "them" enlisted. There is still a little elitism occuring in the military that has its roots in the historicalclass wars of England and many other military traditions we the USA barrow our military organization from .

Unfortunatly "form-over function" hobbles the commission ranks from some vary able and highly talented leaders. It appears the commision ranks would prefer to "roll-the-dice" on the ability of a green, untested business or philosophy major, then reach within the proven leadership and talent of the enlisted ranks to fill the critical commission leadership positions in the military.

This is the reason the military commission ranks would have a hard time being convinced of any form of integration of the enlisted and commission ranks.

[vette88]

I'm sure i'm not thefirst bloke to come up with this enlisted/commission integration idea.

The "real" issue and a issue everyone knows but doesn't care to talk about is the tradition of absolute seperation of the "us" commission class vs. the "them" enlisted. There is still a little elitism occuring in the military that has its roots in the historicalclass wars of England and many other military traditions we the USA barrow our military organization from .

Unfortunatly "form-over function" hobbles the commission ranks from some vary able and highly talented leaders. It appears the commision ranks would prefer to "roll-the-dice" on the ability of a green, untested business or philosophy major, then reach within the proven leadership and talent of the enlisted ranks to fill the critical commission leadership positions in the military.

This is the reason the military commission ranks would have a hard time being convinced of any form of integration of the enlisted and commission ranks.

Trust me, you're not the first bloke to say Officers should be enlisted first. It's the 'battle cry' (talk the talk)of the enlisted. Yes, prior service enlistment would be a great value to become an officer (knows what the lower enlisted goes through/puts up with on a daily basis), but if you think all prior enlisted officers are good, you're kidding yourself. I've seen one pull the blinds over her (while deployed, and on the job) to fall asleep. Then she wondered why the MAJ chewed her you know what out. Oh, she also left duty (while on same deployment) to go to Salsa night at a MWR. Yup, the prior enlistment experience (set the example for the enlisted to follow, she was an E7 when she made the switch) worked for herrrrrrrr, NOT. The Army isn't going to force the enlisted to become an officer. The option (walk the walk) is out there for enlisted to come over to "the dark side :)" as some say. Last time I checked, NOTHING is stopping the enlisted from choosing to become an officer. That solves your problem right there; however, only a few enlisted choose to make the switch.

[cameryxle]

It isn't very productive to find one example of a bad green-gold officer and insinuate that the one bad example exemplifies the mettle and quality of military candor one can expect from all green to gold or even most or most likely.

I could easily bring up two examples of direct from college ROTC O-1 who in my battalian scout platoon couldn't navigate themselvs out of a paper bag. They both had to seek help from a private and a Sgt to get themselves and us out of the woods. I wouldn't then assume that all such officers with that background are inept. There is good and bad in every group of people.

Concerning field promotion from E-5 directly into O-1: From WW1 to Vietnam there were 35000 Sgt's "field promoted from enlisted directly to commission (They could accept the promotion or decline/never forced promotion) . Their promotion was based in large part, by the Sargent's "proven" leadership and valor. If there was such a low level of discpline among the enlisted I doubt such a process of promotion would have survived beyond the eairly part of WWI.

Second, since the ARMY sees the quality and marit of good enlisted ability and has a avenue to promote them direct and since we have so few ROTC candidates willing to fill the commission ranks,whats wrong with having field promotion based upon marit to fill the vancancies. Oh, about the discpline of the enlisted argument. I'm sure your friendly neigborhood Drill Sargent and enlisted Airborne Ranger (tab or scroll)would love to have a conversation concerning leadership and discapline. (better have your ruler with you when he checks your medals and patches lol)

Finally, I still havent heard any feedback on why a adjusted payscale for education (green-gold road )should not be one "the" way for a commission candidate to "earn there commission." Is the fear that many of the people "given" direct commissions from college wouldn't b able to hack earning there stripes?

[vette88]

It isn't very productive to find one example of a bad green-gold officer and insinuate that the one bad example exemplifies the mettle and quality of military candor one can expect from all green to gold or even most or most likely.

I could easily bring up two examples of direct from college ROTC O-1 who in my battalian scout platoon couldn't navigate themselvs out of a paper bag. They both had to seek help from a private and a Sgt to get themselves and us out of the woods. I wouldn't then assume that all such officers with that background are inept. There is good and bad in every group of people.

Concerning field promotion from E-5 directly into O-1: From WW1 to Vietnam there were 35000 Sgt's "field promoted from enlisted directly to commission (They could accept the promotion or decline/never forced promotion) . Their promotion was based in large part, by the Sargent's "proven" leadership and valor. If there was such a low level of discpline among the enlisted I doubt such a process of promotion would have survived beyond the eairly part of WWI.

Second, since the ARMY sees the quality and marit of good enlisted ability and has a avenue to promote them direct and since we have so few ROTC candidates willing to fill the commission ranks,whats wrong with having field promotion based upon marit to fill the vancancies. Oh, about the discpline of the enlisted argument. I'm sure your friendly neigborhood Drill Sargent and enlisted Airborne Ranger (tab or scroll)would love to have a conversation concerning leadership and discapline. (better have your ruler with you when he checks your medals and patches lol)

Finally, I still havent heard any feedback on why a adjusted payscale for education (green-gold road )should not be one "the" way for a commission candidate to "earn there commission." Is the fear that many of the people "given" direct commissions from college wouldn't b able to hack earning there stripes?


1. You haven't heard any....., read my previous emails. Do you REALLY think that the ARMY will get enough college graduates to agree to go enlisted FIRST for a few years, and THEN go officer? DREAM ON!!!!

2. I DID NOT stereotype prior enlisted OFFICERS as being like the one female. You read too much into it.

3. Go ahead and commission enlisted to officers, why not? Go idea (I'm being serious); however, if you think this is great why aren't more and more enlisted (many already have a bachelor's as already stated) taking the step to officer. Only OCS would be needed. There you go, there is your fix.

[vette88]

It isn't very productive to find one example of a bad green-gold officer and insinuate that the one bad example exemplifies the mettle and quality of military candor one can expect from all green to gold or even most or most likely.

I could easily bring up two examples of direct from college ROTC O-1 who in my battalian scout platoon couldn't navigate themselvs out of a paper bag. They both had to seek help from a private and a Sgt to get themselves and us out of the woods. I wouldn't then assume that all such officers with that background are inept. There is good and bad in every group of people.

Concerning field promotion from E-5 directly into O-1: From WW1 to Vietnam there were 35000 Sgt's "field promoted from enlisted directly to commission (They could accept the promotion or decline/never forced promotion) . Their promotion was based in large part, by the Sargent's "proven" leadership and valor. If there was such a low level of discpline among the enlisted I doubt such a process of promotion would have survived beyond the eairly part of WWI.

Second, since the ARMY sees the quality and marit of good enlisted ability and has a avenue to promote them direct and since we have so few ROTC candidates willing to fill the commission ranks,whats wrong with having field promotion based upon marit to fill the vancancies. Oh, about the discpline of the enlisted argument. I'm sure your friendly neigborhood Drill Sargent and enlisted Airborne Ranger (tab or scroll)would love to have a conversation concerning leadership and discapline. (better have your ruler with you when he checks your medals and patches lol)

Finally, I still havent heard any feedback on why a adjusted payscale for education (green-gold road )should not be one "the" way for a commission candidate to "earn there commission." Is the fear that many of the people "given" direct commissions from college wouldn't b able to hack earning there stripes?

If you think the Army should go ahead and throw out the need for a college education as a need to become an officer, then you need to go work else where. You think companies on the outside don't make college educations as a requirement for higher paying jobs????? DUH It's more or less understood that you need one before you even walk through the door.

[JStatus330]

I've always found the military ranks weird. You can be enlisted with a lot of time in service, maybe even a bachelors degree, yet someone with just 4 years of college and no experience out ranks you. How does that even make any sense at all? To me it feels like it's a slap in the face to all the time and dedication you put into the service. Here is what I would change...

Once you make E-7 (P) you can opt to become an O-1, even if you have no college experience, but you must obtain an associates degree to get past O-3.

My logic: You have already earned your place as a leader and E-7 is no easy task. You deserve to "out rank" a fresh college graduate, even if you have no college because you know more than them about the Army and your job.

[cameryxle]

Good point, companies on "the outside" do need business majors etc. to run there "business". I just don't see how that translates to leading a battle plattoon to victory anymore then a morter specialist right from the ARMY should be quialified to be a District Sales Manager or VP of Marketing with no other training other then leading men in a mortor unit in war.
Did you know that 35000 people from WW1 to the present have been direct field promoted from Sgt to O1 with no consideration what so ever to civilian eduction? Reason...The Sargents promoted "proved" themselves fully qualified to lead a platoon without the knowledge of Macro or Micro economics or Finance.

There is a big difference between the formal training requirements of running a business or middle managment and leading a battle hardened platoon to victory in the battlefield. Both require a "different kind" of education. The issue isn't about the similarites between the private sector and the battlefield but rather the differences in both sectors needs concerning formal and practical training concerning leadership.

[vette88]

Good point, companies on "the outside" do need business majors etc. to run there "business". I just don't see how that translates to leading a battle plattoon to victory anymore then a morter specialist right from the ARMY should be quialified to be a District Sales Manager or VP of Marketing with no other training other then leading men in a mortor unit in war.
Did you know that 35000 people from WW1 to the present have been direct field promoted from Sgt to O1 with no consideration what so ever to civilian eduction? Reason...The Sargents promoted "proved" themselves fully qualified to lead a platoon without the knowledge of Macro or Micro economics or Finance.

There is a big difference between the formal training requirements of running a business or middle managment and leading a battle hardened platoon to victory in the battlefield. Both require a "different kind" of education. The issue isn't about the similarites between the private sector and the battlefield but rather the differences in both sectors needs concerning formal and practical training concerning leadership.

I will revert to the question I have asked several times: "What is stopping a NCO from becoming an officer today???????" NOTHING. I guarantee when the "battle cry" of should be enlisted first is heard by highers, the highers will then ask the same question.

If you think that a future officer will agree ahead a time to be enlisted first for several years you are out of your freaking mind!!!

Many NCOs already have a BS degree. Am I correct? If so, the only thing that is needed is OCS (90 days). That is it. Also, I know a CPT who was commissioned before he got his commission. He had to get his degree by a certain time. If Underwater Basket Weaving (liberal arts) is your thing, then go get it. Isn't there a such thing as the GI Bill for the enlisted??? With that said there are many routes to get a commission.

[JStatus330]

I will revert to the question I have asked several times: "What is stopping a NCO from becoming an officer today???????" NOTHING. I guarantee when the "battle cry" of should be enlisted first is heard by highers, the highers will then ask the same question.

If you think that a future officer will agree ahead a time to be enlisted first for several years you are out of your freaking mind!!!

Many NCOs already have a BS degree. Am I correct? If so, the only thing that is needed is OCS (90 days). That is it. Also, I know a CPT who was commissioned before he got his commission. He had to get his degree by a certain time. If Underwater Basket Weaving (liberal arts) is your thing, then go get it. Isn't there a such thing as the GI Bill for the enlisted??? With that said there are many routes to get a commission.

