Army returns corporal to a required rank

| June 8, 2021

Jeff LPH 3 sends word that the Army is returning the rarely used corporal rank to the forefront. Corporal, the lowest NCO rank in the Army, ranks above, but with, the rank of Specialist, both in the E-4 paygrade. The difference is that corporals can be rating supervisors. For a while now, getting to E-5 sergeant did not require holding the rank of corporal. Many specialists were promoted directly to “buck” sergeant.

Now the Army is going to require specialists to attend the Basic Leader Course (the NCO preparatory course) and hold the rank of corporal before being eligible for promotion to sergeant. This isn’t a bad idea. Up until the early-90s the Air Force also had two E-4 ranks. Senior airman (E-4) was not and NCO rank. Once a senior airman attended Airman Leadership School (the NCO prep course) they would be laterally promoted to “buck” sergeant (also E-4). Though the Air Force long ago got rid of the rank of buck sergeant, they do still allow an ALS-educated senior airman to do the job of an NCO (rating supervisor) without the status increase of being able to call yourself and NCO.

More details at Army Times.

Category: Army, Army News

36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ret_25X

This won’t improve anything.

The problem is not what rank insignia an E4 wears, it is the lack of actual counseling, mentorship, and development in most units.

If the Army wants to fix a problem with Sergeants not being ready, they need to start with Sergeants and Staff Sergeants who don’t actually lead.

Of course, getting rid of star MOS, automatic list integration, and favoritism would help as well.

SMH…the struggle is real

KoB

Testify SarMaj. And how many will give up the sham shield for hard stripes AND the supposed responsibility that goes with them? IIRC the Specialist Grades were created,more to give the soldiers a raise in pay, than a grooming for higher rank. And as pointed out by you and below, not everyone that can do the job/MOS, can lead or mentor their peers. Anybody see a Spec 5 to a Spec 9 rank making a comeback? /s/

SFC D

“If the Army wants to fix a problem with Sergeants not being ready, they need to start with Sergeants and Staff Sergeants who don’t actually lead”.

More emphasis needs to be placed on duty performance and leadership potential instead or rewarding PT studs and “Board Soldiers”. I don’t care if a Soldier is a first time go at an Audie Murphy or SGT Morales board, won Soldier of the Millennium, or takes care of widows and orphans. If you cannot or will not do your primary job, I don’t want you in a leadership position.

Anonymous

Actual leadership responsibility and having to think? (Now, that’d be something.)

And some folk (even at E4) won’t cut it. How it is.

A Proud Infidel®™️

They need to get rid of the “Bubba System” that exists in both Active Duty, Reserve and NG Units, I’ve seen it in two out of three, that as well as race and gender quotas in promotions and awards!

ChipNASA

OK, I know it’s early and you guys haven’t had your coffee yet so I’ll do it.

They need to reach *WAYYYYY* back to the good old days and bring back ‘Corporal Captain” rank.

(You’re welcome!!!)

David

Then there were the long unpromoted E3s who would cut off two stripes and two rockers to make a Command Private Major pin.

Martinjmpr

And everything old is new again, eh? It’s interesting how the Army has struggled with this issue for over a century while the other services have not. History time: The first “specialist” ranks in the Army were created in 1920 with the rank of “private-specialist.” The private-specialist received the pay of a PFC but also a bonus amount, depending on the level of their skill. Although the US Army never officially adopted an insignia for the “private-specialist”, unofficially the rank insignia commonly used in many Army units was the single upward-pointing chevron of a PFC, with anywhere between one and six “rockers” beneath it (I discovered this while looking through some old photos from my wife’s extended family. She had two great-uncles who served in New Guinea with the 32nd Infantry division. In one pre-deployment photo, one of her uncles had a rank insignia I’d never seen before: A single upward-pointing chevron with three rockers underneath it. I started researching and that was when I discovered the unofficial private-specialist rank insignia.) Private-specialists were often blacksmiths or farriers in horse-mounted units, mechanics in mechanized units, aircraft technicians in aviation units, electrical specialists in signal units, as well as carpenters, plumbers, etc. The private-specialist rank was eliminated in mid 1942 and replaced with the “technician” grades that most of us are probably familiar with. The grades of T-3 (Staff Sergeant), T-4 (Sergeant) and T-5 (Corporal) received the same pay as their NCO equivalents but in terms of command authority were considered to be a “half step” below an actual NCO (IOW, a “hard stripe” Sergeant outranked a T-4 technician, but the T-4 outranked a “hard stripe” corporal.) Other than nostalgia for the past, though, I’m struggling to figure out what “problem” the Army is trying to solve here. Is this part of a budget cut strategy, to assign E-4 Corporals to billets previously designated for E-5 buck sergeants? I know the Marines have E-4 Corporal section or fire team leaders, and I have heard that promotions to E-5 are often tough to come by in many Marine units. If so, that’s a… Read more »

ADA

As far as I can see the real reason they’re doing this is to have corporals around. Most corporals up until now have been e4 promotables who couldn’t make points for years but were accepted by the nco chain. The majority of SPC(P) folks were never offered it even if serving as team leaders because higher leaders set arbitrary local requirements to hold the rank (must have x years, must be commandant’s list, etc). Now it’s an automatic promotion, and the longer you hold it the worse you are unless your mos is known for high points.

