Why is the Chief, National Guard Bureau a four-star position while the Chief, Army Reserve is only a three-star position?

The Chief of NGB was elevated to the Joint chiefs of staff in the last 10-15 years as the Guard had transformed from a reserve force to more of an operational force from all the deployments. Plus the Army Reserve is more of a component to the Active Army than the Guard. Plus there are 54 different National Guards, one for each state and territory, which are controlled by the governors when not on Title 10 orders. That was my understanding of it.

Ha, I watched the hearings on CSPAN back when this happened. The Army represented by General Odierno wanted to keep the NG subordinate to it's chain of command and vehemently objected to the elevation of the NGB head to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Their excuse for objecting (total bullshit, btw) just reinforced the belief in Congress the Army was never serious about integrating the National Guard into the larger Army missions and deployments and just motivated Congress to seal the deal. The Army's argument was basically one more Army General on the Joint Chiefs of Staff would only confuse everyone. Congress's argument that the NGB had to have a voice on the JCS because in the past the Army had made mistakes in misrepresenting or not presenting at all, the National Guard's position and that broader input was better than restricted input.

1. Politics. 2. The state Adjutant Generals are authorized two-star positions and the chain of command works just a little better if the higher command has higher rank. It has only elevated to the three and four star ranks in the last twenty years or so. 3. Strength: The National Guard has about 340,000 soldiers. The Army Reserve has about 199,000 so the Chief of Army Reserve is authorized at a lower rank to compensate. 4. More politics.