The problem is that people are working full-time and have families. It's not easy to get a BA, work full-time, take care of family, do ACCP, do whatever else is in your life. I don't think most NCO's have a BA, in fact most ERB's I've seen say 4 yr HS graduate (I'm a 42A). It's easy when your a single college student who had your parents pay for your school (or maybe you were in the reserves/guard/scholarship) and get a commission. Sadly my parents weren't those parents and having a wife and baby I couldn't afford to go to school full-time and be a weekend warrior.

It's possible to earn a BA while on AD but for most people not likely and very out of reach. It just seems to make sense that an E-7 should be able to be commissioned without a degree if they want to go officer. They have done a lot and been in for a while. Why should a recent college grad outrank the one who has spent a ton of time in the service?

[vette88]

The problem is that people are working full-time and have families. It's not easy to get a BA, work full-time, take care of family, do ACCP, do whatever else is in your life. I don't think most NCO's have a BA, in fact most ERB's I've seen say 4 yr HS graduate (I'm a 42A). It's easy when your a single college student who had your parents pay for your school (or maybe you were in the reserves/guard/scholarship) and get a commission. Sadly my parents weren't those parents and having a wife and baby I couldn't afford to go to school full-time and be a weekend warrior.

It's possible to earn a BA while on AD but for most people not likely and very out of reach. It just seems to make sense that an E-7 should be able to be commissioned without a degree if they want to go officer. They have done a lot and been in for a while. Why should a recent college grad outrank the one who has spent a ton of time in the service?

FINALLY, someone else has said it: "It's possible." Enough said. Nobody said it was easy. Nobody has the same life opportunities at the same age, but the opportunity IS there. Want it, then go get it.

[kmed]

I just want to address the idea that a direct commission is "given" to a person. Generally, direct commissions are "given" to those who hold a certain specialty that the Army does not have to teach/train a person in specialties as Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses..and such. Most personnel who hold a degree in english, math, or any other nonspecialized general degree that is not applicable to the military vocation will have to go through the OCS process and are enlisted first (unless they were in ROTC in college). Even with this, I have a very hard time with the idea that a college grad is perceived as being "given" anything.

This debate goes both ways. I have seen many enlisted troops (and I mean many) who have been in the Army for more than 10 years and are dirtbags as well as many Jr. Officers coming straight out of college. Conversley, I have seen excellent young Privates and excellent young Officers with no prior service time-what it boils down to is-character, duty, honor, integrity..of the person who holds true to these standards.

All tracks must start somewhere-a LT has to learn how to lead a company; a Private has to learn how to lead a squad....and so on...wholly different tracks (all that require failures and successes).

Please stop saying people are "given" anything..last I checked..I "earned" my position through many years of hard work and dedication.

[kmed]

another thing..we keep going back to "why does a PL need a business degree to lead people into battle" mentality..they don't..however, they need demonstrated mental agility-this is proven by the ability to manage a complex academic schedule, plus the perserverance to complete a task...and the aha moment...by a formal degree (that piece of paper we all want to poopoo on).

..and we go back to why a PL gets paid more...and why they won't accept decreased pay to come in...and why we all can't just do on the job training work to get paid more..and why this is comparable to the civilian business structure..and why things appear not fair...and why even the young business man/woman has to start at the bottom (though the bottom is managerial position)...

[chucksnee]

To answer the comment on why most enlisted do not have a BA.....it's becasue we are not given the time.....If we had a DEGREE COMPLETION program that the oficers have. I'm sure that we would see more enlisted that have degrees...

Now given the chance, most would take it and some may not....

I know that I would LOVE to have had the chance to take 18 months off, not have to worry about PT or going to formation or the field...just a straight 18 months of collecting a paycheck and ONLY concentrating on my degree....Yea that would have been nice....

[SFCJackson]

I actually went through the entire sign up process for Green to Gold and in the end decided against it. I felt that the NCO Corps was a much more important and valuable portion of the Army than becoming an officer. I almost became a Warrant Officer, and then rejected it for the same reason. For me, I am much more proud of being a Non-Com than I would be if I were an officer. Nothing personal, I just feel there is more honor in taking care of soldiers like NCOs are supposed to do.

I DO have issue with how senior NCOs are treated when compared to junior officers. I have been in the Army for 15 years, a wife and two children, on a post I lived on recently we were given a small 3 bedroom townhouse to live in. My neighbors were an E4 and and E3. In the same unit a fresh, brand spanking new butter bar joined us and was handed a single family ranch style house with 4 bedrooms. He had been in the Army less than a year, but his rank offered him the nicer house, even though he had just the wife and one single newborn. So, to sum up my thoughts, clearly the Army prefers to keep this brand new officer in service than someone who has given 15 years of service. Where is the balance? And to top it all off, the same base just completed phase one of it's new housing construction, guess who got all new housing? Yep the officers. The enlisted (including the CSMs and SGMs) will stay in the older, renovated housing when it is done. The same square footage that people were used to living in two decades ago, in those same townhouse style homes. Even those little 2LT and 1LTs get single family homes now.
Yeah, they really consider us the "Backbone of the Army."

SFC Jackson

[kmed]

To answer the comment on why most enlisted do not have a BA.....it's becasue we are not given the time.....If we had a DEGREE COMPLETION program that the oficers have. I'm sure that we would see more enlisted that have degrees...

Now given the chance, most would take it and some may not....

I know that I would LOVE to have had the chance to take 18 months off, not have to worry about PT or going to formation or the field...just a straight 18 months of collecting a paycheck and ONLY concentrating on my degree....Yea that would have been nice....

Interesting...they do have a degree completion program for enlisted...it's called green to gold...it will always come back to you the individual and what you are striving for; we all have the very same opportunities..

[chucksnee]

Interesting...they do have a degree completion program for enlisted...it's called green to gold...it will always come back to you the individual and what you are striving for; we all have the very same opportunities..

No they have a degree completion for Officers....

I mean strictly for enlisted withOUT becoming an officer....that would defeat the purpose of being an NCO.

You know, some people just don't want to be an Officer....Does that make me a bad person.....does that mean I do not deserve a degree because I'm Enlisted, or afforded the same opportuinty as an Officer.

Honestly, with the way the rate officers now It would be foolish to even become an Officer...You should be rated on what you have done and how you present yourself....not have to fight for that "above center mass" or be in the top 10% to recieve that check mark.....

It's like I told my NCO's "you write the NCOER, I just document it".

[kmed]

No they have a degree completion for Officers....

I mean strictly for enlisted withOUT becoming an officer....that would defeat the purpose of being an NCO.

You know, some people just don't want to be an Officer....Does that make me a bad person.....does that mean I do not deserve a degree because I'm Enlisted, or afforded the same opportuinty as an Officer.

Honestly, with the way the rate officers now It would be foolish to even become an Officer...You should be rated on what you have done and how you present yourself....not have to fight for that "above center mass" or be in the top 10% to recieve that check mark.....

It's like I told my NCO's "you write the NCOER, I just document it".

Don't they have school option for re-enlistment?

[chucksnee]

Don't they have school option for re-enlistment?

They have a school option (for re-up) that says you can go to school during these nights, but you still have to conduct PT and all your military obligations and oh by the way if we go to the field, just to bad, figure that out on your own..... That is not the same as having 18 months off ( when i say off I mean no military obligations what so ever...except that you might have to call your commander to inform him that you are still breathing) to complete your degree....

[vette88]

No they have a degree completion for Officers....

I mean strictly for enlisted withOUT becoming an officer....that would defeat the purpose of being an NCO.

You know, some people just don't want to be an Officer....Does that make me a bad person.....does that mean I do not deserve a degree because I'm Enlisted, or afforded the same opportuinty as an Officer.

Honestly, with the way the rate officers now It would be foolish to even become an Officer...You should be rated on what you have done and how you present yourself....not have to fight for that "above center mass" or be in the top 10% to recieve that check mark.....

It's like I told my NCO's "you write the NCOER, I just document it".

Doesn't the enlisted pay into something called the GI BILL???? Don't complain about the Army not giving you time. I've reenlisted a NCO who received some college time. Yes, college time, meaning he only had to go to school ON THE ARMY'S TIME (not trying to become an Officer). Also, a former PSG of mine was married, had two kids, and was going after a degree (on Active Duty). He also managed to get the Audie Murphy award WHILE DEPLOYED. He didn't make excuses for himself. He wasn't trying to become an Officer, but he knew the next steps he needed to take to get promoted (1SG was guiding him).

[chucksnee]

Doesn't the enlisted pay into something called the GI BILL???? Don't complain about the Army not giving you time. I've reenlisted a NCO who received some college time. Yes, college time, meaning he only had to go to school ON THE ARMY'S TIME (not trying to become an Officer). Also, a former PSG of mine was married, had two kids, and was going after a degree (on Active Duty). He also managed to get the Audie Murphy award WHILE DEPLOYED. He didn't make excuses for himself. He wasn't trying to become an Officer, but he knew the next steps he needed to take to get promoted (1SG was guiding him).

Define "sometime to go to college". I'm not saying it's not there...but it is not like the Officers who get 18 months off....Notice you said that the PSG still mamanged his family and the Army and his college....it would have made it alot easier if he did not have to worry about his military obligations....like the officers.

As for the GI bill....99% of the people that use it, use it after they are out....why....because we have TA that pays 100% (not including the books) and so do the officers.....

I'm not making excusses for anyone....it's there if you want the degree....it would be nice if the enlisted had the same option to take 18 months off to accomplish the degree.

[kmed]

I think you're missing out on the point that it is not a requirement for an Enlisted Soldier to have a degree-this is a bonus that sets the go getters aside and shoots them up the ranks..a degree is a requirement for the Officer-and as you make your way up masters/doctorates are the expectation. Warrants need to have an associates by CW3 and a bachelors for CW5...plain and simple different tracks...

[vette88]

message was double

[vette88]

Define "sometime to go to college". I'm not saying it's not there...but it is not like the Officers who get 18 months off....Notice you said that the PSG still mamanged his family and the Army and his college....it would have made it alot easier if he did not have to worry about his military obligations....like the officers.

As for the GI bill....99% of the people that use it, use it after they are out....why....because we have TA that pays 100% (not including the books) and so do the officers.....

I'm not making excusses for anyone....it's there if you want the degree....it would be nice if the enlisted had the same option to take 18 months off to accomplish the degree.

Sometime to go to college: "only thing the NCO had to do was go to college while the Army paid for the college, AND still continued to pay him." I believe he received a semester of time for the reenlistement. Yes, that isn't 4 years of college. Point taken, but he isn't going to be ignorant and not get his education because life isn't treating him "fair" (according to you). Option to better himself, his family, and do something to get promoted (show iniative) was there.

I knew a guy who was a cook as enlisted, married, got out, used the GI Bill, went Green & Gold, and also had a part time job. He also was able to support a new born on this too. Yes I did say PSG still managed. You should have also noticed I wrote: He didn't make EXCUSES for himself!!! Simply put, if you want the degree for promotion or to make the switch to the "dark side" the options ARE there (many options, talk to your Reup NCO). If you think life is going to be "fair" to YOUR standard you're wrong. Sounds like Union talk. Name another company that will still pay you while the only thing you do is go to college and tell the COC that you are still breathing???? Good luck.