Anonymous

No more PV4.

Sam

I can only speak for back then. An NCO had supervisory authority over those assigned to him–a Specialist had a needed skill (Huey Crew Chief; 67N20, like me) but didn’t supervise anyone, only his ship. Still required pay grades ranked by those with with supposedly more experience and ability.

timactual

” what “problem” the Army is trying to solve here.”

Why, the paperwork shortage, of course. Another layer of paperwork by a new “rating supervisor” will help alleviate that critical shortage. Ratings by team leaders, squad leaders, platoon sgt.s and leaders just aren’t enough. Also, a report from a “self-rating soldier” might be a good idea.

A Terminal Lance Coolie

Martin, when I was in the Corps back in 06-10, NCO billets in the infantry were hard as hell to come by if you weren’t a TOW Gunner (MOS 0352).

You’d think that would make for a better NCO corps in the Marines, but it doesn’t actually serve that purpose. The Corps is just as plagued as the Army by quotas, a shortage of billets (funding issue, I think. The Corps stood up 9th Marines again when I was in, but it wasn’t like Congress authorized the total personnel for it. What really happened was all the rest of the grunt battalions got a little more shorthanded than they already were.), a busted cutting score system that’s more focused on rifle quals, PFT scores, and MCI distance learning credits, and a good old dose of buddy-buddy (play nice with your NCOs and SNCOs or you’ll have a page 11 non-rec waiting at 1st Sgt’s office for you to sign, so no points for the month) that leads to the same exact crisis in the Marine NCO ranks.

The problem here really does start with NCOs and SNCOs who don’t lead, and is then perpetuated by Big Army/MCHQ wanting an easy metric to judge the troops by versus actually evaluating troops one-by-one. I understand that takes time, and I’m not trying to downplay physical fitness, rifle quals, etc., but those things alone don’t make a good soldier/Marine, much less a good NCO.

The original intention of the Specialist ranks makes perfect sense to me. I knew plenty of guys who were solid Marines, technically and tactically proficient, who also had no business being NCOs. They weren’t leaders, and it showed, but it doesn’t mean their talents should be pissed away by pressing them into roles they aren’t suited for. The Army really should revisit the original intent of the Specialist ranks, and the Corps really should steal it from the Army.

timactual

“The original intention of the Specialist ranks makes perfect sense to me…”

And me. You are absolutely correct. Some of us had the skills and filled E5 slots, but giving us Sgt.’s, or even Corporal’s, stripes would have been an error.

Green Thumb

True.

But a Company Corporal (approved by the CO in the old days)) had NCO authority.

E-5 was filled slot on many occasions, for sure. And it created a lot of problems.

But a CC got a “head start”. And they were usually dicks and hated, but who had the in-house potential and respect of many.

Green Thumb

The days of the Company Corporal are back.

Martinjmpr

Of course, a part of me is LOL’ing thinking that maybe this is part of the whole “WWII Uniform fetish” that seems to have gripped Big Army with the “pinks and greens” uniform (which, full disclosure, I still prefer to the abomination that was the ASU.)

Could we see the elimination of the SPC rank and have it replaced with a T-4, T-5 and T-6 rank? I’d actually be OK with that.

Anonymous

AGSU SP4 rank is lame… definitely not T/5 rank from the olden days.

Milo Mindbender

When I was a Corporal, I was only considered an NCO when I was the highest ranking in the AO, otherwise the Buck Sergeant didn’t want or need my input.
I wore the sham shield, and hard stripes as an E-4, didn’t see much difference in actual application. The point system needs revision, and the spec 5-9 allowed for SME promotions within a specialized career field which may have helped, similar to 1st Sgt, and MSG at the E-8 level.

timactual

“sham shield”, eh? Didn’t work worth a damn for me.

Martinjmpr

I think a lot of this is driven by the schizophrenic attitude of the Army towards what they want from their enlisted force.

Do they want leaders or do they want technicians? Army leadership seems to swing wildly one way and then another.

A leader doesn’t necessarily need to be a technician, and a technician doesn’t need to be a leader (and very often, has no ability or desire to be one.)

Trying to force soldiers to be both leaders AND technicians means they’re probably going to perform poorly at one task or the other, and often times they perform poorly at both.

Perhaps in some perfect world, every E-5 or E-6 Data Processing Clerk would also be ranger qualified and able to lead a patrol into No Man’s Land.

But in the REAL world, it’s probably better that the E-5 and E-6 knows every inch of their ADP devices and how to troubleshoot common problems or jury-rig them to work in the field than it is for them to know how to conduct an L-shaped ambush or how to headspace an M2 .50 cal or issue a 5 paragraph op order with annexes.