[chucksnee]

Sometime to go to college: "only thing the NCO had to do was go to college while the Army paid for the college, AND still continued to pay him." I believe he received a semester of time for the reenlistement. Yes, that isn't 4 years of college. Point taken, but he isn't going to be ignorant and not get his education because life isn't treating him "fair" (according to you). Option to better himself, his family, and do something to get promoted (show iniative) was there.

I knew a guy who was a cook as enlisted, married, got out, used the GI Bill, went Green & Gold, and also had a part time job. He also was able to support a new born on this too. Yes I did say PSG still managed. You should have also noticed I wrote: He didn't make EXCUSES for himself!!! Simply put, if you want the degree for promotion or to make the switch to the "dark side" the options ARE there (many options, talk to your Reup NCO). If you think life is going to be "fair" to YOUR standard you're wrong. Sounds like Union talk. Name another company that will still pay you while the only thing you do is go to college and tell the COC that you are still breathing???? Good luck.

So a guy re-up'd and got to go to school for 3 months (not close to 18 months)....you must be a re-up guy in your company/BN....so how many others did you give that option to?

I understand the options are there....but if you can sit here and tell me that things are fair between the officers and enlisted to further each's education then you are sadly mistken....

All I'm saying is, it should not be a rank thing in conjuction with getting your education....I did the on-line school thing while I was in the Army, while being a PSG and everything that you have mentioned...

Becasue your an officer you get more privillages....just becasue.....

Name a company that would seperate people like the Amry does for an education. Good luck....that company would be sued....

[vette88]

So a guy re-up'd and got to go to school for 3 months (not close to 18 months)....you must be a re-up guy in your company/BN....so how many others did you give that option to?

I understand the options are there....but if you can sit here and tell me that things are fair between the officers and enlisted to further each's education then you are sadly mistken....

All I'm saying is, it should not be a rank thing in conjuction with getting your education....I did the on-line school thing while I was in the Army, while being a PSG and everything that you have mentioned...

Becasue your an officer you get more privillages....just becasue.....

Name a company that would seperate people like the Amry does for an education. Good luck....that company would be sued....

I didn't give the option to him, the ARMY (Reup NCO) did. DUHHHH. Not fair? Did someone force you to become/stay enlisted? Life is full of choices. Everybody is given the choice of what road they want to travel on in life. I realize not all roads are equally difficult/easy for all becasue everybody DOES NOT have the same life choices at the same age, but the option to go to college (make rank) IS ALWAYS there with several options/routes to get it.

So you think the Army should throw the need to get an education to become an Officer OR for higher rank in the NCO Corp? DREAM ON guy!!!! It's what shows initiative to better on self. Doesn't SMA Preston have a degree??? I tried to find it on his bio, but I would think he does. Hmmmmmm, you think that is ONE of the MANY reasons he is SMA??? You think he would have been made SMA WITHOUT it????? If you think Rank shouldn't have priviledges then you are sadly mistaken (Once again Union talk). You think the Army will get away with putting Officers in the same dorm room environment (with a roommate) like lower Enlisted? Yeah, right. Only on deployments/or field training, college, but not in garrison. Or you think the Army will get away with PAYING Officers lower enlisted pay??? Hmmm, last time I checked not all Officers had a full ride, meaning they still have to pay off student loans on top of everything else.

Name a company??? Good portion of companies. When you hit the Civilian sector I hope you understand that an education and/or certificates is needed before you even walk through the door for an interview.

[kmed]

So a guy re-up'd and got to go to school for 3 months (not close to 18 months)....you must be a re-up guy in your company/BN....so how many others did you give that option to?

I understand the options are there....but if you can sit here and tell me that things are fair between the officers and enlisted to further each's education then you are sadly mistken....

All I'm saying is, it should not be a rank thing in conjuction with getting your education....I did the on-line school thing while I was in the Army, while being a PSG and everything that you have mentioned...

Becasue your an officer you get more privillages....just becasue.....

Name a company that would seperate people like the Amry does for an education. Good luck....that company would be sued....
Really? Have you been in the civilian sector? Yes, even the civilian sector separates people for education...they are not "allowing" the floor worker at a department store to take 18 months off to go to school unless they are pursuing management opportunities; however, many do allow their management to move forward toward master's degrees..

Wow...yes there is a disparity in the ranks..it is because of utilization of personnel..the Army wants Enlisted to attend as many short courses as they can so they can be knowledgeable in the Army system for the running of the "parts" ; they want Officers to go to as much higher education so they can develop complex reasoning for the "big picture"

DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS=DIFFERENT TRACKS

The Army will certainly afford Enlisted education; however, the repayment is to become an Officer for the utilization in what they are paying you/education institute for....more education, you owe increased responsibility

[vette88]

Really? Have you been in the civilian sector? Yes, even the civilian sector separates people for education...they are not "allowing" the floor worker at a department store to take 18 months off to go to school unless they are pursuing management opportunities; however, many do allow their management to move forward toward master's degrees..

Wow...yes there is a disparity in the ranks..it is because of utilization of personnel..the Army wants Enlisted to attend as many short courses as they can so they can be knowledgeable in the Army system for the running of the "parts" ; they want Officers to go to as much higher education so they can develop complex reasoning for the "big picture"

DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS=DIFFERENT TRACKS

The Army will certainly afford Enlisted education; however, the repayment is to become an Officer for the utilization in what they are paying you/education institute for....more education, you owe increased responsibility

If you honestly think that an education/certifcate isn't needed on the outside world, WOW, do you have a lot to learn. Yes, the companies aren't going to give a guy 18 months off, but the guy has the OPTION (Once again life is full of choices/options) to go to college while at work (which many Soldiers and civilians do). Unions are always looking for people who think life should be "fair" by your standard.

If you want the education, then the excuses need to stop now. Go to your Reup NCO, or talk to a VA representative about the GI Bill.

[chucksnee]

I didn't give the option to him, the ARMY (Reup NCO) did. DUHHHH. Not fair? Did someone force you to become/stay enlisted? Life is full of choices. Everybody is given the choice of what road they want to travel on in life. I realize not all roads are equally difficult/easy for all becasue everybody DOES NOT have the same life choices at the same age, but the option to go to college (make rank) IS ALWAYS there with several options/routes to get it.

So you think the Army should throw the need to get an education to become an Officer OR for higher rank in the NCO Corp? DREAM ON guy!!!! It's what shows initiative to better on self. Doesn't SMA Preston have a degree??? I tried to find it on his bio, but I would think he does. Hmmmmmm, you think that is ONE of the MANY reasons he is SMA??? You think he would have been made SMA WITHOUT it????? If you think Rank shouldn't have priviledges then you are sadly mistaken (Once again Union talk). You think the Army will get away with putting Officers in the same dorm room environment (with a roommate) like lower Enlisted? Yeah, right. Only on deployments/or field training, college, but not in garrison. Or you think the Army will get away with PAYING Officers lower enlisted pay??? Hmmm, last time I checked not all Officers had a full ride, meaning they still have to pay off student loans on top of everything else.

Name a company??? Good portion of companies. When you hit the Civilian sector I hope you understand that an education and/or certificates is needed before you even walk through the door for an interview.


Damn dude.....relax...you must be an officer with the way you are talking.....

Anyway, I have retired from the militay after 21 years and 24 days....I did walk into a job that makes extremely good money for just starting ($26+ and hour) and guess what I do not have a degree. No companies WILL NOT segregate people for education.....Guess what, when I go to school for my degree and the next guy goes to school for his masters degree....the comapny will reimburse us the same amount of money....75% of tuition. He does not get more becasue he is going for a higher degree we are equal....

For the last time I know there are options out there....are they fair, hell no they are not between Enlisted and Officers....should the educational benifits be the same...you damn right they should be....what makes an officer so much better that he should be allowed to take 18 months off to finish his degree when an enlisted cannot do the same....no matter what his rank....

This is the problem with the Army the way it is now....to many people (like you) put Officers on a higer level than the enlisted....

If you don't like it then don't read my responses....as for the union thing....what the hell are you talking about....

Listen you just keep doing what your doing and enjoy the way you are being treated, and if you feel that you are being treated as an equal then so be it....

[chucksnee]

I didn't give the option to him, the ARMY (Reup NCO) did. DUHHHH.

You said that YOU re-up's one guy...I'm sorry were you telling a lie?

Just so we are clear that you DID say this....

[QUOTE=vette88;274051. I've reenlisted a NCO who received some college time. [/QUOTE]

[vette88]

Very good, you went after your degree while on the job. That sounds like something the Army is trying go get its people to do (and sounds like what I've been talking about).......Reimburse, that sounds like the Army too..........

Are they fair: Come on...
Does everybody have the same life opportunities at the same age? No
Is the Army offering free education to the enlisted and officers? Yes
Does the Army offer the enlisted time away from work to go to college (and still get paid)? Yes
Did i reenlist a guy who received the opportunity to go to college on the Army's time (only tell the COC that he was still breathing)? Yes, no lie
Do Officers and Enlisted owe the Army time for time spent going to college? Yes
Is education looked at BOTH Officer and Enlisted as a seperation of peers for promotion? Yes
Are Officers and Enlisted able to seek a bachelor's/master's degree while on Active Duty? Yes
Is the GI Bill available to enlisted to use? Yes
Do the enlisted have to use it to become an Officer? No
Can the enlisted use the GI Bill in conjunction with a Green to Gold program? Yes

Come again, what is not fair with that?

You shoud have learned in the Army that rank does have its priviledges (housing and pay). What is the point of earning rank if there is no priviledge? When I was in Korea did I think it was wrong that the BC had a house of his own with his family? No. NOTHING is stopping the enlisted from becoming an officer/getting an education in route to reach a higher rank in the NCO Corp.

My commit on the Union: Goes along with the "fair" idea of yours.

[chucksnee]

I understand that rank has priviliges...but that privelage should not be there when it comes to your educational benifits....plan and simple......

I don't care who you are or what your position is, everyone should be affored the same option to go to school....

In no way am I saying that Officers should be treated the same as Enlisted....this educational thing is the only thing that really pisses me off...it's not fair for the enlisted guys....just becasue someone decides to be enlisted, that does not mean they should not get an education or be affored the same options that everyone else is....

[vette88]

I understand that rank has priviliges...but that privelage should not be there when it comes to your educational benifits....plan and simple......

I don't care who you are or what your position is, everyone should be affored the same option to go to school....

In no way am I saying that Officers should be treated the same as Enlisted....this educational thing is the only thing that really pisses me off...it's not fair for the enlisted guys....just becasue someone decides to be enlisted, that does not mean they should not get an education or be affored the same options that everyone else is....

Most Officers (I know one who earned it while on A.D.) get their bachelor's before coming into the Army. That is known as a Life Opportunity. I realize that not all have the same life opportunity at the same age, and I'm VERY THANKFUL for my family and Army (who knows where I would be at if it wasn't for them two) for affording me the opportunity; however, the Army does give those who might not have had the same opportunity a chance to get educated. Yes, it's not: "go take four years off and come back to us with an education," but the options for an education are there.

1. GI Bill: Save up, and if you want to get out after initial commitment you'll have some money save up to get an education.

2. Contact Reup NCO and see what options to get an education are out there to get it on the Army's time. Reenlistment is a must (as with Officers who seek to get a master's degree while on A.D., each day in college = 3 days owe Army).

3. Get out and get Green and Gold (can be used with GI Bill). I knew several people in college take advantage of both, and rigthfully so. They earned it.

[chucksnee]

Are you even in the Army?

The GI bill...you do not have to save the money....it there for you to spend.....

The opportunities for the enlisted are not that great...just because you re-up....Not saying the are not....but I will almost guarantee that E-3 re-up'ing will not get 3 months off to go to college.....

Why do you have to become an officer to get time off to go to college?

Sorry but your theory hold's no water...

[kmed]

Are you even in the Army?

The GI bill...you do not have to save the money....it there for you to spend.....

The opportunities for the enlisted are not that great...just because you re-up....Not saying the are not....but I will almost guarantee that E-3 re-up'ing will not get 3 months off to go to college.....

Why do you have to become an officer to get time off to go to college?

Sorry but your theory hold's no water...
Ha..I did it that way..in no way shape or form did I complain about what the Army afforded me. I got out, stayed NG, and went to school and got commissioned..I lived a great college life because of the Army-minimal bills, plus I didn't work my last 3 yrs of college to focus on obtaining a stellar GPA..NO COMPLAINTS from this prior enlisted...and no my civilian assistants do not get as much money for continuing education as I do based on the credentials I hold

with this line of reasoning..why don't I complain because someone who would make less than me in the civilian sector is getting paid more in the military AND outranks me..seriously, there are no unknowns in the military..and tell me how many programs in the civilian sector offer as many benefits that the Army has..

think about it..I was 18 joined the Army with no real skills, no education..and yet, the Army gave me the opportunity to pursue a degree, gain leadership, AND have health care!!!! all with minimal to no skills!!!

[vette88]

Ha..I did it that way..in no way shape or form did I complain about what the Army afforded me. I got out, stayed NG, and went to school and got commissioned..I lived a great college life because of the Army-minimal bills, plus I didn't work my last 3 yrs of college to focus on obtaining a stellar GPA..NO COMPLAINTS from this prior enlisted...and no my civilian assistants do not get as much money for continuing education as I do based on the credentials I hold

with this line of reasoning..why don't I complain because someone who would make less than me in the civilian sector is getting paid more in the military AND outranks me..seriously, there are no unknowns in the military..and tell me how many programs in the civilian sector offer as many benefits that the Army has..

think about it..I was 18 joined the Army with no real skills, no education..and yet, the Army gave me the opportunity to pursue a degree, gain leadership, AND have health care!!!! all with minimal to no skills!!!

Well said (18, no skills, no education, but the Army gave me the opportunity.....), a person who made NO EXCUSES for himself, and went after what he wanted.

[HLOOMIS]

2008-0420, NCO, CSM/SGM/ E-9 Suggestion
Eliminate the E9 rank and pay grade.
Pay E8 as much as an E9 let E8 stay 30 years in the Army.
E8 is fun; E9 is a pain the ass.
NCOs are under paid, this will improve that.
Have the HHT 1SG responsible for some of the CSM duties. The HHT 1SG will be considered the best 1SG in the Battalion and appointed by the Battalion Commander. Being a 1SG of a large unit is fun, being a CSM is not.
Have the Battalion XO responsible for some of the CSM duties
CSM, best job in the Army you don’t do anything unless you want to
CSM, Only responsible for police call
CSM, Simply a reward for being a good 1SG
CSM, All they do is call each other and curse out about police call or grass mowing.
CSM, Simply an enlisted General
Note: Battalion XO’s and 1SGs give me some help here. CSMs aint gonna wana lose that big office next to the COL I was a CSM for 9-years and realized quickly that the Army would be better off without them. Take the enlisted generals out and let officers do their job.

[vette88]

Are you even in the Army?

The GI bill...you do not have to save the money....it there for you to spend.....

The opportunities for the enlisted are not that great...just because you re-up....Not saying the are not....but I will almost guarantee that E-3 re-up'ing will not get 3 months off to go to college.....

Why do you have to become an officer to get time off to go to college?

Sorry but your theory hold's no water...

Ok, where in the below questions is LIFE NOT FAIR (by your standards)? You already corrected me on the GI Bill (to add to my point). By the way, the below are FACTS, not theory.

Does everybody have the same life opportunities at the same age? No
Is the Army offering free education to the enlisted and officers? Yes
Does the Army offer the enlisted time away from work to go to college (and still get paid)? Yes
Did i reenlist a guy who received the opportunity to go to college on the Army's time (only tell the COC that he was still breathing)? Yes, no lie
Do Officers and Enlisted owe the Army time for time spent going to college? Yes
Is education looked at BOTH Officer and Enlisted as a seperation of peers for promotion? Yes
Are Officers and Enlisted able to seek a bachelor's/master's degree while on Active Duty? Yes
Is the GI Bill available to enlisted to use? Yes
Do the enlisted have to use it to become an Officer? No
Can the enlisted use the GI Bill in conjunction with a Green to Gold program? Yes

[chucksnee]

Ok, where in the below questions is LIFE NOT FAIR (by your standards)? You already corrected me on the GI Bill (to add to my point). By the way, the below are FACTS, not theory.

Does everybody have the same life opportunities at the same age? No
Is the Army offering free education to the enlisted and officers? Yes
Does the Army offer the enlisted time away from work to go to college (and still get paid)?

Yes
Did i reenlist a guy who received the opportunity to go to college on the Army's time (only tell the COC that he was still breathing)? Yes, no lie
Do Officers and Enlisted owe the Army time for time spent going to college? Yes
Is education looked at BOTH Officer and Enlisted as a seperation of peers for promotion? Yes
Are Officers and Enlisted able to seek a bachelor's/master's degree while on Active Duty? Yes
Is the GI Bill available to enlisted to use? Yes
Do the enlisted have to use it to become an Officer? No
Can the enlisted use the GI Bill in conjunction with a Green to Gold program? Yes

What don't you understand about "the only thing I'm pissed about is the time off that an officer gets to complete his degree and enlisted do not"....is that unfair yes....

Why should an officer get 18 months off to complete a degree and an enlisted not get anytime off....

I don't want to hear about the 1 time you re-up'd a guy and he got time off....IF you were to tell me that you re-enlisted 30 - 40 people with the same option then I would want to know what regulation you used.

This is about 1 thing and one thing only Officers getting time off to complete a degree and Enlisted do not....

I agree with you that life and every other thing you mentioned are all condiational to the person and if he/she wants to go for it.....becasue it is there.....and if not that is there fault....plain and simple....

You keep saying become a officer to get your education and get 18 months off....tell me why I should become an officer just to get 18 months off to complete my degree....when I do not want to be an officer..

I should beable to do that as an enlisted....

[vette88]

What don't you understand about "the only thing I'm pissed about is the time off that an officer gets to complete his degree and enlisted do not"....is that unfair yes....

Why should an officer get 18 months off to complete a degree and an enlisted not get anytime off....

I don't want to hear about the 1 time you re-up'd a guy and he got time off....IF you were to tell me that you re-enlisted 30 - 40 people with the same option then I would want to know what regulation you used.

This is about 1 thing and one thing only Officers getting time off to complete a degree and Enlisted do not....

I agree with you that life and every other thing you mentioned are all condiational to the person and if he/she wants to go for it.....becasue it is there.....and if not that is there fault....plain and simple....

You keep saying become a officer to get your education and get 18 months off....tell me why I should become an officer just to get 18 months off to complete my degree....when I do not want to be an officer..

I should beable to do that as an enlisted....

I wasn't even the guy's CO when I reuped (read him the oath to repeat back) him (maybe I should have said reenlisted, that might be my bad). I swore him in AND I remember him making a commit about getting a semester off (on the Army's time) TO GO TO COLLEGE (and that was it) to reenlist. So I know FOR A FACT this option IS offered to Enlisted to take time away from Army (and still get paid, he was an E5) to work towards a degree. His plan was to go after we got back from deployment. How much time did he owe the Army? I don't know. I do know for the Officers it is 1 day = 3 days owe Army (Officers can use to get Masters). He DID work this with the REUP NCO. I'm sure he wasn't the only one that choose to get an education (instead of bonus money).

When did you get out because maybe this option for Soldiers came after your time? I reenlisted him back in mid 2006. I don't know when this option was started.

[chucksnee]

I've been retired a total of 40 days...been through several re-enlistments for my self and also been around alot of re-enlistments (we would re-enlist people in the back of a Chinook while flying) I have never heard of an enlisted getting 3 months off to go to school....what I have heard of is the college option that ONLY guaranteed the enlisted person to go to night school and have that night off.....still had to go to work during the day, PT and everything else.....never 3 months completly off....

I'm glad that that one guy got 3 months off, he is one of the very few if not the only one.....that I have ever heard getting that....

Just so you know, enlisted do not owe anthing to the Army for going to school or using TA or anything like that....

[vette88]

I've been retired a total of 40 days...been through several re-enlistments for my self and also been around alot of re-enlistments (we would re-enlist people in the back of a Chinook while flying) I have never heard of an enlisted getting 3 months off to go to school....what I have heard of is the college option that ONLY guaranteed the enlisted person to go to night school and have that night off.....still had to go to work during the day, PT and everything else.....never 3 months completly off....

I'm glad that that one guy got 3 months off, he is one of the very few if not the only one.....that I have ever heard getting that....

Just so you know, enlisted do not owe anthing to the Army for going to school or using TA or anything like that....

Yup, I do remember telling him to take 18 credit hours to take full advantage of it. His reenlistment was done at the Reup office. Thing is the greater portion of Enlisted (at least in the BN I was in) would go after the cash bonus instead of education. I don't remember him saying anything about night school written in contract, but I did have a PSG going after a degree on A.D. Maybe he was in the night school option.

[chucksnee]

You know why the enlisted are takinig the money option, becasue the school option is not always there (if it ever is) when you re-up....there is not a list of things that you can pick and choose from....you may get one or 2 if you are lucky.....I know for a fact that the last 4 people who re-up'd in Korea had NO such option....not even money....it was re-up or get out....and we are in a MOS that is closed to get out of.

Also, if you did not know.....if you are an E-6 over 10 you can not re-up anymore....so there goes your re-up option.....you are considered INDEF. just like an officer.....Let me just define that a little more....if you are a 8 year E-6 and re-up for 4 years you have 1 more re-up...after that you are INDEF....

Lets agree to disagree, I have my view as an Enlisted person and you have yours as a Officer.....

I know a brand new SGT that is going for her 4 year degree in Chemistry.....no option, just doing it on her own time.....

My old 1SG is going for his BA in Aviation MAINT. and Mechanics....all on his own time.....

Have another PSG that's going for his BA in something (cannot remember) but he is doing it on his time also.....