Roh-Dog

Well said! It seems we’re about on the same page but I ‘accomplished’ my opinioning with a lot less couth.

Props for being the better man.

Roh-Dog

Well, in Infantryland you know whose rank is fake and which are real.
Team Leader? NCO
Supply guy (as an 11B and is friends with the 1SG)? “‘NCO'”…ish

Sorry, not sorry.

The NCO Corps is about Leadership. Period. By BEaring that KNOWledge, DOing the work of ‘accomplishment of [the] mission and the welfare of [ones’] Soldiers’. (here’s my logic: anything that happens outside of the context of combat is bunk, you’re a Wal-mart greeter with a PT score and weapons qual)

Too many technical positions to have a REAL NCO Corps. Again, sorry not sorry.

Martinjmpr

As a former 11B I get where you’re coming from but unfortunately the “fuckin’ POG!” attitude is part of the problem.

The Navy doesn’t expect every 3rd class Boiler Tech or 2nd class ASW Sonar Operator to be Danny Dietz or Chris Kyle.

Yet the Army seems to want everyone who wears stripes to be Audie Murphy. That’s an entertaining fantasy but it’s not reality.

Roh-Dog

Agreed. Was just being intentionally inflammatory. Just got tired of rubbing elbows with E-‘a lots’ that I wouldn’t take to an air soft match let alone the Big Show.
I was/is a tool. A big, dumb, toughened tool. Being instinct-ified to judge everyones’ worth on how hard they’d be to kill has implications, to put it mildly.

timactual

I’m wondering what “supervisory” position a corporal fills. Team leaders are (or were) E5, so what’s left? How about “Senior Battle Buddy”? That way half the E4s can be Corporals. If there are an odd number of “other ranks” the odd man could be a “Corporal without portfolio”, thereby avoiding the horror of an inadequately supervised private soldier.

Martinjmpr

One would assume that the Army is planning to revise their TO&E to make team leaders Corporals, which as I understand it is how the Marines are. That would mean squad leaders (currently SSG’s) would be SGTs and potentially platoon sergeants would be SSGs.

Now, why they would do that, I don’t know unless, as I said above, it’s some kind of budget cutting move.

In theory having SGTs as team leaders, SSG’s as squad leaders and SFC’s as Platoon Sergeants leads to a more mature leadership cadre.

A Terminal Lance Coolie

Corporals are TLs in the Marines, though half our TLs when I was in were Lance Corporals with a deployment under their belt.

timactual

“One would assume…”

Need I say it?
More likely the powers-that-be just want to change something, generate some “significant” paper shuffling and much ado about nothing. That happens in bureaucracies every decade or two; change for the sake of change.

Martinjmpr

That happens in bureaucracies every decade or two; change for the sake of change.

I saw it in the Army every time we had a change of command.

It makes sense though. No officer ever got a “success” bullet that read “found out things were working OK and didn’t mess with it.” It’s always “reorganized this” or “improved that” or something.

timactual

Gee, when you put it that way it almost makes sense.

Robert Delta

*blinks in confused Navy.
E-4 is Petty Officer- done…no Jr Space cadet.

Name edited to protect PII.
AW1

David

When I first went in the explanation was that NCOs led, and specialists were technicians. Big Army in its infinite wisdom decreed that it would be sorted by MOS – if you were in a non-leadership type of MOS, your career path would go up the specialist ranks until you hit some arbitrary point where magically you needed to be a leader. E-7 became that point in about ’78, and all SP7s became SFCs. Then later SP6 and SP5 all became hard stripes, with only combat arms reputedly needing the Corporal E-4. Never seemed to make much difference to me, but I hit E-5 when everything from there up was a hard stripe after all this went on.

Just An Old Dog

The entire Idea of Specialists and Technicians was to address a way to reward soldiers who were proficient in technical skills such as admin, cooking, transportation, mechanics, Electricians, Construction, Heavy Equipment operators etc.
NCO ranks ( and pay ) were limited by TO.
For example You would have a section of 10 men who drove Bulldozers led by a Sergeant. By making the drivers T-Sgts they got paid for their skill and some privilege’s for proficiency

Andy11M

Reminds me of the cluster we had at Ft Carson in 93. We got a new CG in and one of his first edicts was every Spc that graduated PLDC would be promoted to Cpl. I’m sure this was in some way a misguided attempt to fix NCO shortages in those MOSs where cut off for Sgt/SSG stayed maxed and you had E4s filling E5 slots anyways, but in my infantry unit it was hilariously bad. At the time we were so undermanned that at one point my platoon had enough soldiers to man all 4 of our Brads and put ONE dismount on each Brad as a loader. When we magically started getting all these Cpls, all it really did was pad out the NCO side of the duty roster for CQ, but it also reduced the number of Joes who could pull duty. I’m sure this good idea will burn itself out in the next 12 months and someone else will come up with another “solution” to this leadership problem.