Now, it would be ALOT easier to just take 18 months off and complete the degree than have to have to go to PT....the field and what ever else the Army throws at you....is it that hard for you to understand....???

[vette88]

You know why the enlisted are takinig the money option, becasue the school option is not always there (if it ever is) when you re-up....there is not a list of things that you can pick and choose from....you may get one or 2 if you are lucky.....I know for a fact that the last 4 people who re-up'd in Korea had NO such option....not even money....it was re-up or get out....and we are in a MOS that is closed to get out of.

Also, if you did not know.....if you are an E-6 over 10 you can not re-up anymore....so there goes your re-up option.....you are considered INDEF. just like an officer.....Let me just define that a little more....if you are a 8 year E-6 and re-up for 4 years you have 1 more re-up...after that you are INDEF....

Lets agree to disagree, I have my view as an Enlisted person and you have yours as a Officer.....

I know a brand new SGT that is going for her 4 year degree in Chemistry.....no option, just doing it on her own time.....

My old 1SG is going for his BA in Aviation MAINT. and Mechanics....all on his own time.....

Have another PSG that's going for his BA in something (cannot remember) but he is doing it on his time also.....

Now, it would be ALOT easier to just take 18 months off and complete the degree than have to have to go to PT....the field and what ever else the Army throws at you....is it that hard for you to understand....???

Heck, if you're right, then you're right. My ignorance lead me to believe that it (time to go to college on the Army's time and still get paid) was an option for all enlisted. Shows how much I know I guess :). I don't know how the E5 qualified for the college option, or if there is only a # of slots per BN who get it. I believe that college option (for Masters) is offered to all Officers..........so I see your point now.

I guess that is why there is the GI Bill. Don't have to put up that B.S. anymore (get out), and still get an education, but still have to find some kind of job to support self and family.

[chucksnee]

Heck, if you're right, then you're right. My ignorance lead me to believe that it (time to go to college on the Army's time and still get paid) was an option for all enlisted. Shows how much I know I guess :). I don't know how the E5 qualified for the college option, or if there is only a # of slots per BN who get it. I believe that college option (for Masters) is offered to all Officers..........so I see your point now.

I guess that is why there is the GI Bill. Don't have to put up that B.S. anymore (get out), and still get an education, but still have to find some kind of job to support self and family.

vette....nobody is ignorant.....hell, even after being in 21 years I learned something the other day because I assumed.....and it was very small but important...When does your child dependant loose his ID card? I thought it was 18.....it is 21.....I knew they keep it longer if they were in school....

As for the GI bill it is there for when ever you want to use it....even up to 10 years after you have retired.....BUT if I decide to use it while in the Army, I still have to complete the degree on my own time....not the Armys time......and nobody will do it anyway with TA, everything is free except books...now.. and with this new GI bill that just came out August 1st, the Army will pay you what an E-5 gets for BAH monthly (by zip code) and your college and books....even after you are retired or do your 6 years and get out.....so you really don't have to find a job to support yourself (as long as it is just you).

Again, the option may be there to go to college on the Army's time for to re-enlist, but it is no where near what it is for an officer....

[MSMUROTC]

Want to be in charge of officers? Think you can lead better than they do? Go get a commission.

[cameryxle]

My point has nothing to do with myself or others going through the current system to be an officer. This discussion from my point of vew, is questioning the officer track itself. Your response is similar to the arguemnt: If you disagree with America's traditions or current politics why don't you leave and move to Canada. To which I say: I love America and the military so much I believe I have an obigation to fix it from within rather then run away or be be part of the problem by reinfrcing the system that needs to be fixed.

[MADAMESINCERE]

I'm not sure where you guys are getting the notion that the Army just lets its officers take time off to go get a Master's. Unless you're talking about going to the War College or something, we have to agree to add time to our ADSO if we want to spend time going to college while on active duty. This option was offered to Captains when they were given bonus options.

[chucksnee]

I'm not sure where you guys are getting the notion that the Army just lets its officers take time off to go get a Master's. Unless you're talking about going to the War College or something, we have to agree to add time to our ADSO if we want to spend time going to college while on active duty. This option was offered to Captains when they were given bonus options.

You can start reading this or you can go to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r621_1.pdf and read Chapter 4.....this is a quick cut and paste from that chapter.....

********Service members taking part in the DCP will do so in the minimum uninterrupted time required, normally 12
months, to complete all degree requirements. Transfer from one degree to another is not authorized. Enrollment into
DCP will not exceed 18 months. Study leading to a degree in law, religion, theology, or programs sponsored by The
Surgeon General, are not covered by this program or its governing regulation.
d. Service members attending undergraduate DCP will enroll in a university at their present or follow-on duty
station. Requests for exception will be submitted to HRC (appropriate career division, para 1–5b). Schooling of less
than 20 weeks may be accomplished by permissive TDY, in accordance with AR 600–8–10 (para 4–11).
e. Section 12205, Title 10, United States Code requires commissioned officers promoted to the rank of captain to
have a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution. In accordance with section 512 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY02, the CG, HRC is delegated authority to approve waivers for up to 24
months.******

I learned alot by reading this....SO for all you enlisted, I would take this regulatoion and take your time off and complete your degree...as long as you are with 18 months of completion....

And if you are under 20 weeks DO IT PTDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vettee........I apologize for not knowing this was for SENIOR enlisted also.... this does not apply to lower enlisted though.....

[MADAMESINCERE]

You can start reading this or you can go to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r621_1.pdf and read Chapter 4.....this is a quick cut and paste from that chapter.....

********Service members taking part in the DCP will do so in the minimum uninterrupted time required, normally 12
months, to complete all degree requirements. Transfer from one degree to another is not authorized. Enrollment into
DCP will not exceed 18 months. Study leading to a degree in law, religion, theology, or programs sponsored by The
Surgeon General, are not covered by this program or its governing regulation.
d. Service members attending undergraduate DCP will enroll in a university at their present or follow-on duty
station. Requests for exception will be submitted to HRC (appropriate career division, para 1–5b). Schooling of less
than 20 weeks may be accomplished by permissive TDY, in accordance with AR 600–8–10 (para 4–11).
e. Section 12205, Title 10, United States Code requires commissioned officers promoted to the rank of captain to
have a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution. In accordance with section 512 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY02, the CG, HRC is delegated authority to approve waivers for up to 24
months.******

I learned alot by reading this....SO for all you enlisted, I would take this regulatoion and take your time off and complete your degree...as long as you are with 18 months of completion....

And if you are under 20 weeks DO IT PTDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vettee........I apologize for not knowing this was for SENIOR enlisted also.... this does not apply to lower enlisted though.....

Roger. Maybe I'm confusing some of the points some people have made or have tried to make on here. DCP is for LTs who don't have a bachelor's before pinning CPT. The people who fall into this category are usually prior enlisted who don't have a BA/BS but are able to get commissioned, (through this program). I thought I read somewhere that someone thought this applied to ALL officers and that we just get to leave a unit at any time we want to go get a Master's. It doesn't work like that. That's all I was saying...

[chucksnee]

It's just not for junior officers....it's for warrants....and senior enlisted also....to finish there degree....

[Pueblo]

Can we all agree that, just because a person completed a 4 year degree in business or basketweaving, did a little Drill on weekends and PT in the mornings in between college classes and keg parties and took a "Basic-nonpractical-officer 2 month military managment coarse that they can be said to be truly qualified to lead a platoon of battle trained and highly experienced soldiers to victory in war?

Wow, and this is coming from the guy who says officers don't understand enlisted?

[MSMUROTC]

Officers and NCO's have different roles. It's like saying that a plant foreman should be the CEO because he's worked at the company for X amount of years. Bottom line -- a great officer can easily do the job of an NCO. The reverse is not true. Just because someone works physically harder or has invested more time in an organization does not make them more capable of leading it.

Said another way -- a teacher with less tenure but who has an MBA or other advanced schooling is more qualified to be a principal than a teacher who's taught for 15 years -- yes, that tenured teacher may be a better teacher at the classroom level, but teaching at the classroom level is only a portion (albeit a very important portion) of a school's operation, and the ability and experience of teaching in a classroom isn't really critical to a principal's day-to-day operations. A principal should have been in a classroom, should have a knowledge of what goes on in a classroom, but they do not need to have spent 15 years in the classroom to run a school. Same concept.

The fact of the matter is you don't know half of the duties and responsibilites that officers have because you are not one, and the majority of the work that an officer does is not readily, visibly apparent to soldiers.

If individuals -- such are yourself -- think that YOU don't have enough responsibility or are resentful of those who do, then YOU go and get a commission and become an officer. However, the system itself works fine. You are turning an individual problem into a systemic problem, which it isn't.

Officers should be enlisted before they get a commission? Honestly, that's just haterism and wanting people to suffer through enlisted nonsense because that's what you understand. Really, what about doing post details or having your room inspected or standing around formation is going to make an officer a better officer, besides the fact that you can relate to that experience and now they're "legitimate" in your eyes? I can accept the argument of ROTC officers (not West Point) going to BCT because there is no "haze" portion of ROTC training, and hazing builds character, and some things like D&C and BRM are better taught at a BCT-like institution vice an ROTC environment.

Going to college and balancing ROTC at the same time is challenging, to say nothing of going to West Point. Officers join the military already showing the ability to defer gratification in pursuit of a long-term goal. They've shown aptitude for higher-level thinking. They have joined understanding and accepting that the first day they start in the Army, they will be in charge of dozens of people and millions of dollars of equipment. Those are qualities necessary and present in all officers that are not present in all enlisted soldiers, or even in many enlisted soldiers.

You are questioning officers in platoon and company leadership roles, but the vast majority of an officer's career is spent on staff. A platoon leader is not a platoon leader because he's got some great and magical skills as an officer. A PL is a PL so that he can be a CO. A PL may outrank an PSG, but they never out-influence them. There is no chain of command that would support a PL smoking a PSG or pulling rank on them or something like that. A brand new PL will not and does not have one iota of the support from the company and battalion chain of command that the platoon sergeant does.

A PL is at the platoon because he needs to learn somewhere. Even being a team leader E-4 will not make you able to take control of a platoon. The only way your argument really makes any sense is if you say that you have to be an E-7 before you can be an O-1 and I think pretty much everyone thinks that's insanity.

CO's and BC's have to come from somewhere. Where do you think they come from? Everyone has all this criticism for PL's, but every CO and BC was a dicked up PL at some point.

[MSMUROTC]

Also, if anyone is dishonoring PSG's in this discussion, it's everyone posting in this board implying that they have no control or power in a platoon. Really? What platoon have you ever been in which the PL took complete command of the platoon and sidelined the PSG? Honestly. It doesn't happen. It's a completely facetious argument. And if it happened, it was also a product of a bad PSG, bad 1SG, bad CO, bad BC, and bad BN CSM. At that point, the solution is not to upend the Army's structure, the solution is to have better leaders.

A good or bad PSG (and a good or bad relationship with that PSG) can make or break an officer's career. It can set that young officer up for a great career and great habits, or turn them into a turd. No halfway decent CO or BC on the face of the earth will ever tell a PL that he's got anything on his PSG, and tell him that PL that his overwhelming responsibility for the first months of his PL time is to watch and learn from his PSG.

You guys really have no clue what is going on or you have been in some really bad units. I don't know what to tell you. The kind of complaints you guys have are implying that you are coming from some jacked up units. Go join the Airborne Infantry, stuff like this does not happen there.

[kmed]

Officers and NCO's have different roles. It's like saying that a plant foreman should be the CEO because he's worked at the company for X amount of years. Bottom line -- a great officer can easily do the job of an NCO. The reverse is not true. Just because someone works physically harder or has invested more time in an organization does not make them more capable of leading it.

Said another way -- a teacher with less tenure but who has an MBA or other advanced schooling is more qualified to be a principal than a teacher who's taught for 15 years -- yes, that tenured teacher may be a better teacher at the classroom level, but teaching at the classroom level is only a portion (albeit a very important portion) of a school's operation, and the ability and experience of teaching in a classroom isn't really critical to a principal's day-to-day operations. A principal should have been in a classroom, should have a knowledge of what goes on in a classroom, but they do not need to have spent 15 years in the classroom to run a school. Same concept.

The fact of the matter is you don't know half of the duties and responsibilites that officers have because you are not one, and the majority of the work that an officer does is not readily, visibly apparent to soldiers.

If individuals -- such are yourself -- think that YOU don't have enough responsibility or are resentful of those who do, then YOU go and get a commission and become an officer. However, the system itself works fine. You are turning an individual problem into a systemic problem, which it isn't.

Officers should be enlisted before they get a commission? Honestly, that's just haterism and wanting people to suffer through enlisted nonsense because that's what you understand. Really, what about doing post details or having your room inspected or standing around formation is going to make an officer a better officer, besides the fact that you can relate to that experience and now they're "legitimate" in your eyes? I can accept the argument of ROTC officers (not West Point) going to BCT because there is no "haze" portion of ROTC training, and hazing builds character, and some things like D&C and BRM are better taught at a BCT-like institution vice an ROTC environment.

Going to college and balancing ROTC at the same time is challenging, to say nothing of going to West Point. Officers join the military already showing the ability to defer gratification in pursuit of a long-term goal. They've shown aptitude for higher-level thinking. They have joined understanding and accepting that the first day they start in the Army, they will be in charge of dozens of people and millions of dollars of equipment. Those are qualities necessary and present in all officers that are not present in all enlisted soldiers, or even in many enlisted soldiers.

You are questioning officers in platoon and company leadership roles, but the vast majority of an officer's career is spent on staff. A platoon leader is not a platoon leader because he's got some great and magical skills as an officer. A PL is a PL so that he can be a CO. A PL may outrank an PSG, but they never out-influence them. There is no chain of command that would support a PL smoking a PSG or pulling rank on them or something like that. A brand new PL will not and does not have one iota of the support from the company and battalion chain of command that the platoon sergeant does.

A PL is at the platoon because he needs to learn somewhere. Even being a team leader E-4 will not make you able to take control of a platoon. The only way your argument really makes any sense is if you say that you have to be an E-7 before you can be an O-1 and I think pretty much everyone thinks that's insanity.

CO's and BC's have to come from somewhere. Where do you think they come from? Everyone has all this criticism for PL's, but every CO and BC was a dicked up PL at some point.
Here! Here! This is what I've been saying all along..good to see backing and an intellectual reasoning point. Case in point-Officers are paid by the complexity of their reasoning which has been demonstrated through their pursuit of higher education..just like all degrees aren't created equal, either is the idea that a person can lead just by on the job training alone...

[mikelentz]

I've always found the military ranks weird. You can be enlisted with a lot of time in service, maybe even a bachelors degree, yet someone with just 4 years of college and no experience out ranks you. How does that even make any sense at all? To me it feels like it's a slap in the face to all the time and dedication you put into the service. Here is what I would change...

Once you make E-7 (P) you can opt to become an O-1, even if you have no college experience, but you must obtain an associates degree to get past O-3.

My logic: You have already earned your place as a leader and E-7 is no easy task. You deserve to "out rank" a fresh college graduate, even if you have no college because you know more than them about the Army and your job.

Ok, we can easily go back to how the Army worked 150 years ago. Want to take a trip with me??

First, Officers were either elected from the local citizenry by the men of the Company or Battalion, or given a Commission because they had; money, family connections or were land owners.

Second, those fortunate few to actually attend West Point did so not because they were smart kids, but because their parents bought them an appointment to the Academy.

Third, most times, a guy with no military education could become a Captain, LTC or Colonel just because he was filling a vacancy.

Finally, 150 years ago, enlisted soldiers could not even walk down the streets where Officers houses were. They lived in absolute terrible barracks, ate horrible food, had little recreation, were forced to live on Post, all while the Officers drank fine wine and beer, ate like kings and were masters of every enlisted person. Remember now, this is 150 years ago. An Officer could have an enlisted man whipped for looking at him the wrong way.

So, shall we go back to "how it was" or should we keep the current system that got us through two world wars, the cold war, Vietnam, and Post 9/11?? I am voting for not changing a thing. The current system works just fine.

Bottom line......if you don't like your life as an Enlisted Soldier, don't like the "punk kids" who just got out of school giving orders.....get out OR stay in and get a Commission, and be the great Officer you think we need.

BTW..... I have been an Officer for 10 years. However, since I got my Commission through ROTC, and was a PL....I must be one of those Officers who know nothing about the Army. Perhaps a stint as a Private would shape me up. Apparently I lack the skill necessary to lead Soldiers, make decisions or do my job. Oh wait.....that's right, I was made a Captain because it was just my time. I Commanded Batteries because LTC's and Colonels believed I could not do it. I must not have a single freaking clue what to do everyday.

[anamericansoldier]

Also, if anyone is dishonoring PSG's in this discussion, it's everyone posting in this board implying that they have no control or power in a platoon. Really? What platoon have you ever been in which the PL took complete command of the platoon and sidelined the PSG? Honestly. It doesn't happen. It's a completely facetious argument. And if it happened, it was also a product of a bad PSG, bad 1SG, bad CO, bad BC, and bad BN CSM. At that point, the solution is not to upend the Army's structure, the solution is to have better leaders.

A good or bad PSG (and a good or bad relationship with that PSG) can make or break an officer's career. It can set that young officer up for a great career and great habits, or turn them into a turd. No halfway decent CO or BC on the face of the earth will ever tell a PL that he's got anything on his PSG, and tell him that PL that his overwhelming responsibility for the first months of his PL time is to watch and learn from his PSG.

You guys really have no clue what is going on or you have been in some really bad units. I don't know what to tell you. The kind of complaints you guys have are implying that you are coming from some jacked up units. Go join the Airborne Infantry, stuff like this does not happen there.

Amen, brother. I was going to make similar points, and I'm glad you made them for me already. :)

[anamericansoldier]

Outright disrespect makes everyone look like an idiot. To include you.

As far as this rank reorganization comes, the person proposing the idea and the posters agreeing with it (having Enlisted in charge of Officers) have NO IDEA how the military works, the legal and social aspects of American policy regarding the Armed Forces and makes no sense whatsoever.

Officers receive an Appointment by way of Commission or Warrant (even those with Warrants eventually receive their Commission) from the President or in the case of a Warrant, the Secretary of the particular service acting on behalf of the President. Officers are legally bound to certain rules and regulations, have certain rights and responsibilities and are charged in doing things totally different than what enlisted members swear to do in their oath. Officers are representatives of the President.

Has anyone here actually read the two Oaths back to back?? Read the Oath Officers take and then read the Oath Enlisted take. Way different things. One Oath requires the member to obey the orders of Officers. The other makes an individual part of the Federal Government.

It does not matter if an Officer has 1 day of experience or 30 years of experience, all Enlisted Members swear (or affirm) to obey them. Some may not like having to follow the orders of a 21 year old 2LT, but everyone has the option to choose what route they eventually decide to go (Enlisted of Officer).

The original poster cited that Senior Enlisted need to lead junior Officers, and have more experience than them. I would suggest asking a Senior NCO their thoughts on the subject, and I bet they would say something similar to what I have said.

For the record I had six (6) years in, eventually becoming an NCO myself. I have got to say, the NCO leadership was lacking, there was no real education system (maybe on paper) and the pay was terrible. If we change anything, lets change; pay, education systems and benefits for NCO's.

Speaking as an 0-3, I would never support any decision to ever place an Enlisted member over an Officer (authoritative and regulation wise). This would never happen! Lets also not forget that Officers are "Generalists", meaning they know a little bit about everything, while Enlisted members are supposed to be technical experts knowing a lot about their chosen field. The roles are very precise and have worked for well over two-hundred years. Finally, I take offense to those that think Officers (of any grade or age) do not have the ability to lead simply because of lack of experience. Granted most do not go to Basic or AIT, but they do have their own set requirements that must be met for Commissioning. To make the comparison that they "get a diploma and become an Officer" is showing that you don't know anything about the Military you serve.

~Mike


I enlisted on my seventeenth birthday, and went to OCS just after my twentieth birthday. So I couldn't even drink with the other Officers at the Commissioning Ceremony, nor with those in my Company the first year. Nothing worse than being a "young looking Officer", but not being able to drink with everyone else was asking for people to make jokes behind my back.

I am all for lowering the drinking age Nationwide to 18. Not just in the military. If your country considers you an adult at 18, then you should be allowed to do everything and anything an adult can do.

MADD is a joke. They need to find something else to focus on. No matter what they do, people are still going to drive intoxicated. We can not stop that. All we can do is institute harsher penalties for doing bad things like that. Perhaps a minimum of two years in a state prison on your first conviction would curb drunk driving.


Okay, normally I don't do this kind of fact-checking, but this guy is a complete tool. In one post he mentions 'having six (6) years in, eventually becoming an NCO', and in another thread he states that he 'joined at 17 and went to OCS school at 20.' Hmm...

[chucksnee]

Bottom line......if you don't like your life as an Enlisted Soldier, don't like the "punk kids" who just got out of school giving orders.....get out OR stay in and get a Commission, and be the great Officer you think we need.

BTW..... I have been an Officer for 10 years. However, since I got my Commission through ROTC, and was a PL....I must be one of those Officers who know nothing about the Army. Perhaps a stint as a Private would shape me up. Apparently I lack the skill necessary to lead Soldiers, make decisions or do my job. Oh wait.....that's right, I was made a Captain because it was just my time. I Commanded Batteries because LTC's and Colonels believed I could not do it. I must not have a single freaking clue what to do everyday.

No your one of those punk ass officers that will back stab an Enlisted in a heart beat just to save your butt....

ohhhh you were a PL well hell that makes all the difference in the world....

Yes you got your captain because it was your time....you did not get it because of anything else....it does not matter if your a shit bag or the brightest star in the world....you done your time and nobody looked at your record....unless you were flagged for something....

No the LTC's and COL's had to fill a spot and just by luck you had a day or 2 more time in grade than the next guy....

I think you would rather have it like it was, that way you could be on your thrown and nobody can say anything but now people do and damn us enlisted can talk about you and that makes you mad....

[acesfilter]

Okay, normally I don't do this kind of fact-checking, but this guy is a complete tool. In one post he mentions 'having six (6) years in, eventually becoming an NCO', and in another thread he states that he 'joined at 17 and went to OCS school at 20.' Hmm...

Heh. Pwned. :D

[kmed]

WOW!! And this very behavior is the difference of being an Officer...never forget that Officers work very hard to get where they are..just like a CEO of a company...the only difference we wear our rank/status on our uniform...EVERYONE has to start somewhere and learn the ropes of their jobs..they have to succeed AND fail accordingly..Bill Gates failed 6 times before he became a success..I wonder if people who work in construction feel that they deserve the monetary compensation equal to the CEO of their company..I highly doubt it..this line of bashing is out of line and implies that the author has minimal impulse control and poor emotional intelligence..thank you for showing your intellectual level.

No your one of those punk ass officers that will back stab an Enlisted in a heart beat just to save your butt....

ohhhh you were a PL well hell that makes all the difference in the world....

Yes you got your captain because it was your time....you did not get it because of anything else....it does not matter if your a shit bag or the brightest star in the world....you done your time and nobody looked at your record....unless you were flagged for something....

No the LTC's and COL's had to fill a spot and just by luck you had a day or 2 more time in grade than the next guy....

I think you would rather have it like it was, that way you could be on your thrown and nobody can say anything but now people do and damn us enlisted can talk about you and that makes you mad....

[anamericansoldier]

No your one of those punk ass officers that will back stab an Enlisted in a heart beat just to save your butt....

ohhhh you were a PL well hell that makes all the difference in the world....

Yes you got your captain because it was your time....you did not get it because of anything else....it does not matter if your a shit bag or the brightest star in the world....you done your time and nobody looked at your record....unless you were flagged for something....

No the LTC's and COL's had to fill a spot and just by luck you had a day or 2 more time in grade than the next guy....

I think you would rather have it like it was, that way you could be on your thrown and nobody can say anything but now people do and damn us enlisted can talk about you and that makes you mad....

What was thrown? A baseball? A football? A grenade? A lemon meringue pie? Oh, wait, that's how 'throne' is spelled in 'Bama... :P

[acesfilter]

What was thrown? A baseball? A football? A grenade? A lemon meringue pie? Oh, wait, that's how 'throne' is spelled in 'Bama... :P

*cues the redneck hill billie music*

[chucksnee]

What was thrown? A baseball? A football? A grenade? A lemon meringue pie? Oh, wait, that's how 'throne' is spelled in 'Bama... :P

O.K. you got me.....

However, this is what you sentence should look like.

What was thrown, a baseball, a football, a grenade, or a lemon meringue pie?

There should also be 2 spaces not 1 space (like in your sentence above) between each ? and the start of next sentence.

And I'm from upper Alabama, complete difference than lower Alabama....:D :D

[chucksnee]

WOW!! And this very behavior is the difference of being an Officer...never forget that Officers work very hard to get where they are..just like a CEO of a company...the only difference we wear our rank/status on our uniform...EVERYONE has to start somewhere and learn the ropes of their jobs..they have to succeed AND fail accordingly..Bill Gates failed 6 times before he became a success..I wonder if people who work in construction feel that they deserve the monetary compensation equal to the CEO of their company..I highly doubt it..this line of bashing is out of line and implies that the author has minimal impulse control and poor emotional intelligence..thank you for showing your intellectual level.

You know what sucks? Is when the truth comes out....people being HONEST with themselves and others, not being the buddy buddy hey friend you can cry on my shoulder.

I retired August 1st 2009 as a senior NCO and damn proud of my career, I mentored junior officers and junior enlisted. I took advice from junior enlisted and junior officers also....I think I can honestly say that I can say my statement and not worry about what others have to say.

The problem with today's Army is not an Officer or and Enlisted, it's about people being honest. If the Military cannot figure that out then it is doomed....and will never change from what we have now...an I'm afraid to tell you what is really wrong because if I tell you what is wrong.....you maybe offend by what I said....Military....

Sorry, seen to much of it in my 21 years....

[kmed]

Listen...I don't have any problems with honesty..I have problems with generalizations...not ALL Officers back stab and not ALL enlisted are great Soldiers..Generalizing statements spread a paintbrush over some very good people...I look at the Army like this..90% good 10% bad (and truly there are extremely bad Soldiers in this Army). I have my own issues wth how young enlisted lead/or work hard at not working; however, I certainly try not to blame the masses or sling mud around..honesty doesn't come in the form of presuming that someone is "one of those Officers"..You know what sucks? Is when the truth comes out....people being HONEST with themselves and others, not being the buddy buddy hey friend you can cry on my shoulder.

I retired August 1st 2009 as a senior NCO and damn proud of my career, I mentored junior officers and junior enlisted. I took advice from junior enlisted and junior officers also....I think I can honestly say that I can say my statement and not worry about what others have to say.

The problem with today's Army is not an Officer or and Enlisted, it's about people being honest. If the Military cannot figure that out then it is doomed....and will never change from what we have now...an I'm afraid to tell you what is really wrong because if I tell you what is wrong.....you maybe offend by what I said....Military....

Sorry, seen to much of it in my 21 years....

[MCGYVER]

O.K. you got me.....

However, this is what you sentence should look like.

What was thrown, a baseball, a football, a grenade, or a lemon meringue pie?

There should also be 2 spaces not 1 space (like in your sentence above) between each ? and the start of next sentence.

And I'm from upper Alabama, complete difference than lower Alabama....:D :D

The two space rule has long since been discontinued and no longer acceptable.

[chucksnee]

The two space rule has long since been discontinued and no longer acceptable.


Then I guess my English Composition teacher needs to be informed.......

[chucksnee]

Listen...I don't have any problems with honesty..I have problems with generalizations...not ALL Officers back stab and not ALL enlisted are great Soldiers..Generalizing statements spread a paintbrush over some very good people...I look at the Army like this..90% good 10% bad (and truly there are extremely bad Soldiers in this Army). I have my own issues wth how young enlisted lead/or work hard at not working; however, I certainly try not to blame the masses or sling mud around..honesty doesn't come in the form of presuming that someone is "one of those Officers"..

O.K. we are on the same page then.

But if you go back and read my statement it was directed at 1 person not a shotgun blast as you suggest.

I have had the privileged of working with the smartest Officers in the Military. This is not a BS statement and a lot of people would say the same thing, but the Officers I worked with graduated the Navy Experimental Test Pilot School. These guys have multiple degrees and so on, hell one guy even had a degree in Nuclear Engineering. These guys did not have a chip or the "I'm an Officer so you better listen to me attitude" on there shoulder like some Officers have right now in the Army...

I guess what I'm trying to say is basic....If an Officer reads my statements and the shoe fits.....and the same goes with an enlisted guy also.....

[anamericansoldier]

O.K. you got me.....

However, this is what you sentence should look like.

What was thrown, a baseball, a football, a grenade, or a lemon meringue pie?

There should also be 2 spaces not 1 space (like in your sentence above) between each ? and the start of next sentence.

And I'm from upper Alabama, complete difference than lower Alabama....:D :D

LOL My questions were accurate and correct in today's English language. Also, if you're going to try and correct my sentences, at least come at me correctly. There were two errors in your previous statement: you should have written 'However, this is what your sentence should look like.' Also, if you're going to list all of the objects with commas, there needs to be a ':' after thrown instead of a ','.

Maybe you should have been from southern Alabama... ;)

[chucksnee]

LOL My questions were accurate and correct in today's English language. Also, if you're going to try and correct my sentences, at least come at me correctly. There were two errors in your previous statement: you should have written 'However, this is what your sentence should look like.' Also, if you're going to list all of the objects with commas, there needs to be a ':' after thrown instead of a ','.

Maybe you should have been from southern Alabama... ;)

To what standard? If you give any type of letter to 3 people they will give you a different answer on how grammar and punctuation should be.

Anyway...who cares...

but NoW IF i SeE you NoT CoRrEcT SoMeBoDy i WIll bE SuRe tO MeNtIon iT.....sEnCe yOu wAnT tO CoRrEcT pEoPlE....

Actually I was born in Michigan, raised in Kentucky....wait maybe I do have a problem....

[kmed]

and just to stress another point...just because an Officer comes in with a Bachelors degree does not mean they will "fill a slot" and make LTC. This is simply untrue..it is highly competitive in certain fields to make those ranks..I will need a Doctorate degree to even see LTC or the impossible COL..

This is true in the enlisted ranks as well..how many SGMs out there do you know that don't have a Bachelors or the probability of a Masters degree? This is why they are the parallel rank to a LTC/COL. This works all around-1SG(has probably a Bachelors or close to it) has the parallel structure to a CPT. This is where the "diplomatic immunity comes in".

Warrant ranks-Associates degree to make CW3 and a Bachelors deg to make CW4..
..and truly if you look at the pay scale an E-5 with 6 yrs plus makes more that your incoming 2LT with less that 2 yrs in..the difference is as the LT goes through his PL stage the expectations and responsibilities from PL to XO to CO increase three-fold at each role; therefore, pay should equate to that skill level. And as and O3, you need to pay me commisurate to what I am worth in the civilian sector or I would get out because it is a heck of a lot of work for the pay..I've been a civilian, I never had to work this hard in my field and I am very certain a lot of other Officers debate daily if it is even worth it...


No your one of those punk ass officers that will back stab an Enlisted in a heart beat just to save your butt....

ohhhh you were a PL well hell that makes all the difference in the world....

Yes you got your captain because it was your time....you did not get it because of anything else....it does not matter if your a shit bag or the brightest star in the world....you done your time and nobody looked at your record....unless you were flagged for something....

No the LTC's and COL's had to fill a spot and just by luck you had a day or 2 more time in grade than the next guy....

I think you would rather have it like it was, that way you could be on your thrown and nobody can say anything but now people do and damn us enlisted can talk about you and that makes you mad....

[chucksnee]

and just to stress another point...just because an Officer comes in with a Bachelors degree does not mean they will "fill a slot" and make LTC. This is simply untrue..it is highly competitive in certain fields to make those ranks..I will need a Doctorate degree to even see LTC or the impossible COL..

.


I agree with your statments, however if you will read WHO and WHAT I quoted you will see it is towards 1 person, not the entire Officer community as you are suggesting and nothing above a Captian.

A PL slot is filled becasue there is a need....if it is a CPT or a LT.... That slot needs to be filled, it goes by time in service/grade, if 2 CPTS are going for the same PL slot and one has a time in service/grade above the other he will get the slot not the other guy....

Anything Major and above is decided on OERs, maybe even how good a freind you are with the BN/BDE commander?

[kmed]

Yes..but, you forget..Officers are a Presidential appointed position, so it is to be understood that they come in with(presumably) a better backgroud(morality; no felonies; higher education) prior to commissioning. In the enlisted ranks this level of promotion (if I remember correctly) comes at E-7/SFC..sounds like a platoon Sergeant to me; therefore, the parallel rank..Plus, we don't generally get promoted to LTC by time in grade; there is a board selection with your year group, and whomever stands out as achieving the greatest and pursuing the loftiest goals, gets selected above peers or they get passed over..your OERs from CPT and above are important-generally speaking, they do not include LT OERs because it is assumed this is the learning stage and mistakes are made..

and, yes-it is a time in grade question as a LT or CPT per the leadership role you hold..just like any other rank in the Army..there will always be a learning curve and the perception that we have to preserve one's status even if they do not deserve the role-not all in this world, be it in the Military or the Civilian sector, are great leaders...generally, the Army tries to ween those Officers out; however, not a perfect system..


I agree with your statments, however if you will read WHO and WHAT I quoted you will see it is towards 1 person, not the entire Officer community as you are suggesting and nothing above a Captian.

A PL slot is filled becasue there is a need....if it is a CPT or a LT.... That slot needs to be filled, it goes by time in service/grade, if 2 CPTS are going for the same PL slot and one has a time in service/grade above the other he will get the slot not the other guy....

Anything Major and above is decided on OERs, maybe even how good a freind you are with the BN/BDE commander?

[Griz882]

How about this for a simple Army fix.

1. Align the senior NCO rank structure along the lines of the USMC (split E8 and E9).

2. Bring MSG rank back to infantry units (why not an infantry Master Gunner?)

3. Eliminate CSM with the exception of division, corps, MACOM, and CSM of the Army positions.

[chucksnee]

How about this for a simple Army fix.

1. Align the senior NCO rank structure along the lines of the USMC (split E8 and E9).

2. Bring MSG rank back to infantry units (why not an infantry Master Gunner?)

3. Eliminate CSM with the exception of division, corps, MACOM, and CSM of the Army positions.

1. E-8 and E-9 are 2 completely different rank already...

2. There are no MSG in an Infantry unit? So they automatically make 1SG (E-8) when they become promoted?

3. Agree..

[SFCaponte]

Ok, we can easily go back to how the Army worked 150 years ago. Want to take a trip with me??

First, Officers were either elected from the local citizenry by the men of the Company or Battalion, or given a Commission because they had; money, family connections or were land owners.

Second, those fortunate few to actually attend West Point did so not because they were smart kids, but because their parents bought them an appointment to the Academy.

Third, most times, a guy with no military education could become a Captain, LTC or Colonel just because he was filling a vacancy.

Finally, 150 years ago, enlisted soldiers could not even walk down the streets where Officers houses were. They lived in absolute terrible barracks, ate horrible food, had little recreation, were forced to live on Post, all while the Officers drank fine wine and beer, ate like kings and were masters of every enlisted person. Remember now, this is 150 years ago. An Officer could have an enlisted man whipped for looking at him the wrong way.

So, shall we go back to "how it was" or should we keep the current system that got us through two world wars, the cold war, Vietnam, and Post 9/11?? I am voting for not changing a thing. The current system works just fine.

Bottom line......if you don't like your life as an Enlisted Soldier, don't like the "punk kids" who just got out of school giving orders.....get out OR stay in and get a Commission, and be the great Officer you think we need.

BTW..... I have been an Officer for 10 years. However, since I got my Commission through ROTC, and was a PL....I must be one of those Officers who know nothing about the Army. Perhaps a stint as a Private would shape me up. Apparently I lack the skill necessary to lead Soldiers, make decisions or do my job. Oh wait.....that's right, I was made a Captain because it was just my time. I Commanded Batteries because LTC's and Colonels believed I could not do it. I must not have a single freaking clue what to do everyday.

Sir, with all due respect... "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!" First of all to sit there and generalize the entire OFFICER CORP through your experience is not very thoughtful. I am sure the gentleman who wrote the blog you responded to was not specifically speaking out against YOU. He was simply making an observation. Now with that said, I personally know some Officers who couldn’t grab their balls and make decisions they know MUST be made because of fear that the higher ranking Officer may not agree. Now we can play the blame game all day long but the bottom line in this instance is the OFFICERS make the final decisions, not the NCOs. I am A Sergeant First Class myself and have been speaking my mind since my early ranks. This is the US Army and if we cannot speak our mind in order to make an environment better, the whole system is backwards. But sadly enough this is what is occurring. RIGHT NOW in this modern Army there are Officers, hopefully not like yourself, who are so far out of touch with what is happening within the lowest levels of training, make decisions based upon personal feelings not reality.

You know what Sir; perhaps a “STINT” as a Platoon Sergeant in an AIT environment is exactly what these types of Officers need. It is bad enough we have leaders that try to lead from the rear, but they can’t see what is going on AT ALL from an office window. I won’t even speak on those Officers who refuse to take what their NCOs say into consideration but then protest when the issue does not turn out as they hoped. I guess what I am saying here Sir is both Corps have problems but until the respect between Commissioned Officers and Noncommissioned Officers is absolutely reciprocal, the US Army will NEVER be able to operate at its full capacity.

I wonder is it that you CANNOT or WILL NOT agree that the Army rank structure is at the very least debatable. If any rational person was looking from the outside in I am sure he would see room for question. For instance, there we are in Iraq and this 22 year old Butter Bar LT is now responsible for 40 plus human lives and he has been in the Operational Army for 120 days. The United States Army, in its infinite wisdom, has deemed this LT more trained and capable than a Sergeant First Class with 10 years plus of service. Come on now Sir, with all due respect doesn’t this seem extremely questionable to you? I would hope you could at least agree that you did not accomplish all you have accomplished without some very capable and qualified NCOs by your side. With all honesty Sir, an officer has never made my NCOER look better. Now on the contrary what I and countless other NCOs have done for Officers has at times completely substantiate their entire OERs. All we want is the recognition and respect Sir, nothing more, nothing less.

[MSMUROTC]

"If any rational person was looking from the outside in I am sure he would see room for question. For instance, there we are in Iraq and this 22 year old Butter Bar LT is now responsible for 40 plus human lives and he has been in the Operational Army for 120 days. The United States Army, in its infinite wisdom, has deemed this LT more trained and capable than a Sergeant First Class with 10 years plus of service. Come on now Sir, with all due respect doesn’t this seem extremely questionable to you? I would hope you could at least agree that you did not accomplish all you have accomplished without some very capable and qualified NCOs by your side. With all honesty Sir, an officer has never made my NCOER look better. Now on the contrary what I and countless other NCOs have done for Officers has at times completely substantiate their entire OERs. All we want is the recognition and respect Sir, nothing more, nothing less."

I refer back to a post I made earlier -- That is a problem at your unit, not with the Army itself. My unit had no problem making it very clear that PL's were there to learn from PSG's, and PSG's had the ear of the CO/BC much more than a 2LT did. When I write an NCOER, I make an NCO look like god's gift to the Army. I could make a mop handle look like it need to get promoted above peers. Sorry you've been in bad units (again: this stuff doesn't really happen in the Airborne Infantry, I don't know what Army units you guys are in) but that's no reason to change the entire structure of the Army.

Having SFC's be PL's is insane, because to get to that point you had to have spent 10-12 years in the Army. How are they going to make it to the higher ranks within reasonable ages? Also, they'll have to not only be PSG's, but also be competent at "officer stuff" ... my shot across the bow with NCO's is that I can count on my fingers the number of NCO's who can write competently and produce quality staff products. It makes much more sense to send a new 2LT to a unit, he's a little green, the unit's staff polishes the turd, supports the PSG ... and then he quickly becomes a competent junior officer, young and experienced enough to be a good field and flag grade officer.

[Master Tanker]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

Myyar, no sane soldier doubts that an E7 0r 8 with 22 years experience has more than a 2LT just coming in. You forget that there is a profound duty difference between NCOs and Officers. The IDEAL way in any Army would be that NCOs handle the troops and Officers the management, tactics, organization and strategy (Question: is that in the US Army?). Thus, we need not what you suggest, that is, making the 2 equal in rank. Then, where would be the line? In fact, this idea of division of duties has been ages old and well established and found to be working. I believe what you are after is prestige. But prestige is not stripes or a silver bar. When I was in I had just as much respect for my 1SG as I had for my XO or a good soldier or NCO. I looked out for all of them as a unit and didn't think about their rank. I believe you are getting this all in the wrong throat.

[MPA]

I understand that the Army has announced 2009 as a year of the NCOs and has plans to provide more education opportunities and train NCOs to become even better leaders. Well it’s a start and a move towards a right direction but it’s not enough.

I hope the President, the Congress and the DOD will honor our NCOs by making the long overdue change in our military ranking system. I know it will be the toughest, most complex, and controversial change, if made.

I am unable to go in detail because of room constraint in this comment box. Let the big wigs or big brains at the Pentagon plan all the little details.

In short I hope they will make the Senior NCOs equal to Junior Officers in Education opportunities, Military authorities and Leadership opportunities at Company level.

Make the:

• E-8 higher than O-1 and equal to O-2.
In the absence of O-3 the O-2 will take charge while E-8 will still work as a 1SG. In the absence of O-2 the E-8 will take charge as a commander and the O-1 will work under him.

• E-9 higher than O-2 and equal to O-3.
The E-9 will only work under O-4 or higher grade officers.

These changes will boost the NCOs pride and confidence in the corps. NCOs roles and functions still stay the same but responsibilities and authorities grow under these changes.

These changes will also boost the morale and the motivation in the junior soldiers and junior NCOs by knowing that the 22 year old O-1 with less than a year in the service does not outrank the E-8 with over 22 years of experience in the service.

Let’s honor the NCO corps of the U.S Military by making the long overdue change.

Okay having been enlisted and having gone through College ROTC, I have to be up front with you and tell you what you are asking is for is to turn day into night and night into day.

I may be wrong but the NCO rank, every since there was a such rank, has always been inferior to the lowest officer rank.

Look the easiest way to explain this, is to look at the Federal Sector. Those guys appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate are Commissioned. Whether military or not. Commission is a management role and the executive authority they have stems from through the Cabinet level Secretaries to the Office of the President.

NCO's authority comes from their respective Commanders pleasure, and to a certain extent from various Army regulations.

That being said only officers can make policy, not even the SMA can do that.

Does it s-uck for a Command Sgt Major with 30 years in to have to salute, a 22 year old 2nLT who just walked out of OCS/Army Academy/ROTC schools, of course, but that is besides the point. You aren't submitting to the Lieutenant per se, rather the authority given to him by the President through the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of the Army and his undersercretaries are all commissioned civilians. Do you think that there aren't some SES (Senior Executive Service) guys with 30 years in who aren't disgruntled because they know more about the Agency than some crony appointed to the position ever four years?

[VOA]

I don't think that the rank structure should be adjusted. That's silly. I think the pay structure should be altered, by closing the gap a little between Senior enlisted and the corresponding officers with which they work. I work at the BOLC II academy (which is being closed now due to Army downsizing. Personally, I think it's a bad idea, but that's neither here nor there.) where we train lieutenants basic leadership skills. We notice the ones that are mouthbreathers here, and it's likely that their first commanders will notice also and get rid of them. As for the rest of the successful ones, why should an e-8 be over them? They stepped up to lead as officers...